ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bomb detectors , dowsing , Gary Bolton , hal bidlack , Jim McCormick , Samuel Tree , sniffex

Reply
Old 15th January 2009, 08:02 PM   #41
Coveredinbeeees
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 108
Originally Posted by Dubious Dick View Post
Here's a response to my enquiry as to why the SNIFFEX is still being sold in Europe. The man agrees to any test!! Am taking bets against it happening, but who knows, maybe we can get one of these scam dowsers in front of the cameras again and show it to be useless>
Have you considered forwarding this e-mail to Randi? I'd love to see the JREF get involved with a test.
Coveredinbeeees is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2009, 01:14 PM   #42
Dubious Dick
Muse
 
Dubious Dick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 514
MDC

Hi Guys,

Knowing that Randi and his team are hyper busy, I have suggested to Mr. Vollmar of the wunderbar Sniffex Plus (which has apperntly been much improved)that he applies for the MDC directly. We shall await the progress of his application with interest!!
__________________
"Let's stop being so damned respectful." Richard Dawkins, TED 2002[
Dubious Dick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2009, 02:19 PM   #43
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Thanks for the additional information. I have a much clearer picture now.

Granted, this is a paperwork review as the actual device and/or schematic is currently unavailable for inspection so it is subject to infinite change/update as additional information is appropriated and as of this post should only be regarded as a technical opinion. ( today LOL) The information comes from links sent to me and in this thread.

1) The thermal redux technology in a nutshell- based on the principle of the thermal decomposition of the molecules of an explosive compound and the subsequent reduction of the nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) groups formed. This technology is legitimate, recognized and currently in use. ( talked to a buddy in the NIJ who is an SME in detection systems)

How the process works is similar to other particulate detectors in use in various chemical industries and a few others.Air containing the explosive sample is drawn into the system through an inlet and is passed through a sample concentrator tube, which selectively adsorbs explosive vapor molecules. The concentrated sample is then pyrolyzed (heated) to release the NO 2 groups, which are then transferred to a membrane separator/sensor assembly. Finally, the gases are passed across the sensing surface of the detector and a signal is generated. Verification of the presence of explosive vapors is accomplished by comparing the strength of the signal with the time elapsed from the start of the analysis cycle.

2) Other legitimate detection technologies are-Ion Mobility Spectrometry , Gas Chromatography/Surface Acoustic Wave and Electron-Capture Detectors.

All of these devices require a sample to move thru various components and compared to known test standards.

The claims for the devices in question:

1)detection of pre-initialized magnetic interference.

First, I cant even turn that into any meaningful statement. ( but I'm going to try anyway)

If this were true, it would mean that the device somehow detects a composition from its magnetic signature. ( presuming that "pre-initialized" means something along the lines of excited in reference to either chemical desorption, reaction, breakdown or maybe reacting with gasses in the air- all those are guesses because I cant pin that statement of theirs down) IN THEORY- it would be theoretically possible to detect such a field but identifying it and then eliminating all other similar fields ( which a detctor would have to do- at least to a degree) is beyond current technology.

2) power source which “modulates” the applied DC magnetic field. According to a report I read- this unit has magnets in it so in the most literal sense this is true as the magnets would create a DC field and since the field is moving, it is "modulating" ( creating a load in the electrical sense) and depending on the gauss of the magnets V the gause of any other field- one is going to out push the other.

So, "true" but absolutely meaningless. Every device on earth with magnets in it can make the same claim.

3) antenna works as an integration device pointing the direction towards the object through detection of the line of interference.

Another "how long is long" statement LOL. This tells me the antenna is connected to the magnets. ( I wonder if it is an emitter or collector because an emitter can set off a magnetic fuze) The only thing I can believe is that "line of interference" would be a typo and they mean lines of force since they are talking about magnetic fields. I and my 2 associate EE's ( had to get a second and third opinion just to make sure I was reading this stuff correctly) cant fathom what they are saying much less a operational theory that actually does anything.

4) creates in the surrounding one magnetic field with specific form. The device requires a relative movement in relation to the earth magnetic vector and more specifically to its vertical component.

Our universal translator is out for calibration so we were guessing at this one. The part about it creating "one magnetic field with a specific form" is true in the literal sense as the article i read says it has magnets in it and since magnets are "specific" I guess it does.

What is the "vertical component"? What is an "earth magnetic vector"? ( granted the Earth has a magnetic field generated by a self exciting dynamo effect of the core and its measures in vectors but its "dynamic" and always fluctuating as well is "everywhere" so how it it using this?)

5) The interaction between the dynamic magnetic structure created by SNIFFEX®PLUS and the vertical component of the earth magnetic vector establishes the necessary and sufficient conditions for the activity of the magnetic interference.

OK, they apparently either invented a crude compass or induced current. ( like rubbing a magnet on a wire will move electrons that a VOM will detect) "Technically" true since at some level both fields would create some miniscule reaction but so would moving almost any other object.

6) If in the surrounding there is a presence of an object containing in its chemical structure -NO2 or -NO3 compounds the interference can be measured with the turning of the antenna which reacts as a “pointer” to the object.

OK 2 stimulated magnetic fields that are not controlled ( and 1 random) is going to detect a chemical compound by "interference"? And this gain is measured by an antenna?

What they are describing is somewhere between IMS and ECD listed above. ( kinda a hybrid)

Still reading up on these and any info would be appreciated but what I'm seeing so far is meaningless gibberish that uses some "literal" truths in an attempt to shore up "nothing"
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2009, 04:55 PM   #44
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Longtabber,

Very precise destruction of the lies from the sellers of Sniffex Plus. Many thanks for all your efforts.
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2009, 04:56 PM   #45
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Longtabber,

Are you situated in the US?
PM me with reply if required.
best regards
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2009, 06:15 PM   #46
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Techowiz View Post
Longtabber,

Are you situated in the US?
PM me with reply if required.
best regards
Yes I am ( situated in CONUS) but work OCONUS as well
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2009, 11:09 PM   #47
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
 
Biff Starbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
Longtabber,

From the Sniffex Questions blog, here are some reference materials:

The full US Navy report on Sniffex, which Randi broke the story on a couple of years ago:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/a...NavyReport.pdf

The user manual for Sniffex. I don't see one yet for Sniffex Plus, but I can hope. I think this one will have you laughing. If I recall correctly, Randi even challenged Sniffex to be able to complete the tests they describe in their own manual. As long as the person who hid the sample leaves the room, they do a pretty good job of describing a double-blind test of Sniffex.

http://tasc.bg/images/Manual.doc


If I ever start a band, I am going to call it "Container 19"
Biff Starbuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2009, 07:36 AM   #48
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
I started reading that manual and my mind threw up. I have a Vulcan friend coming over and after my ability to think is restored I'll get back with a more detailed discussion.

I dont know whats worse. Their plan to market this rube golberg machine or the gullibility of someone who buys it.
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2009, 12:37 PM   #49
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Sniffex patent

Hi Longtabber,
The reason I asked if you were based in the US is you can look at the patent filed by Sniffex, I have it in pdf format if anyone wants to see it, but it can be downloaded free.
The patent Number is US 6,344,818
Date of patent is Feb 5 2002
The 'Inventor' is listed as a, Yuri MARKOV from Sofia in Bulgaria.
regards
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2009, 03:12 PM   #50
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Techowiz View Post
Hi Longtabber,
The reason I asked if you were based in the US is you can look at the patent filed by Sniffex, I have it in pdf format if anyone wants to see it, but it can be downloaded free.
The patent Number is US 6,344,818
Date of patent is Feb 5 2002
The 'Inventor' is listed as a, Yuri MARKOV from Sofia in Bulgaria.
regards
I read it- does your PDF have the reference drawing?

Reason I say that is what is described in the text and what is described in the brochure cant be the same exact machine. The device described in the patent has a signal emitter, coils and stuff that require POWER.

Please fire that to me so I can print it and mark it up.
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2009, 05:02 PM   #51
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Hi Longtabber,
The patent I have has several reference drawings. The pdf format I have will not let me cut and paste it into this forum, if you have a spare email I can send it to you. Send me email via pm if you can't download the full patent yourself.
regards
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2009, 04:41 AM   #52
Dubious Dick
Muse
 
Dubious Dick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 514
Correspondence with Vollmar at Sniffex Europe

Hi guys,

Here is the latest exchange of emails between me and Vollmar:

ME TO VOLLMAR

You said you would take any test. As usual the excuses start right away. The JREF testing would simply be double blind and agreed in advance as to the protocol. It is totally an objective approach. Just no cheating allowed. Of course you would avoid it because you know you are a fraud! If not take the challenge!!

And of course, Governments are often fooled into buying rubbish.

Where are the protocols and test results for your so called double blind testing?

VOLLMAR TO ME

No excuses necessary..

Let’s set it up in Germany, your choice of location, we are ready! We define the layout for testing because we will do strict far-field detection between 2-50 meters, as per our technical description. Will make sure that professional personnel is available and K9 as well. Our partner in Germany is WISAG (see attached reference letter).They are a using the device since 2005!

Mr. Randi is cordially invited!

BR

ME TO VOLLMAR

Mr. Vollmar,

I think you have misunderstood. You do not define the layout for testing. The protocol would need to be agreed by both JREF and yourselves. The protocol would be double blind.

I will make contact with the JREF to indicate that you are willing to submit the SNIFFEX Plus for testing, and then you will be able to enter into direct negotiations with them over the protocol, location etc.

Thank you

VOLLMAR TO ME

We are definitely willing to discuss with JREF and create a proper form of communication unlike the communication between JR and SNIFFEX Inc. previously.

Will take things from there and if we can find a “fair” basis to conduct tests, we are open! But it must be very clear that SNIFFEX®Plus is not a paranormal device but is based on a scientific assumption of measurement of magnetic interferences.

So let’s work something out.


ME TO VOLLMAR


Dear Mr. Vollmar,

I am not sure what you mean by saying that the communication between SNIFFEX Inc and JREF was not "proper".

Previously you said you did not know about the JREF. Where did you see that communication? Usually claimants get very upset when they cannot control the testing because of course it means that the testing cannot be cheated. I will be interested to take a look at the communication you mention.

In the meantime I am forwarding your details to JREF and look forward to testing of Sniffex Plus. I do not think the issue of paranormal is a problem. The challenge has been made to ADE 651, Quadro Tracker and Sniffex Inc in the past on the basis that the science is simply not credible.


VOLLMAR TO ME

I learned from the communication on Mr. Randi’s webpage when I was reading about the Million Dollar contest.

Will wait for next steps fro, JREF or yourself.

BR

DV

ME TO VOLLMAR

Dear Mr. Vollmar,

The best way to progress with the JREF Challenge is to formally register your willingness to participate via this email address:

challenge@randi.org

Please be patient. The staff at JREF are very busy.

I look forward to watching your progress with interest.

ME TO VOLLMAR

Mr. Vollmar,

I cannot find the SNIFFEX U.S. communications on the JREF website. Please can you provide me a page link to what you saw there?

Thank you.
__________________
"Let's stop being so damned respectful." Richard Dawkins, TED 2002[
Dubious Dick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2009, 04:52 AM   #53
Dubious Dick
Muse
 
Dubious Dick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 514
Sniffex Plus brochure

Vollmar has sent me the brochure for Sniffex Plus as a pdf. I can email it as a pdf if anyone interested. Not sure it is much help, but

And to Longtabber - Great analysis. Many thanks!!
__________________
"Let's stop being so damned respectful." Richard Dawkins, TED 2002[
Dubious Dick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2009, 06:09 AM   #54
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
While I'm waiting on the dwg's from tech, I have fired some emails off to people I know who are still active SF and with the ACE to see if any of them have and knowledge of where the Army tested any of them. ( the USN report is fine but I dont have many contacts in the USN and I would like to locate and speak to someone who actually had hands on with these if possible)

I would also like to point out ( as the CEO of a firm that has 2 US Patents) that in order to get a patent, you dont have to prove a device works. You just need basically to have the operational theory and a basic description/example of the machine just as ISO certification certifies the production process has quality control and tracability built in- it does NOT mean the physical product works or is of high quality.

The funny thing after reading the patent again ( while waiting for those reference dwg's to highlight) and printing an online brochure- they are talking about 2 different devices.

Also, if you go reference the associated patents the claimed patent references- it appears they "borrowed' narratives from legitimate devices and compiled them in theirs.
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2009, 06:47 AM   #55
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Dubious Dick View Post
Hi guys,

Here is the latest exchange of emails between me and Vollmar:


Let’s set it up in Germany, your choice of location, we are ready! We define the layout for testing because we will do strict far-field detection between 2-50 meters, as per our technical description. Will make sure that professional personnel is available and K9 as well. Our partner in Germany is WISAG (see attached reference letter).They are a using the device since 2005!

Will take things from there and if we can find a “fair” basis to conduct tests, we are open! But it must be very clear that SNIFFEX®Plus is not a paranormal device but is based on a scientific assumption of measurement of magnetic interferences.

These 2 things bother me.
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2009, 08:33 AM   #56
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Techowiz View Post
Hi Longtabber,
The reason I asked if you were based in the US is you can look at the patent filed by Sniffex, I have it in pdf format if anyone wants to see it, but it can be downloaded free.
The patent Number is US 6,344,818
Date of patent is Feb 5 2002
The 'Inventor' is listed as a, Yuri MARKOV from Sofia in Bulgaria.
regards
I had coffee now and read the online stuff and the sniffex website again and I "think" I see whats happening. ( but can probably confirm it when I get those PDF's from you) Something didnt sit right with me reading all that yesterday but it could have been the beer.

From the sniffex site EU

>>>The method of measurement is described in The United States Patent 6,344,818 and can be defined as detection of pre-initialized magnetic interference.

From patentstorm

>>>presence of a target material comprising a source module and detector module. The source module includes a generator to producing a source signal corresponding to a characteristic frequency of the target material. The detection nodule detects a location of the target material wherein the detection module detects an interference signal generated between the source signal and a signal generated by target material caused by exposure to the source signal. The device uses frequencies between 10 MHz and 1.3 GHz

>>>a source module, the source module including a source signal generator to generate a source signal corresponding to a characteristic frequency of the target material, the source signal adapted to strike the target material and cause the target material to emit an emitted signal

>>>31. The method of claim 28 wherein the detection step further comprises the step of moving the antenna to detect the interference generated between the source signal and target material.

32. The method of claim 28 wherein the detection step further comprises the first step of scanning around the source signal to detect the interference signal.


What I think ( as yet unconfirmed) I'm seeing is 2 radically different devices.

The sniffex clearly and carefully "wordsmiths' its comments to say the "method of measurement is DESCRIBED...". Nowhere i have seen yet says this actually IS the device named in the patent. ( that would get you around a charge of patent infringement and not paying royalties)

The device in the listed patent APPEARS to be 2 separate devices. A static signal generator ( which must be electrically powered) bombarding an area and a MOBILE detector ( as implied in vague language in 31&32 above) which having coils would have to have a power source as well.

In theory ( this is without close study of the drawings) such a device ( at least in lab conditions as described in the patent) could possibly work to some degree IF you could match all the freqs. Such technology similar is in use today. ( ionizing smoke detectors and some ionizing filters use similar theories as well as some others)

I notice some stark differences between what the patent claims and what the device claims.

I have a few questions

1) Does anyone know IF this machine is the actual machine designed from this patent. ( with royalties paid) I'm beginning to think this is clever wordsmithing and trying to insinuate legitimacy by REFERENCING a patent that theoretically "might" work yet not directly claiming it is a device thats 1 off from the patent. ( wont be the first time thats happened)

2) Is the inventor involved or directly associated with the creation of these claimed devices? ( I'm beginning to believe he probably isnt)

I think I see what they are up to now but need to really look at the detailed drawings.
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2009, 11:39 AM   #57
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
 
Biff Starbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
>>>
1) Does anyone know IF this machine is the actual machine designed from this patent. ( with royalties paid) I'm beginning to think this is clever wordsmithing and trying to insinuate legitimacy by REFERENCING a patent that theoretically "might" work yet not directly claiming it is a device thats 1 off from the patent. ( wont be the first time thats happened)

2) Is the inventor involved or directly associated with the creation of these claimed devices? ( I'm beginning to believe he probably isnt)

I think I see what they are up to now but need to really look at the detailed drawings.
The device and inventor are what is described by the patent. You point out what the Navy and Randi thought was odd. The patent says the device emits a signal. Yet, there is no power source or any kind of signal generator which would match what the patent claims is happening. The patent matches the pattern of scientific mumbo jumbo these guys use to explain why they think the antenna points to the target.

The real answer as to why the detectors seem to work is the ideomotor effect. The user has a hunch where the target is, and they subconsciously tilt the device in that direction. None of these devices have any kind of motor, servos, or anything else to point the antenna. They are all on freely pivoting swivels. As you pointed out, they don't need to prove the thing works that way for the patent. It just adds plausible sounding scientific words that can be put in brochures and told to prospective clients.
Biff Starbuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2009, 12:31 PM   #58
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Biff Starbuck View Post
The device and inventor are what is described by the patent. You point out what the Navy and Randi thought was odd. The patent says the device emits a signal. Yet, there is no power source or any kind of signal generator which would match what the patent claims is happening. The patent matches the pattern of scientific mumbo jumbo these guys use to explain why they think the antenna points to the target.

The real answer as to why the detectors seem to work is the ideomotor effect. The user has a hunch where the target is, and they subconsciously tilt the device in that direction. None of these devices have any kind of motor, servos, or anything else to point the antenna. They are all on freely pivoting swivels. As you pointed out, they don't need to prove the thing works that way for the patent. It just adds plausible sounding scientific words that can be put in brochures and told to prospective clients.
Its my job to get to the nitty gritty before I "stamp" my comments LOL and I'm still looking right now.

I and my firm have extensive legal experience from injury claims, warranty claims, commissioning defects, performance claims and such as happens when machines dont perform as claimed, designed,purchased, constructed or operated.

I have learned to start at the "fine print" because thats normally where the truth can be found.

>>>The device and inventor are what is described by the patent.

Yes and no ( contingent on what the drawings Tech is going to email me show) At this point, i have seen enough "language" to establish a legitimate possibility the patented device is radically different than the device presented. But again, let me reinforce the fact I have yet to see the relative drawings so that opinion could change in a nanosecond.

>>>The patent says the device emits a signal. Yet, there is no power source or any kind of signal generator which would match what the patent claims is happening.

This is where "proceed with caution" applies. Its a no brainer that the device MUST have a power source to "generate' anything. However, detail at that level for a patent application normally isnt listed because it can be construed as a "trade secret". ( or in laymans english- you dont have to supply a stamped builders print with machining tolerances and a full schematic- if you did the device could be pirated easily without the need for back engineering)

Thats why i think they MAY simply be scamming off of a patent.

>>>The patent matches the pattern of scientific mumbo jumbo these guys use to explain why they think the antenna points to the target.

True but I saw 1 very significant difference. The patent claims the generator emits a "field" that causes a reaction to the particles and the antenna finds them in general terms. Thats radically different from the "human/machine field" and dowsing rod description in the brochures. Thats why i want to get the dwgs and print them and get my guys to compare them side by side as we get time.

>>>The real answer as to why the detectors seem to work is the ideomotor effect. The user has a hunch where the target is, and they subconsciously tilt the device in that direction. None of these devices have any kind of motor, servos, or anything else to point the antenna.

I could buy that if the antenna was fixed and was picking up field strength like SWR meters or oscilliscopes where you then have to manually attenuate the device and "find" the target. Thats not what they are claiming tho.

>>>It just adds plausible sounding scientific words that can be put in brochures and told to prospective clients

I havent seen those "plausible sounding scientific words" in the brochures yet. I guess i overlooked them.
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2009, 06:03 PM   #59
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Oh No another bloody fraud being marketed and sold from the UK:-
Check out the website does this look familiar??????

Intelligence Counter Security & Surveillance

U.K.Ltd., 39 Brick Lane, London E1 6PU,Tel: 08712641758,Fax:448712648847
www.icssuk.com,
E-mail: sales@icssuk.com

PSD-22 Programmable Substance Detector
Early warning indicator and direction finder for explosive and contraband detection function in cold/dry/humid condition.





The System does not require the user to be any less than 200m-300m away from the required substance will direct the operative either to the container or the room where the contraband may.
Once a specific area has been targeted and detected the group of substance by multi-programmable Card and easily pinpointing system to allow safe removal.

PSD-22 Programmable Substance Detector
Technical Specification
Programmable RF Card: 22 type of Programmable RF Card available.
Card Chamber: Multiple Programmable Card holder Max. Capasity-12 piceses.
Detection Probe: New Gold head telescopic antenna.
Scan Type: Scan and area finding targeting a specific group of substance.
Operating Temperature: -6C to 65C temperature
Continuous Operation: Any area work continuous operation more than 5 hours.
Weight: 1.7kg including 12 Card with holder.
Optional
Card Verification Software Window Based
Special Card Reader (Serial Port or USB)
Special Card for Multi-frequency Detector like bomb jammer,hidden wireless 100mhz to 500mhz remote control frequency 850 to 2ghz.


Supply With Standard Package
1. Hand held Detector with gold head antina-1pieces.
2. Card holder (12 Card)-1pieces.
3. Belt holder with clip.
4. Coaxial special wire 1.2m.
5. Special hand gloves -1pair.
6. Spray (Special use)-1 Can.
7. Supply 10 Card as customer demand.
8. User manual-1 pieces.
9. Application user guide CD version-1 pieces.
10. Special Carrying case (acrylic body) -1 pieces

PSD can be used in the detection of the following substances.
Explosive Card Code
Gunpowder 05002155818
High Explosive or Detonable Explosives. 07002133515
DNT 02003155313
TNT 01003122212
RDX 03101020311
C4 04104021301
Semtex 06111301231
PeTN 08904010711
Ammonium Nitrate 09102050171
Nitro Glycerine 07270017213
Dynamite 08202030481
Nitro Esters(PETN, Ethylene,Glycol di Nitrate). 02125121301
Hexogen/Octagen. 02070708131
All forms of Plastic Explosives 01010121301

Drugs Card Code
Cannabis 3050213312781
Cocaine 3040502157728
Heroin 3090405177213
D-Meths 4090779923141
Ecstasy 5090667892313
Amphetamines 6091213465713
Opium 3020904421341
liquid Volatile Drugs 3077263822331
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2009, 12:35 AM   #60
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
 
Biff Starbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
Longtabber,

Please forgive my exasperation. I appreciate your patience in looking at this with fresh eyes.

Yuri Markov, from the patent, is or was involved with the manufacturer, TASC in Bulgaria, and Sniffex in the US.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...x.39c48dd.html

You are correct that the claims in the advertising do not match the claims in the patent.

The Sniffex sellers themselves describe the Sniffex as powered by the "human energy field." Other of these devices say they are powered by the "static electricity generated by the holder's breathing."


My best suggestion is don't be surprised if you find all manner of contradiction in your reading of how these things supposedly work. All too often it is rationalization after the fact for a phenomenon they witnessed (the ideomotor effect) but to which they are trying to come up with another explaination.

Randi exposed the Quadro Tracker almost 15 years ago. The ADE 651 an GT200 are made by some of the same people and appear to be using the same plastic molding.

http://www.skepdic.com/quadro.html
Biff Starbuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2009, 02:47 AM   #61
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
 
Biff Starbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
Sniffex scammers capitalize on tragedy in India to sell bogus explosive detectors.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/h...0901191433.htm

Quote:
Private security firms gear up to tap security market
New Delhi (PTI): Demand for more advanced technology solutions to counter threats triggered by the recent terror attacks has led to private security firms gearing up to tap this fast growing market.

"We have conceptualised and successfully implemented security solutions like video analytics. An add-on to the basic CCTV system, these intelligent software can identify any unwanted activity and alarm the control room. X-ray baggage scanners and portable explosive detectors like Sniffex have also been put in action at various places," says Sunil Nihal Duggal, CMD, Vision Group, a security solutions provider....
Biff Starbuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2009, 03:54 AM   #62
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by Techowiz View Post
Oh No another bloody fraud being marketed and sold from the UK:-
Check out the website does this look familiar??????

Intelligence Counter Security & Surveillance

U.K.Ltd., 39 Brick Lane, London E1 6PU,Tel: 08712641758,Fax:448712648847
www.icssuk.com,
E-mail: sales@icssuk.com
....and, of course, all reputable companies include a premium rate telephone number when they're trying to sell their product.

http://www.btbroadbandoffice.com/pho...9-numbers/0871
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2009, 04:40 AM   #63
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Biff Starbuck View Post
Longtabber,

Please forgive my exasperation. I appreciate your patience in looking at this with fresh eyes.


You are correct that the claims in the advertising do not match the claims in the patent.

My best suggestion is don't be surprised if you find all manner of contradiction in your reading of how these things supposedly work. All too often it is rationalization after the fact for a phenomenon they witnessed (the ideomotor effect) but to which they are trying to come up with another explaination.
Thats OK

>>>Please forgive my exasperation. I appreciate your patience in looking at this with fresh eyes.

I have a real world vested interest in this myself. First, being a Vet and former "longtabber" ( Special Forces Tab- the "long" one as opposed to the "short" tab [ RANGER]) and many of my friends are in the line of fire still.

I'm also a contractor who works over there ( LOGPAC type projects)

In short, I'm not playing games here in this particular thread and it has nothing to do with Randi, the MDC or anything else. I've just attended too many "Roll Calls" and they all suck.

>>>You are correct that the claims in the advertising do not match the claims in the patent.

I've only done a "glance" review as of this post but from skimming- they are in fact talking about 2 totally different devices at least in the construction. ( the drawings in the patents clearly mention external power sources, coax cables to connect the units and illustrate coils/resistors as well as synchronous wave antenna- its impossible by the laws of physics for those components to function without an electrical power source)

What that means at the moment is uncertain but they are 2 different devices. ( with the sniffex et al a variation of the theme)

>>>My best suggestion is don't be surprised if you find all manner of contradiction in your reading of how these things supposedly work.

Already seen that and again after only a cursory glance ( which will change after me and my guys really look deep) I could make a theoretical argument that the patent device has potential to possibly do something ( not exactly sure what) but the components listed wont function the way the patent says they will. ( like the antenna moving down the coil like an electric gauge- that is roughly how those work ( like a tuner on a hobby crystal radio with a germanium diode turning an AM signal into weak DC power) but something that big would have to have a servo assist and none is shown)


>>>All too often it is rationalization after the fact for a phenomenon they witnessed (the ideomotor effect) but to which they are trying to come up with another explaination.

I'm aware of that and am immune to the effect. ( I've done this too many times)
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2009, 05:31 AM   #64
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
 
Biff Starbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
Longtabber,

Besides the Navy tests of the Sniffex, similar products like the MOLE, Alpha 6, Quadro Tracker, etc have been tested by Sandia Laboratory and the National Institute of Justice.

Reading the articles, the engineers seem to be surprised someone would be so bold as to sell an empty plastic box with a radio antenna on it for $8000. But in fact, that is what they do. From their manual, the only coil or thing close to a wire in Sniffex seems to be a metal spring.

http://sniffexquestions.blogspot.com...t-sniffex.html

http://sniffexquestions.blogspot.com...-its-kind.html

Prior analysis has shown the contents of these "detectors" to include:
- A piece of paper with a picture of explosives or drugs to program the detector.
- A piece of plastic with a substance consistent with human sweat
- A dead ant
Biff Starbuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2009, 07:19 AM   #65
Dubious Dick
Muse
 
Dubious Dick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 514
I have just sent the following to The Hindu in the hope that it will get some interest there and put the brakes on Sniffex and the rest getting too many sales in he aftermath of the terrorist attack:

Sir,

In your article today you quote Sunil Nihal Duggal, CMD, Vision Group,mentioning that his company have implemented security solutions including
Sniffex, described as a portable explosives detector.

Sniffex does not work. It is a fraud and will put lives at risk if relied on.

Please refer to the following for background information:

http://sniffexquestions.blogspot.com

I urge you to investigate the use of this product further and to publish an article showing why no one should be using Sniffex.
Brave Police Officers, Army personnel, private security contractors and the public could easily die if they rely on Sniffex.

Please do not waste a moment exposing this terrible fraud. If anyone says we are wrong then please approach the most#reputable University in India,
and ask their Physics department to set up properly controlled double blind tests. These will prove that the equipment does not work,
and I am sure that eminent physicists will agree that the claimed technical properties are nonsense.

Thank you.
__________________
"Let's stop being so damned respectful." Richard Dawkins, TED 2002[
Dubious Dick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2009, 01:22 PM   #66
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Biff Starbuck View Post
Longtabber,

Besides the Navy tests of the Sniffex, similar products like the MOLE, Alpha 6, Quadro Tracker, etc have been tested by Sandia Laboratory and the National Institute of Justice.

Reading the articles, the engineers seem to be surprised someone would be so bold as to sell an empty plastic box with a radio antenna on it for $8000. But in fact, that is what they do. From their manual, the only coil or thing close to a wire in Sniffex seems to be a metal spring.

http://sniffexquestions.blogspot.com...t-sniffex.html

http://sniffexquestions.blogspot.com...-its-kind.html

Prior analysis has shown the contents of these "detectors" to include:
- A piece of paper with a picture of explosives or drugs to program the detector.
- A piece of plastic with a substance consistent with human sweat
- A dead ant
Slowly but surely, we are going thru it

>>>Besides the Navy tests of the Sniffex, similar products like the MOLE, Alpha 6, Quadro Tracker, etc have been tested by Sandia Laboratory and the National Institute of Justice.

Yeah, I'm conversing with a guy I know who does testing for the NIJ to see what else there is. I really want to find an Army test of similar devices because I might actually get to get some of that firsthand information.

>>>Reading the articles, the engineers seem to be surprised someone would be so bold as to sell an empty plastic box with a radio antenna on it for $8000. But in fact, that is what they do.

Must be young engineers LOL. One thing i have learned in my 30+ yr career is that there is a separate entity known as the "business mind" that operates on some alien frequency. They have this idea that in order to show they are in line with the current "flavor of the month" business ideology ( be it safety,security, racial sensitivity or whatever)- they form a committee and cut a PO to buy the "solution" or use the most "simple" of flawed logic. ( they make me lots of money)

I know of 1 plant manager who thought he had the solution to cut his overhead and that was to fire his whole maintenance department because all of his operators "knew" their machines and could keep them in tip top shape he has now been terminated and we have a maintenance contract in place.

The good news is that this is rare in industry because there is normally an engineering proposal outlining what a device needs to do and a evaluation team comprised of engineers in the appropriate disciplines.

As far as the patent goes- you cant patent a theory but only an application of a theory and thats what has happened here.

As far as the theory goes, theoretically such a device is within the realm of engineering possibility in the general sense. ( as far as detecting a signature)

The problems creep in in the description of how the device applies the theory.

I can accept that an object could detect signatures but not at the ranges and conditions described.

I cannot accept that it could identify specifically anything or differentiate between signatures. ( I could accept it if this device was on a table in a lab and was used under controlled testing but even then, we need some more technology before it would be feasible- I cannot envision it under field conditions)

In short, the theory is possible but the described application isnt.

It will take a bit but we are going to do a detailed point by point analysis of each claim for future use.
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2009, 04:20 AM   #67
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
 
Biff Starbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
Longtabber,

Well put as far as seeing one crux of the problem being if their device actually applies the theory claimed. As the SniffexQuestions site showed, they for years advertised they were tracking "nitrous oxide" bonds. If you don't know enough about chemistry to know which bonds you are looking for, how successful will you be in finding them?

Also, are the substances paramagnetic or diamagnetic? With no motor to point the antenna in the direction of the source, the options are limited to things like gravity, wind, magnetism, or electrostatics.

Probably not coincidentally, the devices also stop "working" when held by something other than a human. The fact that this blocks the ideomotor effect makes it an essential test to show the device is working on its own and not a dowsing rod. Since it stops working when held in a tripod, the users have to devise other excuses, such as "human energy field" or "static electricity from breathing." Nevermind that an electrostatic field or current could be added much more easily and at much higher levels without using a person as the power source.
Biff Starbuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2009, 05:17 AM   #68
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
I am told that these frauds sorry devices work even better in a helicopter, must be the increased static. Ranges of up to 10km have bee claimed.
It is beyond comprehension that if this stuff worked as claimed, every Military and Police unit in the free world would be equipped with it.
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2009, 05:44 AM   #69
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
 
Biff Starbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by Techowiz View Post
I am told that these frauds sorry devices work even better in a helicopter, must be the increased static. Ranges of up to 10km have bee claimed.
It is beyond comprehension that if this stuff worked as claimed, every Military and Police unit in the free world would be equipped with it.
Don't forget - In a person's HAND in a helicopter

It is also beyond comprehension how many military and police units are stuck using this junk, given the fact these things don't work.
Biff Starbuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2009, 03:49 AM   #70
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Biff Starbuck View Post
Longtabber,

Well put as far as seeing one crux of the problem being if their device actually applies the theory claimed. As the SniffexQuestions site showed, they for years advertised they were tracking "nitrous oxide" bonds. If you don't know enough about chemistry to know which bonds you are looking for, how successful will you be in finding them?

Also, are the substances paramagnetic or diamagnetic? With no motor to point the antenna in the direction of the source, the options are limited to things like gravity, wind, magnetism, or electrostatics.

Probably not coincidentally, the devices also stop "working" when held by something other than a human. The fact that this blocks the ideomotor effect makes it an essential test to show the device is working on its own and not a dowsing rod. Since it stops working when held in a tripod, the users have to devise other excuses, such as "human energy field" or "static electricity from breathing." Nevermind that an electrostatic field or current could be added much more easily and at much higher levels without using a person as the power source.
>>>As the SniffexQuestions site showed, they for years advertised they were tracking "nitrous oxide" bonds. If you don't know enough about chemistry to know which bonds you are looking for, how successful will you be in finding them?

Yeah, this is where they deviate from the patent claims and as you state, identifying the millions of combinations would be almost impossible

>>>Also, are the substances paramagnetic or diamagnetic?

I think it safe to rule out ferromagnetic from the start so I'm guessing diamagnetic but the problem is- in a field application, "everything" bombarded with the units field would be tyhrowing off electrons ( theoretically) so it wouldnt be able to distinguish.

>>>With no motor to point the antenna in the direction of the source, the options are limited to things like gravity, wind, magnetism, or electrostatics.

Yeah, thats where it goes south. No way possible

>>>such as "human energy field" or "static electricity from breathing." Nevermind that an electrostatic field or current could be added much more easily and at much higher levels without using a person as the power source

Thats just bogus but the patent ( as differentiated from the device claims) is different as it clearly indicates a neew for a power source and uses a human interface, doesnt get "the force" from it.

Thats why I said earlier that maybe in a lab- the "gross" technology in the patent may be useful for something or worthy of further study but the device simply cannot work.
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2009, 02:09 PM   #71
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
>>>[b]>>>[b]
Thats why I said earlier that maybe in a lab- the "gross" technology in the patent may be useful for something or worthy of further study but the device simply cannot work.
Nice to see we are all singing from the same hymm sheet!!!!
regards
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2009, 04:19 AM   #72
Dubious Dick
Muse
 
Dubious Dick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 514
Progress

Hi,

To those of you who have been following this or contributing I have some excellent news.

I emailed a briefing prepared by Techowiz to a senior politician in the U.K. That person is very interested and concerned and is going to raise the matter with others.

For obvious reasons I do not want to publicly divulge who I am in contact with, or what they are proposing to do. Let's just say that I really feel we may get some real action now.

Hi to Jim at ATSC, Gary at Global Technical, Simon at ComsTrac and the people at ISCC behind the PSD 22. Get sweating boys!!
__________________
"Let's stop being so damned respectful." Richard Dawkins, TED 2002[
Dubious Dick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2009, 08:13 AM   #73
Dubious Dick
Muse
 
Dubious Dick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 514
Sorry

Nearly forgot David Vollmar at Sniffex Europe.

Don't worry though David. The same information is being forwarded to the German authorities, so you won't have to feel left out.
__________________
"Let's stop being so damned respectful." Richard Dawkins, TED 2002[
Dubious Dick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2009, 01:42 AM   #74
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
 
Biff Starbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
Techowiz!

Your work has convinced one billion people the ADE 651 is a fraud! Maybe not, but one of the few words I can pick out of this article is "Techowiz."

  在2005年8月一篇文章里,詹姆斯·兰迪就曾转述出美国海军对Sniffex探测器的检测报告:检测 结果证明,该探测器不具备探测功能,而且其指针极易受微风、磁场和“念动动作”的影响……英国 网友Techowiz回帖称,Sniffex正是Sniffex Plus的前身,后来改名继续销售。

http://sniffexquestions.blogspot.com/
Biff Starbuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2009, 01:51 AM   #75
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Dubious Dick View Post
Hey Biff, interesting article. Already knew via Delpac that there was a Belgian connection. Funnily enough, Belgium probably the most corrupt place in Northern Europe from what I understand! Strange correlation, no!

Have already written to the Belgian Embassy in London to warn them about ADE. Unlikely to get any response individually from these efforts, but some mud will stick somewhere.

You are welcome to PM us on UK Skeptics if you want, or here, if you find out any more info you think we may not have.

Cheers,
DD
I have lived in Belgium for the last thirty years and it is less corrupt than some European countries.Frankly an American calling a European country corrupt is a shining example of the pot calling the kettle black!
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2009, 03:42 AM   #76
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
 
Biff Starbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
I have lived in Belgium for the last thirty years and it is less corrupt than some European countries.Frankly an American calling a European country corrupt is a shining example of the pot calling the kettle black!
I thought Dubious Dick was from the UK, hence the invitation to join them on the UK Skeptics page.

Regardless - America, Europe, and many other regions are corrupt. I don't think this thread was about comparative levels of corruption. Transparency International does a nice index of that every year. This thread is about forum members advocating for the sale of these devices to be stopped.

With respect to these dowsing rod scams, in at least two instances, the US authorities have shut down the companies while European countries have allowed them to keep selling. These are the Quadro Tracker, which moved to the UK and became the MOLE, ADE 651, etc. And Sniffex, which was shut down by the Securities and Exchange Commission for stock fraud, but which is still being sold around the world by other companies.

That does not mean the US is less corrupt, but probably more attention in the media is directed towards US dealers than sellers in smaller countries. I applaud DD and Techowiz for their efforts to make other governments and media outlets aware of these scams so they can be prevented.
Biff Starbuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2009, 02:18 PM   #77
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by Biff Starbuck View Post
Techowiz!

Your work has convinced one billion people the ADE 651 is a fraud! Maybe not, but one of the few words I can pick out of this article is "Techowiz."

  在2005年8月一篇文章里,詹姆斯·兰迪就曾转述出美国海军对Sniffex探测器的检测报告:检测 结果证明,该探测器不具备探测功能,而且其指针极易受微风、磁场和“念动动作”的影响……英国 网友Techowiz回帖称,Sniffex正是Sniffex Plus的前身,后来改名继续销售。

http://sniffexquestions.blogspot.com/
Thank you Biff, Ithinks it translates into:

' Another fraud is the nonsense known as the sniffex. It is total crap and could not detect a ton of explosive in front of it. The only time you will find explosives with this crap is when it blows you up. Techowiz is brilliant and so says all of us. By the way sniffex plus is crap as well.'
I think that is how it roughly translates.
regards
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2009, 02:20 PM   #78
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
I have lived in Belgium for the last thirty years and it is less corrupt than some European countries.Frankly an American calling a European country corrupt is a shining example of the pot calling the kettle black!
Hi Dafydd,
Please let us not go off topic about who is the most corrupt.
I will tell you who the most corrupt are, it is the scum that make and sell the frauds known as, ADE651, GT200 and all of the sniffex gang.
regards
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2009, 06:52 AM   #79
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
To all supporters and followers of this thread, just to let you know, we have not gone away, there has been a lot of activity behind the scenes. I think we may be able to report some really positive news in the next few weeks.
Regards to all and thanks for your continued support
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2009, 11:28 AM   #80
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
 
Biff Starbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by Techowiz View Post
To all supporters and followers of this thread, just to let you know, we have not gone away, there has been a lot of activity behind the scenes. I think we may be able to report some really positive news in the next few weeks.
Regards to all and thanks for your continued support
Great to hear Techowiz. This battle has continued for years, so I am glad to know the UK Skeptic team is still hard at work
Biff Starbuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:23 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.