Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[pathfinder73]

"Similar to" doesn't equate to "match", does it? They were short fragments of hair - too short for mtDNA analysis.

His conclusion was "dunno". Even if they had been hers, innocent explanations would have had to have been ruled out: e.g. hairs from her belongings being moved in the car.

Clothes are usually packed inside bags and kids clothes were washed on SAT 5 May 2007. There was no hair found on her hairbrush and they didn't rent the car until 27 May. Would seem strange for her hairs to be found there. Was the blanket given back to the McCanns? They have kept that quiet and haven't called the PJ ffin tossers for keeping it 

I could see Madeleine now, with her pink princess blanket over her head, the corners pulled together under her chin like a headscarf, singing ‘If I was a girl like you . . .’

[Alice Purjorick]

I have thought in great depth about it and understand that so far as empirical science and jurisprudence are concerned, the celestial teapot is commanding. In other arenas it is less so. This is because Forensics and empiricism are closed logically defined domains whereas other realms (religion, belief, etc.) are open non-logical domains.

Enjoy your celestial teapot.

If you have truly resigned you will not read this but it's worth a run out anyway. There is a school of thought that says:
When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”


Apart from that check out Professor Stephen Hales.

 

[Carana]

Clothes are usually packed inside bags and kids clothes were washed on SAT 5 May 2007. There was no hair found on her hairbrush and they didn't rent the car until 27 May. Would seem strange for her hairs to be found there. Was the blanket given back to the McCanns? They have kept that quiet and haven't called the PJ ffin tossers for keeping it 

I could see Madeleine now, with her pink princess blanket over her head, the corners pulled together under her chin like a headscarf, singing ‘If I was a girl like you . . .’

Which hairbrush are you referring to?

I'm not aware that the PJ ever had the blanket. The GNR police dogs apparently had it last.

The hairs found in the Scenic appear to be hair fragments. They weren't deemed long enough for mtDNA analysis. If they had had roots, they could have been sent for nDNA analysis.

[Alfred R Jones]

Why? what I said has b*****r all to do with Eddie (great jazz Pianist by the way; shame he died so young).
I said the statement "you can't prove a negative" is fallacious or if you like folk logic.
Do you disagree with that statement? a simple yes or no will do. Try it without using the words Amaral, Eddie, Keela and McCann.

You want me to post on a thread entitled "Were the dog alerts in any way significant" on the Madeleine McCann section of the forum but you don't want me to reference Eddie, Keela, Amaral or McCann? Why not? Oxford made a statement that you cannot prove a negative in response to  Pathfinder's request (or was it Stephen;s?) to prove that Eddie did not alert to cadaver.  You disagreed with Oxford, claiming that it is wrong to say you can't prove a negative, which led to my question - how do we prove scientifically that Eddie did not alert to cadaver?  So, over to you...how do we do it?

[Carana]

If you have truly resigned you will not read this but it's worth a run out anyway. There is a school of thought that says:
When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”


Apart from that check out Professor Stephen Hales.

Whether academics can prove a negative in an abstract way or not doesn't really alter mundane situations in which people can end up on death row because they can't prove an alibi, don't have the means to disprove an "expert" in court or whatever other concrete situation people may find themselves in.

Re an alibi: Christopher Jeffries didn't have one either and he was under suspicion due to false testimony from the real one.

If someone had stated that I was lurking in PdL that night, the way in which the PT system appears to have worked (in criminal trials) is that I would have had to have provided counter proof that I wasn't.

My use of a phone, Internet or bank card doesn't prove that I wasn't there.

If I had a clear recollection of someone I'd met and who could testify for me or CCTV showing me clearly elsewhere should... but otherwise, what practical proof could I have provided?

[Alice Purjorick]

You want me to post on a thread entitled "Were the dog alerts in any way significant" on the Madeleine McCann section of the forum but you don't want me to reference Eddie, Keela, Amaral or McCann? Why not? Oxford made a statement that you cannot prove a negative in response to  Pathfinder's request (or was it Stephen;s?) to prove that Eddie did not alert to cadaver.  You disagreed with Oxford, claiming that it is wrong to say you can't prove a negative, which led to my question - how do we prove scientifically that Eddie did not alert to cadaver?  So, over to you...how do we do it?

I was arguing with the statement "you can't prove a negative". Do you agree with the statement "you can't prove a negative" was my question to you. As it is a closed ended question you should be able to say yes or no to it.
So do you agree with it or not (closed ended again).

[Mr Gray]

I was arguing with the statement "you can't prove a negative". Do you agree with the statement "you can't prove a negative" was my question to you. As it is a closed ended question you should be able to say yes or no to it.
So do you agree with it or not (closed ended again).

so you were ignoring the rather ridiculous chocolate teapot argument of pathfinder ...but of course he's part of your team

[Alfred R Jones]

I was arguing with the statement "you can't prove a negative". Do you agree with the statement "you can't prove a negative" was my question to you. As it is a closed ended question you should be able to say yes or no to it.
So do you agree with it or not (closed ended again).

In the context of a discussion sparked by the command to prove that Eddie did not alert to cadaver odour it is correct to say "you can't prove a negative".  Did you read the link provided by OxBloo, or could you not be arsed?  If Pathfinder had said "prove that the apple is not in the drawer" (as per the example in OxBloo's link) then obviously OxBloo's response would have been incorrect, because it IS possible to prove the veracity of the statement by opening the drawer, but in that instance neither command nor riposte would have been relevant to the discussion at hand.
So, to summarise, in the context of the on-topic discussion we were having, YES I agree with the statement "you can't prove a negative".
Now - my question to you requiring a yes or no answer only (as I have obliged you with the same, now you can likewise oblige me) - is it possible to prove that Eddie did not alert to cadaver odour? I await your YES or NO response with the almost certain knowledge that your response will be something of a disappointment...

[Alfred R Jones]

If you have truly resigned you will not read this but it's worth a run out anyway. There is a school of thought that says:
When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”


Apart from that check out Professor Stephen Hales.

Oxford Bloo certainly knew what he was talking about and the fact is (like it or not) is that nothing he said here of any substance was (IMO) successfully refuted by anyone (on either side of the McCann divide).  It's a shame he has gone because he succeeded in elevating the standard of debate for a short while.  Oh well, I expect he'll be back the next time there's anything worth discussing...

[Carana]

Oxford Bloo certainly knew what he was talking about and the fact is (like it or not) is that nothing he said here of any substance was (IMO) successfully refuted by anyone (on either side of the McCann divide).  It's a shame he has gone because he succeeded in elevating the standard of debate for a short while.  Oh well, I expect he'll be back the next time there's anything worth discussing...

I wish he hadn't just gone in a puff of smoke as there doesn't appear to be a way of checking back through his posts to find links that I haven't had time to read nor even bookmark.

[G-Unit]

I wish he hadn't just gone in a puff of smoke as there doesn't appear to be a way of checking back through his posts to find links that I haven't had time to read nor even bookmark.

He refused to provide links. When I asked for them all I got was ' is your friend'.

[Alfred R Jones]

He refused to provide links. When I asked for them all I got was ' is your friend'.

You rather wilfully refused to understand the point he was making, which was not dependent on the provision of links but on simple comprehension.

[G-Unit]

You rather wilfully refused to understand the point he was making, which was not dependent on the provision of links but on simple comprehension.

Really? Explain it to me then.

[Alice Purjorick]

so you were ignoring the rather ridiculous chocolate teapot argument of pathfinder ...but of course he's part of your team

Oh God I'm bored!

[Alice Purjorick]

Oxford Bloo certainly knew what he was talking about and the fact is (like it or not) is that nothing he said here of any substance was (IMO) successfully refuted by anyone (on either side of the McCann divide).  It's a shame he has gone because he succeeded in elevating the standard of debate for a short while.  Oh well, I expect he'll be back the next time there's anything worth discussing...

Little doubt of that; he has been here before.