How many episodes of dog alerts were suggestive of cadaver odor?

[amaraltheofficeboy]

Long and short of it is no one knows if Eddie was alerting to cadaver scent from a dead body or blood from a living person in any alert and this exercise regarding maximum possible alerts  as three to cadaver scent is futile imo

would you like to say that on the various forums you post on?

It sounds pretty conclusive that the alerts were not valid for evidence purposes.

[icabodcrane]

Back to the subject of the OP. NO-one has yet contradicted my identification of only three possible sets of alerts for Cadaver odor.

Do we agree that three is the maximum?

I disagree

Consider this scenario :

A child  climbs to the back of the sofa to look out the window  (  for mum and Dad ) ... she falls heavily on the tiled floor and is fatally injured.  She bleeds, and dies,  in that spot

In that case,  both dogs would alert,  would they not ?

The suggestion that cadaver scent can only exist where the cadaver dog,  alone,  alerts is flawed ...  where both bleeding and death has occured, then both cadaver and blood dog would alert

Your assertion that there were only three possible alerts for cadaver odour is, therefore,  incorrect

NO. See my post on apples and oranges.

An alert by eddie without an absence from keela does not increase our orinal knowledge.

THere are only three sets of results which indicate that cadaver odor is present.

That's not what you said

You said there were only  three possible alerts to cadaver odour

You were wrong

Cadaver odour may have been present in the locations alerted to by both  dogs  ( together with blood )

But that is not an alert to cadaver. As blood is common and cadaver rare it has indicative value. See my post on apples and oranges.

I'm not interested in your apples and oranges debunker

I am interested in you admitting that  when both  dogs alerted in the same location , it is entirely possible that they did so because both blood and  cadaver  odour were present

In truth, the possibility of cadaver odour being present exists every  time the cadaver dog alerts

[ferryman]

In truth, the possibility of cadaver odour being present exists every  time the cadaver dog alerts

As does the possibility of nothing at all (cuddle cat) ...

[debunker]

Long and short of it is no one knows if Eddie was alerting to cadaver scent from a dead body or blood from a living person in any alert and this exercise regarding maximum possible alerts  as three to cadaver scent is futile imo

Logic is another department in which you have a shortage.

[Redblossom]

Long and short of it is no one knows if Eddie was alerting to cadaver scent from a dead body or blood from a living person in any alert and this exercise regarding maximum possible alerts  as three to cadaver scent is futile imo

Logic is another department in which you have a shortage.

So a personal attack shows you haveno answer to the point, predictabie
 

[debunker]

Long and short of it is no one knows if Eddie was alerting to cadaver scent from a dead body or blood from a living person in any alert and this exercise regarding maximum possible alerts  as three to cadaver scent is futile imo

Logic is another department in which you have a shortage.

So a personal attack shows you haveno answer to the point, predictabie
 

Not an attack,merely an observation.

[Redblossom]

Long and short of it is no one knows if Eddie was alerting to cadaver scent from a dead body or blood from a living person in any alert and this exercise regarding maximum possible alerts  as three to cadaver scent is futile imo

Logic is another department in which you have a shortage.

So a personal attack shows you haveno answer to the point, predictabie
 

Not an attack,merely an observation.

You didnt answer the issue ergo your observation as you put it or attack was  pointless and evasive

[amaraltheofficeboy]

try a Silkcut

[AnneGuedes]

when both  dogs alerted in the same location , it is entirely possible that they did so because both blood and  cadaver  odour were present

Yes ! Blood smell and cadaver smell can even originate from two different persons, one of them could still be living, for example a murderer whom the murdered managed to scratch badly.

[icabodcrane]

Back to the subject of the OP. NO-one has yet contradicted my identification of only three possible sets of alerts for Cadaver odor.

Do we agree that three is the maximum?

I disagree

Consider this scenario :

A child  climbs to the back of the sofa to look out the window  (  for mum and Dad ) ... she falls heavily on the tiled floor and is fatally injured.  She bleeds, and dies,  in that spot

In that case,  both dogs would alert,  would they not ?

The suggestion that cadaver scent can only exist where the cadaver dog,  alone,  alerts is flawed ...  where both bleeding and death has occured, then both cadaver and blood dog would alert

Your assertion that there were only three possible alerts for cadaver odour is, therefore,  incorrect

NO. See my post on apples and oranges.

An alert by eddie without an absence from keela does not increase our orinal knowledge.

THere are only three sets of results which indicate that cadaver odor is present.

That's not what you said

You said there were only  three possible alerts to cadaver odour

You were wrong

Cadaver odour may have been present in the locations alerted to by both  dogs  ( together with blood )

But that is not an alert to cadaver. As blood is common and cadaver rare it has indicative value. See my post on apples and oranges.

I'm not interested in your apples and oranges debunker

I am interested in you admitting that  when both  dogs alerted in the same location , it is entirely possible that they did so because both blood and  cadaver  odour were present

In truth, the possibility of cadaver odour being present exists every  time the cadaver dog alerts

Is it agreed that  the above is factual and true ?

...  and that to suggest otherwise is 'myth-making' ? 

[debunker]

Back to the subject of the OP. NO-one has yet contradicted my identification of only three possible sets of alerts for Cadaver odor.

Do we agree that three is the maximum?

I disagree

Consider this scenario :

A child  climbs to the back of the sofa to look out the window  (  for mum and Dad ) ... she falls heavily on the tiled floor and is fatally injured.  She bleeds, and dies,  in that spot

In that case,  both dogs would alert,  would they not ?

The suggestion that cadaver scent can only exist where the cadaver dog,  alone,  alerts is flawed ...  where both bleeding and death has occured, then both cadaver and blood dog would alert

Your assertion that there were only three possible alerts for cadaver odour is, therefore,  incorrect

NO. See my post on apples and oranges.

An alert by eddie without an absence from keela does not increase our orinal knowledge.

THere are only three sets of results which indicate that cadaver odor is present.

That's not what you said

You said there were only  three possible alerts to cadaver odour

You were wrong

Cadaver odour may have been present in the locations alerted to by both  dogs  ( together with blood )

But that is not an alert to cadaver. As blood is common and cadaver rare it has indicative value. See my post on apples and oranges.

I'm not interested in your apples and oranges debunker

I am interested in you admitting that  when both  dogs alerted in the same location , it is entirely possible that they did so because both blood and  cadaver  odour were present

In truth, the possibility of cadaver odour being present exists every  time the cadaver dog alerts

Is it agreed that  the above is factual and true ?

...  and that to suggest otherwise is 'myth-making' ?

You misunderstand science and logic.

Before Eddie reacts to a spot it is uncertain whether cadaver odor is present.
After he reacts to a spot it is uncertain whether cadaver odor is present.

A single reaction by Eddie tells you nothing about the presence of cadaver odor.

On the other hand a reaction by Keela means that it is 90% likely that blood is there.

A single reaction from Keela increases your knowledge about blood

A single reaction from Eddie does not increase your knowledge about cadaver odor.

However, a positive alert from Eddie and a negative one from Keela means it is 80% likely that cadaver odor is there.

[icabodcrane]

Back to the subject of the OP. NO-one has yet contradicted my identification of only three possible sets of alerts for Cadaver odor.

Do we agree that three is the maximum?

I disagree

Consider this scenario :

A child  climbs to the back of the sofa to look out the window  (  for mum and Dad ) ... she falls heavily on the tiled floor and is fatally injured.  She bleeds, and dies,  in that spot

In that case,  both dogs would alert,  would they not ?

The suggestion that cadaver scent can only exist where the cadaver dog,  alone,  alerts is flawed ...  where both bleeding and death has occured, then both cadaver and blood dog would alert

Your assertion that there were only three possible alerts for cadaver odour is, therefore,  incorrect

NO. See my post on apples and oranges.

An alert by eddie without an absence from keela does not increase our orinal knowledge.

THere are only three sets of results which indicate that cadaver odor is present.

That's not what you said

You said there were only  three possible alerts to cadaver odour

You were wrong

Cadaver odour may have been present in the locations alerted to by both  dogs  ( together with blood )

But that is not an alert to cadaver. As blood is common and cadaver rare it has indicative value. See my post on apples and oranges.

I'm not interested in your apples and oranges debunker

I am interested in you admitting that  when both  dogs alerted in the same location , it is entirely possible that they did so because both blood and  cadaver  odour were present

In truth, the possibility of cadaver odour being present exists every  time the cadaver dog alerts

Is it agreed that  the above is factual and true ?

...  and that to suggest otherwise is 'myth-making' ?

You misunderstand science and logic.

Before Eddie reacts to a spot it is uncertain whether cadaver odor is present.
After he reacts to a spot it is uncertain whether cadaver odor is present.

A single reaction by Eddie tells you nothing about the presence of cadaver odor.

On the other hand a reaction by Keela means that it is 90% likely that blood is there.

A single reaction from Keela increases your knowledge about blood

A single reaction from Eddie does not increase your knowledge about cadaver odor.

However, a positive alert from Eddie and a negative one from Keela means it is 80% likely that cadaver odor is there.

Well, statistics and increased knowledge aside ...  do you accept the straightforward truth  that where both cadaver scent and blood exist,  then both dogs would alert  ... and that in this case, that simple truth dictates that it is possible that the cadaver dog was alerting to cadaver scent  every single time he alerted ?

Do you accept that ? 

[debunker]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

[Redblossom]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

Neither is an alert by Keela to the same area suggestive that it isn't. Just because both react to blood doesn't mean that it must be blood that Eddie alerted to. I think that is what Icabodcrane is trying to say/ask, ie the POSSIBILITY of cadaver odour being there when Eddie alerts exists.

[debunker]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

Neither is an alert by Keela to the same area suggestive that it isn't. Just because both react to blood doesn't mean that it must be blood that Eddie alerted to. I think that is what Icabodcrane is trying to say/ask, ie the POSSIBILITY of cadaver odour being there when Eddie alerts exists.

The logic goes like this

Keela reacts only to blood, Eddie to blood and cadaver.

The only result suggestive of cadaver is Eddie alerts (blood or cadaver) and Keela does not (not blood).

A single alert by Eddie tells us nothing about the presence of cadaver.