Well, it had to happen
Someone else told Textusa precisely what I have been telling her
But did she take any notice? Did she bollocks
Well, his/hers is right. Yours isn't
Read the sodding paper
That is all total bollocks. You have been told that. Quite simply, you made up a procedure that never occurred.
That is because the results are collated by category, ie correct, false positive, false negative etc, rather than whatever barmy way you, a fuckwit, think they should be
You don't have the first idea what you are talking about.
You patently have absolutely no idea what ''consubstantiation'' is, but I am amused to imagine your face when you find out.
And they were right. Unlike you.
Except that is a complete lie, as you do nothing of the kind. We shall see this in a second.
Hooray! Success at last!
Yes it does
Fuck me ragged. Remember when I said we would see in a second? Well here it is.
It's not up to you
The entire world, except you, understands the concept of 'false positive'
Not only is this bollocks, experience suggests the opposite. Most dogs are domesticated. They do not have to hunt for their prey. It is far more likely that these abilities will decline with time, not grow more accurate
'Structure' of the fluid? You haven't a clue, have you?
Oh fuck, there's more
Jesus. This is no mystery. There are many variables, including the stage of decomposition and the environmental conditions. The dogs simply have more olfactory receptors
Oh ffs. It is not a matter of confusing scents. It is signalling the presence of a scent where it does not exist
Baiting? What are you on about? Do you mean ''in experimental conditions''?
Is this the bit that you previously accepted never happened?
Christ, so much bullshit in one short sentence.
A study is not 'training' . It is a measure of the efficacy of training, at best.
''Binomial nose-training''? What the fuck? Are you being sponsored for this?
This experiment is nothing to do with tracking
OP? What are you on about now? False negatives? What?
Could you make it a bit more fucking obvious, before I lose the will to live?
No - and here it becomes clear what your fundamental problem is. This is not an experiment to distinguish between two scents. It is to measure, quite simply, how accurately the dogs identify their target scent.
Your statement is also totally dishonest, as we know there were alerts to uncontaminated squares
That is what a false positive is, dickbrain
ie, false positives
No. It was a false positive.
It makes no difference. The aim was to test the accuracy, not fucking navel gaze about the possible causes before blaming it on a big table
You have no clue
Still a false positive
And I can show you other papers where the german shepherd performed better than any other breed. Not relevant.
Still a false positive
Bullshit. This is why the results always have to be confirmed in the lab, because errors can and do occur.
So now YOU are referring to them as false positives
You see, you can't have it all ways, Maria. If the animal records a false positive then your claim that they never give a false positive is, well, false, isn't it? A big lie. A con.
How much more of this drivel?
No, that was NOT the remit. That sentence is making it clear that was NOT the remit.
The aims of the experiment are very clearly laid out in the paper, but as you clearly struggle with reading, here they are:
'' The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval."
No it wasn't
You don't. But that's hardly a surprise, given that you haven't read it.
No, that wasn't where the emphasis lay. Try reading it.
No it isn't. Read the paper.
Yes it was, as well as other measures of efficacy.
Read the paper. For the fucking love of god, read the paper.
The idea of them mistaking one scent for another was your bonkers interpretation.
Nope. Christ you are so dim
You cannot extrapolate to those conclusions; science and wish-fulfilment are two different things
Another false conclusion.
Please try to understand. This study was to determine the accuracy and reliability of those specific dogs in those specific conditions. You can hypothesize general conclusions about cadaver dog accuracy but you cannot superimpose the conclusions here to apartment 5A
Here's the thing; the value of cadaver dogs and their role in the detection of crime is well established and supported by data. That is not and was not the issue
The issue is your LIE that cadaver dogs never return false positives
Only you could be so dimwitted as to take a paper where false positives were recorded, accept that false positives were recorded, then say
Where you utterly lose credibility is with those with whom I have used this paper many times to discuss the exceptional accuracy of cadaver dogs who are openly laughing at your attempts to squirm out of your ignorant comments above.
Mind you, in fairness they all think you're a fucknugget anyway, so .......