Kate and Gerry have both publicly contested the cadaver alerts?

[Mr Gray]

I'm not so sure.   Didn't someone post about the droplets of oil in tobacco smoke?
I have not read that cadaver odour is transferred via aerosol droplets.

There would be evaporation of substances on the body and these, would deposit on anything nearby

[Brietta]

There would be evaporation of substances on the body and these, would deposit on anything nearby

In other words ... an odour?

[slartibartfast]

I'm not so sure.   Didn't someone post about the droplets of oil in tobacco smoke?
I have not read that cadaver odour is transferred via aerosol droplets naturally from a cadaver.

Cadaver odour cannot be compared to tobacco smoke or →smoke at all. Tobacco smoke contains e.g. even such agressive particles as →tar. Smoke is a collection of airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases emitted when a material undergoes combustion or pyrolysis, together with the quantity of air that is entrained or otherwise mixed into the mass. Smoke particles are an aerosol (or mist) of solid particles and liquid droplets that are close to the ideal range of sizes for Mie scattering of visible light. Thus smoke, e.g. tobacco smoke, will contaminate even objects which are not in physical contact very effectivly even from the very beginning of smoking on.

http://genreith.de/MMcC/doku.php?id=cadaver_odour&do=export_pdf

[Mr Gray]

In other words ... an odour?

Yes and this is confirmed by slartis link.....as I was able to introduce a point of interest that was confirmed by slartis link its clear I have a good knowledge of the alerts...however it seems my support for the mccanns is not appreciated on the forum...the link also confirms taht the odour would not ahve lased 3 months outsde in the flower bed...another questionable alert

[Robittybob1]

http://genreith.de/MMcC/doku.php?id=cadaver_odour&do=export_pdf

That was interesting but I still wouldn't treat the statements in there as scientific fact.  It isn't a scientific paper IMO.

[Mr Gray]

That was interesting but I still wouldn't treat the statements in there as scientific fact.  It isn't a scientific paper IMO.

there basically is no scientific support for the alerts

[Brietta]

Yes and this is confirmed by slartis link.....as I was able to introduce a point of interest that was confirmed by slartis link its clear I have a good knowledge of the alerts...however it seems my support for the mccanns is not appreciated on the forum

Although a bit dated ... the link looks worth a look ... I'll check it out when I have time.

Quite often I feel it is very much a case of logic v prejudice and I have found that independent papers such as this are informative and come down on the side of logic.

Stand back now and watch the scrabble for the claim to logic 

[John]

A reminder to all members as we approach the bank holiday weekend.

Comments should be appropriate to the thread header or opening post.  Spamming, nitpicking, goading, abuse, put-downs or any other activity contrary to the forum rules will attract sanctions.

This has traditionally been an emotional time for posters on the Madeleine McCann board so please consider carefully what you post before pressing the post button. Civility costs nothing!

Please treat other users with respect regardless of their views.  TY