Mittwoch, 12. November 2008

How Can The ADE 651 Be Untestable?




A person going by the name "Mr. Jim" has been defending his product, the ADE651, claiming devices such as his and the Sniffex cannot be tested. Yet, he proclaims the military units who accept untested and untestable explosive detection equipment are somehow smarter than people who understand the basic principle of using valid experiments to confirm a theory. How is finding land mines different when they were hidden by an enemy rather than an independent person? In either case, you are trying to find explosives when you do not know their location. Does the ADE651 increase your chance of finding explosives if nobody standing there knows where they are hidden? Apparently not, since testing the device renders it ineffective, and every time you search for mines or bombs you are testing it.

One of the main companies selling the ADE 651 is ATSC from Great Britain. Some of the web sites selling the ADE651 were registered to a man named Jim McCormick.

DOMAIN: ATSCLTD.COM
owner-contact: P-JYM93
owner-organization: ATSC
owner-fname: Jim
owner-lname: McCormick
owner-street: Park Farm, Curry Rivel, SOMERSET
owner-city: Curry Rivel
owner-zip: TA10 0AE
owner-country: GB
owner-phone: +44.08448403750
owner-email: ATSCUK@aol.com

Now, the site is registered to a new person.
Domain name: ATSCLTD.COM    
Administrative Contact: Stone, Kevin
Email address protected from spam harvesters
Lakeside Studios
62 Mill Street
St Osyth, Essex CO16 8EW
GB +44.1255822172
Could this change of name and address be in order to hide from a challenge from Mr. James Randi?
On a blog seeming to come from Mr. Jim:
  • "I have also been questions as to why I haven’t taken up the JREF $1 Million challenge. Well, firstly, I have no need of the money. Although I am a businessman, I am not solely doing this for the money, (although it helps), but I first developed this product to save lives, (not take them Mr. Saunders), and that it is people just like yourself that are putting people (personnel) at risk by not promoting this product further and allowing developers to invest in this technology. "

Mr. Jim initially proudly proclaimed his participation in the ADE651 blogs which look a lot like this one, but he praised instead of analysed the functionality of the device. Yet when he was called out on the JREF web page, challenging him to a million dollar prize if it works exactly as Jim has said it has in the past, Jim will get $1,000,000. US DOLLARS. Otherwise he will be relegated to the ranks of Sylvia Brown , the self proclaimed psychic who has a million excuses on why she will not accept a million dollars. Is there no charity worth your time which could use that much money? Starving children? Cancer patients? The protest of not wanting a million dollars is hollow.

The true way to win the hearts, minds, and confidence of the Lebanese troops would be for you to conduct a demonstration to find explosives hidden in random boxes, with a third party having concealed them. If that test is not sufficient, we can drop 60 identical-looking cluster bombs onto a a large field. 15 of them would have explosives, but no detonator. The other 45 would have an inert substance instead of the explosive filler. You could try to point out which of the 60 contained explosive material using your ADE 651 or any similar product such as the Sniffex or Alpha 6. You claim to be able to detect unexploded cluster munitions in fields. I would like to see that proven.

Instead, I fear one of the Lebanese soldiers will die while using the device and rather than admit your waving piece of metal does not detect explosive, you will blame the operator for using it incorrectly.

1 Kommentar:

GC hat gesagt…

How tragic that the warnings in this site and others were not headed.

Whether it be investment banks selling mortgage backed securities or Mr Jim selling his ADE, the assumption that everything is OK as long as it is a free market is ridiculous.

This guy is now arrested, 15 months after the posts above. How many people have died because of him?