Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[Mr Gray]

Pardon? Those 'incredibly unreliable' dogs, do you mean?

If you read what in posted yesterday Re reliability  you would understand.... The alerts, certainly are not reliable imo

[Robittybob1]

If you read what in posted yesterday Re reliability  you would understand.... The alerts, certainly are not reliable imo

Would they have to be 100% reliable before you would call them reliable?

[Mr Gray]

Would they have to be 100% reliable before you would call them reliable?

 AM »
Eleven years og arguing about whether the dogs are relaible yet no one has defined what is meant by reliable...
If there  are 10 gauze pads 5 with and 5 without cadaver odour ...then we would expect the dog to find the contaminated ones...at that they are reliable and the test proves it.
however if they alert in a house....is that a relaible alert to cadaver odour.....we simply dont know because the dogs have not been  tested in this sort of scenario. It would need the dog being taken to hundreds of sites...some with no known contaminant...some with luminol...etc etc....This would then give an idea as to how relaible the alerts are.

grime said the alert was possibly to cadaver...suggests cadaver...and that eddie alerted to a scent he was trained for...all totally vague statements. He could easily have said....in his opinion the alert was to cadaver...he didnt

[Robittybob1]

AM »
Eleven years og arguing about whether the dogs are relaible yet no one has defined what is meant by reliable...
If there  are 10 gauze pads 5 with and 5 without cadaver odour ...then we would expect the dog to find the contaminated ones...at that they are reliable and the test proves it.
however if they alert in a house....is that a relaible alert to cadaver odour.....we simply dont know because the dogs have not been  tested in this sort of scenario. It would need the dog being taken to hundreds of sites...some with no known contaminant...some with luminol...etc etc....This would then give an idea as to how relaible the alerts are.

grime said the alert was possibly to cadaver...suggests cadaver...and that eddie alerted to a scent he was trained for...all totally vague statements. He could easily have said....in his opinion the alert was to cadaver...he didnt

Excuses excuses.  Every time, a new case, where cadaver dogs are used will be a new situation. so your objection will never be satisfied.

[Mr Gray]

Excuses excuses.  Every time, a new case, where cadaver dogs are used will be a new situation. so your objection will never be satisfied.

Not excuses at all to anyone who understands scientific  methodology... And that is probably the problem on this forum.. If a dog scores 95 % on a gauze pad test then posters here think his alerts ad in 5 a would be 95 % accurate... That isn't true

[Mr Gray]

Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence

That's, what Harrison  said about the alerts... Sceptics want to ignore the expert

[Robittybob1]

Not excuses at all to anyone who understands scientific  methodology... And that is probably the problem on this forum.. If a dog scores 95 % on a gauze pad test then posters here think his alerts ad in 5 a would be 95 % accurate... That isn't true

Take the errors out of this post or it will be deleted

[Robittybob1]

Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence

That's, what Harrison  said about the alerts... Sceptics want to ignore the expert

Can you suggest what sort of physical evidence would confirm an alert?

[Mr Gray]

Take the errors out of this post or it will be deleted

Delete it of you wish... What rule covers, this

[Alice Purjorick]

Not excuses at all to anyone who understands scientific  methodology... And that is probably the problem on this forum.. If a dog scores 95 % on a gauze pad test then posters here think his alerts ad in 5 a would be 95 % accurate... That isn't true

Largely empirical and iterative.

[Mr Gray]

Largely empirical and iterative.

If you read the articles posted by sunny Re Stockham this is exactly the scientific  testing he was, suggesting

[Robittybob1]

Delete it of you wish... What rule covers, this

No one can understand it, so it must be wrong.  I would edit myself if I was unable to understand it.

[Mr Gray]

No one can understand it, so it must be wrong.  I would edit myself if I was able to understand it.

That is no reason to delete a, post.. Alice replied so understood... You could ask for it to be, edited, without the unfair threat of deletion... Totally unfair

[Robittybob1]

Not excuses at all to anyone who understands scientific  methodology... And that is probably the problem on this forum.. If a dog scores 95 % on a gauze pad test then posters here think his alerts ad in 5 a would be 95 % accurate... That isn't true

What are you trying to say?

[Sunny]

Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence

That's, what Harrison  said about the alerts... Sceptics want to ignore the expert

As do you Davel. He wasn't saying that it wasn't cadaver that Eddie scented only that it would need further evidence to confirm if it was.

Please will you stop insulting all people who don't believe everything that the mccanns have done, constantly.