Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

FBI Report on "Dancing Israelis" declassified.

1235

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    You seem to have your own special definition of evidence and proof.
    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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    A sniffer dog being capable of giving a false indication? Granted.

    A sniffer dog giving an indication of explosives in a van stopped containing suspected Mossad agents in New York on the 11th of September 2001??



    ding! ding! ding! ding! (the sound of alarm bells)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,488 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ed2hands wrote: »
    A sniffer dog being capable of giving a false indication? Granted.

    A sniffer dog giving an indication of explosives in a van stopped containing suspected Mossad agents in New York on the 11th of September 2001??


    ding! ding! ding! ding! (the sound of alarm bells)

    And was any explosive residue actually found?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    In this instance both proof and evidence have the same meaning.
    no they don't, and especially not in this instance.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    This might tax you but in the english language two different words can be synonyms
    good personal attack ... though here are facts

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
    ev·i·dence
       [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
    noun
    1.
    that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
    2.
    something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
    proof
       [proof] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
    2.
    anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
    3.
    the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
    4.
    the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

    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.

    if you want i can re-quote these pieces in-case you don't understand what happened there.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    A dog giving a indication, means the the dog suspects. It's not evidence of explosives as you claim.
    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?
    Di0genes wrote: »
    Do again I ask, what is your definition of evidence and your definition of proof?
    the same as any intelligent person (it's quoted above)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Again. Horse water.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=130
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=132
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=133

    yeah asked for evidence/proof, provided with logic.

    i see what i did wrong here, i should have asked for logic, then i would have gotten evidence/proof.


    (i am replying to just this section as it will be easier to reference next time you use logic for evidence)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 449 ✭✭Emiko


    Di0genes wrote: »



    The same logic must be applied.

    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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    davoxx wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=130
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=132
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=133

    yeah asked for evidence/proof, provided with logic.

    i see what i did wrong here, i should have asked for logic, then i would have gotten evidence/proof.


    (i am replying to just this section as it will be easier to reference next time you use logic for evidence)

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


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 449 ✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    You clearly seem more interesting in squabbling when you're caught in a corner.

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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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....


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Emiko wrote: »
    Hence the term 'Conspiracy Theories'.

    .

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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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 :D
    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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

    B) that a dog suspects there are drugs or explosives there.

    Evidence of nothing else.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    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......


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    A sniffer dog barking is evidence that a dog is

    A) Barking

    B) 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?)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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......


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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 ...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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.
    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

    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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....


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    DAVOXXX ARE YOU REALLY CLAIMING THAT SNIFFER DOGS IN THE FIELD HAVE NEVER EVER MADE A MISTAKE, YES OR NO. AND NO SARCASM PLEASE.
    no
    Di0genes wrote: »
    I will then require further proof or evidence (both words meaning the same thing in this instance) of explosives than a dog's indication.
    see proof is different to evidence.

    Di0genes wrote: »
    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.
    i'm saying evidence is not the same a proof.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    A sniffer dog barking is evidence that a dog is

    A) Barking

    B) that a dog suspects there are drugs or explosives there.

    Evidence of nothing else.

    see it is evidence.

    from your own mouth.

    Di0genes wrote: »
    Ah davoxxx didn't call it a theory, he called it evidence.....
    yes it is evidence that the dog raised an alert, not theory that the dog raised an alert.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    A dog indicating is not evidence.
    it's evidence that the dog indicated.

    now i have not said it is proof.

    here is the thing though:

    "Proof" is conclusive evidence. But all "evidence" is not
    necessarily conclusive.


    though at least you finally admit it is evidence.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    davoxx wrote: »
    no


    see proof is different to evidence.

    Claiming that doesn't mean it's true, and when you claim proof is two different things (both conclusive and possibly incorrect) in the same post, it's really not up to you to assign definitive means to words, when you can't do so in the same post.
    i'm saying evidence is not the same a proof.

    You can say that doesn't mean its true.

    And as you clearly demonstrated in a previous post you think proof can

    A) be conclusive

    B) be wrong.

    Frankly you've contradicted yourself so frequently here it's a wonder you've not had a headache from the cognitive dissoance.

    see it is evidence.
    from your own mouth.


    It's evidence a dog suspects there are explosives its not evidence of explosives as you claimed.
    yes it is evidence that the dog raised an alert, not theory that the dog raised an alert.


    it's evidence that the dog indicated.

    No you stated categorically that it was evidence of explosives. Now you're backtracking, again.
    now i have not said it is proof.

    here is the thing though:

    "Proof" is conclusive evidence. But all "evidence" is not
    necessarily conclusive.

    Really, and tell me, all proof is conclusive even when it's wrong? (your words not mine)
    though at least you finally admit it is evidence.

    You're either incredibly obtuse, or a troll.

    You claimed that the dog barking was evidence of explosives. I've been pointing out it's nothing of the sort.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    You're lying. Simple.
    yes i made up the fact that evidence and proof are different.
    and i paid the dictionary people to change the definitions.


    Di0genes wrote: »
    I'm sorry what? Proof can be both conclusive and wrong? Are you magically changing your own definition of words again?
    yeah ..
    people claim it as proof (like in maths) and then it is subseqnetly proven or found out to be false, hence it is not longer proof.

    unless you think that this never happens ...

    Di0genes wrote: »
    Your entire presence on this thread for the past two days has been a diversion from this.
    no, i've just been pointing out the facts.
    you've been on your rant that ct is all made up.

    Di0genes wrote: »
    You claimed a sniffer dog barking/indicating is evidence of explosives. Prove it.
    you claimed that there was no explosives in the van, PROVE IT


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    <stuff>
    you've said it was not evidence, now you say it was not evidence of explosives .. changing your story much?

    you know what else is evidence dna tests? (hard evidence .. i'm nearly sure you said though you say a lot of crap it's hard to follow)
    you know dna tests can be wrong.
    so by your own logic you claim that dna tests are not evidence.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Sniffer dogs react to chemicals. They're a moving firm, theres no telling what was in the van, that the dog was reacting to.

    the fbi said they were not a legitimate moving firm.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    Heaven forfend brown bomber that you'd actually put up for once and tell us what you really think happened. Heaven forfend that you'd actually nail your colours to the mast and tell us what theory you subscribe to.

    seems like a troll to me, trying to get someone to state their position so that you can make up reasons to debunk it.


    what theory do you subscribe to?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    davoxx wrote: »
    you've said it was not evidence, now you say it was not evidence of explosives .. changing your story much?

    A dog barking or indicating is evidence of something. Evidence that the dog is hungry, or frightening, or in a trained sniffer dog, evidence that the dog thinks theres explosives.

    It's not evidence of explosives.
    you know what else is evidence dna tests? (hard evidence .. i'm nearly sure you said though you say a lot of crap it's hard to follow)
    you know dna tests can be wrong.
    so by your own logic you claim that dna tests are not evidence.

    No, again that your shoveling works into my mouth.

    Lets go back to you proof that is both conclusive and wrong in the same sentence.
    N


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    davoxx wrote: »
    the fbi said they were not a legitimate moving firm.

    A FBI agent said that he suspected that. Again not proof.
    seems like a troll to me, trying to get someone to state their position so that you can make up reasons to debunk it.

    Since we've established that you don't know the meaning of the words evidence and proof, it's probably best you keep on with these tangents.
    what theory do you subscribe to?

    I started a thread about it last year.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    A dog barking or indicating is evidence of something. Evidence that the dog is hungry, or frightening, or in a trained sniffer dog, evidence that the dog thinks theres explosives.

    It's not evidence of explosives.
    evidence


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    I started a thread about it last year.

    so what don't you post it here ...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    davoxx wrote: »
    evidence

    And as mentioned, thats not evidence of explosives (as you claim) merely evidence of a dog's suspicion. And has we have seen and agree these dogs can make mistakes.

    Now please go on tell us more about conclusive proof and wrong proof.

    If you think a dog barking or indicating is evidence, I sincerely hope you stand accused of a serious crime in a court that holds the same standard of evidence as you use.
    so what don't you post it here ..

    There's a search function.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement