Author Topic: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence  (Read 194131 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline misty

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #285 on: March 06, 2018, 06:10:19 PM »
He also never said that Eddie alerted to the residual scent from blood. You are simply making assumptions.

There's a single molecule  in blood which has been shown to attract carnivores (such as dogs) to the source. As Eddie could reportedly alert to the residual scent of various cadaver elements, in which blood plays a part, it was possible that he could alert to residual scent from blood. I'm guessing that the identified molecule is quite volatile, given the way a predator can seek it out but have no idea how long it remains detectable in the air.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/heres-what-draws-carnivores-blood

Here's what draws carnivores to blood
By Puneet KolliparaNov. 10, 2014 , 2:45 PM

What is it about the scent of blood that makes carnivores go crazy? It may all come down to a single molecule, according to a new study. Tigers and wild dogs were drawn to this compound as much as to blood itself. The findings shed light on how animals recognize complex substances through smell and could even help curb some human phobias.

Like footprints in the snow, the scent of blood can guide meat-hunting animals to wounded prey. Yet blood, like many substances with strong smells, contains myriad molecular ingredients, only some of which may play a role in attracting predators. In general, it’s tough to pin down the role that all molecules in a substance might play, says Matthias Laska, a zoologist at Linköping University in Sweden. “You have to start by making a best guess.”

For Laska and his colleagues, that guess started with a molecule called trans-4,5-epoxy-(E)-2-decenal. The molecule—a so-called aldehyde—carries the telltale metallic stench of blood and is found in pigs’ blood and perhaps in all mammalian blood, Laska says.
To find out if the molecule is really what attracts predators, Laska and colleagues tested how 40 meat-eating mammals from four species would react to its scent. The researchers partnered with Kolmården Wildlife Park, a zoo in Sweden, which gave them access to Siberian tigers (Panthera tigris altaica), South American bush dogs (Speothos venaticus), African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus), and Asian wild dogs (Cuon alpinus) for the study.

The researchers soaked wooden blocks with one of four substances: the aldehyde, horse blood, the fruity-smelling molecule isopentyl acetate, or a nearly odorless solvent. After throwing these substance-laced blocks to the animals, the researchers observed and noted how the creatures responded and interacted with the blocks.

The researchers recorded thousands of interactions between the animals and the blocks in 20 days of experiments per species. On average, all four carnivore species played with the aldehyde-laced blocks just as much as with the blood-laced blocks, the team reports today in PLOS ONE. Moreover, the animals interacted with the blood- and aldehyde-laced blocks twice to four times as much as they did with blocks laced with the other two substances.

Laska says he was surprised that his team’s initial best guess worked so well. “This is one of the things you can only dream of and hope for that happens not so often in your experiments,” he says.

Still, he warns that the findings may not apply to all carnivorous animals and their olfactory systems. “Other animals and other olfactory systems might have evolved an alternative strategy,” he says. He hopes to answer that question by doing similar studies on other blood compounds and other carnivorous species, such as wolves. Laska even has a student performing a similar study using mice instead of carnivores. “We want to see if blood elicits escape behavior in prey species,” he says
“It’s an elegantly done study that’s trying to answer a basic question: whether one single molecule can trigger a complex behavior as well as a complex odor does, and it answers that question beautifully,” says Johan Lundström, an experimental neuropsychologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. Lundström notes the findings could have implications for human health, as some people fear blood’s smell or link it to a traumatic past event. By understanding which components of blood trigger responses in people, researchers could generate better treatments for mental issues such as blood-related post-traumatic stress disorder or phobias.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #286 on: March 06, 2018, 06:40:44 PM »
Also in the case of Aurelio Montano cadaver dog evidence gained a conviction without a body. http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/chi-former-aurora-man-found-guilty-of-wifes-1990-murder-20131030-story.html

Sometimes alerts by a dog with an exemplary track record will be admitted as evidence, especially if there's other evidence suggesting foul play. In the Bianca Jones case Grime's dog Morse had achieved almost 100% accuracy in his regular tests. Grime's dog's were trained to a very high standard.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #287 on: March 06, 2018, 06:49:07 PM »
There's a single molecule  in blood which has been shown to attract carnivores (such as dogs) to the source. As Eddie could reportedly alert to the residual scent of various cadaver elements, in which blood plays a part, it was possible that he could alert to residual scent from blood. I'm guessing that the identified molecule is quite volatile, given the way a predator can seek it out but have no idea how long it remains detectable in the air.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/heres-what-draws-carnivores-blood

Here's what draws carnivores to blood
By Puneet KolliparaNov. 10, 2014 , 2:45 PM

What is it about the scent of blood that makes carnivores go crazy? It may all come down to a single molecule, according to a new study. Tigers and wild dogs were drawn to this compound as much as to blood itself. The findings shed light on how animals recognize complex substances through smell and could even help curb some human phobias.

Like footprints in the snow, the scent of blood can guide meat-hunting animals to wounded prey. Yet blood, like many substances with strong smells, contains myriad molecular ingredients, only some of which may play a role in attracting predators. In general, it’s tough to pin down the role that all molecules in a substance might play, says Matthias Laska, a zoologist at Linköping University in Sweden. “You have to start by making a best guess.”

For Laska and his colleagues, that guess started with a molecule called trans-4,5-epoxy-(E)-2-decenal. The molecule—a so-called aldehyde—carries the telltale metallic stench of blood and is found in pigs’ blood and perhaps in all mammalian blood, Laska says.
To find out if the molecule is really what attracts predators, Laska and colleagues tested how 40 meat-eating mammals from four species would react to its scent. The researchers partnered with Kolmården Wildlife Park, a zoo in Sweden, which gave them access to Siberian tigers (Panthera tigris altaica), South American bush dogs (Speothos venaticus), African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus), and Asian wild dogs (Cuon alpinus) for the study.

The researchers soaked wooden blocks with one of four substances: the aldehyde, horse blood, the fruity-smelling molecule isopentyl acetate, or a nearly odorless solvent. After throwing these substance-laced blocks to the animals, the researchers observed and noted how the creatures responded and interacted with the blocks.

The researchers recorded thousands of interactions between the animals and the blocks in 20 days of experiments per species. On average, all four carnivore species played with the aldehyde-laced blocks just as much as with the blood-laced blocks, the team reports today in PLOS ONE. Moreover, the animals interacted with the blood- and aldehyde-laced blocks twice to four times as much as they did with blocks laced with the other two substances.

Laska says he was surprised that his team’s initial best guess worked so well. “This is one of the things you can only dream of and hope for that happens not so often in your experiments,” he says.

Still, he warns that the findings may not apply to all carnivorous animals and their olfactory systems. “Other animals and other olfactory systems might have evolved an alternative strategy,” he says. He hopes to answer that question by doing similar studies on other blood compounds and other carnivorous species, such as wolves. Laska even has a student performing a similar study using mice instead of carnivores. “We want to see if blood elicits escape behavior in prey species,” he says
“It’s an elegantly done study that’s trying to answer a basic question: whether one single molecule can trigger a complex behavior as well as a complex odor does, and it answers that question beautifully,” says Johan Lundström, an experimental neuropsychologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. Lundström notes the findings could have implications for human health, as some people fear blood’s smell or link it to a traumatic past event. By understanding which components of blood trigger responses in people, researchers could generate better treatments for mental issues such as blood-related post-traumatic stress disorder or phobias.
Human blood  as opposed to other types of blood so it has to be a unique chemical or combination of chemicals in my opinion  .  OK this chemical might give the dog the "blood" bit and there must be some other molecule(s) that indicate "human".
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Carana

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #288 on: March 06, 2018, 07:49:25 PM »
Human blood  as opposed to other types of blood so it has to be a unique chemical or combination of chemicals in my opinion  .  OK this chemical might give the dog the "blood" bit and there must be some other molecule(s) that indicate "human".

I expect that there are more dog-related threads on here and no doubt elsewhere than on anything else, for some unfathomable reason.

There are hundreds of components in the global "bouquet", Rob. A number of which are in common with other species, some are found in greater concentration at certain peak times, some are found depending on what is decomposing, and some are even found in perfectly ordinary environments.

At the end of the day, there was no forensic evidence to corroborate them. A few anecdotal accounts on the vague possibility that the alerts may be valid even in the absence of any corroboration may keep the debate alive - much as whether the person who claimed to be Anastacia was actually the surviving daugher of the Tsar.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #289 on: March 06, 2018, 08:02:36 PM »
Lol Alice re the song.

Yes, there have been convictions in the absence of a body. Some may be justified by a solid mass of other evidence, others not.

In this case, aside from the somewhat iffy issue of dog alerts, and non-corroborating forensic evidence, what solid evidence is there to come to any conclusion whatsoever?

If you are starting from square one and basic principles you are probably kicking against an open door...
There is no direct evidence of either parental involvement or abduction.
Indirect/Circumstantial evidence has never properly been put to the test as there have been no court proceedings. It would seem there is no indirect evidence which links a crime of either abduction by persons unknown or abduction by identifiable parties nor sufficiently strong indirect evidence to allow charges of parental involvement to be brought hence the filing of the case.
What we know is that a little girl seemingly vanished off the face the earth between the hours of 17:30 and 22:00 on 3rd May 2007.
Not a lot to work with but plenty of chaff has been generated.

"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #290 on: March 06, 2018, 08:08:44 PM »
If you are starting from square one and basic principles you are probably kicking against an open door...
There is no direct evidence of either parental involvement or abduction.
Indirect/Circumstantial evidence has never properly been put to the test as there have been no court proceedings. It would seem there is no indirect evidence which links a crime of either abduction by persons unknown or abduction by identifiable parties nor sufficiently strong indirect evidence to allow charges of parental involvement to be brought hence the filing of the case.
What we know is that a little girl seemingly vanished off the face the earth between the hours of 17:30 and 22:00 on 3rd May 2007.
Not a lot to work with but plenty of chaff has been generated.

I would say there is plenty of evidence the parents, were not involved

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #291 on: March 06, 2018, 08:10:10 PM »
He could... But anything he said Re the alerts would carry that caveat making it rather useless

If the opposing expert witness showed Grime was erroneous in his assessment it wouldn't.
You keep making the same mistake regarding Grime's status should the case ever wind up in court.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #292 on: March 06, 2018, 08:11:43 PM »
I would say there is plenty of evidence the parents, were not involved

I know you would

Delineate the "plenty of evidence" then.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #293 on: March 06, 2018, 08:12:41 PM »
If the opposing expert witness showed Grime was erroneous in his assessment it wouldn't.
You keep making the same mistake regarding Grime's status should the case ever wind up in court.
You are, assuming another expert witness could be found.... That he, would disagree... And the fact that there us, no real scientific  evidence to support the unconfirmed  alerts... That's the important point

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #294 on: March 06, 2018, 08:19:04 PM »
I expect that there are more dog-related threads on here and no doubt elsewhere than on anything else, for some unfathomable reason.

There are hundreds of components in the global "bouquet", Rob. A number of which are in common with other species, some are found in greater concentration at certain peak times, some are found depending on what is decomposing, and some are even found in perfectly ordinary environments.

At the end of the day, there was no forensic evidence to corroborate them. A few anecdotal accounts on the vague possibility that the alerts may be valid even in the absence of any corroboration may keep the debate alive - much as whether the person who claimed to be Anastacia was actually the surviving daugher of the Tsar.
It can't be that complicated as a dog can do it.  It can't be  a blend of odours as that would give too many combinations and the dog would never be able to always identify "human cadaver" only.  all these smells will be there but they have been trained to isolate the right one.  That is how I'm thinking.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #295 on: March 06, 2018, 08:50:49 PM »
Abduction can be proved on the balance of possibilities, taking all the evidence into account.. Imo

« Last Edit: March 07, 2018, 06:08:27 PM by John »

Offline faithlilly

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #296 on: March 06, 2018, 08:53:31 PM »
Abduction can be proved on the balance of possibilities, taking all the evidence into account.. Imo

If we are talking stastistics it more probable that Madeleine was harmed by her parents than a stranger.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2018, 06:08:38 PM by John »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #297 on: March 06, 2018, 08:54:58 PM »
If we are talking stastistics it more probable that Madeleine was harmed by her parents than a stranger.

Absolute rubbish... If I am allowed to say so

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #298 on: March 06, 2018, 08:58:15 PM »
Absolute rubbish... If I am allowed to say so
It was a trick statement and you fell for it IMO.  Using "statistics it more probable that Madeleine was harmed by her parents than a stranger."  But the evidence does not support this in this case.  The stats are the summation/analysis of thousands of cases.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #299 on: March 06, 2018, 09:19:58 PM »
It was a trick statement and you fell for it IMO.  Using "statistics it more probable that Madeleine was harmed by her parents than a stranger."  But the evidence does not support this in this case.  The stats are the summation/analysis of thousands of cases.

Best get your facts right.. I didn't fall for it because it isn't true....
As you have confirmed... I trust you understand  why it isn't true