FBI Report on "Dancing Israelis" declassified.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Dragging up posts irrelevant to the discussion is your speciality.

seems relevant to me, you claim i have bad arguments and then recommend me for a Stundied award for my 4kg remark from the NIST report.
I think showing how you've never provided evidence/proof, (then supplying logic, and claiming that my arguments are rubbish and that i can't understand the different between evidence and proof), shows how little you actually understand about both logic and evidence.

the post i refer to are evidence of the fact that you do not understand proof vs evidence vs logic. in fact i'd say it is proof.

Di0genes wrote: »

Again, you simply don't seem to understand that.

no, i understand that, i just don't interpret it incorrectly like you do.

Di0genes wrote: »

It's not evidence. Not in the slightest. You can't be arrested and charged simply because a dog indicated it has a suspicion. As I've clearly demonstrated dogs make mistakes, so a dog making a indication isn't evidence of anything.

now we are arguing legal definitions? good moving of goalposts.
you've clearly demonstrated that in a non peer reviewed report, that 100% of the dogs used raised false positives.
it is still evidence. you might not think it is reliable, but at this point i have no idea what you think since you think the NIST reports investigation regarding 4kg of explosives never happened, after reading it.

Di0genes wrote: »

A highly trained police officer, with years of experience in narcotics, is likely to be able to spot a drug addict, and can potentially stop and search them. They can't throw them in prison, because of their instincts and training.

and A highly trained police officer, with years of experience in narcotics sniffing can't.
how would a police officer spot a drug addict? with evidence?
They can't throw them in prison, because of their instincts and training because there is no evidence so they can not prove it.

i'm not sure if you mean logic instead of evidence here ...

Di0genes wrote: »

The same logic must be applied.

This seems completely beyond your ability to understand

are you talking about proof? or logic? since as PROVEN you do not understand the difference.

Emiko

Di0genes wrote: »

Suspicion isn't evidence.

Hence the term 'Conspiracy Theories'.

The flat-out denial, by some posters, of even the possibility that these men could have been involved is slightly bizarre.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

You clearly seem more interesting in squabbling when you're caught in a corner.

yeah that is proof, evidence, logic , something ...

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

seems relevant to me, you claim i have bad arguments and then recommend me for a Stundied award for my 4kg remark from the NIST report.
I think showing how you've never provided evidence/proof, (then supplying logic, and claiming that my arguments are rubbish and that i can't understand the different between evidence and proof), shows how little you actually understand about both logic and evidence.

the post i refer to are evidence of the fact that you do not understand proof vs evidence vs logic. in fact i'd say it is proof.



no, i understand that, i just don't interpret it incorrectly like you do.

You don't seem interested in arguing about 9/11 anymore, just more about which one of us is correct.

now we are arguing legal definitions? good moving of goalposts.
you've clearly demonstrated that in a non peer reviewed report, that 100% of the dogs used raised false positives.
it is still evidence. you might not think it is reliable, but at this point i have no idea what you think since you think the NIST reports investigation regarding 4kg of explosives never happened, after reading it.

Again bringing in a side argument about thread isn't relevant.

A dog indicating is not evidence.

You can start ranting about the NIST, the Peer review of a article in the Economist, until you're blue in the face.

A dog indicating isn't evidence. And none of the above will change that.

and A highly trained police officer, with years of experience in narcotics sniffing can't.
how would a police officer spot a drug addict? with evidence?
They can't throw them in prison, because of their instincts and training because there is no evidence so they can not prove it.

i'm not sure if you mean logic instead of evidence here ...


are you talking about proof? or logic? since as PROVEN you do not understand the difference.

Look you can try and belligerently claim I don't understand what I'm talking about.

You asked for evidence of false positives you got it.

If sniffer dogs can give false positives a dog cannot be used as evidence. All the dog is doing is indicating it thinks what it was trained to find is there.

Unless you've heard of a dog taking the witness stand recently....

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

And davoxxx infusing the words evidence and proof with his own special meaning wont change that.

i am? am i getting confused with logic?

surely you can explain all this? like i asked what was your meaning for evidence and proof other than logic?

Di0genes

Emiko wrote: »

Hence the term 'Conspiracy Theories'.

The flat-out denial, by some posters, of even the possibility that these men could have been involved is slightly bizarre.

I've yet to hear a coherent explanation of what they're supposed to be involved in and how.

Di0genes

Emiko wrote: »

Hence the term 'Conspiracy Theories'.

.

Ah davoxxx didn't call it a theory, he called it evidence.....

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

You don't seem interested in arguing about 9/11 anymore, just more about which one of us is correct.

just because i don't seem like it to you, does not make it true.
i like you, you make me laugh
i am interested in debating this thread, but you seem to think my points are wrong based on a single report that has not been peer review and is flawed from the start.

Di0genes wrote: »

Again bringing in a side argument about thread isn't relevant.

because you said so? seems like you have a grudge against me because i proved you wrong.
you call me childish and then http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74468602&postcount=174
in a thread where you never posted before.
seems like you're more interested in trying to prove me wrong, which you can't.

Di0genes wrote: »

A dog indicating is not evidence.

FACT, i should have realised if you said it was not logic i mean evidence (i presume you mean evidence here).

Di0genes wrote: »

You can start ranting about the NIST, the Peer review of a article in the Economist, until you're blue in the face.

and you'll avoid it with your evidence i mean logic

Di0genes wrote: »

A dog indicating isn't evidence. And none of the above will change that.

...

If sniffer dogs can give false positives a dog cannot be used as evidence. All the dog is doing is indicating it thinks what it was trained to find is there.

Unless you've heard of a dog taking the witness stand recently....

but here you are being childish with talking dogs ...
and even then, if the dog did talk, you'd say it was not evidence or logic (i'm not sure which you mean here), as the dog never actually picked up the explosives got those in the van to confirm it was explosives, and actually explode it while you watch.

Di0genes wrote: »

You don't seem interested in arguing about 9/11 anymore, just more about which one of us is correct.

You can start ranting about the NIST, the Peer review of a article in the Economist, until you're blue in the face.

Look you can try and belligerently claim I don't understand what I'm talking about.

You asked for evidence of false positives you got it.

Unless you've heard of a dog taking the witness stand recently....

(some comments removed in above quote)

seems like you're being childish here claiming i am 'belligerently' claiming that you don't understand difference between logic and proof (hence i linked to it just for you).
yeah you can't admit that you are wrong, so you huff and you puff, but the evidence still stands.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Suspicion isn't evidence.

neither is belief ... or bad logic

Emiko wrote: »

Hence the term 'Conspiracy Theories'.

The flat-out denial, by some posters, of even the possibility that these men could have been involved is slightly bizarre.

don't prove him wrong, he'll call you a child .... though i am only 13 years old.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Ah davoxxx didn't call it a theory, he called it evidence.....

it's a conspiracy theroy that the sniffer dog did what?

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

I've yet to hear a coherent explanation of what they're supposed to be involved in and how.

same from your, actually no, you've been presented with numerous explanations and theories, you asked for proof and then said that dogs barking was not evidence ...

you've presented nothing.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

neither is belief ... or bad logic

Good you're beginning to grasp that.
Now will you kindly stop mixing up belief and evidence.

it's a conspiracy theroy that the sniffer dog did what?

You claimed the dogs barking, or indicating was evidence. Remember?

same from your, actually no, you've been presented with numerous explanations and theories, you asked for proof and then said that dogs barking was not evidence ...

you've presented nothing.

Nor do I have to. Unless presented with solid evidence, or proof that these people were doing something criminal or wrong, we have to presume they were innocent.

i am interested in debating this thread,

No. This is what you are doing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

but you seem to think my points are wrong based on a single report that has not been peer review and is flawed from the start.

Okay you asked for evidence that sniffer dogs give false positives.

I provided it.

You agreed that Sniffer dogs gave false positives in the field.

Everything beyond that is utterly pointless You can claim the report wasn't peer reviewed. You can rant all you want. It doesn't matter. You lost the debate.

But since we both agree that sniffer dogs aren't infallible, their indication isn't evidence of anything more than their suspicion.

FACT, i should have realised if you said it was not logic i mean evidence (i presume you mean evidence here).

I said evidence. Your sentences are getting less coherent and you appear to be playing buzzword bingo with yourself.

but here you are being childish with talking dogs ...

Sigh......

I'm going to have explain what a analogy is to you aren't I?

If sniffer dogs can give false positives a dog's reaction cannot be used as evidence. All the dog is doing is indicating it thinks what it was trained to find is there.

Is the above sentence true or false?

as the dog never actually picked up the explosives got those in the van to confirm it was explosives, and actually explode it while you watch.

As the day wears on you're becoming less and less coherent.

A dog indicating that it suspects explosives are somewhere is enough justification to search for explosives. It is not enough justification to assume there are explosives.

seems like you're being childish here claiming i am 'belligerently' claiming that you don't understand difference between logic and proof (hence i linked to it just for you).
yeah you can't admit that you are wrong, so you huff and you puff, but the evidence still stands.

The evidence stands?

Your use of that word is more than a little rich because once again you've clearly demonstrated it's meaning eludes you.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Good you're beginning to grasp that.
Now will you kindly stop mixing up belief and evidence.

i think you are confused.
i understand.
you are the one who believes logic is evidence or something.

i've never confused belief with evidence, quote me.

and just when i thought you had learned something ...

Di0genes wrote: »

Your use of that word is more than a little rich because once again you've clearly demonstrated it's meaning eludes you.

you screw up with your barking is not evidence rant.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

As the day wears on you're becoming less and less coherent.

as the days go by, you get more and more easily confused and agitated when proven wrong, your story changes as though you are senile ...

okay i'll have to ask ... are you like 80 years old looking for an argument because you are lonely?

i only ask because i'm meant to be a child (though i've a better grasp at english than you)

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

i think you are confused.
i understand.
you are the one who believes logic is evidence or something.

No I don't the only one addled here is you.

i've never confused belief with evidence, quote me.

Simple, when you take a dog's suspicious as evidence, thats mixing up belief and evidence.

You've no proof the dog is right. So it's a belief.

and just when i thought you had learned something ...



you screw up with your barking is not evidence rant.

A sniffer dog barking is evidence that a dog is

A) Barking

that a dog suspects there are drugs or explosives there.

Evidence of nothing else.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Sigh......

i like videos, but i feel you can not actually follow that complex dialogue ...
so i have an easier one for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzu-xJu4qAg


Yawn......

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

A sniffer dog barking is evidence that a dog is

A) Barking

that a dog suspects there are drugs or explosives there.

Evidence of nothing else.

so it is evidence? right? you're not being sarcastic?

i said it was evidence, and now you are saying it is evidence?

so you were wrong in saying it was not evidence?


(addled? did you go out and buy a thesaurus just to get some synonyms?)

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Simple, when you take a dog's suspicious as evidence, thats mixing up belief and evidence.

You've no proof the dog is right. So it's a belief.

Simple, when you ignore a dog's suspicious as evidence, that's mixing up belief and evidence.

You've no proof the dog is wrong. So it's a belief.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

so it is evidence? right? you're not being sarcastic?

Here's what you said

me wrote:

Do you really think a dog barking is conclusive proof of anything? Don't the handlers have to investigate to find the explosives?

you wrote:

But it is EVIDENCE of explosives,

i said it was evidence, and now you are saying it is evidence?

so you were wrong in saying it was not evidence?

You said it was evidence of explosives. I've been patiently explaining to you that it isnt.

At which point you got confused. Claiming evidence isnt the same as proof.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

Simple, when you ignore a dog's suspicious as evidence, that's mixing up belief and evidence.

You've no proof the dog is wrong. So it's a belief.

No but as demonstrated with the economist report, these dogs can be wrong (and you agree with me).

I will then require further proof or evidence (both words meaning the same thing in this instance) of explosives than a dog's indication.

Therefore a sniffer dog barking isn't evidence of explosives......

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Here's what you said

you wrote:

But it is EVIDENCE of explosives,

i might have said that, but i might not, or it might have been out of context ...
so can you actually reference the post you claim i said that please?

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

i might have said that, but i might not, or it might have been out of context ...
so can you actually reference the post you claim i said that please?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74424592&postcount=114

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

No but as demonstrated with the economist report, these dogs can be wrong (and you agree with me).

no i don't, 100% i don't

i agree it is possible for false positive.

i agree that a test where 100% of 'dogs' raised false positives as there never was any actual target substance present (according to the the tester), is flawed.

i agree that the test, which is not peer reviewed, took place in a church which can not be confirmed to have had not presence of drugs or explosives.

you seem to think that since the dogs can be wrong ... the dogs are wrong.

you do know dna evidence used as proof can be wrong? this is a fact, i can prove it.
identical twins.
yet they have dna evidence in courts (you seem to think that i need to adhere to legal definitions while you don't)

see evidence is evident, while proof is is conclusive ...

if this is how you are going to argue, i'll be tearing apart every claim of evidence you had/have/will have ...

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

no i don't, 100% i don't

i agree it is possible for false positive.

No. You're contradicting yourself again.

Me Post 196 wrote:

Are you really trying to claim that sniffer dogs in the field will never give a false positive reaction to either drugs or explosives.

Yes or No answer please.

you post 197 in direct response wrote:

of course they do

You're either lying now, or mis remembering what you said.

i agree that a test where 100% of 'dogs' raised false positives as there never was any actual target substance present (according to the the tester), is flawed.

i agree that the test, which is not peer reviewed, took place in a church which can not be confirmed to have had not presence of drugs or explosives.

You also agreed dogs in the field can mistakes.

you seem to think that since the dogs can be wrong ... the dogs are wrong.

No and once again you just don't understand. Because dogs can be wrong, a dog indication cannot be a source of evidence, and we'll need evidence to support their suspicion.

you do know dna evidence used as proof can be wrong? this is a fact, i can prove it.
identical twins.
yet they have dna evidence in courts (you seem to think that i need to adhere to legal definitions while you don't)

Non sequitur. We're not discussing the reliability of DNA evidence, we're discussing whether or not a sniffer dog's reaction can be considered evidence.

see evidence is evident, while proof is is conclusive ...

Woa.....Woa woa.....didnt you just say a sentence or two ago?

you do know dna evidence used as proof can be wrong?

So which is it davoxxx can proof be wrong? Or is it always conclusive?

if this is how you are going to argue, i'll be tearing apart every claim of evidence you had/have/will have ...

You'd like to think you are, but you're not.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

<content removed>

i'm not sure if i'm allowed to reply to your post (i got a warning from a mod)
but i'll just say this

reliability of XXX evidence

vs

not evidence

if i get the go ahead from a mod, i'll reply in full to all the points you've raised in the above post.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

i'm not sure if i'm allowed to reply to your post (i got a warning from a mod)
but i'll just say this
vs

if i get the go ahead from a mod, i'll reply in full to all the points you've raised in the above post.

We got the same warning. Nothing about not posting.

Now please tell me how proof can be both conclusive and wrong....

davoxx

Are you really trying to claim that sniffer dogs in the field will never give a false positive reaction to either drugs or explosives.

Yes or No answer please.

this is not what i claimed. but i figured i'd answer "of course they do", this was sarcastic. i apologise that it confused you.

what i should have said was "No, i am not trying to claim that sniffer dogs will never ever give a false positive reaction to either drugs or explosives. this is irrelevant as just because they possibly can does not mean that they actually did. in fact there is no evidence that on the field sniffer dogs have ever given a false positive."

and then i should have followed up with

Are you really trying to claim that because sniffer dogs in the field can give a false positive reaction to either drugs or explosives, that all reactions are false.

Yes or No answer please.

but i think http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74424592&postcount=114 clearly shows the what i was arguing. that evidence is different to proof.

Di0genes wrote: »

No and once again you just don't understand. Because dogs can be wrong, a dog indication cannot be a source of evidence, and we'll need evidence to support their suspicion.

humans can be wrong as can dna tests, but funnily enough they are sources of evidence.

Di0genes wrote: »

Non sequitur. We're not discussing the reliability of DNA evidence, we're discussing whether or not a sniffer dog's reaction can be considered evidence.

you're right otherwise your argument would fall flat much faster.
dna is evidence (you've said this)
reliability of dna vs reliability of dogs


.
.
.


but maybe i should just simplify this.

do you believe evidence and proof are the same? yes or no answer please.

do you believe that an indication is evidence? yes or no answer please.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

So which is it davoxxx can proof be wrong? Or is it always conclusive?

that's not what i said.

here is what i said

davoxx wrote: »

you do know dna evidence used as proof can be wrong? this is a fact, i can prove it.
identical twins.
yet they have dna evidence in courts (you seem to think that i need to adhere to legal definitions while you don't)

i think i said evidence used as proof can be wrong.
not proof can be wrong.

and yes proof can be wrong in which case it no longer becomes proof.
ie once it is proven to be incorrect, it no longer can be claimed as proof.

but this is really trying to divert the whole argument from dogs indications as evidence.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

this is not what i claimed. but i figured i'd answer "of course they do", this was sarcastic. i apologise that it confused you.

And the lance armstrong award for back peddling goes to.

what i should have said was "No, i am not trying to claim that sniffer dogs will never ever give a false positive reaction to either drugs or explosives. this is irrelevant as just because they possibly can does not mean that they actually did.

But you have no evidence that it was positive.

in fact there is no evidence that on the field sniffer dogs have ever given a false positive."

DAVOXXX ARE YOU REALLY CLAIMING THAT SNIFFER DOGS IN THE FIELD HAVE NEVER EVER MADE A MISTAKE, YES OR NO. AND NO SARCASM PLEASE.

and then i should have followed up with

Ah, right you should have followed it when you wrote it? Or when I showed you were shooting yourself in the foot?

but i think http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74424592&postcount=114 clearly shows the what i was arguing. that evidence is different to proof.

You can argue black is white, doesn't mean it's true. Or that you have a leg to stand on.

Ah so when you completely agreed with me, you were actually disagreeing with me.

but maybe i should just simplify this.

do you believe evidence and proof are the same? yes or no answer please.

In this context yes.

do you believe that an indication is evidence? yes or no answer please.

Did you not bother reading post 226?

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

that's not what i said.

here is what i said


i think i said evidence used as proof can be wrong.
not proof can be wrong.

You're lying. Simple.

proof can be wrong

and yes proof can be wrong in which case it no longer becomes proof.

I'm sorry what? Proof can be both conclusive and wrong? Are you magically changing your own definition of words again?

ie once it is proven to be incorrect, it no longer can be claimed as proof.

but this is really trying to divert the whole argument from dogs indications as evidence.

Your entire presence on this thread for the past two days has been a diversion from this.

You claimed a sniffer dog barking/indicating is evidence of explosives. Prove it.