Friday, 2 February 2018

The Charge of the Loon Brigade

A Textusa post isn't just for Christmas - it is so packed full of cack that you'll still be picking bits out of the carcass at Easter.

The Men in White Coats had discovered that the best way to capture Textusa was to lull her to sleep with a polka

Once again, dear readers, she couldn't help herself.

  1. If one should ignore the unsurprising and useless tidal wave of the noise made by Insane with his boresome insults, one can see that he has disputed only 2 things about the post: that dogs give false positives and that the cadaverine scent is something that’s exclusively gaseous.
I never mentioned 'cadaverine scent'. I can be absolutely positive about this as I would never use such an inaccurate, moronic expression. Just the false positives you can't get your head around. 

  1. About the false positives, things went sour for him.
You wish 
  1. With his obsession of not losing an argument and thanks to the participation of an anon, it all ended up being proved that the false positives within the experiment were due to behavioural problems or to K’s personality disorder and not due to misinterpretation of scents as no contaminated by living squares originated false positives.
This is a measure of how utterly stupid you are.

Your position is that false positives do not occur. Yet here you are confirming that they do occur. The experiment was not designed to ascertain why false positives occur; it was designed to measure the rate at which they occur.

The rest is all absolute cobblers you have pulled out of your arse, once you finally had to admit that false positives do occur.

And we're back to dogs with 'personality disorders' again :)

Even now you still can't get your head around the fact that a false alert is a false alert, regardless of the reasons for it

On one thing they all agreed - Textusa was a mad bitch.

  1. To note that the other 2 dogs, of a different breed, Mallinois, had no false positives whatsoever within experiment.
Completely irrelevant. One dog did. Therefore, false alerts do occur. Do stop me if I am going too fast for you, or if your restraints are chafing 

  1. With posterior of EVRD dogs in tandem with ones trained exclusively for blood, the false positives are nullified.
Well, you made a dog's arse out of that. 

  1. And the paper, anyway one reads it, proves that only the first location where Maddie’s body lay can be argued to be a false positive. All other signals the paper proves without absolutely no doubt at all that are reliable. 
The paper proves nothing about the Madeleine case. Literally nothing.  

  1. The second thing he has disputed on the post is we saying the paper debunks his gaseous theory.
Correct. You specifically couldn't debunk a theory if you spent the rest of your life trying.

  1. Insane defends that the cadaver scent originates directly in gaseous form from the corpse, that it the scent does not originate from any fluid the body produces when decomposing (which is visually contradicted by anyone who has the unfortunate luck of letting a piece of meat rot due to a cut in electricity in their homes and had then to clean it up).
No, that is not what I said.

I will explain again for the hard of thinking.

It is possible for residual cadaver scent to remain after a body has been removed, and in the absence of any fluids or tissues. This occurs because of what you will see referred to in studies as VOCs 

VOCs are Volatile Organic Compounds

It is these compounds which cause the characteristic smell of decomposition. They are released from the tissues and enter the environment, so if a body is buried, for example, they can be absorbed into the soil. However, they can also attach to surfaces, such as furnishings for example, or collect in the air in gaseous form.

In the early stages of decomposition, before the tissues have liquified, VOCs are still produced and may enter the immediate surroundings of the corpse. This is the ''residual odour'' to which the dogs reacted in this study. 

  1. He defends this, so he can say that Eddie was indeed reliable, that he picked up the scent of molecules that wafted into the apartment, and that means that although the he picked up the scent inside the apartment, that doesn’t necessarily mean that a body had been inside the apartment.
I said nothing of the kind 

  1. Before even proceeding, when would then have to ask: if Insane is right, why then train and use EVRD dogs at all?
I am right. The problem lies with you 

  1. Sure, they would provide reliable positive signals but what these would only tell was the dog was smelling a scent from a corpse but the corpse could have been anywhere.
What cobblers. I have never indicated anything of the sort. 

  1. What use is the dog if he just gives the information that someone has died? Much better than that then is for one to go and buy the local paper, read the necrology section and at least one gets to know names as well.
The dog can only alert to the target scent. He can't tell you who the deceased is. He can't tell you how they got there. He can't tell you how they died.

Why are you bothered, anyway? You'll just make shit up as usual. 

  1. If dogs only provided that there was cadaver scent in the air, as Insane defends, would the authors of the paper say “Research concerned with the effects and reliability of aging and deteriorating scents that are still detectable by dogs has been performed by Schoon [10,11]. Here, the ‘‘dog’’ is explicitly described as ‘‘reliable enough to be a forensic tool’’. We concur and advocate that the trained dog/handler team should be regarded as an excellent tool for crime scene investigations and cadaver searches”?
They are saying exactly the same as me, you fucktard. 

  1. But Insane is adamant. It’s gaseous.
Residual odour, in the absence of liquid or other tissues, can only be gaseous.

Just think about it, Einstein.

The corpses used in this study were recently deceased. They were dry. They leaked no fluids. They were never in direct contact with the carpet squares.

So how did the cadaver scent get from the cadaver to the carpet squares? 

Do try to work it out, dear. A tin of tuna could have grasped this concept by now.

A tin of tuna. Cleverer than Textusa  

  1. We said in the post “also, it shows what his [Insane’s] knowledge on the subject is, as when the paper states that the dogs were trained with “wet” material, his theory that the cadaver scent is purely of gaseous material is contradicted” and he responded with “Oh my fucking god. Why can't you understand this? Regardless of how the animals were trained, this study looked at the detection of cadaver scent which had been transferred to the collection material - ie the carpet squares - not by direct contact, not by fluid contamination, but merely by the tiles being in proximity to, but not in contact with, the cadavers. The scent transfer is gaseous, you dickhead”
I am actually embarrassed for you that you wrote the above highlighted section 

  1. (Cont)
Yeah, sorry, she's not done yet. 
  1. (Cont)

    He has even defended his “Madeleine graveyard theory”, whereby apartment 5A happens to be where a medieval graveyard was, as when we we wrote in the post:
I said nothing of the kind. I shared an interesting snippet of information with respect to the presence of ancient bone in field-walked topsoil due to ancient burial practices, but as usual you couldn't understand what I was saying, due to you being raised by wolves. 

  1. “To a very direct and specific question: “If only gas and only airborne contamination why was the scent detected in the backyard? It’s open air, impossible for airborne molecules to remain floating there.”
    Insane, the scientist replies:
    “Well, why do you think? Might interest you to know that it’s impossible to field walk in this country without finding small pieces of human bone, due to centuries of ploughing disturbing medieval graves. Consequently, it finds its way into the topsoil very readily. Try thinking outside the box for a change.”
It worries me that you are so obviously proud of being shamefully ignorant, Textusa. If you have children, please promise not to home-school them; it would be tantamount to child abuse to subject them to a teacher with a brain the size of a small sultana. 
  1. All is scientifically explained, so says Insane.”

    Insane responded with “Which it is.”

  1. Before we get to Insane’s “proximity to, but not in contact with, the cadavers” let’s first try to understand what are the scientific basis with which Insane, the self-proclaimed scientist (who apparently has loads of scientific friends who share with him loads laugh in his scientific world).
Oh I can't wait to see what slant you try to put on this. *fetches popcorn* 

  1. We basis his assertions on 2 things. The first is this statement from Martin Grime:

    “What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner. But *strong indication and I would say its positive for things that he is trained to find, which will be part of a separate debrief.”
All good so far. 

  1. It seems to us that Martin Grime is quite clear in contradicting him when he says “a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from”.
Are you taking the piss? I have highlighted it for you, in yellow - Martin said ''if there isn't a scent source in here.....'' and you have, with stunning dishonesty, omitted the first three words in an attempt to change his meaning. That is low, even for you. (highlighted in pink)

If anyone needed confirmation of your utter dishonesty, you just handed it to them, you disgusting fraud.

  1. Insane could say that this is not a contradiction as that is would be what happens to curtains in the rooms designated for smokers in hotels (not sure if they exist anymore), in which curtains reek of smell of tobacco.
And I would be right. 

  1. We have explained that is due to the concentration of the tobacco fumes on these curtains and the number of molecules accumulated form a mass from which the scent emanates.
You are a fucking moron. The principle is exactly the same. The dog has far more scent receptors, but if the cadaver scent was concentrated enough even you would smell it.

  1. Comparing a curtain from a concentration in a room where cigarettes are smoked with that of molecules wafting into an apartment is like comparing a glass of water with the Atlantic Ocean.

  1. And lest Insane forget, Eddie signalled the opposite side of the room from where the curtains were curtains, which would be, like it happens in the rooms for smokers, the natural place for molecules to concentrate.
Totally irrelevant 

  1. And Grime says this phenomenon may happen when there’s a conjunction of “hot climate with the apartment being closed down”.
And he was right 

  1. It was chilly the night Maddie died and the apartment that night was sure ventilated. Way too ventilated, much more than it should have been as we all know.
So now you are saying Martin Grime was wrong? As I suspected, your true agenda, to discredit Martin and diss the dogs is becoming more and more apparent 

  1. And between May 3 and the moment the dogs stepped into the apartment, the apartment had been used by other tourists and regularly cleaned by the Ocean club staff.
Not relevant 
  1. And by saying “but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room”, Grime is specifically implying that when that phenomenon happens the source of emission of the scent may not be the area the dog is signalling but very proximate, in the same room.
I am quite sure Martin understands this very well. You are the one who doesn't. 

  1. (Cont)
  2. (Cont)

    But what Insane really sinks his teeth into is the no contact between the contaminated carpet squares and the corpses in the Oesterhelweg paper (OP).
Oh here we go again 

  1. These are the quotes he hangs on to as if his life depended on them (our caps):

    “The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min WITHOUT ANY DIRECT CONTACT between the carpet and the corpse.”
  1. (…)
    “Both bodies presented with a dry and intact skin without any visible injuries except a puncture site from an intravenous catheter on the posterior surface of one hand. These puncture marks were immediately covered with latex gloves TO PREVENT A DIRECT CONTAMINATION of any materials with the dried blood.”
  1. “The two bodies were placed in a supine position on top of a new and clean table and a separate table was used for each individual. A cotton blanket was wrapped around each body TO PRECLUDE THE DIRECT CONTAMINATION of the carpet squares with the bodies while at the same time simulating a thin layer of clothing covering each individual.”

  1. “Without any direct contact”, “to prevent a direct contamination” and “to preclude the direct contamination” are the phrases that Insane clings to for dear life and says that “in proximity to, but not in contact with, the cadavers”.
''Clings to for dear life''? That was the study design you fartbrained shitgibbon. 

  1. As if the carpet squares were put really, REALLY close to the corpses but as it didn’t touch them the contamination was gaseous.
They were, they didn't, and it was.

You either still can't grasp the method or you are being deliberately fraudulent.

  1. Let’s see what the paper says how close to the corpses the carpet squares were placed (our caps):
    “The two bodies were placed in a SUPINE POSITION on top of a new and clean table and a separate table was used for each individual. A cotton blanket was wrapped around each body to preclude the direct contamination of the carpet squares with the bodies while at the same time simulating a thin layer of clothing covering each individual. A total of 32 carpet squares were placed subsequently UNDERNEATH the backside of the torsos.”

    This is a supine position, a person laid on their backs:
We know what supine means, shitforbrains 

  1. The squares being placed underneath the corpses so very, very close. In fact, with no airspace between them and the blanket as well as none between the corpse and the blanket.

    The blanket was there to represent the sheets/clothing that were between the corpse and the mattress of the crime scene being replicated.

    There was no direct contact between the corpses and the carpet square but it’s evident that the contamination was done through the seeping of what we call the decomposition fluid through the blanket to the square.
Oh for the love of God. There was no seeping, there was no fluid. The fuckers were barely dead, you dozy bint. 

The entire study was designed to ensure that THERE WAS NO DIRECT CONTACT BETWEEN THE CORPSE AND THE CARPET 

You have even quoted the relevant passage from the paper, which I have highlighted in yellow.

Then in the next paragraph, you claim something completely different! I mean, seriously, which part of 

"to preclude the direct contamination of the carpet squares with the bodies'"

......are you struggling with?

Your claim, highlighted, is utterly false.

  1. Besides, as we said above the paper clearly states that “The education and training the dogs received consisted primarily of searching for ‘‘wet’’ materials such as blood, body fluid and muscle tissue.”
That is how they were trained. It is of no relevance here whatsoever. This is a study, you dimwitted fraud. 

  1. Insane, to that responds “Regardless of how the animals were trained…”

    So basically for Insane, it’s not important for the dogs to be trained for one thing, “”wet” materials” and be scientifically experimented for something they had never been trained for, his gaseous theory.
They respond to the target odour, dimwit. How do you think scent is detected? If you want to smell something, do you sniff it, or do you shove it up your nose? 

So what do you think you are smelling? What state of matter is it in? How does it get from the thing you are sniffing, to the scent receptors in your nose? Is it a solid? Is it a liquid? Then what is it? 

Seriously, this is biology as taught to 10 year olds 
  1. Insane is just a minion.
Go fuck yourself, you menopausal dingbat 
  1. He may be the top-minion on the battlefield but he's no more than that, a minion.

    What we want readers to understand is the importance of the Oesterhelweg et al paper and the reason why Insane wanted to keep it away from us, and made a huge, huge mistake in letting us getting our hands on it:
You don't even understand the paper, so you are hardly in a position to explain it. And I linked to the paper, and gave the name of the authors many many times in the past. It is to your shame, your absolute shame, that you had never even looked for it 

  1. This paper obliterates any theory that has a Maddie alive when Gerry says he claims he saw her at around 21:00/21:15.
The paper draws no conclusions about the Madeleine case, especially as it was published before she even disappeared you fucking idiot. 

  1. The paper debunks the fantasist gaseous molecules and places a dead Maddie inside the apartment and in the locations (living-room and closet) signalled by Eddie.
No it doesn't. The transfer of cadaver odour to the carpet squares was by the movement of gaseous molecules. Crack a book for once in your life. Did they not teach science at your school? 

  1. And the paper proves that Maddie had to have been dead much before the time Gerry claims he saw her and had that famous father moment.
No paper can prove that 

  1. That’s the importance of this paper.
This paper that you don't understand 

  1. And let’s finish with the words of Walkercan1000/Not Textusa:
This bit is being deleted as I am not Michael Walker, nor do I have any connection with him

I think it is only fair to warn you that a formal take-down notice has already been sought with Google in view of your refusal to remove statements where you have falsely linked me to this person and others. That goes into an international registry, the Lumen database and will almost certainly result in restriction of service action by Google against you, as well as the removal of your site, particularly as you have been informed on numerous occasions that your claim is false. It has been adjudged that you had no basis to make the claim in the first instance and that you have continued to make the claim despite being told to remove it. I have been able to provide proof that you were requested to remove these false claims. 

I suggest you start backing up your posts, Maria. They have assured me that they can remove your blog at any time without giving you prior notice. 

Have a nice day

1 comment:

  1. Thank you, NT. Endless joy, joy, joy, joy, joy



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