PDA

View Full Version : Passive Human Detection System


ElRog
02-18-2010, 22:37
http://www.dklabs.com/

I recently observed the DKL Lifeguard Passive Human Detection System demonstrated.


Claims to be able to detect Humans, above ground, open air, at 500 meters.

Claims to be able to detect Humans in caves, rocks, underground at 100 meters.

Demonstrator stated that device has been used by 3rd and 7th SFGs. Was also claimed to be involved in the rescue of personel in the Haiti disaster.

A google search pulls up the Sandi Nation Laboratories double blind test. The lab says the device failed. http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1998/980977.pdf

In short:

Test A- Operator Knows where subject is hidden among 5 crates. Operator using device detect 10 out of 10 correct.

Test B- Operator does not know where subject is hidden among 5 crates. Operator detects 6 out 0f 25 correct.

Test C- The process resulted in 3 of the 15 trials having an individual present. The
Test Operator indicated the presence of an individual in 8 of the 15 trials. Only 1 of the 8 was
coincident with the actual presence of an individual. In the 7 instances of the Test Operator
indicating that no individual was present, an individual was actually present in another crate 2
times.

The final result of the test concluded that the Lifeguard was no more efective then pure chance.

I am interested in anyone that may have experience that can backup the manufactuers claim. Or is this Snake Oil?

ElRog
02-18-2010, 22:42
Seeing the demonstration reminded me of water dowsing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing

Operator uses the lifeguard in much the same fashion.

atmhc
04-07-2010, 15:45
It's definitely not snake oil, I've used it myself.

I first heard about the DKL Lifeguard from a SEAL who witnessed a live demo, which he said was amazing. It was also mentioned in Tom Clancy's novel "Rainbow 6". I looked it up on the internet, & found the company's website, www.dklabs.com, amongst a bunch of other websites that were badmouthing them and their technology. I also found the following magazine article, which confirms the company's claims, and explains how the results of the test conducted at Sandia Labs were misinterpreted.

http://www.officer.com/print/Law-Enforcement-Technology/LifeGuard-Tracks-Criminals-Where-They-Hide/1$35704 (http://www.officer.com/print/Law-Enforcement-Technology/LifeGuard-Tracks-Criminals-Where-They-Hide/1$35704)

I was told that another test was conducted at a container port in Europe, in which the device was used to search containers for stowaways, after which the containers were physically searched by port officials. In that test, they searched over 1,500 containers, found stowaways in about 50 of them, and didn't miss a single one, although it did produce a small number of false positives.

I operated it myself shortly after a demo at last year's FPED at Quantico. As a former Marine from the late 60's I immediately knew how valuable a tool it would be for use in combat and security applications.

The company gave me the following point of contact info for one of their representatives, Garry Robb, a former special forces operator with the Phoenix program, and SOG (CCN): He can be reached at: grobb@epix.net, cell # 610-517-1252.

Note: The image you show is of the original prototype. Here's a photo of the current model, along with the computer used in training operators to use it.

The Reaper
04-07-2010, 16:09
atmhc:

You might want to review the board rules and comply before posting further.

Just a thought.

TR

atmhc
04-07-2010, 23:15
TR;

I just posted my introduction. If you're referring another error or omission, please let me know...

Al

ElRog
04-24-2010, 12:00
I am not sold.

1. The sandia test shot giant holes in the claims they made.

2. An advocate of the system claimed its success in Haiti. Once again, to have that kind of success and not have it documented or backed up raises warning signs.

3. Talked to someone just back if they had seen it overseas, per se, this is what he told me- "I was with this British guy in a back of a truck, he had something similar, he said you could buy extra cards for the device, pop these cards in and the device switched from finding humans to, Gold, water, food, IEDs".

I asked how much these cards cost, I was told 5k.

I agree that everything puts out a "charge". I agree that devices can measure this charge. But to ranges of 12 kilometers? Uh,,, I am not sold.

Hopefully DARPA has a few guys tracking this technology, but I don't think it is ready for the field.

Note: I understand the Brit had the gold card in his device.

Papa Zero Three
04-24-2010, 12:34
I recall hearing about this device some time back. I've never personally used one but one of my buddies has. His opinion of it is that it is snake oil and the marketing and and sales pitch(smoke screen) is what convinces people to buy fools gold against their better judgement.

Lets think about this for a second, Sandia Labs, a facility specifically designed and staffed with professional people who design and test things for a living in conjunction with DOE, have publicly stated how it performs or lack there of. Thats enough for me and should be a good indicator that this thing is a pipe dream.


For the life of me, I want to say 60 minutes or another news show did a segment on this where the local army/police in a foreign country were buying these things for an exorbitant amount of money from the company and proved that it was pure chance as to their detecting the presence of people/bombs/etc. in the field.

The rebuttal to this claim by the company was that the operator was not properly trained/was using it wrong and went on to show their demo in a controlled environment and of course it was a miracle box.... go figure.:rolleyes:

plato
04-24-2010, 13:17
At any reasonable distance, the "operators "signature would be equal to that of the person sought so you would need to know the location of the "subject" in advance. The electrical eminations from a human body are not directional. Therefore, the human heartbeat of one person sought, would be "detectable" in front of you, behind you, and in all directions.

It's sorta like standing in the middle of a football field, blind, and picking up the heartbeat of someone with a red shirt, as opposed to every one else.

Basically, nope, no way, not a chance.

Over 30 years as a pretty da**ed good engineer.

Dozer523
04-24-2010, 15:35
Well . . . at least it's not as big as Ground Surveilance Radar
and doesn't require a specific MOS. (I remember those little sissies.)

mark46th
04-25-2010, 00:49
How about one of these?

http://www.opticsplanet.net/game-finder-a-enhanced-gf-a-e.html

Green Light
04-25-2010, 10:14
I read the link. Who/when discovered that humans produce ULF energy? A frequency that low has a wave length that's thousands of feet long. That doesn't seem to be electrically efficient.

atmhc
05-28-2010, 03:16
To El Rog:

If you read the full Sandia Test Report yourself, you'll see that the conclusions as stated in the Abstract in the beginning, contradict the actual test results themselves. The DKL device made all 25 of the 25 detections in the test, and it says so in the report. They didn't count 19 of the 25 tests because they were off directionally by a few degrees. DKL however, has always said that the accuracy of the bearing varies depending on the distance and the obstacles between the operator & the target. If you were tracking a fugitive in the woods, the device will point you in the general direction of the target, and the bearing will harden up the closer you get to him. Clearly you're better off searching a 5 to 10 degree sector of the woods than a 180 degree sector. Search and Rescue personnel have tested it in a variety of different scenarios, and in each case, the device has dramatically cut down their search time. You can read the original report by Sandia yourself, (it's not that long) and you can find it online at:

http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1998/980977.pdf

Dramatically new technologies, that defy the common wisdom of the day, often are met with disbelief, and beset by detractors who refuse to believe that they're capable of meeting their maker's claims. Read the report, and contact the company to arrange for a personal demonstration. Once you see it work, and actually operate it yourself as I have, you'll be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is indeed real.

There are numerous different uses for this technology, other than locating our enemies in military scenarios, in which lives can be saved. Searching for survivors in earthquake rubble, locating survivors in burning buildings, locating individuals afloat after boating accidents etc, finding missing skiers after an avalanche, all become much easier with this technology. With so much at stake, isn't it worth your time to look into it on your own rather than assuming that a testing lab like Sandia cannot make mistakes? Hundreds of these units are in use around the world, and have already saved many many lives.

I don't know too much about the other device you're talking about, but the DKL device has no removable cards, DKL has never claimed that it works at distances of 12km. The maximum operational range that DKL has ever claimed is 500 meters. There have been other devices that claimed to be able to locate people (as well as explosives & drugs) that have been proven to be fraudulent. Two of these, the Quadro Tracker and the ADE651, both of which resemble the DKL devices, are discussed in the following article at a well known website, the Skeptic's Dictionary:

http://skepdic.com/quadro.html.

The more recent of the two, the ADE651 is the subject of the following report from the BBC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQMwXo1SSVo&feature=player_embedded#!

To: Papa Zero Three

I'm virtually certain that you're confusing the DKL LifeGuard with the ADE651. The operator during the Sandia test was a fully trained DKL representative. The ADE651, which sells for $40,000 each, was sold to various military forces. The Iraqi's bought thousands of them at a cost of $85MM.

To: plato

I don't doubt that you're a good engineer, but unless you're really familiar with the science of dielectrophoresis, you can't truly understand how the DKL device works. In any event, your conclusion is wrong. The operator's electric field is part of the circuit that occurs when the device locks onto its target. I wish I could be more specific, but the operator's field in some way attracts the target's field. I'm not an engineer myself, so I can't explain the science too well, however your analogy is totally off base:

"It's sorta like standing in the middle of a football field, blind, and picking up the heartbeat of someone with a red shirt, as opposed to every one else".

That's not what DKL is claiming the LifeGuard can do. It cannot locate one specific person, regardless of any specific characteristic of that individual person out of a crowd of other people. It can however find an individual such as a lost hiker out in the wilderness. The hardest thing for the device to do is locate people in crowded urban environments, because the device is so sensitive, that it can easily pick up others in the search area. The "RAD" (Range Attenuation Device) that sticks out of the front of the LifeGuard (and looks like a car antenna) can be shortened or lengthened in order to adjust the unit's range of detection. If you were looking for a living survivor in a house on fire, you'd have to shorten the RAD so its range is only slightly more than the distance from the operator to a short distance behind the house. If used with the RAD fully extended, and if there were individuals in another house behind the house you're scanning (within a few hundred meters), the unit would pick them up, whether there were or were not survivors in the house being scanned. The company claims that the unit does generate roughly 5% false positives in many scenarios, however in numerous tests, where there were some false positives, the device has NEVER failed to make a detection if a living target was present.

The following is a quote from an article in Law Enforcement Technology Magazine, (March 2007) which can be found online at:

http://www.officer.com/print/Law-Enforcement-Technology/LifeGuard-Tracks-Criminals-Where-They-Hide/1$35704

"Montanio recalls his first field application of the system. He received a call on Easter night from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department requesting assistance at a scene where a suspect had taken hostages and barricaded himself inside a City of Industry residence. Officials wanted Montanio to use the LifeGuard system to determine where people were located within the home, in case they had to do a rescue entry.

He recalls deploying the system on all sides of the home and getting two detections, one in the dwelling's center and the other in its northeast corner. When the suspect surrendered and SWAT officers entered, they found the subject and hostages holed up in the center of the home while a baby slept in a bedroom in the northeast corner.

In another incident, as undercover officers made a methamphetamine buy in south Los Angeles, the suspect took off running into a large warehouse. Montanio says he was able to use the LifeGuard to narrow the suspect's location to a small corner of the warehouse. K-9 officers located the suspect hidden in a locker near where Montanio had made the detection."

I suspect that a number of people have simply assumed the DKL device is just another iteration of bogus devices like the Quadro Tracker and the ADE651. It's not. The company is run by two retired Naval officers with impeccable reputations. As a former Marine myself, I hate to think of all the American lives that have been lost in the middle east in recent years, that could have been saved, if the DKL device was widely deployed by our military. When I first saw the device working, my immediate thought was how many lives could have been saved if these devices were in use in the late 60's in Vietnam. Enemy ambushes at jungle extraction points would have been impossible if the crew chief in the Hueys could have scanned a potential LZ from the air before setting down.

I'm certain that everyone reading this knows how valuable a tool this device can be if it does in fact do what the company says it can. For 12 years now, the company has been trying to overcome the negative publicity caused by the Sandia report. All it's asking for is a chance to demo their technology for anyone who's willing to look at it with an open mind and judge for themselves if it's real or not.

I've used it myself, and I swear that it's 100% legit.

atmhc

Dozer523
05-28-2010, 07:34
Crankier this morning then I thought I was.

SF_BHT
05-28-2010, 21:13
I've used it myself, and I swear that it's 100% legit.

atmhc

So if you have never used it how can you say it is 100% legit. :munchin

plato
05-28-2010, 22:50
To El Rog:
If you read the full Sandia Test Report yourself, you'll see that the conclusions as stated in the Abstract in the beginning, contradict the actual test results themselves. The DKL device made all 25 of the 25 detections in the test, and it says so in the report. If you were tracking a fugitive in the woods, the device will point you in the general direction of the target, and the bearing will harden up the closer you get to him. Clearly you're better off searching a 5 to 10 degree sector of the woods than a 180 degree sector. Search and Rescue personnel have tested it in a variety of different scenarios, and in each case, the device has dramatically cut down their search time. You can read the original report by Sandia yourself, (it's not that long) and you can find it online at:
http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1998/980977.pdf

When told where a person was located, in which of 5 crates, their operator "found" that person was in that crate every time.

When not told, the operator "found" someone about 20% of the time, same amount that chance would dictate.

The individual results agree exactly with the abstract.

Dramatically new technologies, that defy the common wisdom of the day, often are met with disbelief, and beset by detractors who refuse to believe that they're capable of meeting their maker's claims. Read the report, and contact the company to arrange for a personal demonstration. Once you see it work, and actually operate it yourself as I have, you'll be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is indeed real.

We're not talking "common wisdom" here. We're talking physics. The laws of physics have never been repealed :) One of the company claims is that the very small charge in a human heart grips the 2 pound device and impedes its movememt. We're talking mass here, whatever the electronics involved. That ain't gonna happen :)

Hundreds of these units are in use around the world, and have already saved many many lives.

If you've seen hundreds of rescues, then you've seen hundreds of rescues. If you've been "told" of hundreds of rescues, let me tell you about UFOs, bigfoot, the easter bunny. Thousands of reports.......:D


To: plato
I don't doubt that you're a good engineer, but unless you're really familiar with the science of dielectrophoresis, you can't truly understand how the DKL device works. In any event, your conclusion is wrong. The operator's electric field is part of the circuit that occurs when the device locks onto its target. I wish I could be more specific, but the operator's field in some way attracts the target's field. I'm not an engineer myself, so I can't explain the science too well, however your analogy is totally off base:

Attraction at the atomic level? Not complicated at all. You aren't going to "attract" the electrical charge that causes someone's heart to beat, put it in circuit with yours and a 9 volt battery. If possible (and it ain't), don't worry about survivors. That electrical impulse was sorta useful and you just fried it.

"It's sorta like standing in the middle of a football field, blind, and picking up the heartbeat of someone with a red shirt, as opposed to every one else".

If you were looking for a living survivor in a house on fire, you'd have to shorten the RAD so its range is only slightly more than the distance from the operator to a short distance behind the house. If used with the RAD fully extended, and if there were individuals in another house behind the house you're scanning (within a few hundred meters), the unit would pick them up, whether there were or were not survivors in the house being scanned. The company claims that the unit does generate roughly 5% false positives in many scenarios, however in numerous tests, where there were some false positives, the device has NEVER failed to make a detection if a living target was present.


The analogy demonstrates wave propagation and diminishing strength. Guess you sorta gotta be there.


The following is a quote from an article in Law Enforcement Technology Magazine, (March 2007) which can be found online at:

The quote is from a reporter regurgitating the words of the company's representatives, I believe. I don't think she's a physicist. I don't take it as an evaluation. I don't think anyone should

When I first saw the device working, my immediate thought was how many lives could have been saved if these devices were in use in the late 60's in Vietnam. Enemy ambushes at jungle extraction points would have been impossible if the crew chief in the Hueys could have scanned a potential LZ from the air before setting down.atmhc

It took 11 minutes each to scan each of several small crates at a distance of 20 meters. Would you want to try to interpolate that into an area the size of several thousand crates?

All it's asking for is a chance to demo their technology for anyone who's willing to look at it with an open mind and judge for themselves if it's real or not.
Ouija boards and dowsing rods provide answers the human mind, if we are helped toward those answers. No doubt this device can do the same

I've used it myself, and I swear that it's 100% legit.
atmhc

You should be the next one to take it to Sandia, or at least a reputable independent lab

atmhc
08-28-2010, 03:25
To ElRog and Plato

Gentlemen;

I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to respond to your comments above. With all due respect, please allow me to show you why your conclusions are completely wrong.

On page 6 of the Sandia report, (http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1998/980977.pdf ) it shows the layout of the test, with a line of 5 large shipping crates that a test subject could hide in. From the operator’s position, 50ft from the center crate, the crates, A thru E, are separated by roughly 100° of arc. To be more specific:

A & B are separated by roughly 15°, B & C are separated by roughly 35°, A & C are separated by roughly 50°, A & D are separated by roughly 85°, and A & E are once again separated by roughly 100°.

Table 2. Test B on page 9 shows that of the 25 tests, the device identified the correct crate in 6 attempts. It was off by 1 crate in 12 attempts, it was off by 2 crates in 4 attempts, it was off by 3 crates in one attempt, and off by 4 in 2 attempts.

Now let’s define the meaning of a successful detection.

Prior to the test, the company told the engineers at Sandia that the device would point with great accuracy at a target in the open at distances of up to 500 meters, however they were very specific in saying that the degree of accuracy on the initial bearing, would diminish depending on the distance, type and number of obstacles or barriers that were present between the operator and the target. It would point accurately at a target in an open field at night, or, it would point to a target in a field of tall grass with only slightly less accuracy, the same would be true for a target in, for example, a corn field. If you were searching for a target in the woods, the accuracy of the initial bearing would depend on the density of the woods, if the target was enclosed in a container or building, the initial bearing would be less accurate still.

The engineers at Sandia were told that when searching for a target in such situations, after the initial scan, the operator follows the initial bearing towards the target, stopping to take additional scans as he proceeds. The closer he gets to the target, the harder the bearing becomes. It can be helpful for the operator to zig zag a bit in his approach, or, ideally with 2 operators, they can approach the target from 2 different angles and triangulate the target’s position.

Please note that when off by one crate, the operator is within 15° to 35° of the correct line of bearing, and when off by two crates, the operator is still within 50° of the correct line of bearing. Thus in 18 out of 25 attempts the operator was within a 0° to 35° bearing of the target, and in 4 others he was off by slightly more. The company never claimed perfect accuracy for an initial bearing to a hidden target. More importantly, the operator really doesn’t need more accuracy to complete his mission in a real life situation.

Now imagine you’re tracking a target in the boondocks, and you cross a clearing and encounter a tree line. Wouldn’t you be much better off if you had an approximate bearing on the target? Would you rather search a 180° sector, or would you rather search a 20° or 30° sector to find your target? I think the answer is obvious.

Sandia unilaterally deviated from the methodology of the test that the company agreed to. They cancelled the science briefing by the company’s staff physicist, just before it was to take place, and for some reason, which the company cannot explain, decided on their own, that a detection that was off by more than a few degrees would not be counted.

When considered in light of the fact that this test took place over 12 years ago, with an early pre-production prototype of the device, one can appreciate why the company might be somewhat frustrated by the myth, propagated by this misleading report, that its technology does not work. As I said when I first entered this forum, it does indeed work, I have operated it myself, and I tend to believe the company’s claim that the current production model of the LifeGuard does indeed work much better than the original prototype tested by Sandia in 1998, having undergone several technology upgrades since then.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the company has a former special forces operator by the name of Gary Robb, formerly of the Phoenix program, and SOG (CCN), representing them to the special forces community. He can be reached at: grobb@epix.net, cell # 610-517-1252.

You gentlemen clearly understand how valuable a tool this would be if it was real… well suspend your disbelief for a moment and check it out for yourself. It IS real. You have my word on that. Give Gary a call and see for yourself.

atmhc

The Reaper
08-28-2010, 09:28
What is your affiliation with this company and their product?

TR

atmhc
08-28-2010, 23:04
While I’m not on their payroll, although I’d like to be someday, I’ve been trying to help them get some exposure for their technology, in areas where I have some contacts. I’ve also attended a few demos and helped them staff their booth at a trade show held at Quantico. I’m a writer, specializing in marine technology, and I’ve helped them put together some brochures & presentations. Since visiting the company to see the technology first hand, I’ve become friends with the gentleman who runs the company. He, and another company exec, are both retired Naval officers & Annapolis graduates, and men of true integrity. As a former Marine LCpl, I of course outrank them.:cool:

If you think about it for a moment, you’ll realize that the Sandia report in the results table on page 9, doesn’t really say that the device only made 6 of 25 detections, it says that it only made 6 out of the 25 with perfect accuracy, and the company never claimed perfect accuracy, in detecting hidden targets. To say it works no better than random chance is disingenuous at best. There are other reports available that testify to its efficacy. If you can contact me with your eMail address, I’ll send you copies of a few of them.

cold1
08-29-2010, 00:44
Here is the man holding the patent that DKL is using.
www.thomasafilani(dot)com



Link to the original patent and claims from 1996.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=FAEeAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

A link to the newest patent for a better detector (He added a laser)
http://www.google.com/patents?id=kBELAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

One question:

In the patent description, it states
"The operator is partially electrically grounded (through the operator's feet), and thereby the individual human operator body's capacitance (C) and resistance (R) to true ground are connected electrically to the handle of the locator device"

Do I have to be bare foot to use it?

atmhc
09-01-2010, 19:58
Mr Afilani is a shareholder and officer in DKL International Inc., who has assigned 8 patents relating to this technology to the company. Improvements are constantly being made, and some dramatic new advances are in the works that will both add to the technology's capabilities, and make it far more user friendly.

There has been only one negative test done on the DKL LifeGuard. It was done 12 years ago and there have been many positive ones since. That one negative test, by Sandia, is tainted in several ways. As I'm sure you know, almost all dramatically new technologies have been met with suspicion and derision when first introduced.

This is not a joke, and it is not a scam. It's a proven technology that saves lives. Ask yourself why it is that so many people who have never seen it or used it are so positive that it's phony, when there is so much evidence that proves that it's real.

Perhaps they have another agenda that they're not disclosing?

plato
09-02-2010, 23:24
Table 2. Test B on page 9 shows that of the 25 tests, the device identified the correct crate in 6 attempts. It was off by 1 crate in 12 attempts, it was off by 2 crates in 4 attempts, it was off by 3 crates in one attempt, and off by 4 in 2 attempts.
atmhc



Now let’s define the meaning of a successful detection.
atmhc
I didn't see one, so here's mine.
Alfred, Sam, George, Bill and Ralph are standing in a line 10 ft apart from left to right. George draws a pistol and points it at you.
You don't shoot Alfred, Sam, Bill, or Ralph.
(You DO, however, shoot George, and quickly.) "Adjacent" doesn't cut it.



The closer he gets to the target, the harder the bearing becomes. It can be helpful for the operator to zig zag a bit in his approach, or, ideally with 2 operators, they can approach the target from 2 different angles and triangulate the target’s position.
atmhc

Certainly. If you let me know that a bottle of good scotch is buried in the center of Podunk, stand me two miles away on a mountain top, I can detect the direction to the bottle within one degree. Put me on the edge of the city limits and I know that it's somewhere within the 180 degrees in front of me. There's no magic or technology to that.


Please note that when off by one crate, the operator is within 15° to 35° of the correct line of bearing, and when off by two crates, the operator is still within 50° of the correct line of bearing. Thus in 18 out of 25 attempts the operator was within a 0° to 35° bearing of the target, and in 4 others he was off by slightly more. The company never claimed perfect accuracy for an initial bearing to a hidden target. More importantly, the operator really doesn’t need more accuracy to complete his mission in a real life situation.
atmhc

The company claimed detection within 5 degrees. And, the operator was allowed to triangulate, so he had many chances to find the target from many angles.


Now imagine you’re tracking a target in the boondocks, and you cross a clearing and encounter a tree line. Wouldn’t you be much better off if you had an approximate bearing on the target? Would you rather search a 180° sector, or would you rather search a 20° or 30° sector to find your target? I think the answer is obvious.
atmhc

I like carpet-bombing, but that's just a personal thing :)


Sandia unilaterally deviated from the methodology of the test that the company agreed to. They cancelled the science briefing by the company’s staff physicist, just before it was to take place, and for some reason, which the company cannot explain, decided on their own, that a detection that was off by more than a few degrees would not be counted.
atmhc

1. You give me an item to test, and I'll test it in a way that satisfies me, not to the wishes of the manufacturer.
2. See reference to Alfred, Sam, George, Bill and Ralph, above.



As I mentioned in my previous post, the company has a former special forces operator by the name of Gary Robb, formerly of the Phoenix program, and SOG (CCN), representing them to the special forces community. He can be reached at: grobb@epix.net, cell # 610-517-1252.
atmhc

If you were with him on missions during those assignments, you know that for a certainty. Now, let me tell you how I single-handedly captured Hanoi, until Lyndon made me give it back......


You gentlemen clearly understand how valuable a tool this would be if it was real… well suspend your disbelief for a moment and check it out for yourself. It IS real. You have my word on that. Give Gary a call and see for yourself.

atmhc

I don't trust marketers. I trust independent test agencies. I see, in a different post your offer to send other test reports. I have no objection to that. Just send them to me thru this forum. Just click on my profile and follow instructions.

Pete
09-03-2010, 05:46
Reading this thread reminds me of the Dragonskin thread.

OH NO! Did I just bring that up again?

JJ_BPK
09-03-2010, 07:08
Reading this thread reminds me of the Dragonskin thread.

OH NO! Did I just bring that up again?

It gets better,, I asked Gary Robb to join us for the discussion..

Gary Robb
grobb@epix.net
610-517-1252

:D:munchin:boohoo:boohoo

cold1
09-03-2010, 07:56
Mr Afilani is a shareholder and officer in DKL International Inc., who has assigned 8 patents relating to this technology to the company. Improvements are constantly being made, and some dramatic new advances are in the works that will both add to the technology's capabilities, and make it far more user friendly.

Having patents does not mean that the item actually works. There are patents for perpetual motion and such. Just because its patented does not mean it works as advertised.



There has been only one negative test done on the DKL LifeGuard. It was done 12 years ago and there have been many positive ones since. That one negative test, by Sandia, is tainted in several ways. As I'm sure you know, almost all dramatically new technologies have been met with suspicion and derision when first introduced.

So where are the positve test? Who performed the test? Who set the parameters?


This is not a joke, and it is not a scam. It's a proven technology that saves lives. Ask yourself why it is that so many people who have never seen it or used it are so positive that it's phony, when there is so much evidence that proves that it's real.

Where is your evidence? Purchases of the machine does not equal evidence. Where is the peer reviewed publications of the technology?

Perhaps they have another agenda that they're not disclosing?

How about speculating on just what kind of agenda they would have? Its not like they are all competitors trying to discredit the product.

atmhc
09-11-2010, 00:33
I just spoke to Gary Robb, and am pleased to report that he will be joining us shortly on this blog.

Note to plato and cold1:

I understand your skepticism. The capabilities of this technology are indeed hard to believe. While I am not authorized by the company to post any "proof" online, Gary told me that he will be glad to send you the evidence for our claims.

Hopefully, after Gary has established his bona fides with you gentlemen, and you have a chance to review the material he sends you, some of which comes from the Special Forces community, you'll see that I was telling you the truth. At that time, if you wish, I'll explain why your interpretation of the Sandia test document is mistaken.

SF_BHT
09-11-2010, 05:31
This device and process reminds me a LOT of the MOLE that a British company was selling a while back to detect drugs/arms/explosives etc with the same claims. A lot like dousing for water. It was debunked they changed the name and repackaged it after 9/11 and sold a bunch and now have charges in the UK.

Not saying this is the same but it sounds and has some of the same features.....

Oh Yes I was responsible for testing it for my agency....... Looked like it worked when the company demo was put on but could never make it work reliable when we had control. The company would always blame the person. Smoking mirrors from my point of view.

ernst.filibert
05-20-2011, 03:44
This crazy detector is sold by the company ATSC LTD (http://www.atscltd.com). Does anybody heard about them?
Who are those people? :confused:

JJ_BPK
05-20-2011, 04:16
This crazy detector is sold by the company ATSC LTD (http://www.atscltd.com). Does anybody heard about them?
Who are those people? :confused:

Ernst
You need to read the email send to you when you registered.
In that email there were instructions for two(2) tasks.


An introduction
A complete and accurate profile


You need to complete these items pronto.

Then read all the stickies on each of the sub-fora before posting.

Use the search function. We are not here to do your work.

But before you post again read the following:

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21033&highlight=message+garcia



:munchin

Pete
05-20-2011, 04:34
I just spoke to Gary Robb, and am pleased to report that he will be joining us shortly on this blog...................

8 months and counting........

atmhc, I find it interesting that you're made 8 posts on this board. One intro post - after being reminded - and the remaining seven in this thread.

It appears you are a one issue poster. One issue posters are usually connected with the issue. What is you connection to the DKL LifeGuard ?

plato
05-20-2011, 21:07
8 months and counting........

atmhc, I find it interesting that you're made 8 posts on this board. One intro post - after being reminded - and the remaining seven in this thread.

It appears you are a one issue poster. One issue posters are usually connected with the issue. What is you connection to the DKL LifeGuard ?

He works for them.

Though he denied it here, I found another site where he admitted being associated with them as a "volunteer representative", and another where he flat out said that he was an employee of the company.

Google-fu! :D