Wandering Off Topic

[G-Unit]

No, they would let the dogs do that bit and then provide the final verification.  What’s your view on SIL’s contention that dogs have no better a sense of smell than humans?  You seem quite anti science so it would be interesting to get your input too.

Dogs can smell things that humans can't because they have more scent receptors; we all know that, I think. Therefore even trained humans couldn't verify a scent signalled by a dog imo.

[jassi]

It’s amazing that you find yourself needing to state the obvious but well done for doing so.  I look forward to SIL explaining why you are wrong, only he won’t, he’ll direct all his scorn and contempt at me for challenging his loopy views.

Sounds good to me 

[barrier]

And the whole point of having cadaver sniffers is to detect if a cadaver was present in a designated area.. No point in sniffing a dead body to confirm it is dead... lol

SIL I disagree with you on this point. Dogs have a better scent detection that humans- Sorry...

Never seen a pack of men,hunting a scent of the deer or fox,packs of men following the hounds  though.
What were/are bloodhounds trained for?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Dogs can smell things that humans can't because they have more scent receptors; we all know that, I think. Therefore even trained humans couldn't verify a scent signalled by a dog imo.

Indeed G. It is like I said... dogs still have their 6th Sense IMO.  they hear sounds we cannot- even with our perfect hearing.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Never seen a pack of men,hunting a scent of the deer or fox,packs of men following the hounds  though.
What were/are bloodhounds trained for?

We stopped fox hunters from entering our land after Great Grandad died. It is a vile 'sport'. Even though I do support fox numbers being reduced they are bad for farming.

The dogs!

https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/what-makes-bloodhounds-good-detectives/

[Robittybob1]

Post mortems determine that don't they?

Yes they do but cadaver dogs pick up the past presence of a cadaver.  In other words there may be no cadaver to do a post mortem on.

[Robittybob1]

What rob is suggesting needs a body.

No, it was the machine analysis of the same odour that a cadaver dog smells.

[Robittybob1]

Dogs can smell things that humans can't because they have more scent receptors; we all know that, I think. Therefore even trained humans couldn't verify a scent signalled by a dog imo.

I was dying to say this but IMO it is the amount of the brain devoted to the analysis of the signal coming from the scent receptors that is the most important.  It is the way the dog can consciously interpret what is being picked up that is important.

[barrier]

Yes they do but cadaver dogs pick up the past presence of a cadaver.  In other words there may be no cadaver to do a post mortem on.

Then it can't be known at what stage of decomposition a dog alerted to the cadaver then can it.

So that would be helpful to the investigators.  They would not just get a dog alert but if you are right there might be different chemical profiles depending on the history of the cadaver at the site. I.e. they might be able to tell if the cadaver was there soon after death or was it deposited there at a later stage of decomposition.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Sounds good to me 

Why, when I am clearly right and he is clearly barking up the wrong tree? 

[ShiningInLuz]

Could one of your important blog entries expand upon your theory that dogs’ sense of smell is no better than humans, citing all the research which proves your point?  Putting down a food bowl for Goncalo (who sounds about as good at finding things as his namesake) doesn’t count.  Ta.

As you appear fond of bringing chunks of my blog here, you should have noticed that I'm not fond of bogging down my blog with cite after cite.

Therefore, no.

Particularly as you have chosen to diss Gonçalo without knowing much about him.  Don't bite the hand that feeds springs to mind.

[Vertigo Swirl]

As you appear fond of bringing chunks of my blog here, you should have noticed that I'm not fond of bogging down my blog with cite after cite.

Therefore, no.

Particularly as you have chosen to diss Gonçalo without knowing much about him.  Don't bite the hand that feeds springs to mind.

I believe it is the first time I have quoted from your cite-free blog, however I may be wrong about that.  Nevertheless, we can now draw our own conclusions about how important your blog is, and how many fact based claims are contained therein.  You seem to be on your own with your “humans have the same sense of smell as dogs” nonsense.  I suppose I shouldn’t highlight such glaringly bizarre entries  as it could be considered cruel to do so, but when you set yourself up as the fount of all knowledge who must not be contradcted, it’s difficult to resist. 

[ShiningInLuz]

I believe it is the first time I have quoted from your cite-free blog, however I may be wrong about that.  Nevertheless, we can now draw our own conclusions about how important your blog is, and how many fact based claims are contained therein.  You seem to be on your own with your “humans have the same sense of smell as dogs” nonsense.  I suppose I shouldn’t highlight such glaringly bizarre entries  as it could be considered cruel to do so, but when you set yourself up as the fount of all knowledge who must not be contradcted, it’s difficult to resist. 

Don't worry.  From memory, my blog entry explains your misconception.

The nearest comparable misconception I can think of is that humans only use about 10% of their brain.

Or in the MBM case it is the Scandal At Chaplin's.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Don't worry.  From memory, my blog entry explains your misconception.

The nearest comparable misconception I can think of is that humans only use about 10% of their brain.

Or in the MBM case it is the Scandal At Chaplin's.

Your blog entry explains nothing except your very unscientific opinions.

[ShiningInLuz]

Your blog entry explains nothing except your very unscientific opinions.

That's obviously IYO, so you might care to amend your post to that effect.