Wednesday, 19 November 2008

Dear Technowiz, Annon, and all.....

This will be my final comment on the subject as you are taking up too much of my time arguing on something you obviously know nothing here goes:-
I (and anyone with any sense) will not bow to anything associated with JREF and their if's, but's or why-for's.....(form you own opinions as you will do anyway).

The equipment does NOT rely on smell and there are MANY 'other-types' of equipment that function on principals other than this alone.

You are asking for companies to prove themselves to a bunch of people who have nothing else better to do in their lives than to sit on 'blog' pages trying to change the world......we have no need to prove to you anything! My proof lies with those people who ARE convinced it works and out of 'possibly' 1000's of end-users, surely I would have received someone who would have come forward to state what you believe to be the obvious....these are Government entities, not time have no experience in this field and therefore, I am seriously wasting my time in answering you.........if you think I am offering 'time-wasting' tactics then believe what you I said before, I was sure you would ridicule my previous comments and make it look like I'm the bad-guy here....I am not....if I wanted to hide, I would have done a better job of it than now and would not engage myself in wasted conversation.

Please note that of all the claims you (or more specifically) JREF have made, NO ONE has been prosecuted for anything more than financial fraud.....the Sniffex still exists by the way, only now not under the control of Mr Johnson in Texas, so you have not stopped the Sniffex because it was not due to their equipment's possible failure but due to an 'over-enthusiastic' stock figure....Use your common sense because you are really not thinking this through!


Dear Technowiz,
You see, if you ask civil questions, you will get civil answers.
You and 'some-persons' like you, are out to try and discredit both me, my company and anyone else that 'you' believe, is pulling the wool over ones-eyes when in reality, this 'type' of technology works! OK, I admit that explanations given to you may not fit in with what you understand as technology and I fully take on board comments that ask genuine comments....unfortunately, people like yourself have taken a personal vendetta for whatever reason....but having seen a lot of these comments, I am now building a picture as to what really 'bugs''s not the fact that you believe it doesn't work, nor do I sincerely believe that you are genuinely concerned about the saving of lives in war-torn territories but that, companies like mine are making money our of this and that this money is ultimately coming (perhaps) from US sources.....I cannot be sure of this myself but I am sure that you have formed a cult that believes this cannot work and irrespective of what I say, you will always find cause to discredit have to read all of the answers and comments that have been posted and in many cases, you will find contradiction in peoples comments....for example, someone mentioned that they saw my Thailand Police video and that they saw that something was found but then went on to say that I probably set it up yet, another person mentioned that, when I discovered 83 cluster bombs in the South of Lebanon.....'where was the video evidence'........ehh? am I missing something here?

Please, do not be offended when I say that I cannot take a lot of your comments seriously......I now see you asking for people to provide you with information to prove our equipment, (and the like) cannot work which, in my eyes, proves you really do not know what you are talking about anyway!
However, to satisfy your 'thirst for information', I will simply respond to your question as follows:-
The unit is designed as a Long-Range was never designed for short-range use and in fact, I have stated (on several occasions) that it is NOT a pin-point device. It cannot tell you "it is here!"....all it can do is identify an area that needs closer inspection.....(no.1).
(no. 2)....ALL of the tests that have been performed on these-type of equipments, have been tested in conditions that ALL of them would find VERY difficult....(despite what you may have read before from agents, suppliers, etc;) obtain a accurate reading...(yes, an antenna on a stick as you call it)...but at close range, it is difficult to find a reading that will identify a smaller is not impossible, but more often than not, a signal will be of the actual target.......that being said, it WILL then allow, other technologies to be utilised (including sniffer-dogs, hand-held vapor tracers, chemical swabs and the like) to maximise on their time in identifying the actual substance or pin-point the area.
I would be wasting my time to explain this further, but this is what happens in reality. Therefore, of all the tests and in particular, the double-blind test, all readings that were done, were done in conditions that would make it very difficult for devices like ours, to work.......unfortunately, those people who initially 'volunteered' for such tests....failed miserably.....however, also unfortunately to those people who conducted such a test, (a certain Mr Dale Murray comes to mind)...refused to conduct a second test stating that "he did not have authorisation for 'budget' approval to conduct a second test" and decided to go public with what he had......the rest, history.
So, (I now hear you ask), why don't I put the records straight....well simply, because now there is a change in policy with Joe Public......they want this to fail and so any faith that MAY have existed before, cannot be justified or trusted at this time. That being said, there will be testing done over the coming months and this will be done independently of public demand, although we will endeavour to use an Internationally recognised Authority that will also be willing to go public with their findings, but please sure of this, it will not be anyone who has any remote association with the Randi organisation.......when? all I can say is soon but be prepared for a long is not that we cannot find the right authority, it is finding an authority that is willing to go public with its findings.....because of you 'kind' support for such equipment, a lot of people have shy'd away........funny that!
I am sure this has not helped you in any way, and I am also sure that, true to your form, you will pick holes in my comments....but again, please do not be offended if I ignore any further comments you have made unless, of course, you want to apologise now.......(no...... I thought not either)....I hope this answered your question.....sorry for the long-winded reply.

Monday, 17 November 2008

TECHOWIZ...or is that waz?

Dear Techowiz,
Pleased to hear that you have nothing to say as your comments are lame.

When you have something to say that you know somethng about, then come back to me....otherwise.......well, I need not say more, appear to be holding a personal grudge and that you are perhaps a very lonly and sad person......I would advise you to take some professional help as there are some big issues you need to address in your life.

I am sorry you feel the way you are but I know what I have works...the fact you do not is not of concern to me and I would therefore wish you the very best for the future......however, I will ignore your comments for now............

Sunday, 16 November 2008


I have again received several responses......not surprisingly, Annon; in which I have been told to 'be-aware'........ As a statement to you all....if you have nothing to say, don't say it..... I will take on constructive criticism, but will not tolerate or publish anything that merely states for me (or anyone else), to 'be-aware'.......
Those of you who THINK, you know better and can offer a LOGICAL explanation as to why my equipment cannot work, then put your views and comments. However, those who believe this is some kind of 'paranormal'.......grow up!
The 'blind-test' that you all go on about cannot work successfully with a variety of detectors on the market, (including mine) as, this test is designed for most products to would be like asking someone to show how my car can go just as fast in reverse as it can going was never designed to do so and therefore can not..........the ONLY TRUE test is in the real-world and, unfortunately, tests conducted by companies like Sandi Labs and those 'believed' to be an acceptable test by 'organisations' like the Randi foundation, will not be suitable. This aside, I have no reason to HAVE to prove my point to them as I have no intention nor desire to do so.
For all of those who do not know who the 'randi org.' are,; they are a non-profit organisation, originally formed in 1996 by a 'magician' called 'Randell James Hamilton Zwinge' aka, James Randi, who's main task in life is to question the paranormal and pseudosciences......interesting!
You can read many articles on his website and read several comments from his supporters.......I encourage you to do this as you will see from the various comments, the kind of similar comments from people I have to cope with........
What I will say is that I am thankful at the overwhelming responses to our equipment that may have (in part) been attributed from their comments on their website as, I have seen a ten-fold increase in the interest for our equipment, (especially from 'real' end-users). So, although I maybe receiving some negative comments, I am also seeing an increase in please, form you own opinions as each visit to their (or my) blog, keeps this equipment to the forefront of peoples minds and reaches those people who have a need for this type of technology.....

Wednesday, 22 October 2008

Response to comments

Again, it seems that, you all know better than those entities that currently use our equipment.

I have ‘moderated’ some of your responses but if you recall, I have said; “if you have nothing to say, don’t say it” If you have some constructive criticism, then please explain yourself but for those of you who insist that we are just a ‘SCAM’ or ‘FRAUD’ without explaining yourself, you are wasting your time, (and certainly mine).

One ‘gentleman’, (Mr. Richard Saunders), seems to think he is the expert in this technology and has sent an email to all of our distributors stating that ‘we are being hunted down’ and that ‘we will be closed…..’

I would normally ignore these comments as they are being made by someone who has no experience in OUR equipment although he claims that he did a test with the Lebanese Army and that our equipment failed…..Well, Mr. Saunders……I would be very interested in who it was you were ‘conducting’ these tests with as, the Army do not recall any such test and do not appear to support your comments but have ‘endorsed’ our equipment; not condemned it.

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. If Mr James Randi wants to put his money to good use, then invest this $1 Million in trying to develop something better! The JREF ‘challenge’, (again as I mentioned in other ‘blogs’, is designed to ensure the equipment, (under their test conditions), will fail. I would be the first to admit that, if I were to take this challenge under their terms and conditions, I would not succeed…..However, I too could make many ‘other’ detector technologies fail by setting my own conditions….but I won’t, Why? Because this would unproductive and place more lives (as Saunders apparently likes to say) at risk……So my challenge is for Mr Randi’s organisation to develop something that THEY, believe works…..
My Question to those sceptics is the following; Do you believe that (and exclude my product and products like these) it is possible for the detection of either Explosives or Narcotic drugs, (or any other substance), to be detected at long-range? (Let us say for example, 100 metres or more). If the answer to this is NO, then I am afraid you are sadly mistaken and that it proves you are just unwilling to educate yourself or to be willing to invest in the technology that could. IF, however, you think it is possible, then explain why you think my product cannot possibly work? You have said it cannot but you do not explain why it cannot.
I, or my company, do not have to prove to you or anyone else in the Randi organisation, that my technology works as; there is nothing but controversy in everything you see as ‘unbelievable’. Additionally, although you have been around (and I refer now to the Randi Organisation) for quite sometime, you have spent the better part of more than 10 years trying to discredit such technology and have not (to date) given any categorical ‘technical’ evidence that discredits the ‘concept’ of such detection methods……..Yes, you have made tests, these tests have failed, (under your conditions), and, in some instances, discredited certain companies; (Sniffex apparently comes to mind), but that these ‘discredits’ had NOTHING to do with the technology.
I stand by my product and my proof is the large number of returning clients that purchase our product and know that the units work for them. If you are then saying that these people are also uneducated then you are criticising the very people that place their lives on the line that could benefit from this technology……so, if anyone is sick……..need I say more.
I would however like to make one comment of thanks…….I would like to thank Mr. Saunders (and the Randi Organisation) for raising the awareness of our product as, since their involvement in the conquest to crush me, they have encouraged several Government entities to contact me with an increased interest in obtaining our products and information and that our resulting sales have actually increased in the past 12 months rather than ‘hindered’ our progress. So, keep up the campaign. Oh, and as a final point…the person who mentioned that he (or she) would take more interest if they were to see me ‘attempt’ to clear a landmine field……I HAVE………in Lebanon after the last invasion a couple of summers ago……..we found over 83 unexploded cluster bombs in the South…… is documented…….

Sunday, 31 August 2008

And the Saga continues.....

Yes, I can see you all now, (not literally of course....I don't want to make you think I'm really a mind-reader!), and can 'imagine' what is being said......."Oh No! not another story about the phenomena of 'divining' principals". Nevertheless, I do get very tired when I see supposed, 'knowledgeable' people, attempting to provide their 'expert' opinions to those who are now being challenged as to whether they are going to be ridiculed by their superiors in choosing equipment that, time-after-time, continues to play the same tune........"it can't possibly work"....."has been proven by independent 'test-authorities' to be no better than random chance, or the flicking of a coin"......"does not operate by any scientific principals" ....and to be honest.....all of these are fair comments......unfortunately, these comments are also seriously flawed and continually doubted.

I have recently seen comments posted to the website and the reason I have not replied to them directly is because they ask you to 'register' first.......why? If this is such a big concern to them, why don't they really go public........oh sure, you can read what they have to say, but lets' be honest here......who is going to reply to them if they have to register? Only other allegedly 'knowledgeable' people with 1,000's of years experience in the field......certainly not the end-users who will not be able to keep their comments 'private' but that have a wealth of experience 'on-the-ground' and are able to offer hands-on experiences with the products concerned and have, time-after-time, been able to prove their respective effectiveness; So, I decided to make my own 'blog' and to ask for anyone to "constructively" post their real concerns and comments over the workings, (or not), of such devices. Please note that I would 'ideally' want to hear from those people who have had direct experience with these products and not from those who just want to play on the words or direct comments of others. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then don't say it; However, if you genuinely want to understand, (baring in mind I am not going to give away everything.....[no, NOT that I do not know, but that I will not tell you].....then carry-on).

To start the 'ball' rolling, (again don't take me literally here as I am sure their are those 'out-there' that will hang on every word I write and therefore, the 'ball' rolling comment does not refer to me wanting to play games.....yes, you know who you are...), but my first 'blog-comment' is as follows:
Yes, the ADE, Sniffex, Alpha 6, and GT200, (formally known as the 'MOLE'), I also know why (under certain conditions) they do not work and I therefore also know why the ADE (especially the ADE651) works the best, (but of course, I would say this...wouldn't I?).
What I will also be doing over the course of the next few months, is to also evaluate the effectiveness of other equipment and devices and to provide you an insight as to their respective effectiveness as well as supply some interesting comments and observations from both end-users as well as 'testing-authorities' that, you may find interesting.......(or not).....
Mr. Jim