I have been sent some interesting posts this afternoon. The sender wishes to remain anonymous for the present. As they probably won't make sense on their own, I am going to try to reconstruct them in sequence. Textusa seemingly published some of the posts after being given a nudge, but not all of them, and the sender thought it was particularly interesting to see which she left out, and how yet again she ducked all requests for evidence.
To the sender - please let me know if this sequence is correct; I know you say she sat on some of them for a while, so the sequence in which they were written and the sequence in which they were published is going to differ; if you see any errors I can correct them later.
My text is in red as usual, Textusa's in black and the sender in blue
So just to come back on this as its clear you still don't get it, of necessity, molecules must be capable of being airborne or they can't travel up a nose. That's how smell works. In schools, we normally teach this in year 5.
As regards physical residues, YOU insisted that when a body is removed, physical residues remain which emit a scent. I, and others, have tried to explain to you about 8 billion times that this is not necessarily the case, and that residual scent, adsorbed onto surfaces in the location, can also trigger an alert. You appear to think that when the body is removed, the volatile molecules all bounce along out of the door behind it. I would try to explain it to you again, but I fear it would be like trying to explain nuclear fission to a cheesy wotsit.
No, I have never said the dogs react ONLY to residual scent, do not be ridiculous.
Finally, I wouldn't be asking for studies if I were you, considering that the 'facts' you have produced to date total a big fat zero