NON-ELECTRONIC LRL

[TerryC]

Dell, I very much appreciate your most recent post. I have yet to read the full post but..... I'm still a skeptic. Sorry, nothing personal. Terry

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[TerryC]

Dell, this writing starts with "item #7". Can your produce the entire document? Excusing the entire document, can you tell me the DoJ document number? All decisions and papers by the DoJ have a document number (possibly with references). Obviously, the author cannot comment here, but, what was his name? Is the tag "a pretend scientist" your summation of his credentials as you see them? ╦╦Ç

EDIT: I found the paper, using your reference at the begging of your post.... all 130 pages of it. I'll be busy. ╦╦Ç

 

[Dell Winders]

Dell, this writing starts with "item #7". Can your produce the entire document? Excusing the entire document, can you tell me the DoJ document number? All decisions and papers by the DoJ have a document number (possibly with references). Obviously, the author cannot comment here, but, what was his name? Is the tag "a pretend scientist" your summation of his credentials as you see them? ╦╦Ç

?? The URL and page numbers are posted at the top of the article.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Dell, I very much appreciate your most recent post. ...

^^ this ^^ Good reading Dell.

 

[TerryC]

?? The URL and page numbers are posted at the top of the article.

Ditto. Tnx agn. ╦╦Ç

 

[signal_line]

My mistake--this Institute of Justice is part of DOJ. Like it matters anyway. A bunch of lawyers who can't use a rod. And the wording is just about verbatim to the phony skeptic propaganda around here.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... A bunch of lawyers who can't use a rod.....

Interestingly enough, your line was/is exactly one of the lines the writer warned the readers to prepare to receive:

" .... 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."

 

[Dell Winders]

"The "monster" you are making an allegory to, is : "Whether or not LRL's work". Right ? And if they work (ie.: there is no "monster" to "warn" people about), then there's nothing to save (warn) people about. Right ?"

Personally, I don't consider it a question of whether LRL's work, or not. In my experience every LRL I have used or tested has worked to a certain degree, but very rarely do they work according to the sellers claims, or a skeptics expectations. Even the most expensive LRLs have limitations that are rarely stated in the advertising claims, or mentioned in the operating manuals. Too often, LRL advertising claims are exaggerated, mis-leading or false so people should be warned.

In my opinion, in this age of technology, any LRL that utilizes L-Rods, or swivel, rotating handles , should not have a retail value of more than $1,000, or less. Anything more I consider a Rip-Off

Consumers are correct to be skeptical, and when possible, try before they buy. Dell

 

[TerryC]

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

 

[Dell Winders]

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

Appearances can be deceiving, especially if you are relying on Internet articles to be your source of research. I won't justify your negative inference of my character with a specific reply.

However, if you are really interested in fair and accurate research, You might include evidence of any explosive detection device on the market that claims to use Molecular Frequency Discrimination, or Harmonic Induction Discrimination to detect explosives? I would like to know if such exists? If not, it kinda makes the DOJ article on explosives a mute point. Dell

 

[TerryC]

Appearances can be deceiving, especially if you are relying on Internet articles to be your source of research. I won't justify your negative inference of my character with a specific reply.

However, if you are really interested in fair and accurate research, You might include evidence of any explosive detection device on the market that claims to use Molecular Frequency Discrimination, or Harmonic Induction Discrimination to detect explosives? I would like to know if such exists? If not, it kinda makes the DOJ article on explosives a mute point. Dell

Dell, would you agree that the NIJ 100-99 paper is fair and accurate? If not, why? Was your name and product(s) on an original, or any subsequent copy of NIJ 100-99, as you declare? It appears the paper was authored by four people. Which author are you referring to as "deceased"? ╦╦Ç

 

[Ditlihi]

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.

 

[TerryC]

Ms Ditlihi, I must refrain from comment on your post right now due to its length. I'm sure you will understand. Thank you, btw, for the post. As a (former) career police officer, I take such reports very seriously. To a fault. I have not been sitting idle. My time in the detective bureau has helped me to develop methods and techniques that still go with me today. BTW, I worked for NASA at the Kennedy Space Center (FL). Rocket scientists may be nerdy geeks, but I think they are the most intelligent scientists in the world! This research project calls for a personal visit to the Sandia Lab in Livermore. It's only two hours away. Where is the great revelation that the NIJ research, or any other lab, may be federally funded? Again, thank you for your posts. I DO read them. ╦╦Ç

 

[Ditlihi]

Ms Ditlihi, I must refrain from comment on your post right now due to its length. I'm sure you will understand. Thank you, btw, for the post. As a (former) career police officer, I take such reports very seriously. To a fault. I have not been sitting idle. My time in the detective bureau has helped me to develop methods and techniques that still go with me today. BTW, I worked for NASA at the Kennedy Space Center (FL). Rocket scientists may be nerdy geeks, but I think they are the most intelligent scientists in the world! This research project calls for a personal visit to the Sandia Lab in Livermore. It's only two hours away. Where is the great revelation that the NIJ research, or any other lab, may be federally funded? Again, thank you for your posts. I DO read them. ╦╦Ç

The report itself.... Very first lines at the top.

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.
Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:
Document Title: Survey of Commercially Available Explosives
Detection Technologies and Equipment 2004
Author(s): Lisa Thiesan, David Hannum, Dale W. Murray,
John E. Parmeter
Document No.: 208861
Date Received: February 2005
Award Number: 96-MU-MU-K011

 

[Ditlihi]

Perhaps someone should add reading comprehension to the curriculum for NASA scientists, eh?

 

[Dell Winders]

Kinda makes me wonder if the Author(s) of the revised article were experimenting with MFD or HID technology with the intention of hijacking it, and the first article was intended to discredit my use of it, particularly since they specifically mentioned MFD, HID and the name "Omnitron" in the first article I read, and the name was later deleted.

As I mentioned in my original post, I have conducted several field tests that by my own definition of HID, has the potential to inexpensively detect explosives. With the addition of electronics, and software, I envision a single cluster of ceiling mounted, remote HID sensors, that would theoretically detect a small amount of explosives below the sensors, within a 4,000 sq. ft. radius.

A problem to overcome is that I also have a cigarette pack size of electronics that will successfully block the sensors detection of explosives and other detectable elements. Dell

 

[Tom_in_CA]

sheesk, and to think airports go through ALL THIS TROUBLE of having all of us walk through scanners, x-ray our luggage, take off our shoes, etc.. When in reality, all they have to do is have these "wands" and just wave them at the line of people getting ready to board a plane. You'd find the guns, explosives, etc..... without all the trouble.

Sheesk our airport people are sseeooo naive not to avail themselves of these much simpler faster devices ! Is that right Terry ?

 

[Ditlihi]

sheesk, and to think airports go through ALL THIS TROUBLE of having all of us walk through scanners, x-ray our luggage, take off our shoes, etc.. When in reality, all they have to do is have these "wands" and just wave them at the line of people getting ready to board a plane. You'd find the guns, explosives, etc..... without all the trouble.

Sheesk our airport people are sseeooo naive not to avail themselves of these much simpler faster devices ! Is that right Terry ?

May I offer you some chocolate sprinkles?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

May I offer you some chocolate sprinkles?

Sure. I'll take 'em

In the meantime, I'm going to write a letter to our government to complain about this govt. waste of tax-payer money. They spend all this money on airport security (to detect weapons and explosives), when all they really needed was a single man, with a device to wave at vast crowds.

No more embarrassing taking off your shoes. No more invasive peeks into your luggage where they see your underwear drawer compartment. No more X-rays to where the viewer practically sees you naked, no more long lines. No more need to show up at the airport an hour early. And all while saving taxpayers loads of money !

No wonder we have a national debt of red ink. It's all this irresponsible spending. Eh ?

 

[Dell Winders]

NOTE: I have no Academic credentials to support me, so it makes it easy for those with a formal education to discredit, or mock me. I am a Kentucky Hillbilly, with a 6th grade country education. I make no pretense.

For what it is worth some of Academia, has given me respect. I am privileged to have been friends with Dr. Werner Von Braun, a prominent NASA Scientist We SCUBA dived together on numerous occasions.

Also, Dr. James Stanger, a retired NASA Earth Scientist, was my mentor regarding my experimenting with MFD. We communicated regularly by mail. I still have his letters.

Sientist, I consulted with on MFD, at Oak Ridge, were very respectful, and helpful. Dell