FBI Report on "Dancing Israelis" declassified.

Di0genes wrote: »

You asked for examples of sniffer dogs getting confused and giving false positives, I've clearly demonstrated that they do.

you sure did. in that test there was a reason for the false positive. (also there was no testing for actual drugs, it was designed to catch the dogs out, though it may have caught the handlers out since the handlers were expecting drugs while there never was any planted). the dogs were never confused.

but this test was flawed from the start .. sorry ... but its true.
the test assumed that the place had no drugs, they took place in a church which they somehow can claim 100% never had any drugs in it.

but true at end of the day, the dogs showed a response to the vans. this is evidence (although i accept that it is fair to argue it's strength). also, the fbi did conclude that urban moving was not operating a legitimate business. this strengthens the likelihood that the dogs' response was not a false positive.

davoxx wrote: »

you sure did. in that test there was a reason for the false positive. (also there was no testing for actual drugs, it was designed to catch the dogs out, though it may have caught the handlers out since the handlers were expecting drugs while there never was any planted). the dogs were never confused.

The dogs were confused, they barked at something.

but this test was flawed from the start .. sorry ... but its true.

No. You can claim it, it doesn't make it so.

the test assumed that the place had no drugs, they took place in a church which they somehow can claim 100% never had any drugs in it.

The dogs were both drugs and explosives sniffers....

Basic reading and comprehension eludes you.

but true at end of the day, the dogs showed a response to the vans. this is evidence (although i accept that it is fair to argue it's strength). also, the fbi did conclude that urban moving was not operating a legitimate business. this strengthens the likelihood that the dogs' response was not a false positive.

Conjecture and speculation.

You started claiming this

do you have any evidence to say that trained sniffer dogs get confused and raise false positives?

because you keep saying it like it is fact ... so i'd like to know why you think so.

And now are coming up with feeble justifications what the dogs reaction in this instance was not likely to be a false positive.

If the handlers could be so confident that their dogs barking would be a positive why didn't the handlers investigate the van.....

King Mob wrote: »

Page 36 of the report does not say that the FBI concluded anything. It was the opinion of one field agent who thought it might be a front. Even he didn't conclude anything.

(this is the first time you've actually read something, congratulations)

a field agent for where? the fbi perchance?
also, not a front but "not operating a legitimate business."

King Mob wrote: »

You have nothing to support the idea that the FBI concluded they are a front.

i think that clearly supports it.

seriously, you finally read the report and you came to the conclusion that there's nothing to support the idea that the FBI concluded they are a front?

and, moreover in the context where you wrote

And there you go claiming something that you can't show is true...

I had written

also, the fbi did conclude that urban moving was not operating a legitimate business ...

I said nothing about being a front in that post but you felt the need to mention it ...

At least Diogenes is bringing something relevant to this discussion, until you do the same, I'll try not replying to any more of your posts.

davoxx wrote: »

good avoidance of this. well played.
Obviously Basic reading and comprehension eludes you.

I read the report you clearly didn't. The dogs that failed were both bomb and drug sniffer dogs.

you are very good at dodging facts, making up pathetic excuses for why sniffer dogs are highly unreliable.

Firstly I never said these dogs were highly unreliable. I just said it was possible they gave a false positive please don't shove words into my mouth.

obviously you don't understand this.

see the church might have had drugs. the dogs might have alerted to it, the people who set up trying to trap the dogs (remember according to that 'test' 100% of the dogs showed false positives) and silly humans like you who do not understand proper testing, say the dogs were wrong.

do you know how placebos work? this test is an extension of it, except there was no control run here.

but that aside ...

Okay so now whose making up pathetic excuses?

The test was to see if the dogs would find and incorrectly indentify a package as either drugs or explosives. Which is what happened

You're now suggesting that "hey maybe there were drugs in the church at some point" and suggesting that the either test was flawed based on a complete inability of yours in understanding the parameters and reason for the test.

I particular like your ranting about a placebo, cargo cult arguing you don't understand why you are wrong but keep dropping in keywords to give the impression you know of what you speak.

Simply yes or no davoxxx do you still believe sniffer dogs are infallible?

you are assuming they were confused, or their handlers were.
you have no evidence for them being confused.
you can claim it if you want ... it doesn't make it so.

I gave a clear example that it's possible they could be confused and cited a test that showed that this can happen.

do you have proof that they were excited? no?
do you know if they barked, sat down or pointed?? no??

You really don't understand how this works.

You claim that on 9/11 the dogs reacting was clear proof that there were explosives in the van. Alternative theories are put forward, (with supporting evidence) that dogs can be confused or over excited and give a false positive.

You then continue to try and shift the burden of proof onto everyone else. With grasping that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim not on anyone else.

that's okay, your "basic reading and comprehension" proved that for you, by reading what was not there ...

Davoxx I'm beginning to hope that you find yourself accused of a serious crime in a courtroom that uses your own burden of proof. You're be screaming mistrial till you'e horse.

Does this little tangent have a point anymore btw?

You asked me to show a example of sniffer dogs being unreiliable and giving false positives. I demonstrated it.

Di0genes wrote: »

Davoxx I'm beginning to hope that you find yourself accused of a serious crime in a courtroom that uses your own burden of proof. You're be screaming mistrial till you'e horse.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74429338&postcount=133

yeah they would charge me with your logic alight ...

talking to children are easier ... they are fun and innocent not like you.

but sure keep going on about the one time you got some dodgy evidence (notice how non of the other experts in the field have commented)

but sure keep pushing ... and finding pathetic replies ...

thanks for http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=166

seems petty that you could not back your silly arguments on thread ...

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm sorry this is a completely incorrect and frankly daft conclusion.

nope. read your cited proof, 100% of dogs raise an alert, all alerts were false. ergo my conclusion is right based on your frankly daft citation that has not been properly peer reviewed.

Di0genes wrote: »

You asked for evidence of the possibility of false positives by sniffer dogs. You got it.

ok

Di0genes 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.

of course they do, but you seem to be claiming that they always do.

maybe you should stick that on http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=218142&page=5

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74472071&postcount=208

but this time quote me fully, and also stick up your handle on this forum so they know who i am arguing against ...

Di0genes wrote: »

Your conclusion is utterly irrelevant.

no it is not .. it is based on that 'report' you presented?
your conclusion from it is relevant, but mine is not?

Di0genes wrote: »

You asked for evidence of sniffer dogs giving false positives. You recieved it.

you seem proud that you finally provided evidence, lucky break so.

Di0genes wrote: »

You can stamp your foot and huff and puff all you want, complain all you want, but you cannot argue (well you can try) that when you asked for evidence of dogs giving false positives you most certainly got it.

you seem proud that you finally provided evidence, lucky break so.

Di0genes wrote: »

Lets not forget why were are here,

you are here because you got all childish and were not able to answe questions, dancing around and then posting that i had no idea about 4kg NIST claim without backing it up, and after repeatedly calling me a child.

i am here to disprove the nonsense that you spew.

Di0genes wrote: »

you claimed sniffer dogs reacting was proof of explosives. I've given ample evidence that sniffer dogs can make mistakes, so we cannot take the dogs reaction as proof.

no ... go back and read what i said.
i'll say it again because i know you'll misquote me.
dogs reacting is evidence, NOT proof.

please find PROOF on me saying that it was PROOF.

you've only given one flawed report that handlers make mistakes.

so we can take the dogs reaction as evidence,

Di0genes wrote: »

You asked for evidence of the possibility of false positives by sniffer dogs. You got it.

Di0genes wrote: »

Repeating yourself?

yes seems i have to with you.

Di0genes wrote: »

You asked for evidence of sniffer dogs giving false positives. You recieved it.

Di0genes wrote: »

Repeating yourself?

yes seems i have to with you.

davoxx wrote: »

please this AGAIN? and you ask why i repeat myself?

maybe you should post what you think proof is and what evidence is and why sniffer dogs giving an indication is not evidence of what the dogs were trained to sniff for?

In this instance both proof and evidence have the same meaning. This might tax you but in the english language two different words can be synonyms

A dog giving a indication, means the the dog suspects. It's not evidence of explosives as you claim.

Do again I ask, what is your definition of evidence and your definition of proof?

davoxx wrote: »

no they don't, and especially not in this instance.


good personal attack ... though here are facts

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

Again. Horse water. Evidence and proof mean the exact same thing here.

but because you seem to think that it taxes me that the english language has synonyms ...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74429055&postcount=130
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74429097&postcount=132
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74429338&postcount=133



you confuse logic with proof/evidence or you just can be honest and say that you don't have any.

Dragging up posts irrelevant to the discussion is your speciality.

I was using logic in one post, and wasn't in the others.

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

if you want i can re-quote these pieces in-case you don't understand what happened there.

I do, you don't.

a "sniffer" dog, whose special training is for the sole purpose of sniffing out explosives and other contraband, raised an alert.
if it is not evidence then what is it?

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.

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.

The same logic must be applied.

This seems completely beyond your ability to understand

Emiko wrote: »

If the highly trained police officer stopped some members of a well-known drug gang who had been acting suspiciously on the same day a massive drug deal had taken place in the locality, and that officer's dog gave indications there had possibly been drugs in the suspects van at some point, do you think, because of a lack of hard evidence, that that highly trained police officer would conclude that these suspects could not have been involved in the days events?

Or would he keep an open mind?

Which is great.

But suppose the officer took the gang member into custody, and presented him to a judge, and said all of the above, the next question would be

"Where is your evidence that this person had any drugs on their person or were involved in the above"?

And this once again this damning "evidence" is a sniffer dog, and I've clearly demonstrated these animals can give false positives.

And the answer would be "None".

Suspicion isn't evidence. A dog indicating isn't evidence.

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