Are you afraid, Dell, of the NIJ? Paper NIJ Guide 100-99 was authored by four well credentialed scientists. It would appear to me that you only "defamed" the one that died as he can not defend against your comments. Be careful! Cow pies don't stink until you step on them. ╦╦Ç
Good afternoon, Mr. C.
Since you seemed to have thoroughly enjoyed the DoJ report Mr. Winders so graciously provided for you, I thought it my duty to follow suit and share the good spirit by offering you a second helping.
May I present the 2004 version of the same report, by the same third party "experts" who did the testing in the original, again paid for with DoJ funds.......but with substantial changes to verbiage:
pg. 22, paragraph # 6
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208861.pdf
Buyer Beware
6. Be wary of unknown companies selling radically new technologies that seem to make unprecedented claims about detection capabilities.
Unusual and radically new technology claims may prove to be correct, but other claims may be erroneous or, in extreme cases, fraudulent. It is critical to talk to a wide variety of people, including vendors, the vendor's customers, and outside experts, before a purchase is made. Discussions with other customers may be less useful if the product is new and if those customers do not fully understand the technology.
Try to find out if the equipment has been independently tested by a government laboratory or university, and discuss the matter with the people who performed the testing. If a piece of equipment seems too good to be true, exercise caution.

Hmm....why was the language in the first document so strongly against certain types of explosives detectors, then overhauled so dramatically; the strong language obviously cleaned up to say
" Unusual and radically new technology claims may prove to be correct " in the revised edition only a few years later?
Strange, isn't it?
So I went back and looked more closely, thinking I must have missed something. Turns out I did.
Could this be an explanation.....

....
Same revised edition, same page, paragraph # 4
Ask Third-Party (non-biased) Experts
4. Seek advice from a disinterested third party who has expertise in explosives detection.
This advice could be sought by consulting documents similar to this one, or through personal
correspondence or phone conversations. Such advice is particularly important if discussions
with vendors and other customers leave you with important questions still unanswered.
Possible sources of information include the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the FBI, other law enforcement agencies, and the authors of this document. (The authors have developed prototype explosive detection technology, and therefore may not represent a totally disinterested third party.)
What? Am I understanding this correctly? The DoJ hired and PAID certain " third party experts" to investigate and research the best explosive detection technologies, and compile a report with
recommendations to be used as a " Guide for the Selection of Commercial Explosives Detection Systems for Law Enforcement Applications "?
The same "experts" whom we later see revise their original statements, discovering they
have their own Prototype Explosive Detection Device, and weren't so "disinterested" after all?
1. INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of this document is to provide law enforcement agencies with
information that should aid them in the selection and utilization of explosives detection
equipment.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the conflict of interest here.
A cow pile covered in chocolate sprinkles...is still a cow pile.
