Translate

Thursday, 1 February 2018

It's deja vu all over again


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



  • Anonymous 31 Jan 2018, 18:48:00

    You have given a different interpretation from us to words "control (alive) subjects” in the sentence "Searches of squares contaminated with the scent of the control (alive) subjects, ilicited no signals from any of the cadaver dogs" of the Oesterhelweg paper (OP).
  • Well, his/hers is right. Yours isn't



  • In the post we said that we believed this contamination from control subjects to have been from squares contaminated with the purpose to do a scientific control of the experiment.
  • Read the sodding paper



  • As we said, it was our opinion, that this was done to make sure that the results of the experiment could be validated. The dogs were shown samples, squares contaminated with cadaver scent, by living and not contaminated, equal to those they would be shown in the experiment.

    The idea being to replicate all during this stage so the scientists could observe and identify all behavioural patterns the dogs displayed when presented with these “control squares” and allow before the experiment itself, for questions to be asked and so eliminate any doubt about was to be expected from the dogs.
  • That is all total bollocks. You have been told that. Quite simply, you made up a procedure that never occurred.



  • We called this the control stage.

    As we also explained, we have based our opinion on the fact that on Table 1, there’s an undifferentiated category of false positives from samples “uncontaminated/contaminated by living”, which told us the false positives could be from both.
  • 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


  • With that interpretation, we said there had been no false positives to squares contaminated by living during this “control phase” but that there could have been false positives to squares contaminated by living the experiment itself.
  • Total bullshit


  • We said could because there would be 3 hypotheses where the false positives could have come from: all from uncontaminated, all from contaminated by living or from both.
  • You don't have the first idea what you are talking about.



  • You have given a different interpretation to this and you have consubstantiated your opinion.
  • You patently have absolutely no idea what ''consubstantiation'' is, but I am amused to imagine your face when you find out.



  • You based it on 2 things, one, that it would be scientifically unacceptable not to detail the experimental protocol, in which the control phase would have to be included, and two, that for you the undifferentiated “uncontaminated/contaminated by living” of Table 1 was a minor terminology issue.
  • And they were right. Unlike you.



  • You have argued both these points very well in your comment at 31 Jan 2018, 17:30:00.
  • So patronising


  • As we said in the post “on this subject as in others, [we] read and educate ourselves as much as we can, apply logic and come to conclusions. Never forgetting our ignorance. Our conclusions may be right or they may be wrong. When we are explained that we are wrong, or find that by ourselves, we have absolutely no qualms about recognising it and correcting our hand.”
  • Except that is a complete lie, as you do nothing of the kind. We shall see this in a second.



  • So, with you input and evident scientific background we will accept that ANY and ALL false positives in the experiment were from uncontaminated squares.
  • Hooray! Success at last!



  • Does this prove our statement “dogs never give false positives” wrong?
  • Yes it does



  • No, we don’t think it does. On the contrary, we think it reinforces it.
  • *thud*
    Fuck me ragged. Remember when I said we would see in a second? Well here it is.



  • Like it was required in the OP, we would define what we consider to be a false positive: a dog smelling cheese and “saying” it’s wine.
  • It's not up to you



  • For us that is what is a false positive.
  • The entire world, except you, understands the concept of  'false positive'



  • As we are firm believers that nature is as near infallible as it can be and that evolution represents a positive crescendo, meaning as time progresses, dogs’ noses will get more accurate.
  • 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



  • Means they have a more accurate nose now than they had a thousand years ago and a thousand years from now will have one much better than theirs today.
  • Utter bullshit



  • That doesn’t invalidate that dogs’ noses aren’t absolutely amazing right now.

    They are and the topic in question proves it. Science hasn’t been able to determine the structure of the fluid that the human on decomposing produces that releases the human cadaver scent but the dogs are able to identify it with clarity.
  • 'Structure' of the fluid? You haven't a clue, have you?



  • (Cont.)
  • Oh fuck, there's more


  • (Cont.)

    We all have different sizes and weights, different ratios of fat in our bodies, so we can only imagine the recipe for the cocktail of chemical elements can vary significantly from one individual to another (imagining this being the main reason why technology cannot “pinpoint” a structure) but within that wide range cocktail there’s something that is commonly characteristic to us humans which science has failed to determine but that the dogs have.
  • 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



  • This to say that we consider the link between the dog’s nose and its brain to be infallible. When a dog’s nose picks up cheese, his brain ALWAYS give the same reaction as when he smelled cheese before. And he’ll never confuse cheese with wine.
  • Oh ffs. It is not a matter of confusing scents. It is signalling the presence of a scent where it does not exist



  • That’s why we say, and maintain that dogs do not give false positives.
  • They do. 



  • But a tracking dog does not say that cheese is cheese or that wine is wine. A tracking dog says “I’m reacting to that scent the human has taught me to react in the way the human taught me to react whenever my nose comes across it”.

    Here, there’s the human factor. What introduces the error in this equation.
  • Your point?



  • We have said before that false positives can only be done via baiting. One has to know what one is showing the dog so that one can state with certainty that the dog has given or not a positive signal.
  • Baiting? What are you on about? Do you mean ''in experimental conditions''?



  • The OP experiment was baiting, dogs reacting to pre-known samples.
  • Is this the bit that you previously accepted never happened?



  • We also said that baiting only happened in training and we maintain that as an experiment is a situation of training, as the dog is not using it’s nose to track the unknown but rather having the binomial nose-training being tested for certain circumstances.
  • 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



  • But let’s focus on the OP experiment and its false negatives by uncontaminated samples.
  • OP? What are you on about now?  False negatives? What?


  • Stating the obvious, that excludes contaminated samples.
  • Could you make it a bit more fucking obvious, before I lose the will to live?



  • No false positives came from other substances and it PROVES that all positives came only and only from cadaver scent.
  • 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



  • So, the other consequence one can withdraw from this, is that K, in this experiment, was a dog reacting to nothing. To nada, zilch, kaput, niente as the Portuguese say.
  • That is what a false positive is, dickbrain



  • So, if he gave a false positive for nothing, one could say that K just gives false positives at his convenience, anytime, anywhere.
  • ie, false positives


  • If one thinks this is ridiculous, as one should, then one must conclude that something, before a square with nothing, triggered his reaction.
  • No. It was a false positive.



  • Outside nothing and excluding other substances, it can only be because of a behavioural shortfall, because of a training one or, as is most likely, because of a mixture of both.
  • 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 suggest one: “could it be that K felt compelled by the experimental protocol to find something in every search?”.

    We agree that it’s a possibility.
  • You have no clue



  • We will add another possibility, the breed. Note that B and L are Mallinois and K is a Herder.
  • Still a false positive



  • About this we will again quote a document which Anne Guedes brought to our blog: “Interestingly, all False Alarms were made by Belgian Shepherd dogs; the reason for this is unclear, however the time these dogs took to complete their line-up tasks suggests a decrease in level of attention.”
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146963
  • And I can show you other papers where the german shepherd performed better than any other breed. Not relevant.



  • Not saying it was, just stating that as no dog reacts to nothing, human error in the training has to be what explains the false positives to uncontaminated squares.
  • Still a false positive



  • So, as we said in the post, K should be uncertified and all his previous results be questioned.
  • Bullshit. This is why the results always have to be confirmed in the lab, because errors can and do occur.



  • If the reasons why he gave the false positives to uncontaminated squares could be identified, and he could be retrained, he should do so. And these lessons learned be applied to the training of future EVRD dogs.
  • 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. 


  • (Cont)
  • How much more of this drivel? 

  • (Cont)

    But let’s look at some of the specifics of this case.

    The remit of the experiment was to answer this: “the question remained on how long deceased tissue or a deceased body have to be in contact with a material, such as the mattress, for the scent to be detectable by cadaver dogs.”
  • 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."



  • It was a response to a specific request which resulted from a specific crime.
  • No it wasn't 


  • Was the OP experiment to test blood and cadaver dogs in general or just to test these 3 specifically as they were the ones involved in the crime in question? We don’t know.
  • You don't. But that's hardly a surprise, given that you haven't read it.


  • But we know that meant the emphasis was put on the timing a material had to be in contact with a corpse for the scent to be detected. And that there was not to be any direct contact between the contaminated surface (in the crime the mattress) and the corpse as it in the crime scene we imagine there were at least sheets separating both.
  • No, that wasn't where the emphasis lay. Try reading it.


  • To simulate this separation, that’s why the corpses were wrapped in a blanket.
  • No it isn't. Read the paper.


  • The experiment was not about determining on which conditions or percentages the dogs gave false positives.
  • Yes it was, as well as other measures of efficacy.


  • Having the experiment the remit it had, it presented the dogs with a scenario that was totally unlikely to happen in real life, which was that of a recently deceased body in indirect contact with a surface for ONLY for 2 or 10 minutes.
  • Nonsense


  • In the crime scene in question the direct contact between the corpse and the mattress had been obstructed by at least the sheets, in the experiment, it was the blanket that represented that obstruction.
  • Read the paper. For the fucking love of god, read the paper. 


  • Transporting this to the reality of apartment 5A, and never forgetting that B and L gave no false positives under the abnormal circumstances described above and imagining that it was K instead of Eddie, that would mean that a false positive would have to have been a behavioural one and not him mistaking a scent for another.
  • The idea of them mistaking one scent for another was your bonkers interpretation. 


  • That is the new certainty that with your interpretation the paper now gives us: if in the OP no positive signal came from a contaminated by living sample (it came either from cadaver scent or in a very low percentage from nothing), likewise any possible false negative from Eddie – repeat, replicating the OP experiment – was only on the first location and only due to behavioural or training shortfalls.
  • Nope. Christ you are so dim



  • That reinforces the possibility of Eddie having been 100% reliable in the first location the body was (which would be the living-room) and it’s factual that he was 100% reliable on all other locations/objects.
  • You cannot extrapolate to those conclusions; science and wish-fulfilment are two different things


  • Add Keela to this equation and its factual that he was 100% reliable even on the first location.
  • Another false conclusion. 


  • Note, and it’s important to repeat this over and over again, the equation has a Maddie covered with a blanket, never having touched with any part of her body the floor and timed up to when she could lie in that location, which is nowhere near the scenario that indeed happened.
  • 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


  • Anonymous 31 Jan 2018, 18:48:00 , inputs like yours enrich our blog and help us correct our path, so we thank you very much for it and are eager to hear your opinion on what we have just written and correct anything that we find that we should.

  • 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

    They do.

    Only you could be so dimwitted as to take a paper where false positives were recorded, accept that false positives were recorded, then say

  • Does this prove our statement “dogs never give false positives” wrong?

  • No, we don’t think it does. On the contrary, we think it reinforces it.
  • 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 .......

    1 comment:

    1. “Oh fuck, there's more"

      Indeed! More hedgehogs please!

      When there's nothing to give, Infinitae Densitatis Cornucopiae Textusaris carries on giving.

      Your chivalrous stance with regard to Loonetta’s otherworldly contortions is much appreciated, NT.

      Ag

      ReplyDelete

    Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.

    Messages not for publication can also be left, or you can email nottextusa@gmail.com