Translate

Thursday, 31 May 2018

Stupid is as stupid does

Have you ever had to deal with someone who is so stupid that you wonder if they will go to their grave still in a haze of bewilderment?

Then you'll know how I feel.

Despite the fact that I went to the trouble of explaining this in language a cauliflower could understand, today the loopy loon comes back with this:

So. 2 possibilities. Either the blood was there but no longer there only its odour (BUT the blood was THERE) or, as it seems to be what is being proposed, the odour of blood wafted into the apartment, just like the cadaver scent with Eddie.

This is one of Textusa's favourite lies.I have never claimed any scent "wafted into" the apartment. Never.

The problem is she simply cannot grasp the concept of residual scent. So I am going to try again.

A woman walks into a room wearing a strong and distinctive perfume. That perfume can still be detected in the air even after she has left. Why? Because the gaseous molecules produced by the scent linger in the air and attach to surfaces.

It is exactly the same with cadaver odour. Or the scent of blood. A dog may alert to the presence of residual scent even though the source of the scent is no longer there.

So could a blood dog alert to residual scent? Yes of course. Does that mean blood was found in the apartment? No, of course not. 

I really cannot make that any simpler. 

So, both Eddie and Keela detected correctly what they were trained for BUT it was scents that wafted into the apartment! One must ask what good are the dogs for if what they signal can have come, literally, from anywhere?

At no point,ever, have I suggested the dogs alerted to scents ''wafting in'' to the apartment.This is simply a barefaced lie. I challenge Textusa to produce any such claim.


The remainder of her post just illustrates that she is either thicker than a whale in a bap or she is being deliberately duplicitous. It's one or the other

 You can parrot "So blood was detected in the apartment" as many times as you like; it won't change the truth

As I stated " Nothing was found which gave a positive reaction for blood."

You are perfectly aware that no-one can make a claim based purely on an uncorroborated dog alert and no confirmed blood was found. You might not like it, but there it is.

As regards your claim about graveyards, please go ahead and show where you think I said it.

JB was spot on about you.You really can't read, can you?

Edited on 1/6/18

If I hadn't read this with my own eyes, I don't think I would have believed it possible.

This is Textusa's reply

Insane,

"A woman walks into a room wearing a strong and distinctive perfume. That perfume can still be detected in the air even after she has left. Why? Because the gaseous molecules produced by the scent linger in the air and attach to surfaces."

First, perfume is liquid. It comes in bottles and is put on either directly or sprayed (not gas).

We have a major problem here. I can't make up for what appears to be a complete lack of education, which frankly I find worrying as this is the sort of science a primary school child should be able to understand.

The perfume goes on as a liquid. But how does it get from the skin of the wearer to the nose of the observer?

Please try to think. It is scary that you don't understand this 

“Your cadaver scent” which is according to you purely gaseous right from the start, only gaseous, and not an odour like we say that has a liquid/syrupy source like a perfume. So why you are using perfume as an example?
Because the principle is exactly the fucking same 

Then, it seems you are recognising that the cadaver and now blood were in that apartment.
I have NEVER suggested they weren't, you dozy cow 
Like the woman. Or are you saying your perfumed woman was in another apartment and her perfume scent wafted out of that apartment into the open air and then and went into the apartment where the dog then picked it up?
Are you taking the piss? 

About you saying you never said the scent wafted in, it’s true, you never used the expression.
No. Precisely. I never used that expression, nor would I. YOU used it and then repeatedly lied, saying I had. 
However, you have said that the fact that Eddie picked up the scent in apartment 5A doesn’t mean the body was there, how then other than wafting did the scent get in? It came in a letter addressed to 5A?
Oh my fucking god. What do you understand ''residual scent'' to mean?

The body was there

Then it wasn't

The scent remains.

FFS! 

Please do explain.
Other than cracking open the top of your head and inserting a working brain, I am running out of ideas.

What really disgusts me is not that you have absolutely no understanding of the most BASIC science - you can't help the fact that you were raised by wolves - but that not only do you have the fucking brass neck to try to lecture others with your pretendy knowledge, you then lie about it afterwards, accusing me of making up the shit you dragged out of some foetid corner of your twisted psyche. 

Normally I wouldn't dream of taking the piss out of someone for being stupid. I'll make an exception for you. Consider it payback for your lies and for lying to your attack hounds that I was Walker, in the hope that they would threaten and harass me. They did, but if you think I give a shit, you are sorely mistaken


19 comments:

  1. I haven't read the reports and they would make no sense to me anyway as I don't have a scientific background but I really respect your expertise NT, your example is a very good example which makes perfect sense. Whatever opinion any of us have will not effect the police investigation, I hope I am right that the truth will come out once the investigation concludes, lots of cases take years/decades to solve and I may be naive but I believe this case will be solved too.

    For Textusa to dispute someone who has a scientific background it is very arrogant, thanks for sharing your expertise NT as there is a lot of disinformation out there.

    Cat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm more than happy to, not that I'm an expert, but at least I can break the reports down and perhaps put them in layman's language. I'm glad you find it useful, Cat.

      Frankly, if she carries on throwing these tantrums, I'm just going to ignore her and let her jabber away into the ether.

      Delete
    2. I don't blame you NT I'd probably ignore too as everything you write is used as fuel over there.

      Cat

      Delete
  2. Evening agents ☺

    I just have to quote this bit, which is undoubtedly aimed at me, and probably a few others.

    "First, maybe it would be advisable to all those who are now defending this individual having previously defended that the forensic evidence in the PJ Files was damning to the McCanns may now want to revise their position about the forensics, as he clearly states (our caps):

    "...falsely equating THOSE WHO BELIEVE THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE IS A DEAD END and those who are, in your parlance, the "anti-dogs brigade"

    Remember, this person is, CLEARLY (according to some), an anti-McCann"

    As usual, this makes no sense. We should revise our position on forensics because NT says Textusa falsely equates those who believe the forensic evidence is a dead end, with "the anti dogs parade"?
    As expected, she doesn't understand.
    Translation for Textusa:

    You are wrong (falsely equating) to assume anyone who accepts the forensic evidence won't solve the case (dead end) is against the dogs (anti dogs parade)

    Could it be any simpler? Yet this quote of yours will apparently be damning for those of us who have championed the dogs. Which, is quite a different thing to the actual forensic reports isn't it?!
    So no, Textusa, I'm not now 'anti dogs', nor, from what I can see, is NT.

    But I'm sure she'll insist to herself that is the case, and anyone who wants to swallow that and have a little rant about me can quite politely fuck right off.

    CarlaSpade has been ranting over on Twitter I hear. It's a disgrace I tell you! Breaking news: The Sade person (my new name) has mysteriously disappeared from Twitter to the safety of Facebook 😂 I've been on Facebook longer than anywhere else.
    She sounds awfully worried, I'll have to pop over and let her know I haven't been assassinated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evening Agent SA :))

      Well, I have just put up a post illustrating exactly what she does. Doubtless she'll squirm and argue the toss, but I am past caring.

      Honestly, she behaves as if I have introduced you all to devil worship and she has been sent to save your mortal souls, the mad old witch.

      I must go and have a look at Carla's rantings, she's another one who needs to be reminded to take her meds......

      Delete
  3. And her latest 'proving' that you say Eddie's alert in the backyard was down to a medieval graveyard...now, I know I've read the posts where this came from but couldn't quote them from memory, but I do know it's yet another of her twisting/lying events.
    I'm sure she's used the most damning quote she could find so if anyone actually thinks this is proof you've said what she says you said...well they need to go over the T&C's of anything they've ever signed up to because they're probably flouting conditions left right and centre. For the love of god! There are surely none so gullible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, lets see what she says when she reads the next post ;)

      Delete
  4. "could a blood dog alert to residual scent? Yes of course."

    I take it you mean a CSI dog might alert to the residual scent of blood, which, like a missing corpse, would entail the origin of the scent (blood in this case) having once been present at the location indicated by the dog.

    Blood can of course be washed from a tiled floor surface, such as that which drew the dog's attention in 5A. However, the same dog also indicated in the rear of a Renault Scenic. Where did that residual scent come from do you think? From previously deposited blood presumably, but if it too was no longer there, where might it have disappeared to?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi there

      Yes, in exactly the same way that a cadaver dog might react to residual odour, so might a CSI dog.

      Blood can be washed off tiles etc, but tiny traces can remain, even years later, so agents like luminol are used specifically to indicate where minute traces remain after an attempt to clean up. I am talking about traces much to small to be seen with the naked eye.

      As regards the car, a minute spot of blood belonging to Gerry was found on the key card, so it's impossible to rule out that being the source.

      I don't know if this helps, but the ability of any substance to have an odour depends on it releasing molecules into the air. An odour is detected when those molecules react with receptors in the nose. Unless you liquify a substance and spray it up your nose - please don't try this at home - the only way it comes into contact with your scent receptors is in a gas or vapour phase.

      Once the molecules released by the substance - in this example, blood - are in the atmosphere, they don't just hang about in an orderly way, waiting for a set of nostrils. Do you remember learning at school about something called ''Brownian motion''? Basically it describes the random movement of particles suspended in a gas or liquid, such as the air, whey they get bumped about and collide with other particles. This is why a dog might alert to residual scent in a room at a spot which does not relate to the original location of the substance, but where Brownian motion has caused the particles to accumulate.

      I'm sorry I can't give you a more specific answer, but if I did it would be nothing more than speculation; guesswork, even.

      Delete
  5. Oh god 😂 I didn't know where to start this evening so I'm starting here, with the edit.
    You know, after an evening of Textusa I admit I sometimes wake up the next day worried that I've been mean. Not going back on what I've said but worried I've just been mean, or come across as a nasty person. I'd never want that to be the case, it's never my intention. I think it's important to consider it, as who knows what people are going through in their real lives and who knows how things affect people, regardless of how they present themselves online.

    But I think it's fair to say we are all only trying to (to no avail) get some points across that are so simple, it's no wonder frustration takes over when every attempt is met with more and more lies and stupidity - and yes, stupidity does feel like a mean word to use, but honestly, what else is there when someone just does not want to learn? 🙄

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny you should say that, I had a bit of a battle with myself earlier in terms of her complete inability to grasp a simple concept, but then I thought "Fuck it", she has been misleading people for years and shutting down any debate, so all that's happening now is her reaping what she has sown.

      Delete
    2. Oh absolutely. I mean, at the end of the day, you're the one who has been the focus of all her insults so you certainly have no reason to doubt your position. It's only for me, with her constant accusations that I "dare" speak for others, that makes me second guess myself sometimes, thinking hmmm this isn't my fight, stay out of it.
      But then I remember the reason I 'got involved' in the first place; frustration that morphed into annoyance that she's allowed to spread her lies all over with very little public backlash...now, I don't claim for one minute to have any influence over anyone, but thought with my association with two of the largest (by member numbers) groups on Facebook, and an active following on Twitter, that perhaps I could at least give people the opportunity to see for themselves.
      The stats on Twitter speak for itself- not sure if you're familiar, but I can see the activity such as "link clicks" and "views" of my tweets that others can't. So even when a tweet hasn't had many visible "likes" or "retweets", I can still see how 'popular' the tweet has been.
      Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is, there are more interested in the truth of all this 'banter' than it appears. The lack of a public backlash against T does not necessarily equate to huge support of what they say.

      Still all feels very childish, but I think it's just human nature to want to defend yourself. Easier said than done to just 'ignore them', even though I say it to my kids on a fairly regular basis lol!

      Delete
  6. I'm try to be careful in what I write as I really don't want to upset anyone but I wanted to show my support to NT. I hate to see injustice and I could see for myself that NT is a truth slayer and not what was being portrayed. I hope NT when your writing here you wear your special 'Super Truth Slayer' costume.

    Cat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know about that?!

      I do, but it's getting harder and harder to do up the zip nowadays. I have to use a pull thing like they do with a wetsuit.

      Anyway, I suspect this comes under the heading "Way too much information", so I'll stop there!

      Delete
  7. Just a lucky guess I suppose, your real secret is out now 'Super Truth Slayer', I imagined you'd spin around and get changed like Super Woman or do a running Superman quick change.

    Have a lovely weekend

    Cat

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow even my 8 year old daughter understands the concept of scent...that has to be close to the most retarded misunderstanding of an explanation ever. She doesn't even seem to understand how the human body breaks down and liquifies...so perfume is a perfect analogy ffs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you ever read what she wrote about cadaverine?. Staggering. She found a picture somewhere of purified cadaverine in a test tube, as an oily liquid, then claimed that Madeleine's body would have been covered in a thin film of this 'oil'. I had to have a lie down after reading that one.

      Delete

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.