Cadaver Dog question

[icabodcrane]

Perhaps Debunker could use his statistics to explain the spectacular failure rate of Zampo the cadaver dog instead?

"Zampo marked for human remains 45 times at those 24 locations. Not a single trace of blood or body parts was ever found..."

I'm more interested in how the  statistics  cannot be applied logically in the McCann case   ...  aren't you  ?

What do you mean?

I asked you how the error ratio described could be applied to the nine apartments where the dogs did not alert 

You had no explanation   ... how could you  ?  other than to suggest the  non-alerts in the nine other apartments were also  wrong  5 times out of 10

I don't understand your question. Even if we credit the dogs with 90% reliability, there will still be one error in every ten tests.

Do you not understand statistics and reliabilities?

What I understand is that you are avoiding the question

Where were the inevitable errors in the tests done in the other nine apartments  ?  ...  based on the statistice you have quoted, how many of those non alerts would you ascribe to  being inevitably  'false negatives'  ?

I don't understand what you are asking.

oh I think you do

...  It's OK though,  I understand if  you'd rather not go into how the stats you have given could be applied  to the non alerts  in other 9 apartments   ...  or  how many of those non alerts would have to be considered 'necessarily'   false negatives as a consequence

[debunker]

As I said, detail is lost in the general.

I suggest you look at the peer reviewed research I have quoted in another thread before you look even more uneducated.

[icabodcrane]

As I said, detail is lost in the general.

I suggest you look at the peer reviewed research I have quoted in another thread before you look even more uneducated.

oh give it a rest

You can't  answer the question,  and that's that

[debunker]

As I said, detail is lost in the general.

I suggest you look at the peer reviewed research I have quoted in another thread before you look even more uneducated.

oh give it a rest

You can't  answer the question,  and that's that

THe question is unanswerable.

All that can be known is that on average at least one in ten alerts or fails to alert, the reaction will be incorrect.

[Gildas]

As I said, detail is lost in the general.

I suggest you look at the peer reviewed research I have quoted in another thread before you look even more uneducated.

oh give it a rest

You can't  answer the question,  and that's that

Icabodcrane, I am not a mathematician, but given that the dog is 90% reliable, I calculate that there is a 39% probability that the dog will be correct nine times out of nine. This means that there is a  61% probability that the dog will be wrong at least once.

[debunker]

As I said, detail is lost in the general.

I suggest you look at the peer reviewed research I have quoted in another thread before you look even more uneducated.

oh give it a rest

You can't  answer the question,  and that's that

Icabodcrane, I am not a mathematician, but given that the dog is 90% reliable, I calculate that there is a 39% probability that the dog will be correct nine times out of nine. This means that there is a  61% probability that the dog will be wrong at least once.

I don't think he is concerned about fact, rationality and the truth.

[registrar]

No, the agenda must be fed

reason does not come into it for those that have the troubling 'need' to hound people

reason detracts from the script

[icabodcrane]

As I said, detail is lost in the general.

I suggest you look at the peer reviewed research I have quoted in another thread before you look even more uneducated.

oh give it a rest

You can't  answer the question,  and that's that

THe question is unanswerable.

All that can be known is that on average at least one in ten alerts or fails to alert, the reaction will be incorrect.

So if I ask you how the statistics you quoted  can be related to the alerts in the McCann's apartment  ...  that must be  'unanswerable'   too  ...  right ? 

So what is the  point of bringing them here  ...  if they are of specific value in this case  ?

[debunker]

As I said, detail is lost in the general.

I suggest you look at the peer reviewed research I have quoted in another thread before you look even more uneducated.

oh give it a rest

You can't  answer the question,  and that's that

THe question is unanswerable.

All that can be known is that on average at least one in ten alerts or fails to alert, the reaction will be incorrect.

So if I ask you how the statistics you quoted  can be related to the alerts in the McCann's apartment  ...  that must be  'unanswerable'   too  ...  right ? 

So what is the  point of bringing them here  ...  if they are of specific value in this case  ?

They are general and average reliabilities for scent dogs. All scent ID is unreliable to a certain extent- probably about only 4 out of 5 alerts/failures to alert are correct.

It means that the way the dogs were deployed, it is not possible to tell which alerts were true and which were in error.

Dogs are extremely useful to indicate where to look for evidence. Unfortunately they are inconclusive on their own.

[icabodcrane]

As I said, detail is lost in the general.

I suggest you look at the peer reviewed research I have quoted in another thread before you look even more uneducated.

oh give it a rest

You can't  answer the question,  and that's that

THe question is unanswerable.

All that can be known is that on average at least one in ten alerts or fails to alert, the reaction will be incorrect.

So if I ask you how the statistics you quoted  can be related to the alerts in the McCann's apartment  ...  that must be  'unanswerable'   too  ...  right ? 

So what is the  point of bringing them here  ...  if they are of specific value in this case  ?

They are general and average reliabilities for scent dogs. All scent ID is unreliable to a certain extent- probably about only 4 out of 5 alerts/failures to alert are correct.

It means that the way the dogs were deployed, it is not possible to tell which alerts were true and which were in error.

Dogs are extremely useful to indicate where to look for evidence. Unfortunately they are inconclusive on their own.

So those non alerts in the other apartments could have been false negatives  ...  and there could have been cadaverine  in one of the tapas group apartments that was missed by the dog  ...  is that what you're saying ? 

[debunker]

You do seem to be determined to prove that you are thick as Pig shit.

It is impossible to test which IRL reactions are incorrect but we do know that in perfect conditions scent dogs are wrong one time in ten- mostly false alerts rather than failure to alert. One report which I quoted shows that positive alerts increase when the handlers are informed (falsely) which areas have the cadaver scent.

[icabodcrane]

You do seem to be determined to prove that you are thick as Pig shit.

It is impossible to test which IRL reactions are incorrect but we do know that in perfect conditions scent dogs are wrong one time in ten- mostly false alerts rather than failure to alert. One report which I quoted shows that positive alerts increase when the handlers are informed (falsely) which areas have the cadaver scent.

Just answer the question  ...  please  ... pretty please   ...  with sugar on top

Is it possible,  or likely   (  given the error ratio you have quoted )  that some of the non alerts in the other nine apartments were false negatives ?  ) 

Is it  possible  ( on the strength of the statistics you brought us  )   that there was cadaverine in one or more of the tapas group's apartments but that the dog gave a false negative alert to it  ? 

A yes or no will do   (  infact  a simple yes or no would be a very welcome refreshing change )

[debunker]

You do seem to be determined to prove that you are thick as Pig shit.

It is impossible to test which IRL reactions are incorrect but we do know that in perfect conditions scent dogs are wrong one time in ten- mostly false alerts rather than failure to alert. One report which I quoted shows that positive alerts increase when the handlers are informed (falsely) which areas have the cadaver scent.

Just answer the question  ...  please  ... pretty please   ...  with sugar on top

Is it possible,  or likely   (  given the error ratio you have quoted )  that some of the non alerts in the other nine apartments were false negatives ?  ) 

Is it  possible  ( on the strength of the statistics you brought us  )   that there was cadaverine in one or more of the tapas group's apartments but that the dog gave a false negative alert to it  ? 

A yes or no will do   (  infact  a simple yes or no would be a very welcome refreshing change )

All of that is not only possible, but likely.

[Gildas]

As I said, detail is lost in the general.

I suggest you look at the peer reviewed research I have quoted in another thread before you look even more uneducated.

oh give it a rest

You can't  answer the question,  and that's that

Icabodcrane, I am not a mathematician, but given that the dog is 90% reliable, I calculate that there is a 39% probability that the dog will be correct nine times out of nine. This means that there is a  61% probability that the dog will be wrong at least once.

I don't think he is concerned about fact, rationality and the truth.

I do not think that this is fair on Icabodcrane. Generally speaking, I find he is concerned about fact, rationality and truth. Perhaps, like me, he is finding this a difficult thread to understand.

[puglove]

You do seem to be determined to prove that you are thick as Pig shit.

It is impossible to test which IRL reactions are incorrect but we do know that in perfect conditions scent dogs are wrong one time in ten- mostly false alerts rather than failure to alert. One report which I quoted shows that positive alerts increase when the handlers are informed (falsely) which areas have the cadaver scent.

Just answer the question  ...  please  ... pretty please   ...  with sugar on top

Is it possible,  or likely   (  given the error ratio you have quoted )  that some of the non alerts in the other nine apartments were false negatives ?  ) 

Is it  possible  ( on the strength of the statistics you brought us  )   that there was cadaverine in one or more of the tapas group's apartments but that the dog gave a false negative alert to it  ? 

A yes or no will do   (  infact  a simple yes or no would be a very welcome refreshing change )

Bearing in mind that dogs "are my thing" (steady, Gladys) does anyone else see a hyped-up, rehomed Springer desperate to please it's handler?