The Doghouse: ADE 651

A divining rod to find explosives in Iraq:

ATSC’s promotional material claims that its device can find guns, ammunition, drugs, truffles, human bodies and even contraband ivory at distances up to a kilometer, underground, through walls, underwater or even from airplanes three miles high. The device works on “electrostatic magnetic ion attraction,” ATSC says.

To detect materials, the operator puts an array of plastic-coated cardboard cards with bar codes into a holder connected to the wand by a cable. “It would be laughable,” Colonel Bidlack said, “except someone down the street from you is counting on this to keep bombs off the streets.”

Proponents of the wand often argue that errors stem from the human operator, who they say must be rested, with a steady pulse and body temperature, before using the device.

Then the operator must walk in place a few moments to “charge” the device, since it has no battery or other power source, and walk with the wand at right angles to the body. If there are explosives or drugs to the operator’s left, the wand is supposed to swivel to the operator’s left and point at them.

If, as often happens, no explosives or weapons are found, the police may blame a false positive on other things found in the car, like perfume, air fresheners or gold fillings in the driver’s teeth.

Complete quackery, sold by Cumberland Industries:

Still, the Iraqi government has purchased more than 1,500 of the devices, known as the ADE 651, at costs from $16,500 to $60,000 each. Nearly every police checkpoint, and many Iraqi military checkpoints, have one of the devices, which are now normally used in place of physical inspections of vehicles.

James Randi says:

This Foundation will give you our million-dollar prize upon the successful testing of the ADE651® device. Such test can be performed by anyone, anywhere, under your conditions, by you or by any appointed person or persons, in direct satisfaction of any or all of the provisions laid out above by you.

No one will respond to this, because the ADE651® is a useless, quack, device which cannot perform any other function than separating naïve persons from their money. It’s a fake, a scam, a swindle, and a blatant fraud. The manufacturers, distributors, vendors, advertisers, and retailers of the ADE651® device are criminals, liars, and thieves who will ignore this challenge because they know the device, the theory, the described principles of operation, and the technical descriptions given, are nonsense, lies, and fraudulent.

And he quotes from the Cumberland Industries literature (not online, unfortunately):

Ignores All Known Concealment Methods. By programming the detection cards to specifically target a particular substance, (through the proprietary process of electro-static matching of the ionic charge and structure of the substance), the ADE651® will “by-pass” all known attempts to conceal the target substance. It has been shown to penetrate Lead, other metals, concrete, and other matter (including hiding in the body) used in attempts to block the attraction.

No Consumables nor Maintenance Contracts Required. Unlike Trace Detectors that require the supply of sample traps, the ADE651® does not utilize any consumables (exceptions include: cotton-gloves and cleanser) thereby reducing the operational costs of the equipment. The equipment is Operator maintained and requires no ongoing maintenance service contracts. It comes with a hardware three year warranty. Since the equipment is powered electro statically, there are no batteries or conventional power supplies to change or maintain.

One interesting point is that the effectiveness of this device depends strongly on what the bad guys think about its effectiveness. If the bad guys think it works, they have to find someone who is 1) willing to kill himself, and 2) rational enough to keep his cool while being tested by one of these things. I'll bet that the ADE651 makes it harder to recruit suicide bombers.

But what happened to the days when you could buy a divining rod for $100?

EDITED TO ADD (11/11): In case the company pulls the spec sheet, it's archived here.

Posted on November 6, 2009 at 6:55 AM

Comments

JoshuaNovember 6, 2009 7:26 AM

Seems like when people go looking for cheap and effective, they often forget the effective part. No doubt this device is much cheaper than maintaining a sufficient number of sniffing dogs. But there's the pesky little fact that sniffing dogs actually find bombs, while these can't except by pure luck.

Mike WNovember 6, 2009 7:30 AM

According to this (http://www.prosec.com/docs/ADE651.pdf) it works up to 5000 meters on aircraft, and can detect everything from THC to people. lol what a joke

RrNovember 6, 2009 7:43 AM

It's all fun and games until someone loses a life ... plenty of blogs about this type of device, and this wonderful video of what I guess the manufacturers would call 'operator error' (warning, pretty graphic):

http://video.mthai.com/player.php?...

What a joke (except that it's not a funny joke) indeed *sigh*

ArnoNovember 6, 2009 7:52 AM

I wonder why these people do not go to prison for an extended time and have their ill-gotten gains conficscated and returned to the victims...

sooth sayerNovember 6, 2009 7:57 AM

2 Weeks ago on an International TV Channel I heard a Pakistani expert claiming that technology to detect a bomber (in a car) 300-400 meters away was cheaply available. He quoted a price of $15K - He also said that their government was buying it and was only concerned that they didn't have enough trained operators!

Now I know what he was basing his expertise one!

Your tax $'s at work -- BHO just signed a $7.5B Bill for Pakistan.

Romeo VitelliNovember 6, 2009 8:07 AM

"What happened to the days when you can buy a divining rod for $100?"

Buy? The old-style diviners used to whittle the rods from wood that they took from the trees themselves. The idea that the wood was freshly-cut was supposed to have been part of what made dowsing work.

AlanSNovember 6, 2009 8:11 AM

@Bruce

"What happened to the days when you can buy a divining rod for $100?"

You can make them yourself. My dad used to use two "L" shaped wire rods made from fencing wire when he was digging out drains. He was a complete skeptic when it came to religion and all sorts of quackery (which the ADE 651 clearly is). What I remember as a child watching him is that it seemed to work although I now read that experiments haven't shown much evidence for it. Anyway, I don't remember him digging out many holes and not finding a drain. Who knows how or why. Most of the people we knew who dowsed were farmers and others whose families had lived on the land for generations (this was in the UK). They were a very pragmatic lot. I guess the question is whether the rods were detecting water or just reflecting their own acute sense of judgment in such matters and local knowledge of where the drains would be located.

Another KevinNovember 6, 2009 8:13 AM

This device might not be effective at detecting explosives, but I cynically suspect that it's a Fourth Amendment defeating device. Have the divining rod alert the cop on the scene, and presto, he has probable cause to conduct an exigent search. It's like a bomb-and-drug-sniffing dog delivering a false alert, only without the dog. Any bets that the US judiciary is scientifically illiterate enough (or biased enough in favour of cops, however corrupt) to go for it?

MailmanNovember 6, 2009 8:22 AM

This scam reminds me of the "sniffing planes" political scandal that happened in France in the early 1980s.
Some people claimed that had invented a device that you could put inside a plane to detect oil fields just by flying over them.
At the time, a French satirical newspaper coined the term "avions renifleurs" (sniffing planes) and it stuck.

TFBWNovember 6, 2009 8:26 AM

"What happened to the days when you can buy a divining rod for $100?"

Bear in mind that these are _military grade_ divining rods which detect _any substance_. You pay a premium for that.

Clive RobinsonNovember 6, 2009 8:30 AM

@ AlanS,

"I guess the question is whether the rods were detecting water or just reflecting their own acute sense of judgment in such matters and local knowledge of where the drains would be located."

It's the latter.

You could regard them as being "gut feeling" magnifiers.

The way you are supposed to use them makes them fairly sensitive to small shoulder muscle movments.

The thing about "looking across the tips" is a way to make your brain's sub concious free ascociate on the info coming in from your eyes, whilst occupying the concious mind with an unrelated task.

So the devices would possibly work as a "sensing hinky" amplifier as well.

But they cannot actually detect a thing, they only alow you to get at your subconcious thinking.

shadowfirebirdNovember 6, 2009 8:53 AM

You would think that the "international community" (whatever that is) would demand that each country vet their security companies for just such a scam and punish the wrongdoers -- given that security products are usually life-threatening if they go wrong, and "caveat emptor" vary rarely helps the victim in these cases.

It seems to me that there is no downside to this, nothing that a given country would have to lose.

So much for sanity.

db CooperNovember 6, 2009 8:57 AM

Why would the company take up James Randi on his offer of a $1M prize? The reporting says they have already made over $85M in sales.

First I miss out on inventing pet rocks, now this.

spaceman spiffNovember 6, 2009 9:02 AM

I think someone is laughing all the way to the bank. With luck, they'll get blown up by a suicide bomber because of their perfidy...

VincentNovember 6, 2009 9:06 AM

This reflects a cultural aversion to dogs as much as anything. It's just as expensive and not remotely as effective, but at least you can find people willing to use the thing and actually sit to be searched.

I've been putting a bunch of money into drug sniffing snake research... sooner or later that big oil state Iraqi defense contract is going to come my way.

nickNovember 6, 2009 9:17 AM

@alanS: "I guess the question is whether the rods were detecting water or just reflecting their own acute sense of judgment in such matters and local knowledge of where the drains would be located."

Actually, that's not the question. There isn't really a question there at all. The obvious fact is that divining rods really work thanks to having 48% more magic than regular rods.

PS: Your dad was deluded.

yet_another_cowardNovember 6, 2009 9:19 AM

> It comes with a hardware three year warranty.

So... how do you tell if it requires maintenance or replacement under the warranty?

Grande MochaNovember 6, 2009 9:37 AM

I grew up on a small family farm. I remember being amazed when I watched my grandfather use a dowsing rod to locate a site for a new well. They drilled and found water just like he had predicted. When I got older, and learned about aquifers, I realized that they could have drilled anywhere in the vicinity and found water.

Maybe when you live in a war ravaged country, you can search any random person and have good odds of finding some sort of contraband...

nickNovember 6, 2009 9:48 AM

Remember not to be overly hard on the Iraqi government without also saving some criticism for the West. Some US police forces use lie detectors of various varieties, which are just divining rods at worst, or anxiety tests at best. The French even use handwriting analysts to screen job applicants. How insane is that?

Ed HurstNovember 6, 2009 10:45 AM

Please don't confuse all this hokum with the detection of very real magnetic fields generated by buried pipes and cables made from various metals. Depending on the type of detection you use, they can be sensed at surprising depths using fairly inexpensive equipment.

Dom De VittoNovember 6, 2009 10:47 AM

Bruce,

Next thing you'll be telling me that my ADE650 (which is fantastic and keeps crocodiles from approaching up to a mile from my house) doesn't work either !!!

Dom De Vitto
#5 Dune way,
Central Sahara

kog999November 6, 2009 11:07 AM

this reminds me of a simpsons quote

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm! Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Why thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Hmm... Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Emiliano ZapataNovember 6, 2009 11:13 AM

Hi, the army in Mexico has some of this kind of devices, in some towns in the southern part of Mexico this has detectec ammunitions and weapons, the person walks in the street with the device, and this thing alerts when there is a house or place with traces of explosive substances.

Some times it can detect non-hazardous materials, as this has erroneous detected explosives in a dairy products transport truck that was confiscated by error.

Leo TohillNovember 6, 2009 11:23 AM

We'll probably find that the company is owned by the people who are placing the orders, billing their government. How else could you sell a $16,000 divining rod?

A Nony MouseNovember 6, 2009 11:53 AM

I think Another Kevin has hit the nail on the head. The device is a "scientific" excuse to conduct searchs where they wouldn't otherwise have cause.

Magnus RedinNovember 6, 2009 12:06 PM

Why do people living in a country that believe in lie detectors laugh about an electrostatic divining rod?

BF SkinnerNovember 6, 2009 12:06 PM

Of course this is the kind of thing that govt can controll (where they ARE our tax dollars) by putting a clause stating no monies will be used to buy the ADE...of course as soon as you do this the free market freebooters begin beating their chests about unfair constraints.

The market only delivers what the people want right? People WANT shoddy merchandise sold by unethical firms.

TimHNovember 6, 2009 12:08 PM

Another thought: If an LEO used this to work around warrantless search to fake probable cause, the LEO had better be prepared to plant the evidence too. If speed detectors can be challenged for accuracy, the PC detector can be challenged too. Love to see it proved working in court!

Lars VargasNovember 6, 2009 12:10 PM

One has to wonder how they managed to design 650 BAD iterations of this wodnerful product.

At least the 651 is good for one thing. Reading about it caused my bullsh!t detector to go off. Which begs the question, if you're searching for bullsh!t, will the ADE 651 find itself?

Kevin G. AustinNovember 6, 2009 12:18 PM

I don't know what your problem with this is. It almost certainly uses the same technology that the Acme Homing Missile does. It probably even has a large dial on it with settings like "rabbit" and "roadrunner".

EdT.November 6, 2009 1:06 PM

I wonder if they have been selling a similar device to LE agencies in Louisiana and east Texas for use in locating "drug money" in the cars of African-Americans.

~EdT.

D0RNovember 6, 2009 1:24 PM

"Proponents of the wand often argue that errors stem from the human operator, who they say must be rested, with a steady pulse and body temperature, before using the device."

That's exactly what people with self-proclaimed ESP powers say when they fail. They say they failed due to "wrong mind waves" from skeptic observers, or whatever.

ShaneNovember 6, 2009 1:43 PM

Well, I know *my* ESP works much better when everyone in the vicinity already believes it does...

*explodes*

bobNovember 6, 2009 2:25 PM

Reminds me of the WOM (Write Only Memory) we had waaaaay back. Huge quantity of storage, it could store >1GB back when 4kB was alot. Of course, it was just a block of wood with 2 wires attached, and since it was WRITE only there was no way read anything back to prove it was or was not storing anything...

ArnoNovember 6, 2009 3:36 PM

@db Cooper: Very nice! I especially like to all-too-realistic plot on "ramaining pins vs. number of insertions".

DavidNovember 6, 2009 4:01 PM

@TimH: I'm not a lawyer, but there's a difference between evidence sufficient to convict and evidence sufficient to conduct a search. Under some circumstances, a LEO can conduct a search given reasonable suspicion and articulable cause. "My drug detector went off" is an articulate statement, and grounds for suspicion. The fact that it's functionally equivalent to a used paper towel may or may not be relevant.

This is in contrast to the speed detector, which provides direct evidence of an illegal act, and which will be used in court. The results of the detector placebo won't be brought up by the prosecution. Its reliability would be brought up by the defense, arguing that the search was illegal, so any evidence gained from it is "fruit of the poisoned tree".

So, the question is whether a LEO is justified in searching based on entirely unreliable evidence. There may be laws or precedents dealing with this anyway, but as I said I'm not a lawyer and I don't know.

Anonymous cowardNovember 6, 2009 4:09 PM

I'd love to see the owner of the company manufacturing that product personally clean out a minefield.

Clive RobinsonNovember 6, 2009 4:52 PM

@ nick,

"The obvious fact is that divining rods really work thanks to having 48% more magic than regular rods."

It has been shown that some farmers can tell were things are buried several feet or more under their fields just by looking at the way the crops grow above them.

When the same fields are looked at using photos taken from an aircraft it is usually apparent to most peoples eyes.

Put simply the crop grows differently to that in other areas, and although the difference is not that noticable at ground level to an inexperianced eye a more experianced eye will spot the difference.

Likewise leaking pipes and broken drains can be spotted simply by the difference in a crop, as can sub surface natural drainage.

Some metal ores can be found by simple chemical analysis of plants that grow above depositis and in the case of some metals this produces differences in the foliage that can be detected.

Some native people can just look at what appears to be arid land and spot small differences that tell them where there are pockets of water often upto 6 feet under the surface.

There is no magic involved just a life time of experiance.

Mauro SNovember 6, 2009 5:38 PM

Let me make a correction to the text above. This is not “a useless, quack, device which cannot perform any other function than separating naïve persons from their money”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The device was carefully crafted so as to separate one’s *government* from its money, with benefit not only for the seller but to the not so naïve person doing the buying as well. As such, it’s not all that different the useless puffers that TSA bought (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7649241) or even the financial “rescues” of recent times.

Of course, Iraq is a war torn country and now the scams there are not as subtle and sophisticated as the ones in more advanced countries. Asking the Iraq people to come up with sophisticated cons at this time in history is really not fair.

Preston L. BannisterNovember 6, 2009 7:51 PM

My son (an MP in the Marines) was part of a public-service operation on Halloween, using a wand to screen for metal in bags of candy. Not a bad idea (putting aside whether this is systematically effective), except for the constant false positives.

Seems there is a surprising amount of metal in the air.

jackNovember 6, 2009 11:23 PM

Money aside, I'm sure the makers of the device are rolling on the floor laughing when they think of the users "walking in place" to charge the device. It's just too precious. It's actually better than watching Bill Murray in "Stripes".

Shachar ShemeshNovember 7, 2009 12:47 AM

I object to comparing this to lie detectors.

Don't get me wrong. Lie detectors are a useless piece of crap as far as detecting spies/thieves etc. Their false positive rate, in combination with the low density of actual thieves and spies, means that even at the 90% accuracy that the Polygraph association claims the devices are all but useless. Worse, 90% is a huge over-statement of the actual device's accuracy.

BUT

It does measure something. Even at 51% accuracy, one can think of some (hypothetical, useless) cases where it would come in useful (for some definition of "useful"). The polygraph's accuracy is, probably, much higher than that (at a guess, I'll put it at 60%-65%). The ADE 651 is totally useless, with no better than chance accuracy.

Don't confuse polygraph (bad science coupled with marketing) with the ADE 651 (simple fraud).

Shachar

PackagedBlueNovember 7, 2009 5:32 AM

A rod that cuts through the USA-Iraq governments red tape, and saves lives by solving people process problems?

Paying off the right people for access to info and help is the system, it just often is masked by flaky stuff.

Maybe not a bad payoff device.

vanillaNovember 7, 2009 7:37 AM

There are so many possibilities here.

1. Practical application of Thieves' Belief System Tenet #2: "If you were stupid enough to believe me, you deserve what you got."

2. If the buyer is truly naive, see #1.

3. If the buyer is in on it: a) quid pro quo; b) money laundering; c) gaming strategy.

If 3(c), be on the look out for the owner of the problem to ride in with the solution.

Every human is infected with some level / form of moral corruption but cheats and thieves make me sick.

Book 'em, Danno ...

NobodySpecalNovember 8, 2009 3:02 PM

It's a great British Traditional industry.
In the UK you have to pay a tax ($200/year) for your TV to pay for the BBC.

For many years they had detector vans - black vans with scary looking antennae that could detect your unlicensed TV. Everybody who knew anything about RF knew that these contained an intern to rotate the antennae and his sandwiches, but people were convinced and paid for their license.

Clive RobinsonNovember 8, 2009 7:10 PM

@ NobodySpecal,

"In the UK you have to pay a tax ($200/year) for your TV to pay for the BBC."

Err it might be nearer $150 now whereas it was nearer $300 last year. Such is the down turn in the value of the GB pound (£).

Oh and with regards too,

"Everybody who knew anything about RF knew that these contained an intern to rotate the antennae and his sandwiches"

Originaly the detector vans (actualy run by the Post Office on behalf of the Post Master General) could and did detect televisions.

Those large black antennas where actually used to detect radiation from the LOPT driver valve. The same valve used to be used by amature radio operators to get between 50-150 watts in the HF bands befor the KT66 (audio amp) or 807 (driver for 813) valves became more widely available.

As the interferance problems caused by early valve TV'S became unacceptable due to more use of broadcast radio the manufactures took a little more care to stop the LF signal being radiated from the VHF (Band I & III 405 line BW in those days) antenna coax outer.

The Post Office then had to redesign their kit and started to pick up the local oscilator signal from the VHF/UHF tunner as the country moved over to 625 line PAL Colour.

Or a multiple of the TV IF signal which could easily be picked up at the bottom end of Band II (88-108MHz). In the 1970's I used to do just that myself with a portable VHF radio to find out what the neighbours where watching.

Again interferance problems forced the TV set manufactures to clean up their act which co-incided with the first transistor UHF tunners, which did not need high level local oscilators to drive the mixer and also used a higher IF frequency so further reducing the LO radiation.

After the detection of licence fee avoiders effectivly became "privatised" (one of the "Milk Snatchers" ideas in the 1980's) it was discovered that a small portable battery television and an ear to the house letter box worked better than the "detector vans" ever had at catching people.

Today the process is to send out "scary letters" to people without licences as sending "expensive" minimum wage manpower around to addressess without licences is just not cost effective.

However they are sent to addressess where the licence has stopped being paid. Or that are known to have bought Tv's from ordinary retailers or repairers (they had a legal duty to inform the post office of all sales of TVs, but only had to pay 5 GBP for a five year "retail licence" ;).

Apparently the best way to deal with these minimum wage "snoopers" if they knocked on your door and you made the mistake of answering was to have "religious mania" and scream such things as "Television is the work of the Devil" and "All worshipers of Satan should be burned at the stake" and "The demon preists working for Satan should be eviserated" whilst waving your arms around and with a wild eyed look was guarented to get the off the property fairly sharpish, and filling their paper work in as "no receiver on premises".

I've been told by somebody who worked for the licence fee agency that most people who get caught deliberatly not paying it are usually quite stupid (ie have the TV visable from the front of the property, have it on so loud it can be heard at the front door, and answer the door to compleate strangers...).

JayNovember 8, 2009 7:54 PM

@NobodySpecal:

You never heard of radar detectors, or IF leakage? Or TEMPEST, even - detecting the TV scan frequency would be enough; you wouldn't have to prove they were watching broadcast TV before making nasty accusations...

NobodySpecialNovember 8, 2009 8:09 PM

Yes in theory you could detect RF leakage from a heterodyne tuner in an old TV - although good luck picking up a digital-tv card inside a laptop with an LCD from a street away.

The point is that the detector vans have been fake for at least 20years (pretty much since the GPO/BT split) the bomb detector is just continuing this technology.

AlanSNovember 9, 2009 8:48 AM

@Clive Robinson

"There is no magic involved just a life time of experience."

Agreed. But local knowledge and experience of this sort are often dismissed. It reminds me of a wonderful essay by Brian Wynne on government scientists and sheep farmers at odds over the source of nuclear fallout in Cumberland, England (see first chapter in "Misunderstanding science?: the public reconstruction of science and technology" Cambridge UP, 1996.).

Which brings us back to $16K security gizmos. Even if such gizmos do what their makers claim, so what? They are selling you a mindless substitute for experience and the ability to make good judgments and there is no substitute.


False DataNovember 9, 2009 11:38 AM

"But what happened to the days when you could buy a divining rod for $100?" Best guess is they fell victim to the heuristic that estimates the quality of the acquisition by what the acquirer sacrificed to obtain it.

tOM TrottierNovember 11, 2009 5:01 PM

re:You can make them yourself. My dad used to use two "L" shaped wire rods made from fencing wire when he was digging out drains. He was a complete skeptic when it came to religion and all sorts of quackery (which the ADE 651 clearly is). What I remember as a child watching him is that it seemed to work although I now read that experiments haven't shown much evidence for it. Anyway, I don't remember him digging out many holes and not finding a drain. Who knows how or why. Most of the people we knew who dowsed were farmers and others whose families had lived on the land for generations (this was in the UK). They were a very pragmatic lot. I guess the question is whether the rods were detecting water or just reflecting their own acute sense of judgment in such matters and local knowledge of where the drains would be located. -Posted by: AlanS at November 6, 2009 8:11 AM

Astounding Science Fact and Fiction magazine (now Analog) published an article in the 50s about this, and did some tests. I used it as the basis for a highschool science project, using two coathangar wires bent in an L held loosely in two thin hard plastic tubes. The article indicated they were useful in detecting wires and pipes, with a certain degree of skepticism. You held them in front of you and the wires would line up, both pointing outwards, when walking over pipes or wires.

While I did not confirm underlying pipes or wires, they did seem to line up consistently at the same places when I walked with them, indoors or out.

I did not win a prize.

tOM

jasmineNovember 15, 2009 10:43 AM

The following document has been written in an attempt to avert a number of controversial papers and unwarranted advice over ‘warnings not to buy “Bogus” detection equipment.’

Although I would agree that in principal, advice of this nature should be given, I do disagree by which the methods used to discourage potential users in the effectiveness of ‘alternative’ methods of detection.
As early as 1993, an instrument appeared on the market making claims that it could detect, from a ‘Long-Range’, narcotic or explosive material using a method of detection known at that time as: ‘Molecular Location’. The company (Quadro) that was then based in South Carolina was indicted by a US Federal court and banned them from being able to sell their equipment. Further claims were made that the company had sold approximately 1,000 units before being served with an injunction in late 1996. One of the reasons too that the injunction was made was because: "The court finds that defendants do not know of any scientific principles which could make the devices operate." In other words, they too were baffled as to how it worked!
In a statement released it was said that; ‘They were assisted by an assistant U.S. Attorney from Houston, who bought into the scheme and paid $13,600 for the distribution rights in Four US States; then, he used his office to promote the device. He’s the only one to have gotten nailed for the scam so far (he resigned and paid a $5,000 fine); although the company was shut down by the court injunction in 1996, the three remaining Quadro employees charged with mail fraud were later acquitted by a jury in early 1997.’ The prosecutor in that case, baffled to be on the losing side, tried to explain: “We felt that we proved that this was a worthless device, but in fraud, you have to prove intent, and perhaps they did not see a clear intent to defraud.”
The fact was that, they were not prosecuted because it didn’t work, but that their claim as to HOW it worked was false. They claimed that the unit had an “electronic Chip” that enabled them to detect substances; but this was simply not true.
A short time later, in the UK, another company appeared on the Market promoting a device, very similar in design to the Quadro Tracker called, the “MOLE Programmable System”. However, unlike the claims made by the company producing the Quadro Tracker, the “Mole” (as it became commonly known), claimed to use a slightly different detection method, this time called: ‘Molecular Resonance’. However, in 2002, the Mole underwent a ‘Double-Blind Test’ conducted by a very reputable US Testing company called Sandia Laboratories, and found that under the conditions set by Sandia Labs, the Mole performed: “No better than random chance”. Although Sandia published a report of their findings, no further action was taken by them and it was left for potential users of such systems to ‘conclude their own findings’ and thoughts.
The impact that this report made on the Company promoting the Mole (Global Technical Ltd; based in Kent, UK) was such that, in the latter part of 2002, the company changed its product name and modified ‘slightly, its equipment hardware. It now refers to its ‘operational’ method as ‘dia / para magnetism’ and sells the unit under the new name: ‘GT200’. Although the company states that it the equipment is different……it’s method of operation is the same and their ‘sensor-cards’ supplied with the equipment are identical to the ones previously supplied under the Mole name.


Parallel to the events of 1997 & 2002, ATSC resurrected testing of its own device, launched under the name of Advanced Detection Equipment, (ADE650 and ADE651) and had its own theory of detection method known as Electro-Static (Ionic) Attraction. They had already done some research and development on the subject many years prior and had waited until they were certain that the launch of their new product would live up to the challenges (and controversy) it had to face.
In 2003 ~ 2004, two further companies appeared on the market with equipment called the “Sniffex” and the “Alpha 6” with each company making claim to its working technology as something different then that of the MOLE, GT200 & ADE.
The Alpha 6 claimed that its working principal was ‘Magnetic Molecular Resonance’, (similar to the Quatro Tracker and early days of the Mole), whilst the Sniffex claimed the technology for their instrument detects the “interfering frequency” via a frequency generator module, or as they put on their brochure; a “Bio Magnetic N02 Ion Sensor.”
So, do they really work?
The theories given above are all ‘technically’ possible and there is still a lot of conjecture as to how (or even if) they do work at all.
In a recent conversation I had with a Law Official, (if he is reading this he will know who he is), I was told something interesting; that was; “The Proof is in the Pudding”. In other words, seeing is believing and unless you are one of those people who believe in the Paranormal, Black-Magic or Extra-Terrestrial influences, then take a moment to look at the possible scientific explanations……..
In all of the above products mentioned, one common theme is present, that is that human intervention is necessary in order to use the equipment. With one exception, all of the above instruments makes claim that the ‘Power-Source’ of the instrument is made through the input of Static Electricity. In all cases, the units mentioned use an antenna as their ‘pointing’ method for the detection of, the presence of, the material being searched but, in each case, the detection method stated, is different. It is this that independent testing companies, like Sania Labs, have had a difficulty in understanding the concept and, why is it that no one has been willing to come forth and prove, ‘inequitably’ that, this type of detection method, really works! (But could Sandia actually know more about this than they are willing to share with us?)
Well Sandia, you may have a valid point but, let me try to explain, (in my limited experience), some truths on the subject:-
1. We all know that Static Electricity exists…..yes? OK, but what we generally fail to notice is that, each and EVERY one of us produces static electricity, all of the time. Not just during the winter months….but all of the time! On average, each of us produces approximately 2000 ~ 3000+ volts…….there is no (or very little) amperage, but pure volts. However, depending on our state of mind, our anxiety, our levels of testosterone, our wellbeing, etc; the amount of voltage we can produce can raise and in some instances, exceed over 20,000 or 30,000 volts! Now, although this sounds unbelievable, there are equipments on the market (Static Meters) that can effectively read the amount of volts a person can produce and by measuring oneself, you can easily train yourself to reduce the amount of volts you produce…..this is no ‘hidden karma’, it is a fact that if you are calm, you are likely to produce less voltage than if you are anxious. The reason for me to explain this will become more apparent later on but the important part to remember now is, the Static Voltage pays a very important part in this concept……….
2. Try the following experiment……many of you would have done this in Primary or Secondary school and it involves a simple method to show “Static” at work. Take a balloon and blow it up. Now, rub the balloon (quite rapidly) on either a nylon glove or other material, (like your shirt, trousers, etc), for about 5 seconds and place the balloon immediately onto a flat wall or white-board. Remove your hand and see what happens? If you’ve done this correctly, it will ‘stick’ to the wall (or board) as if stuck by glue….but what in fact has happened is that Static Electricity has played its part and effectively created a ‘mini-magnet’ attracting the balloon to the other surface. What is commonly referred to as ‘electrostatic magnetism’.
Now this is hardly ‘rocket-science’ but it is an import part of the principal behind which the equipments, (sometime referred to as Dowsers) do function. This “Static – Attraction” is why our method of detection is so called.
3. One very concerning element about these equipments is that, from some sources, claims are being made that these ‘companies’ are attempting to defraud ‘end-users’ and that the cost of such instruments is cause for concern and therefore should be avoided. However, the cost of the equipments are relatively low in real-terms…..it is the Research & Development as well as the Marketing costs that have driven these equipments to the values being asked. Although testing companies play an important role in making ‘users’ aware of the varying differences and effectiveness of such instruments, their negative publicity have only placed additional doubt in the minds of potential users, so much so that, in the majority of situations, demonstrations of the equipment have had to be carried out not once, but sometimes two, three, four or more times before getting to a stage whereby the potential client then wants to have a unit “on-Trail”. This can add anything up to couple or few months prior to making their final conclusions and all this ‘testing awareness’ effectively pushes up the prices even further. This then increases the cost for research and further development and with the then lack of funds being allocated from potential real sales, hinders further development and……the cycle goes on……. So, if the price appears high, you know the reason why and who to blame.
4. The real cost of the equipment (apart from the marketing) is the research, development and current Intellectual Properties of what currently exists today. As has been stated, each of the above mentioned products claim to have a different method of detection and it is this that serious research and development money should be spent. None of these products, (including my own) could be considered a 100% solution to the problems that exist in our society today and I would be foolish to say that none of the other equipments mentioned do not work…because I have seen and know that they do but, each have their own limitations and in the majority of situations, (from my experience) this has been attributed to the quality of training given and not just the manufacture of the equipment that is offered.
5. Statements made by those Authorities warning what to be dubious about when looking at “New Technologies” making claims of requiring ‘no power’ to operate, long (or large) detection ranges and any device using a ‘swinging rod’, should be aware and should note that; “None of these attempts to create devices that can detect specific materials such as explosives (or any materials for that matter) have been proven successful in controlled double-blind scientific tests.” In fact, all testing of these products have only concluded that; ‘these devices to perform no better than random chance’. I believe that part of this statement to be true based on the circumstances that, in a ‘controlled Double-Blind test’, they have previously failed in their attempt to successfully and consistently conclusively find the presence of any explosive or narcotic material…..but this is where there is a serious flaw in the conducted test……Since the last of those “Double-Blind” tests in 2002, new research has found out that the reason why they have all failed was because of another ‘unknown’, (at that time), called ‘fingerprinting’…..
The Locard exchange principle, also known as Locard's theory, was postulated by the20th century forensic scientist, Edmond Locard.
Locard was the director of the very first crime laboratory in existence, located in Lyon, France and Locard's exchange principle (as it became known) stated that; "with contact between two items, there will be an exchange" (Thornton, 1997).
Essentially Locard's principle is applied to crime scenes in which the perpetrator(s) of a crime comes into contact with the scene, so he will both bring something into the scene and leave with something from the scene. Every contact leaves a trace.


Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibres from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, and it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it can diminish its value.
- Professor Edmond Locard

6. This ‘fingerprinting’ goes beyond Locard’s theory by concluding that, even if an object or substance was sealed in a container, away from direct contact with another object or substance; (i.e. Say a sample of TNT placed in a jar and then that jar placed in a box), the box would still become ‘contaminated’, momentarily, with the substance and therefore, in the ‘Double-Blind test’ scenario, a ‘first’ reading maybe possible to identify the presence of a substance but that when that substance was subsequently removed, the box it was contained in, left sufficient trace for such detectors to pick up an ‘unwanted’ signal and thus, giving the impression that the substance was still contained within.
7. Such is the sensitivity of these instruments that they can identify in the pico-gram range, the presence of substances that current IMS or electronic sample trap devises cannot detect. Additionally, as the ‘fingerprint’ is only temporary, any delay in taking sample readings immediately, will only show a negative result. Therefore, it would have been necessary for the box (in the “Double-Blind Test”) to either be changed or allowed to ‘clean’ in the open-air so as to eliminate the unwanted signals.
8. Voltage. As discussed previously, this has a factor in any conducted tests as the higher the voltage being generated, the greater the sensitivity of the instrument. Therefore, the statements made by manufacturers that the ‘long-range’ distances of detection are possible, are due in part to the amount of voltage the operating person is generating at that time. It is therefore also possible that using the very same instrument, one operator could obtain ‘longer-range’ of detection than another person and again, this is purely down to the voltage being generated by that person at that time. Furthermore, it is also possible that, in controlled testing, an operator could become anxious or nervous, sufficiently enough so as to increase the Static-Voltage that he or she produces and consequently increase the overall sensitivity of the instrument producing additional unwanted signals.
9. The IP, or Intellectual Properties, of the all of the equipments are what principally operate or control how the instruments function. In perhaps all instances, companies and individuals are reluctant to let know how their instrument works or make claims that they “do not know” how it works, so as to detract any potential clients (or Testing laboratories) from knowing his (or her) secrets……..as I mentioned earlier, this is not Rocket Science but it does take away the efforts, time consumed and support those companies have shown and if, at the end of the day, someone comes in and makes a ‘mockery’ of their efforts, then you end up having to defend yourself against unfounded criticism …….It maybe a harsh truth to say that, in the early years, many companies were perhaps attempting to make a ‘killing’ on their product by offering it at extortionate prices. This was also perhaps their attempt at trying to recover their costs in as short a time as possible but all, that this controversy has achieved is increased the spending of more time, effort and travel as well as trying to correct comments and unfounded statements on what principally has been available to clients for a great many years……….however, what the differences between these product are, can only be explained like the difference between a Mini and Ferrari……they will still get you from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ but it is the driver that can make the real difference. OK, so you may say yes but, the principal of cars is fully understood and this ‘concept’ is not….and you’d be right, but if you were to look at the early days of what we now commonly refer to as DNA, the ‘concept’ of this was known, decades before an acceptable theory was proven.
10. The user can ‘make-or-break’ the effect use of these equipments and NO, they do not need to have “mind-control” for them to work….anyone and everyone can use them, it is simply down to constructive and efficient training. Another comment that has been posted, quotes: “Statements that the device requires extensive training by the factory, the device is difficult to use, and not everyone can use the device, are often made to allow the manufacturer a way of blaming the operator for the device’s failure to work”. This statement is totally unfounded as ALL of these devices DO need training. It is not because the device is difficult to use and it is not that ‘only certain people’ can operate the equipment…it is because there is a ‘technique’ in using the device and without the proper training, it would be like giving a set of keys to ride an expensive motorcycle…….you may be able to get going, but when you get to the first bend or try to stop, you could fall off. OK, maybe you don’t need that much training, but then take an aeroplane and the training required becomes more intensive. Now this does not mean that you need to be as intelligent as a potential pilot, but it is important that training, in the use of the equipment, is made as it is necessary to understand why you received a signal, not just the ability to get that signal in the first place. Therefore the training required is to teach you about the readings you obtain, and what to look out for, rather than the ability to just operate the equipment. For example; if I go through a Metal Detector at an airport and get an ‘audible’ alarm; does not mean that I am carrying a Gun? No!…it simply means there is a problem and it is then necessary for someone to check to ascertain the reason why…….likewise, the fact that these devices receive an ‘indication’ that there is sometime it has found, does not mean it is a potentially illegal substance or an immediate threat….it means there is a problem……..therefore, it is perfectly possible to detect a person indicating for say, marijuana or cannabis but, when he (or she) is searched, no substances are found……..this does not mean the equipment failed but that ‘potentially’, the person it has detected could possibly be a ‘user’…….it is the tetrahydrocannabinol, (or THC for short), it would have detected and this substance, in a regular user, could stay in the persons body for anything up to a month or even more! Therefore yes, training will form a very important part in the effectiveness of any equipment purchased and this is why that one particular unit appears to be consistent in the market more than the other…………..the ADE.
11. Research and Development have been an important part of the work that ATSC have done over the past few year and further to the original writing of this document, additional tests were currently under investigation, looking at the ELF (extremely low frequency) capabilities and properties of all elements It is reckoned that substances such as Narcotics or Explosives, ‘emit’ a radio-wave-signal in the frequency band 1~8 Hertz and it is this ELF that makes the basis of our product being able to detect these very low frequencies. This would then answer some of the questions raised as to the reason why it is possible for these ‘signals’ to penetrate various obstacles such as, concrete walls, containers, water and even soil. There are still a lot of unanswered questions and many of these are still being studied but, the fact remains that the ADE does work and it is the combination of the VERY high voltage (not amperage) that makes it possible for the ‘direction’ indicator to point, to the substance being search. The real (IP) Intellectual Property however, is the card….this card has been developed by the company so as to create the ‘receiver’ channel of the object, )or substance), being searched. It is also why the Training is an essential factor in the equipment package and it is because of the lack of proper training that other ‘similar’ devices have failed.
To date, there are over 500 ADE’s world-wide and although it is not the answer to everyone’s requirements, it does fit into the current market we pose today. Used correctly, it will effectively prove a valuable, first-line, detection tool.

Clive RobinsonNovember 15, 2009 2:44 PM

@ Bruce,

The above posting by "jasmine" alluds to be scientific but is nothing more than mumbo jumbo as far as I can tell (I could be wrong but...).

And no I would not object in any way to you removing both jasmine's post and my post about it.

@ jasmine,

I have never heard of anyone in a technical or scientific field use expressions such as "pure volts", "electrostatic magnetism".

Would you care to define them in some way?

And to make the following statment shows a compleat lack of understanding of physics,

"On average, each of us produces approximately 2000 ~ 3000+ volts…….there is no (or very little) amperage, but pure volts."

A voltage or Electro Motive Force (EMF A.K.A "a Potential Difference or PD) is as the name suggests a force. The current or amperage is a flow of charge (coulombs/sec). The rate of flow is usualy moderated by "resistance" and there is a formula often called "Ohms Law" to give the steddy state current I = V / R.

Thus if the resistance is infinite then the charge does not flow, if the resistance is zero the current is by the formula infinite irrespective of the EMF providing it is not zero (in theory and practice there are other limitations such as the speed of light which all forces are constrained by).

Now for a classic bit of "arm waving" rhetoric,

"However, depending on our state of mind, our anxiety, our levels of testosterone, our wellbeing, etc; the amount of voltage we can produce can raise and in some instances, exceed over 20,000 or 30,000 volts!"

You forgot to mention the effects of which direction the wind is blowing (which can effect static build up).

I would be interested if anyone can cite a peer reviewed publication of a link between static electricity and testosterone?

Further this delightfull little snippet from your section 11,

"It is reckoned that substances such as Narcotics or Explosives, ‘emit’ a radio-wave-signal in the frequency band 1~8 Hertz and it is this ELF that makes the basis of our product being able to detect these very low frequencies."

All substances do emit EM radiation (heat) but to make a claim that "Narcotics or Explosives, ‘emit’" "1~8 Hertz" is at best a little fancifull (compare the size of a chemical molecule to the wavelength...). And where would the cohearant energy source to power such radiation come from?

Just for fun lets explore your notion that an individual chemical molecule could radiate ELF using some unknown everlasting internal energy source,

What about all the molecules around it emitting their own ELF signals?

Well without a method for the molecules to oscillate synchronously they would all add together incoherantly and the output would be indestinquishable from thermal noise (or as once put "The square root of bugger all")...

So by what method do they become syncronised to be able to emit coherant radiation at ELF?

Also having worked with ELF for secure communications systems I'm well aware of the limitations of any kind of detector in this and lower frequency bands, and belive me a short metal rod (say a foot) is not going to be efficient in any way.

"jasmine" as you so nicely puts it,

"Now this is hardly ‘rocket-science’ but it is an import part of the principal behind which the equipments, ... do function."

Shortly after saying,

"Well Sandia [National Labs], you may have a valid point but, let me try to explain, (in my limited experience)"

Jasmine a little chalenge for you, cite peer reviewed articals from reputable journals for you notions (and no patents / applications are not reputable).

Oh and also how about your qualifications to make your statments (as would be required by a judge of any supposed "expert witness").

M YasinNovember 16, 2009 3:22 AM


I am currently using the ADE651 in a private organisation in Cairo Egypt. I cannot believe all the abuse this product is recieving from people who have never used the product and have never worked in security before. I USE IT AND BELIEVE ME THIS PRODUCT WORKS. You people are accusing the manufacturers having never even come close to one of the devices. Do you all believe that governments and private organisations would buy the product without testing it, under their own conditions first. How stupid do you think people are?
James Randi is a magician!!!!! What the hell does he know about security and protecting people. I really wish someone would take him up on his offer. Everyone is discussing scientic issues when the real question should be does it work in the field or not, which from a personal point of view it does.

samNovember 16, 2009 4:01 AM

Let me start by this ihave used the ADE 651 over and over again and it work
and the fact the Amercian don't use it does mean it does not work

WaddahNovember 16, 2009 4:04 AM

I have use the ADE 651 is sudia Arabia
and it work iam not a scienset bur it can detect explosives

UserNovember 16, 2009 4:08 AM

This article will aim to provide a satisfied customer’s point of view on ATSC’s ADE651, and also gives the other side to the argument from the current one sided blogs and disussion forums on the internet. Many people will ask why i bothered myself to write such an article? Being head of security for a large organisation in Spain and after these so called anti skeptic websites were brought to my attention by a colleague and after reading quite a few articles, i noticed that these people were making quite childish and unfounded accusations about the product and its manufacturer without ever having used the product. This article aims to set the record straight from a customers point of view, who is neutral, but found that all current websites on the subject of the ADE 651 to be biased, one sided and frankly quite aggressive.

Before even buying an ADE651 unit you are provided with a full demonstration under which you would set the conditions for the test. Certain people however, seem to believe that governments and large organizations such as the one I work for would actually go ahead and purchase such a piece of equipment without strenuously testing and re-testing the unit under their terms and conditions. This of course does not happen. If an end user such as myself would not be happy with the results why would people go ahead and purchase it.

I do not claim to know the scientific reasoning behind the product and as the end user I frankly don’t care. All that matters to me is that the product actually works and that me and my team are currently using the ADE651 and every time we have demonstrated or tested the products it has worked. I have a staff of about 40 security officers working for me and every month or so I do so called spot checks and when used properly the device has never failed me. This is why I really am finding it difficult to understand why people who have never used the device will be so against it. I am one of many customers, of whom most I have spoken to who have been amazed and astounded at the accuracy and effectiveness of the ADE651 when its being used by well trained staff.

PaulNovember 16, 2009 4:16 AM

The only thing i can understand from this blog, is that Only the American technologies work and any thing else does not..........

ahmedNovember 16, 2009 4:54 AM

why the blog is taking one side and the side of the people who never tested the device
i have used the ADE 651 in Iraq and it detect so many explosives hidden in vehicles ...........
But As they say on negative

mohammedNovember 16, 2009 5:38 AM

let me ask one question?
if there are more than 15000 ADE's in Iraq....
Don't you think they have tested the equipment over and over again and made sure that it works and it complies with the tech specs

AhmedNovember 16, 2009 5:41 AM

I don't understand the blog
why are the negative issue on this Device
Haqve anyone on the blog use the device?
Does anyone has proof that this device does not work?
If you answer yes to the question above please send me your proof

mohammedNovember 16, 2009 5:45 AM

ADE 651, at costs from $16,500 to $60,000 each Where did you get this price?
No that not right price
The unit price was 1,000,000 USD
is that make me right????

salemNovember 16, 2009 5:55 AM

To date, there are over 5000 ADE’s world-wide and although it is not the answer to everyone’s requirements, it does fit into the current market we pose today. Used correctly, it will effectively prove a valuable, first-line, detection tool.

saleemNovember 16, 2009 7:19 AM

Iraq (Baghdad): 80 units of ADE651™ were sold to the Iraqi Ministry of Interior.
The Lebanese Army (Beirut), the Chinese Police (Bejing) , The Thailand Police (Bangkok) also acquired this equipment to detect all types of forbidden substances. This eas done to increase job results and to reach from now on a new level in terms of security and detection of threats.

To face regional problems the Ministry of Interior in Kurdistan (North of Iraq) is today equiped with ADE651™.

Jordania (Aman): the terrorists' wave which directly attacked international hotels gave increase importance to detect explosives and firearms. After a long time searching and testing solutions to avoid similar problems, the King only allowed Hotels equipped with (and only a genuine) ADE651™ detectors, to use their underground parking again. It appears in this case that ADE651™ grew as a national guaranty of security and safety

ModeratorNovember 16, 2009 12:36 PM

Ahmed/Sameer/Mohammed/Saleem: limit yourself to a single identity when posting to this blog from now on. Changing names to create the impression that you have a crowd of supporters is a cheap trick, and you're not doing it convincingly anyway.

ModeratorNovember 16, 2009 1:36 PM

Thanks for the link. Our logs show that at least 3 computers are involved: User (in Spain), Paul, and Sami are one, M Yasin in Cairo is another, and most if not all of the rest are the same computer. All come from the same IP address in Jordan.

I'm not surprised that people would resort to sockpuppetry to defend this product, but I am a bit surprised that they're doing it so ineptly. Nobody could be convinced by this.

Clive RobinsonNovember 16, 2009 3:43 PM

@ Moderator,

"I am a bit surprised that they're doing it so ineptly."

Probably from their view point "any port in a storm" when "you are trying to defend the indefensable". Or more aptly "a drowning man will clutch any straw", I hope they sink without trace...

However I suspect they will crawl under a rock somewhere and wait untill the sun shines on them again and they will slither out on the make.

A thought occures perhaps the IP addresses corespond to "sales agents" in those geo areas.

I just hope that nobody is hurt or killed due to the use of this device. I just cannot see how they can not be guilty of taking money under false representation.

ModeratorNovember 16, 2009 5:25 PM

Clive,

They're all at the same IP address in Jordan. Spain and Egypt are just where they're claiming to be.

The odd one out is Jasmine, who comes from a different IP address in Jordan, but entered a fake e-mail address that's only one character different from User's fake e-mail address.

TechowizNovember 19, 2009 11:27 AM

Jasmine is in effect Jim McCormick the actual maker and seller of these frauds.
He has posted on another site, the exact same text but under his real name unusually for him!!!
regards

TechowizNovember 30, 2009 8:51 AM

Ok for all you doubters, The ADE651 is going to change to keep you all happy and convince you it works, it is now going to be fitted with 'flashing lights'. Yes you read that right flashing lights, read the story below:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231678/...
Wouldn't you know it the 'inventor' used to be a cop, words fail me!!!
regards

TechowizDecember 2, 2009 5:09 PM

McCormick (ATSC ADE651) has invited Bruce Hood to a demonstration, Should be interesting.
regards

daDecember 8, 2009 1:36 PM

"Buy" a divining rod? Why? A guy I used to work with used a pair of welding rods from our kit, with the bare ends bent in an "L". I would have liked to see a formal test, since he seemed to be able to repeatedly find voids in the ground (we were installing city water lines). Never took it very serioiusly, but it seemed to work better than random chance (or the ADE651).

TechowizDecember 9, 2009 9:34 AM

I see the ADE651 fails AGAIN in the latest series of explosions to roick Baghdad.
The body count in the last 4 weeks due to this scam failing is nearly 250.
High many more before they realise it doesn't work.
regards

An EOD gremlinDecember 16, 2009 8:17 AM

Just spotted what looks like another incarnation of this device appearing in the recent issue of (respected?) defence trade magazine 'Defence & Security Systems International' (www.defence-and-security.com). The article can be seen at
http://viewer.zmags.co.uk/publication/3732c868#/...
pages 16-17.
The outfit selling this device is the Unival group (Germany). Absolutely unbelievable. What's happened to the morals of these people?

TechowizDecember 20, 2009 11:35 AM

Well spotted EOD Gremlin,

These are the clowns that originally marketed the scam device know as, 'sniffex plus', that has been ridiculed.
The smell of easy money brings out this type of scum irrespective of the risk to life.
regards

XueJanuary 8, 2010 5:51 AM

Hi,

All coments on 6th of November it-'s incredible . How much money do they pay you to post so many times in the smae day . You are the most corrupt i see.

Kr,
Xue

TechowizJanuary 19, 2010 2:47 PM

XUE,

Don't you mean the comments posted on the 16th alleging to be multiple supporters, but found to be all form the same ip address?
Apart from the scam device ADE651, the other fraud Sniffex has now been reborn as the, HEDD1. It is basically sniffex with a battery, for a really good laugh check out the link to the scam at:
http://www.hazard-detection.com/
regards

philJanuary 22, 2010 4:45 PM

interesting argument, and the ppl on both sides are very sure of the rightness of their point of view. In about 1973 I helped a subcontractor lay a mile long water main down the side of a wood to a remote farm. The farmer thought there was a stoptap somewhere in a stackyard covered in mud and crushed chalk, but had no idea where it was. When it came to finding it, the guy driving the trenching machine went to a hedge and came back with two peices of rusty fence wire and proceeded to form a couple of L shapes, and began dowsing. I was fascinated, He did it every day. He found the stoptap in the third hole. 1and 2 were a clay land drain and a pipe going to a long forgotten field tank. I questioned him, it's easy, he replied,most people can do it, bit of practice, and he showed me. You hold a clear picture in your mind of what you want to find, and when the wands cross, you have found..... something. I have found sewers, long lost wells buried cables etc etc, very often in places where the local worthies, who were around when they were buried insisted they werent! In short, it is no good looking for mysterious emmations from cables, pipes and the like, and equally it is no use to attach a pair of rods to a robot and expect a result. the sensing device is the human being holding the rods, the rods are merely the indicators, like the needle on a voltmeter. From that analogy you could guess that I am an electrical engineer by training, and I dont take no bullsh*t or no prisoners. As for James Randi, go to his website and read the rules to his million dollar offer. You will then realise what an empty promise it really is. He has made absolutely sure his money is safe. All I can say is that for me, most of the time, it works, and when its the only tool you got (and we note that all these supposed technophiles are not coming up with an alternative solution) it is a lot better than nothing. If all the dowsing detectors in the world only ever detected one bomb, it is one more than the competion!

philJanuary 22, 2010 5:06 PM

Forgot to mention one of the best references. During the Vietnam war dowsing equipment was used to detect undergound tunnels and hideouts used by the vietcong. The guys were trained in America at a specially prepared training area and those who showed exceptional aptitude were badged as engineer dowsers (if I remember correctly) Google it!!! also check out De Re Mettallica, a manuscript from 1430 by the minerologist Agricola, which details how minerals and ore deposits can be found by dowsing. would it really still be in use nearly 600 years later if it didn't work? I doubt it.

TechowizJanuary 22, 2010 5:48 PM

Phil,

Can you point me in the direction of any credible scientific tests that support your statement that dowsing works, apart from your own experience?
Next time you visit the planet earth please call in for a cup of tea.

WernerJanuary 23, 2010 7:52 PM

@phil: "we note that all these supposed technophiles are not coming up with an alternative solution"

Some of them are. E.g., google for "Bosch wall scanner". No too long ago, everybody you'd ask would have happily agreed that anyone having the kind of insights this sort of device conveys must be in league with satan and ought to be burnt at the earliest convenience.

I wouldn't dismiss divining rods either. The human body is still full of surprises, and the example above shows that there are a lot of subtle clues to pick up.

However, I would put a strong emphasis on whether the tool in question can actually produce a result under real-life conditions. If it works great for one properly trained shaman but for nobody else you can find or hire, then there's little point for you to equip all your security staff with it.

- Werner

sniperJanuary 24, 2010 3:04 AM


I don't really understand why governments would buy this for 15,000$ a piece when they can buy a bomb sniffing dog for far less; and they know those work.

AlexJanuary 24, 2010 9:26 AM

These appear to be common L-shaped dowsing rods, as portrayed in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing

It is really funny: just offer a "high-tech version", add some pseudo-scientific mumbojumbo and -most of all- a "reset button"(!) and you have a bona fide hightech bomb detector. If I were the manufacturer, I'd offer a PRO version with USB connector and a CD-based explosives database which gets updated on a subscription base.

This might look like this litle most efficient program:
http://www.dcodereport.com/aliendetector.html

:-))

Clive RobinsonJanuary 24, 2010 10:22 AM

@ Werner,

"I wouldn't dismiss divining rods either. The human body is still full of surprises, and the example above shows that there are a lot of subtle clues to pick up."

Yes it does offer better than tossing a coin for certain things (as tests have shown).

However it is also a "pup" in that it does not work for most other things.

It's like a number of bio-metric feedback systems.

The best explanation I have seen is it occupies the concious mind whilst the subconcious pattern recognition/matching part gets to work.

For instance a farmer can use it to find objects like pipes etc buried under a field with the same corelation as photographing the area from a thousand feet up and looking for crop markings.

The argument appears to be that the subconcious mind sees differences in crop height colour etc etc and puts the match together. The concious mind however does not see the subtal patterns.

So far nobody who has carried out limited investigation has put pen to paper for many reasons.

However it is clear that people do learn to "dows" for certain things so there definatly appears to be a learning/training element in it.

However I would not use it as a "Hinky" detector in the hands of people who don't even know what hinky is.

It would be interesting to see the results of more "scientific studies" even if they say no the effect was not seen in a random group etc.

philJanuary 24, 2010 12:46 PM

OK, techowiz, as far as I know the only
"scientific" tests carried were the ones I alluded to in my above post where "scientists" attached various divining and dowsing devices to a tracked robot which then crawled around a pre-prepared site with buried objects. needless to say they claimed it proved that dowsing was fraud whilst all over the world, ppl carried on dowsing. It is very interesting to peruse the many lists of things which science and many very well respected scientists have claimed as impossible or even fraud, the Wright brothers and heavier than air flight spring to mind as just one. there are many more, Google it. That this guy and his company have been GROSSLY overcharging for this device I don't deny, but I know from experience that the basic concept is sound and useful. It does not however work 100% reliably as any dowser will admit. Sniffer dogs have their uses, but can be easily put off by the presence of even small quantities of chili pepper, ammonia, vinegar, or any other strong smell. Google "dog repellant" and you will find all the info on this. As for science, there are endless examples of things that they cannot explain, magnetism and gravity for instance. You better start praying for the existence of the Higgs boson, because if no one finds it soon, science will need a big rewrite.

TechowizJanuary 24, 2010 1:30 PM

Phil,

On a BBC programme on Friday 22nd January an investigative reporter had a computer laboratory take apart one of the detection cards, that the 'inventor' Jim McCormick said was the key to the whole device detecting various explosive and drugs. After opening the card do you know what electrical circuit they found?
An rdf tag they use to attach to products to stop them being stolen from shops. These tags cannot be programmed, the have no micro-chip and they cost about 20c each. It is absolutely impossible they they could in any possible way detect explosives or drugs.
So if I was you I would attach no credibility that the ADE651 can detect anything but the gullible, the stupid or the corrupt. It is a complete fraud and scam and McCormick has been rightly arrested and hopefully he will spend a long time in Jail. There is a link to the programme if you are based in the UK and you can see for yourself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00q9hx6/...

regards

AlexJanuary 24, 2010 1:45 PM

@clive robinson:
"So far nobody who has carried out limited investigation has put pen to paper for many reasons."

There have quite a number of well-documented investigations in Germany. All turned out disastrous for the dowsers ...

@phil:
The German tests were carried out with "real dowsers", not robots.

Sorry the tests are documented in German language only ... here's one link to the GWUP society's test:
http://www.gwup.org/component/content/article/...

philJanuary 24, 2010 2:34 PM

techowiz, you make a basic error, I was defending dowsing, NOT the ADE651. If the question is "can you detect bombs by dowsing"? my answer would be "sometimes yes, depending on how well practiced a dowser you are"
If the question is "Is the ADE651 a functioning electronic instrument" the answer would be demonstably "no".
phil.

Clive RobinsonJanuary 25, 2010 5:29 AM

@ Alex,

"There have quite a number of well-documented investigations in Germany. All turned out disastrous for the dowsers ..."

I'm curious what type of tests where they?

I know of one test where dowsers produced way way off the bell curve norm results (the wrong way for them). Where as the control group initialy showed what you would expect then started to move marginaly towards the working side. What was not explained was why the dowsers where so far away from the norm (all be it in totaly the wrong direction).

One explination was "learning a new environmet".

I also know of several other tests where the dowsers produced repeatable "home" and "away" results that again sugests it's a "local knowledge" issue.

However all that being said the results have always been marginal with the occasional outliers well within the usual variance.

Which gives rise to the questions,

1, Do we know what we are testing.
2, Are we testing correctly.
3, Are we testing with sufficiently large groups.
4, Are people deluding themselves.

And "people" is one of the problems.

For instance there are quite a few examples of "folk knowledge" that science has dismissed only to come back to at a later stage (a large chunk of modern medicine comes from Hedge Medicine etc.

The clasic example being stomach ulcers, and the view that "bacteria cannot live in the stomach".

Oh by the way I'm neither pro nor anti on dowsing, in the same way I'm not pro or anti "gut feelings". All I will say on the later they make me more cautious or more ambitious and oddly in neither case have they been missplaced.

An example being when I was chatting to a friend on the phone about his cottage and how dowing up the kitchen had shown evidence of "death watch beetle". I jokingly sugest he ought to microwave the wooden beams as dry wood is fairly transparent to microwaves whilst grubs are nice and juciy and broil easily.

No sooner had I said it than I got a gut reaction also my friend got the same feeling. After another few minutes discussing it we rang off I did some experiments with mince meat and some 2x1 I had around and got very very positive results. The following morning my friend phoned to say he'd done a search on an IP DB or two and unfortunatly there was a company in the US that had had the same idea only recently.

Like all good ideas it is obvious with hindsight but the physical "gut reaction" came before the brain had thought it through...

So yes I'm with the "lets investigate some more" camp... Provided we can work out "what it actualy is we are investigating"... (which currently appears to be in the "we've not got a clue" area).

However unlike those French scientists who found there was good solid evidence for drinking your own urine (provided it was from the first urination of the day), I'm interested in the reasoning but not the actualy "human testing" 8(

Mind you there was that other group that found that there where very real reasons for Curry and Larger to be consumed together (hey I might be interested in a repeat of that one 8)

TechowizJanuary 26, 2010 3:21 AM

Phil,

You make a basic error, I know that the ADE651 is not a functioning electronic instrument. My arugument all along is that it cannot detect anything, let alone explosives using the dowsing system.
regards

philJanuary 28, 2010 5:40 AM

well Techowiz, It appears to me that the ADE651 is indeed a type of grossly overpriced dowsing device, and I know from repeated personal experience that dowsing can detect things, But it is the dowser who does the detecting, the rod or device is merely an indicator. This definition, like science, is an interesting theory, and like science, it cannot explain everything, and is sometimes wrong. Have you ever been wrong?
phil

TechowizFebruary 2, 2010 9:43 AM

Phil,
Of course I have been wrong, but not regarding the scam device ADE651. Unlike dowsers, I am at least prepared to admit to being wrong, when the evidence is clearly against me.
regards

cristeadriana10June 24, 2010 7:48 AM

There are no proves the device is not working and all this is a campaign against a product that stays in the way of other big business and all the mass media is intoxicated with lies about is. I didn’t see one real undeniable prove regarding miss function of this device.

ernst.filibertJuly 5, 2010 9:27 AM

The technologies used by ADE are Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance which has been used to detect landmines and explosives concealed in luggage all over the world with great success. NQR is a radiofrequency (RF) technique in which the observed frequencies depend on the interaction between the electric quadrupole moment of the nucleus and the electric field gradient generated at the nuclear site by external charges. All common high explosives contain 14 N, a quadrupolar nucleus generating three sets of resonance frequencies, providing an unequivocal method of detecting and identifying an explosive, as well as estimating its quantity and depth. Because of its high specificity there is little or no interference from other nitrogen-containing material that may be present - such as the mine casing or fertilizer in the soil.
The device is working that is why they can't put him in jail.

TechowizJuly 5, 2010 11:01 AM

@Cristeadriana10

For your one (and there are lots more) undeniable peice of evidence regarding the misfunction, as you call it, the rest of the world calls it the usual failure, Why did it fail to detect several tons of explosives that passed through, 3, yes 3, as stated by the Iraqi government, checkpoints where the scam device was in operation? A really hard question for you, where is the one credible report, from anywhere in the world that the scam device works?
@Ernst.
The ADE DOES NOT work on NQR, or any other principle. It takes a lot more than finding a principle used in explosives and then saying, 'that is how our device works'. You need to support the statement with scientific tests and reports from credible agencies. Interesting to note this device as wonderful as you say it is, is not used in the UK or the US the 2 countries engaged in the worlds trouble spots, strange that don;t you think?

33comtoisAugust 11, 2010 3:50 AM

@techowiz

My friend, we meet again. I'll try to get here the answers for the questions I have asked you on other blogs, on which you failed to answer. Who knows, maybe I'll get lucky on this one.

Do you have any knowledge of a scientific test (double blind, triple blind etc) performed on this ade 651 device that proves without any doubt that the device does not work?

Supplemental question: if the evidence you claim you have is overwhelmingly turning the scale in favor of an arrest, charge and conviction, then why is this man still free?

Thank you. Don't think I'll be hearing from you soon with the answers to these questions, but with more smoke and mirrors.

TechowizAugust 19, 2010 11:34 AM

@33comtois,

The ADE has only been tested by,
The New York Times.
The US Government.
The UK Government.
The BBC.
There are probably more but I cannot think of them at the moment:
It has failed to detect over 2 tons of explosives in Iraq causing the deaths of over 300 innocent people, when the bombers drove right past checkpoints where the officers were deploying the device you love so much.
The fraudster is currently on bail, he is not free, if he fails to answer his bail a warrant will be issued for his arrest and he will remain in custody, that is NOT freedom.
Everyone arrested in ENTITLED to bail unless there are EXCEPTIONAL circumstances to refuse it, even people who commit murder get bail, so don't get too carried away with the fact he is on BAIL.
Now, for the hundreth time of asking let us have YOUR evidence that it works.
That should be the end of your posting on this forum, bye.

33comtoisAugust 20, 2010 3:58 AM

@techowiz

Dear mister,
Yet again, you elude giving a straight answer.

Had the NY times, BBC, uk, us performed a double blind, scientifically driven test? If so, the please point you finger in their directions.
I could answer to you in the same way you did, that the producing company had performed tests and, probably, the resellers too, to prove that the device, not that I love, but obviously that you hate so much, does work.
Of course, I cannot backup my speculations as you cannot yours.

So, please, come back again when you have depleted your bag of ... smoke and mirrors, so to speak, and have something useful to say actually.
Until then, please, do not spread your poisoned hatred anymore. You'll be doing a greater good to the society than putting McCormick behind bars.
Lots of good byes to you too.

TechowizAugust 20, 2010 12:57 PM

@33Comtois

Having read your post twice still can not find any evidence from you that the ADE works, now for the 101th time please provide your evidence that it works.
You accuse others of ducking and not answering the question, you need to look at ALL your posts and try and find one instance were you have actually answered a question.
You forgot to include in your post the answers from McCormick to your alleged questions, please include them in your next post.
Your ducking and diving and refusing to comment on the alleged working principle and any credible testing leads me to believe you are actually McCormick himself.
Keep trying I am sure you will eventually make a sensible coment if you carry on.
regards

33comtoisAugust 24, 2010 2:35 AM

@techowiz

Dear sir,
Yet again, you elude giving a straight answer.

As I always said in all my posts, I am not defending a product that I do not know for sure that works or not.

You, on the other hand, seem to know for sure that it doesn't. I won't keep count anymore to the times I've asked you for the evidence you have to support your claims, but keep asking you, instead, to provide such evidence.

And once more, bbc making a biased report, nytimes publishing a cracker-article and so on, these are not evidence. Evidence is a double-blind test on the device, conducted by scientists. Do you have knowledge of any such test? If so, do tell.

And I find it a step forward you actually reading my posts. Please continue to do so and, eventually, you'll realize that I never claimed that I know for sure that this gadget works, but rather challenged your claims that it doesn't. So far you've never stood up to these challenges.

An "A" to you, for actually reading my posts and trying "to beat me at my own game". It might be a good exercise to you, but let's stick to the topic.
You say this device does not work, I say you try to manipulate people. Actually, I have recently learned the word for your type of activity. It is called online activism. I may be wrong, but it sure sounds good.

So, in fewer words: please present your evidence for your claims!

TechowizAugust 26, 2010 9:46 AM

You claim not to be defending the ADE, yet you accept WITHOUT question the claims made by the manufacturer, indeed, you only decided to ask ONE question, and that was when prompted by me. Unlike me, you obviously DO NOT read the posts all the way through, or the fact that they are in English confuses you.
I have no knowledge of a double blind test, because McCormick has so little faith in his equipment he wont put it forward for testing.
There was a double blind test done on the MOLE, from which McCormick 'developed' the ADE, which of course failed, perhaps that is why he is not so keen to double blind test his ADE.
The device was tested by the UK Government who have banned it's sale in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The US military have tested it and declared it a fake.
No doubt you will come out with some nonsense, entirely without EVIDENCE of course, that they also are bias, is that really the best you can think of bias???
I thought you were better than that, but I suppose when you are desperate anything will do.
So after all this time let us see if you can answer some questions:
Why have you only asked ONE question, if indeed you actually asked a question at all of McCormick?
Does that mean you accept all the claims for the device?
Can we have your EVIDENCE that the BBC broadcast was bias?
The cards that are at the heart of the device were tested by a SCIENTIST and found to be capable of detecting nothing and also cannot be programmed.
For someone who accuses other people of smoke and mirrors, you my friend hold the championship for question avoidance, have you considered a career in politics?
As for beating you at your own game, my friend you are beaten everytime you post because your words have no credibility.
So you are answers are...................?

33comtoisAugust 30, 2010 6:54 AM

Dear sir,

I apologize if I made you so angry that you began to write with caps and yet started to make so little sense.

I'll try to answer as much as I could understand from your previous, most tangled post.

1. I did not accept the claims made by the manufacturer of the ade device, as I do not accept yours.
2. Yes, just one question, as you also were asked only one question on numerous times and dodged answering it every single time... until now.
3. You have no knowledge of a scientific test because McCormick has little faith in his device? No, my English friend. You are completely wrong. You have no knowledge of a scientific test on the ade device because there has never been performed such a test on this device. Thus, your claims became, at best, mere lies.
4. Why have I asked McCormick only one question? This is obvious. Because the answer to that question would have included answers to other questions you suggested me to ask McCormick. Thus, your redundant thinking and lack of abilities to follow logic I was referring to on the other blog.
5. No. Asking McCormick only one question, does not mean that I accept his claims. I still do not know if his device works. And you still can't prove it doesn't.
6. “Can we have your EVIDENCE that the BBC broadcast was bias?” Yes you can. I'll just copy&paste it for you, as they were presented there a long time ago.
6.1. Dr. Markus Kuhn claims that no information whatsoever could be contained on those cards since they have no microchips or electronics. Well then, there are simple access cards, with magnetic tape inside, that carry a lot of information. If that coil he shows us contains or could contain, once placed in an electromagnetic field, a single bit of information, then the good Dr. is wrong. I believe (yet not 100% sure of it) that we were taught in the 5th or the 6th grade, in physics class, that is a coil moves inside a magnetic field, then an electric current, having the intensity directly proportional to the intensity of that magnetic field, will be generated inside that coil. I believe (yet not 100% sure) that this is called electromagnetic induction. I do not want to enter a scientific debate here because there are a lot of years passed since those physics classes. Still, my point is: there might be no need for “programming” that card in the way of playing pacman on them. If they could carry a single bit of information, then it might be enough to identify the presence of a magnetic field.
6.2. The reporter peaks inside a house (10:19) and them turns to the camera saying that "there are light on in the house and signs of life, but the owner of this house does not want to talk with us". In the same manner, she could say that "there are faint yelling coming from the basement, clearly showing that Jack the Raper is in the house". She could, at least, simulate a couple of knocks in the front door and waited a few seconds. I sincerely doubt she had.
6.3. furthermore, look at the black box, partially cracked open, in the most scientific manner, with a pocket knife by Mr. Sidney Alford (7.20). While he opens a rectangular box, the ade kit does not contain such a box, but a U-shaped one. Besides, the objective reporter is careful in not stating that it is not the device she's making the report about, but "another dowsing type device".
I ask you now: how can you make a report on a device, say some Nokia phone, and dissect a Motorola?

I think you could find more evidence of biased journalism in that broadcast as in other articles in the media, only if you would have watched this broadcast with a clear mind, not a twisted and a poisoned one.

As for the fact that you chose to mock me for my English, I think that is says more about you than about me. Very young minds chose mocking in the favor of reason, and while I am able to argue with you in your native language, this can’t be said about you.

I think this concludes my argumentation when I say you are not interested in the truth, but in making as many followers in your crusade of hate.

I have shown you that I do not hide, and you showed me that you cannot even give a simple straight forward answer: "no, there is no test". Instead, you had to throw some dust along with your answer: "because McCormick has no faith...". There is no test simply because there has never been one performed on this device. If your government (aka UK government) have been tested it and found it not working, they wold have thrown McCormick in jail 50 times by now. Instead, they sufficed to ban it from being used by UK and US armed forces.
I think that this simple logic doesn't elude your meandering mind.

TechowizAugust 30, 2010 12:24 PM

@33 comtois,
I suppose it really is time to put you out of your misery, I was so glad that you leaped on the fact that I admitted that there was no double blind test in existence for the ridiculous ADE651, actually I knew you would, such is your desperation to say something positive about the device you and your company promote and support so strongly. Yes, that has been obvious from the very start of your postings but I thought we should let you prattle on trying to suggest that you are entirely neutral in the matter, so your stance there has been exposed as a total sham.
Why is it all alleged supporters of the ADE are exposed as frauds? Let’s leave that for another time, I don’t wish to embarrass you too much.
Anyway back to the game, and much like a game of chess you, of course, walked right into the feint I set for you, yes, there is no double blind test of the ADE, BUT (not temper, it is an emphasis on a point, what is that word you use so often? That’s it, ‘logic’, please look it up in a dictionary) there are several, well documented reports of the ADE FAILING three simple SINGLE blind tests, yes, simpler versions of the famed double blind test. Tests that your hero McCormick says are the REAL testers in all of this, the actual users of the ADE, those that rely on it to save lives, how hollow those claims must look to the world and the Iraqi people now.
Test One, on the 27th October 2009, insurgents managed to drive right past a checkpoint manned with the magical ADE651 BOMB detector with explosives of at least 400Kg, they set off their bomb in the heavily protected Green Zone, with the result that, 95 were killed and over 500 injured. Result of test, FAIL.
Test Two, on the 8th December 2009, despite the heightened security (After the previous reported explosion) and the deployment of even more ADE651’s,the insurgents managed to again drive past these checkpoints, manned with the miracle bomb detector, ADE 651, and exploded two bombs in the most highly protected area of Baghdad, the green zone, killing 112 and injuring 197. Result of test, FAIL. You may well recall that McCormick was summoned to Iraq after this latest exposure of his fraud, I mean who could forget that remarkable demonstration were the EOD expert managed to get the ADE 651 to point at a hand grenade that was in full view, that was priceless, pity someone didn’t ask the question, if it can detect the grenade, what about the half ton of explosives it missed? Probably so amazed at the demonstration. Anyway, I digress let’s get back to the real world testing McCormick brags about.
Test Three, on the 17th August 2010, a suicide bomber walked right past the ADE manned checkpoint wearing at least 30KG of explosives, remember the same device that easily detected the hand grenade, and blew himself up at an Army recruitment centre deep inside the highly protected green zone, AGAIN. Result of test FAIL.
All these tests are reported and documented and there for you to find.
Now, I have to correct you AGAIN about the cards, you continually go off on a tangent when tackling this admittedly tricky subject for you, can we stick to the actual cards as used and not go off and talk about, access cards, you see you criticise others for talking about similar devices, what was your metaphor, something about a, ‘Nokia’ phone then dissecting a Motorola, anyway, McCormick does NOT use access cards, he uses ordinary laminated plastic cards with a anti shoplifting circuit inside that CANNOT be programmed, so I will ask you again, how do you programme cards that cannot be programmed?
Finally, to your insinuation that the UK Government have not really tested the ADE, because apparently they would have, ‘thrown him in jail by now’, I take it McCormick is suing them for banning his fraudulent device, NO, why ever not? Ahh yes, it is because he would have to prove it works. That my friend is check mate, goodbye, unless you have REAL answers, so goodbye it is then.

33comtoisSeptember 1, 2010 8:38 AM

@techowiz

I am glad that you mentioned chess in your last post. I am confused, though, that you think you are really playing such game. It takes more than moving your hands over the chess board, in a hocus pocus manner, to play chess, you actually have to move a piece.
All those unfortunate events you've mentioned are NOT tests. Those are real time usage of the device. As any man made device, I think this one has a success rate lower than 100%. Let's take, for example, detectors used in airports. Those devices have a documented success rate less then 80% and still used in airports.
You move your hands over the chess board by saying: "on the 17th August 2010, a suicide bomber walked right past the ADE manned checkpoint". Read the story again. There is no reference to the ADE device in this story, as presented by the Guardian. Best case scenario: you've made a wrong presumption. Worst case scenario: you lied. That's not chess. That's foolishness.
Besides, every EOD in those checkpoints is doubled by a sniffing dog team. Remember that the US started to export, to Iraq, sniffing dogs in the first quarter of this year.
As a true activist you are, have you ever bothered to ask the Iraqi police how many successful detections they have? I think not. And the answer to this is because you are not interested in the truth, but in creating a false image of these devices.
On the cards topic, it is my turn to correct you, again. The metaphor with nokia and motorola was about the hollow black box, Mr. Alford dissected, not about the cards. You have to pay more attention. Now, again, about these cards: a lot of people say that they cannot be programmed. I said that it might not be necessary to "program" a card in the way you program a computer, it might just be enough to carry one bit of information to detect the presence of a magnetic field or not. Yet again you've fluttered your hands over the chess board, simulating a move and asking the wrong question.
Do you want another example of you simulating chess playing? The fact that McCormick is not suing his government does not negate the fact that the same government is not suing McCormick in the lack of evidence. And in the absence of a test, such evidence they miss. So my point of view is still standing while yours is still made of fumes.
So you see, you can agitate as much as you want, but this is not chess you are playing, it is ping pong with a paper ball - the minute you hit the ball, it falls right in front of you.
So, mate, look in the dictionary for what check mate means. This is far from chess, not to mention check mate.
I won't say goodbye to you anymore, as I am certain that you'll come back flashing some new words you'll find in the dictionary and making some idiotic parallels between your activity here and some game that actually requires a bit of intelligence.

33comtoisSeptember 3, 2010 2:09 AM

@techowiz

Aah, you've finally realized what an embarrassment you are to the others like you and to the common people whom you've convinced with your junk-words? Junk words are just like junk food: tastes good at the beginning, but it eventually make one feel sick.

That's goodbye to you then.

TechowizSeptember 3, 2010 10:25 AM

@33comtois
The difference beween Airport detectors and the ADE is that airport detectors have, sorry to use the word that so embarrases the supporters of the ade, been tested to a recognised standard, that's right read that word again, tested.
The green zone is ringed with the scam devices the ADE, to get to the army centre the bomber had to pass the ADE, I did ask that you look up the word that you use so often, that word is 'logic'.
What else do you prattle on about, that's right ask the iraqi some questions, well where are the explosive finds that can be attributed to the ADE? Because you can bet your last penny if there had even been one, McCormick would have it plastered all over the internet and not have to make do with made up testimonials.
The cards, AGAIN, look I know you are in a difficult position trying to explain the impossible, but the cards were examined by a scientist they do not contain any information whatsoever, they cannot contain any information whatsoever, McCormick has stated that the cards are programmed, don't you even listen to your paymaster?
So, yet again, how do you programme cards that cannot be programmed?
And what on earth are you going on about talking about the 'Government suing McCormick'? I feel you have really lost the plot this time.
Any respectable business man that had his product banned by the government and called a fake, would if the allegations were not true, without doubt sue the government for many millions of pounds, he has chosen not to, people who are not blinded by smoke and mirrors will see the obvious reason why, and make up their own mind why he fails to do so.
I said in the last post you work for the Romanian company that sells and markets this rubbish, you talk of smoke and mirrors but fail to see the hypocrisy in your own words. So if anyone has lied in the posts it is you, all the talk of challenging manipulation, what a load of utter bullshit, where were you when the story on the scam device first broke, no doubt like McCormick in hiding, you thought the period of shame was over and tried to put some comments onto blogs hoping people would not notice, the problem you have is your stupidity clouds out any reasoning you may have.
I have inserted a link below for your information about the closest McCormick ever got to serious testing, basically he agreed to conduct a test for, Professor Bruce Hood, you may remember him on the bias (LOL) bbc programme, anyway as the day got nearer McCormick panicked especially when he saw that I had provided the good Professor with the questions to ask him, McCormick wanted the Professor to sign a gagging order meaning he could not publish the result of the test, now why do you think he did that?
Answer, because he knew he would fail the test and as a result ran away from the idea, just like everytime he is exposed in the media, anyway have a read at the link:
http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/...
I should advise you not to drink on an empty head then post on an internet forum, go back to playing with your three year old friends and leave real world things to the grown ups.

33comtoisSeptember 6, 2010 4:46 AM

@techowiz

Right! You do know your way with words. But that still does not make you a great "chess player".

You write a lot in order to cover the lack of evidence for your statements.

It is obvious that you do not have anything to say about this anymore, as you repeat the same proofless allegations over and over again.

There is no double blind test performed on this device to prove you right. Period.
All the rest is hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo talk to fool the audience.
I do not have to prove it works, I did have to prove, though, you're full of shit. And that I did.

So, until you have something serious to say, go dig some more chess books.

Comments on this entry have been closed.

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Co3 Systems, Inc..