All videos in this blog were recorded by me using a full size Sony DSC-W5 digital camera in plain sight, either at eye level, or hanging from a neck strap. The videos were made in public areas of the convention hotel during the time the convention and equipment demonstrations were in progress.
As you will hear on the video, I stated many times to Mr. White and Mr. Johnson that I would be writing a report. In my last letter to Mr. Johnson sent by certified mail with an email copy to Mr. White, I also told them that, unless I received a satisfactory response from them, the information would be placed on the internet. I received no response at all to that letter.
Video clips are edited for brevity and clarity. If someone needs the full unedited recordings for a legitimate research or documentation activity, please contact me by leaving a comment on the blog, including your contact information.
Trademarks used in this blog are not mine and obviously belong to the trademark holders.
I have no stock position in Sniffex or Homeland Safety International (HSI) and have never held any.
I received no payment or compensation of any kind from any source for travelling to the meeting nor for performing and reporting these tests.
My background is of little importance because the videos are self-evident. I have experience in the detection of explosives using mass spectrometry and gas chromatography as a result of past military service. I have conducted many experiments in which double blind method was necessary to avoid bias. I have a passing acquaintance with statistical methods sufficient for simple tests of the type described above.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Here's another "real life description" of Sniffex. Ask yourself, does this sound like something that doesn't work?
The scenario in -------Dept of Engineer for uses of Sniffex is this:
1. Detection of mined roads and areas of construction. Both requirements have been met my initial usage of Sniffex. Sniffex was able to indicate that the road ahead is mined, or having some kind of explosives. This detection is of course done by several different directional sweeps to overcome the handicap you mentioned that Sniffex cannot see straight ahead. In the initial tests, Sniifex was able to detect 100 per cent of mine sample placed under roads with approximate distance and locations through triangulations. Once the distance and direction are confirmed, the engineers still use conventional metal magnetic mine detector to sweep infront of them when they walk. In the past, without Sinffex they have to slowly and painfully sweep the entire road and areas of construction by metal and magnetic mine detector the tasks of which took days with construction activities coming to complete halt. With Sniffex they can quickly determine clean/safe area/roads and check out only suspected target areas. Please don't imagine that they simply walk into clean/safe area without cautions. They still sweep the clearn/safe area with conventional methods--only it is done much faster than without Sniffex.
2. Once suspected locations have been spotted by Sniffex, the soldiers turned on IED jammers to prevent the terrorists from using radio signals to detonate explosives and moved forward cautionsly and still with use of conventional detection equipment. At the same time, for extra measures of protection against command detonation by wire (the terrorists' favorite tactics which requies the terrorists to station themselves hiding in jungle no more than 100-200 meters from the mined site, the troops would sweep the surrounding jungle areas with machine gun fires from both the M-60 (.30 caliber) and the .50 caliber heavy machine gun fires. The recon-by-fire have been tried out and proved very effective so far by the engineers.
3. The Dept of Engineer is well aware of the limits of Sniffex you have mentioned here.
4. I have to simply be down with the troops to make sure that they use Sniffex properly for maximum effectiveness. As I have reported previously, Sniffex can detect explosives even when users are standing still--a special technique the ---------Corps helped developed several months back. These techniques include using Snfiffex in a moving rubbe boat to indicate safe landing zone among the mined beaches. One factor that helps Sniffex is the large size of mines, both the military-types and the IED types which have over 10 kilo of explosives. Our Sniffex can spot these monsters 500 meters away and in all case its detection shows a very strong signals from these monsters! Part of the test with the engineer will involves lowering the big "pizza" mines i(mported from Irag by the terrorists) into water in the dam at various depths to see how Sniffex can detect these mines. So far the engineers reported Sniffex could detect one mine at 10 meter depth.
5. While I would not includes all these special capabilities as standard Sniffex performance, I feel strongly that -- should prepare a separate table citing these special capabilities.
6. Sniffex does work everytime providing that 1) user hold it properly for maximum and sensitive readings and 2) take action to kill the "memory effect."
-----------------------------------
To the Author:
I am sure you have the best of intentions with your web information, but my suggestion is that you consider doing some more "due diligence". The Company will give you direct access to users and success stories.
It is unfortunate that your entire test failed and you have every right to get answers and when I contacted the company, they said they did their best to explain the negative outcome. Also, there are so many documented successes that I would think an inquiring mind would want to know why that is.
I know this won't see "the light of day" on the site, but be aware, Sniffex has already saved a few lives (and unfortunately that is top secret for a certain government) and you may be making a mistake by not looking into those "real world" experiences where Sniffex is being used today.
Well, you're mistaken. And you're also in error about your response
"not seeing the light of day."
The arguments for the effectiveness of the Sniffex device are virtually identical to those supporting the effectiveness of dowsing.
Anecdotal testimony, while it might be compelling, is not evidence. Our human nature leaves us susceptible to fallacious error. Therefore, even though it may sometimes pain us to give up cherished beliefs, we must be willing to do so if well designed double-blind studies repeatedly fail to demonstrate effects we wish to be true. Pursuit of truth requires courage and integrity. It takes courage to keep ones mind open to evidence contrary to our beliefs. It takes integrity to revise our deeply-held beliefs in the face of compelling evidence.
Nice, crisp reporting and really the video speaks for itself.
The comments are puzzling, though; objective testing under acceptable conditions showed plainy that the device is a complete failure. What the heck else is there to say? Wishing or insisting won't change the fact that under ideal conditions for the task it was designed to execute the device fails. Commenters telling us unverifiable stories with testing conditions completely unknown (and similarly unverifiable) doesn't actually demonstrate the device's effectiveness.
Do the same test again. If the device works everybody will change their mind. It won't, but it really is that simple. Pass a double blind test. Just one.
This is a snake oil Ouija board... Seems straightforward to me.
Good work on the scientific double-blind. Any other test run by those who know where the explosives already are becomes a communion with the spirits of the dead and a fraud.
Good luck to any poor fools that buy this elixir. :-(
I would like to hope that explosives-related personnel actually using this "thing" would bother to try their own double-blind on conditions more rigorous than envelopes that the operator can see! Even as it is, the tests don't work.
Thanks for the kind comments. If the detector fails a simple test like this, it obviously doesn't work. If it passes, that's just the start of your journey. Before you entrust anyone's life to it, you need to know how well it performs under a wide variety of conditions. That, I'm afraid, is beyond what I am willing to do.
However, if anyone want assistance in testing a possible explosive detector by this method, please let me know by leaving a message here. It may take a while for me to see the message and respond!
I was recently contacted by the Bulgarian inventor of SNIFFEX who is now trying to sell this item as a mineral exploration tool.
Too good to be true ... ergo .. not true.
Andrew Stancioff
Exploration Geologist
Thanks for the information, Andrew. The "inventor" is under indictment in the United States for securities fraud related to the claims for Sniffex. You can see the actual indictment document and charges at:
http://tinyurl.com/62gvko
Markov is charged as follows:
"From October 2004 through April 2006, Mihaylov and Markov acquired control of public company Homeland Safety International, 1nc.-then known as Sniffex, Inc. ("Sniffex")-and carried out a $32 million pump-and-dump fraud scheme in concert with the other Defendants. They acquired Sniffex in 2004 as a "shell" company from Lindberg in exchange for an agreement to pay Lindberg $100,000 plus 2 million shares of restricted Sniffex stock. The terms of the deal called for Lindberg to provide Mihaylov and Markov 15 million shares of so-called "fi-ee-trading" stock in the company"
They're simply crooks.
Hi and congratulations on a job well done.
Here in the UK we have a problem with 2 sniffex derived products,
1st Marketed and sold by ATSC(www.atscltd.com) the product is called the ADE651.
2nd Marketed and Sold by Global Technical(www.globaltechnical.co.uk), the product is called the GT200, this is the same company that originally sold the MOLE system that was panned by the Sandia Labs.
We have a blog here:-
http://explosivedetectorfrauds.blogspot.com/
best regards
Thank you! May I link your blog to this one please?
Sorry for the delay in replying, yes, please link our blog.
best regards
I do not know if you got my last response, but you are more than welcome to link your blog to ours.
Welcome to the fight against these frauds.
THX FOR YOUR RESEARCH.MAY I KNOW WHICH EXPLOSIVE DETECTOR IS BEST NOWADAYS TO BUY, IN TERMS OF COST AND ITS EFFECTIVENESS
Latest from BBC Newsnight here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxArxIgB9oA&feature=player_embedded
The campaign continues thanks to the great work of the BBC (Meirion and Caroline), Techowiz, Bob Couttie and many others!!
Reckon we will see Jim McCormick - ADE651, Gary Bolton - GT200, and David Vollmar - HEDD1 formerly known as Sniffex Plus, all shut down and either on the run or safely locked up. Hopefully their blood money will be confiscated as well.
Thanks,
Dubious Dick
The Fake Explosive Detector Campaign Group
P.S. Check out blogs for latest news and spread it around:
http://ade651gt200scamfraud.blogspot.com
http://sniffexquestions.blogspot.com/
http://explosivedetectorfrauds.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment