Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[jassi]

You know it really doesn’t matter who understands the evidence, whether sceptic or supporter. What really matters is SY does and as we know from the reliance they put on the dogs to find bodies or evidence of death you can be quite sure they do.

Sadly, it's taken over 500 posts to get to this conclusion.
Talk about arguing over nothing - sheesh

[Mr Gray]

You know it really doesn’t matter who understands the evidence, whether sceptic or supporter. What really matters is SY does and as we know from the reliance they put on the dogs to find bodies or evidence of death you can be quite sure they do.

doesnt matter at all and Im sure SY do understand that the dogs in this case found no evidence of death IMO. However if posters are going to post its reasonable for other posters to question things that are not true.....but having made the points i have I can see why sceptics dont want to discuss the alerts ...because they dont want to be shown that their beliefs are incorrect IMO

[Alice Purjorick]

Because some sceptics have not understood the evidence ad I have shown

Where precisely, pray, have you demonstrated that?

[Mr Gray]

Where precisely, pray, have you demonstrated that?

have a look on the other thread...Ive pointed out points where gunit was misquoting the files...

that eddie was independently scientifically tested is one example of an untrue statement

[G-Unit]

have a look on the other thread...Ive pointed out points where gunit was misquoting the files...

that eddie was independently scientifically tested is one example of an untrue statement

Both dogs and I are licensed as two separate working teams. We are independently tested and licensed annually, normally at six monthly intervals as a 'rolling' programme to ensure best practice is maintained.

When gauze pads are laid out for a dog to sniff and some have scent on them and some don't, that is blind testing, which is 'scientific'. 

[Mr Gray]

Both dogs and I are licensed as two separate working teams. We are independently tested and licensed annually, normally at six monthly intervals as a 'rolling' programme to ensure best practice is maintained.

When gauze pads are laid out for a dog to sniff and some have scent on them and some don't, that is blind testing, which is 'scientific'.

That is not accepted scientific  testing.... They actually use the, word anectdotal..


Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based conducted
over a period of a week, twice annually, it is conducted utilising independent
A.C.P.O. authorised assessors. Continuation training is conducted on a dialy
basis and includes simple scent discrimination testing to large scale scenario
based exercises.

[slartibartfast]

That is not accepted scientific  testing.... They actually use the, word anectdotal..


Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based conducted
over a period of a week, twice annually, it is conducted utilising independent
A.C.P.O. authorised assessors. Continuation training is conducted on a dialy
basis and includes simple scent discrimination testing to large scale scenario
based exercises.

Please provide a cite for you “quote”.

[Mr Gray]

The we have this claim by gunit...


Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent...where does that come from...grime does not say that

[Mr Gray]

Please provide a cite for you “quote”.

did you notice gunit didnt...its from grimes witness satement which i have just quoted...now where is your cite...and where is gunits cite

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

[Mr Gray]

could we ask gunit for a cite to this statement...there isnt one..

Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent

[Robittybob1]

could we ask gunit for a cite to this statement...there isnt one..

Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent

do you still dispute that? 

[Brietta]

do you still dispute that?

Where is the cite which supports it?

[Alice Purjorick]

have a look on the other thread...Ive pointed out points where gunit was misquoting the files...

that eddie was independently scientifically tested is one example of an untrue statement

Your precise statement refers to THE evidence.
You are now banging on about a specific item.
Which would you have us consider ? Your sweeping assertion of the evidence or just a little bit of it?

[Eleanor]

About as much as you felt for Amaral when he was cleared of libel, I would imagine.

There is a difference.  Amaral was convicted of Perjury.  The McCanns have been convicted of nothing.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You know it really doesn’t matter who understands the evidence, whether sceptic or supporter. What really matters is SY does and as we know from the reliance they put on the dogs to find bodies or evidence of death you can be quite sure they do.

We can be quite sure that SY understand what precisely regarding the dog alerts in this case?  Perhaps you could clarify, thanks.