Is the U.S. Navy Really that dumb?

[Moochie]

I was aghast reading these latest revelations. I mean, really, if it were Australia's navy doing these tests I would be baying for blood.

Stupid bloody morons!

M.

[Katana]

What tests, Moochie?

Linky?

[Moochie]

What tests, Moochie?

Linky?

Sorry, was referring to Mr. Randi's Commentary, regarding the "SNIFFEX" dowsing rod that purportedly detects explosives.

M.

[Katana]

Oh!

Gotcha.

[Fnord]

Yes, the Navy really is that dumb. Does the oxymoron "Military Intelligence" mean anything too you?

After all, they took me as an enlistee at the age of 32 and promoted me six times in six years, after which I took my G.I. Bill, my V.A. Loan, and my Honorable Discharge and made something of myself.

[Moochie]

Yes, the Navy really is that dumb. Does the oxymoron "Military Intelligence" mean anything too you?

After all, they took me as an enlistee at the age of 32 and promoted me six times in six years, after which I took my G.I. Bill, my V.A. Loan, and my Honorable Discharge and made something of myself.

Well, I would say you, at least, prove the intelligence part of it.

M.

[Fnord]

Well, I would say you, at least, prove the intelligence part of it.

M.

All kidding aside, the smartest people use their military careers to further their own lives, rather than let the military use them.

Those six years as an Electronics Technician in the Navy supply system really paid off! Now I'm the "Technical Resource Manager*" for a transportation project run by an international organization.

(*Translation: Inventory controller for all the technical equipment; Technical Documentation archive manager; and Training Specialist; all on a project that covers 3 counties in southern California. I even get to do a little R&D in my own shop! Ahh... Life is good.)

[Achán hiNidráne]

Yes, the Navy really is that dumb. Does the oxymoron "Military Intelligence" mean anything too you?

It does, along with the following old favorites:
Jumbo shrimp
Honest Politician
Pretty Ugly
Deafening Silence
Religious Education
Free Love

[hopfen]

No, I don't think they're dumb at all.
In my experience (former Air Force officer), nine times out of ten, these things are mandated by some Congresscritter who is promoting a company in his or her district. All the Congresscritter has to do is make a phone call to someone in the Pentagon, and the word goes downhill to the relevant organization to do the test. Everyone knows it's an utter waste of time and taxpayer money, but they have no choice. Due to the rather strict hierarchy of a military structure, it's very difficult to bark back at the big dogs. You just get it over with and return to your normal business.

[Slimething]

I don't think they're stupid and it is more than likely they got pushed into it, as other posts have hypothesized. However, I'm happy to have such a report in my slimy little hands! This is pure skeptic gold.

[Rob Lister]

I was aghast reading these latest revelations. I mean, really, if it were Australia's navy doing these tests I would be baying for blood.

Stupid bloody morons!

M.

It appears...after reading the commentary...that they certainly are not idiots.

They did due diligence, though in my opinion more due than actually due. Clearly they were pushed into this.

[Blue Mountain]

I agree with earlier posters that they were probably pushed into doing the testing.

It's also possible they were under the initial impression they were testing a device designed to detect the presence of explosives by use of chemical signatures, although I suspect a visit to the company's web page would have shown up its psuedoscientific nature.

What I find interesting is the company is now claiming the Navy is purchasing the device for use even after a detailed and thorough investigation concluded it simply does not work. So either something went awry in the military's purchasing process or the company is being misleading in their press release.

[SezMe]

I can, conceptually at least, justify the testing but I agree with Blue Mountain that the real puzzling aspect is that the Navy has apparently contracted for the devices.

In response to the SWIFT article, I contacted my Representative and talked to a staff member about this a couple of times. He has agreed that it warrents investigation and will initiate a congressional-level request for more information next week.

As I e-mailed Randi, I have no idea how long it will take to get a response, but at least the wheels have been set in motion.

[Zep]

I note that the testing process took all of an afternoon, a few pounds of explosives, and one technician to conduct. In other words, it's catering to a looney-tunes taxpayer. Same as giving a Congressman a short gentle ride in a combat jet when he inspects a base, I guess.

[Slimething]

I note that the testing process took all of an afternoon, a few pounds of explosives, and one technician to conduct. In other words, it's catering to a looney-tunes taxpayer. Same as giving a Congressman a short gentle ride in a combat jet when he inspects a base, I guess.

Ah, Zep, don't forget the trucks with a boatload of explosives driving by the dowser! That, to me, was one very amusing part of the report. That had to be planned, don't you think? Sheer genius, if it was!

[Jackalgirl]

I'm in the Navy. Alas, as much as I wish we were all Horatio Hornblower, the Navy is full of dumb people (and very smart ones). I rather think that in this case, hopfen is on the right track in suggesting that this might be a politically-driven thing (if it is in fact true).

I have written the DOD Technology Division asking for a copy of the report, or where I might find it online. They responded wanting my official Navy email, which I provided. So when I get a chance, I will hop it into work and check.

I have also written Mr. Randi, asking for a copy of the press release (and I'll be trying to get to Sniffex's website to see if they claim that the Navy has bought anything of theirs). At that point, I'll be attaching all of this into an email to the Inspector General, the governmental group that tracks government fraud, waste, and abuse. Hopefully they'll follow up. Can't guarantee anything, but that's what they're there for.

Note: I'm not speaking in any official capability for the Navy or the US Government. But this whole issue cheeses me off and I have a right to report it.

[jimtron]

There's a lot more where this came from in the book, "The Men Who Stare at Goats."

[a_unique_person]

Is there a congressman behind this contract?

[Beady]

Never mind.

[Jackalgirl]

Howdy, all --

I did some more researching. The supply system that the Navy (and other branches of the military) assigns numbers (as you can imagine) to everything. There's a National Stock Number (NSN) for every part you can order through the military supply system. Also, each company that supplies the Navy has a CAGE code (I don't know off the top of my head what CAGE stands for, sorry).

Homeland Safety International's (nee Sniffex) CAGE code is: 415D3. You can get some more company detail, as "seen" by the government, here (https://www.bpn.gov/CCRSearch/detail.aspx?VAR_DUN1=601966018&VAR_DUN2=). That's the only CAGE I could find; there is no CAGE code under the name "Homeland Safety International".

The fact that HSI has a CAGE code is not conclusive, IMHO -- I guess (but do not know) that when the Navy orders stuff for testing purposes, a CAGE code is assigned to the supplier of the test equipment.

I went to the Defense Logistics Information Service's Web Federal Logistics Information System (WebFLIS) public inquiry page (https://www.webflis.dlis.dla.mil/WEBFLIS/ASPscripts/pub_search.aspx) and did a search by the CAGE code. No NSNs are listed.

I've also tried searching the Defense Department Procurement Gateway (https://progate.daps.dla.mil/home/) but so far have found nothing, either by searching by the CAGE code or by reviewing the 3982 contracts awarded so far this year. However, since there were so many, I only looked at the item description for something that might be an explosive detector, and since most of the contracts are listed without an item description, I only actually looked at the contracts awarded on Feb 5 and 6 (the 6th was the date of the press release).

I wrote HSI asking them for the contract number. I doubt they'll tell me, but what the heck. Anyway, that's a fairly long screed about this -- I'll post any updates I have as I get them (if I get them), for those who might care.

[rjh01]

This thread is also discussing the same story.
Homeland Safety and Sniffex (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75014)

[Rob Lister]

Howdy, all --

I did some more researching. The supply system that the Navy (and other branches of the military) assigns numbers (as you can imagine) to everything. There's a National Stock Number (NSN) for every part you can order through the military supply system. Also, each company that supplies the Navy has a CAGE code (I don't know off the top of my head what CAGE stands for, sorry).

Homeland Safety International's (nee Sniffex) CAGE code is: 415D3. You can get some more company detail, as "seen" by the government, here (https://www.bpn.gov/CCRSearch/detail.aspx?VAR_DUN1=601966018&VAR_DUN2=). That's the only CAGE I could find; there is no CAGE code under the name "Homeland Safety International".

The fact that HSI has a CAGE code is not conclusive, IMHO -- I guess (but do not know) that when the Navy orders stuff for testing purposes, a CAGE code is assigned to the supplier of the test equipment.

I went to the Defense Logistics Information Service's Web Federal Logistics Information System (WebFLIS) public inquiry page (https://www.webflis.dlis.dla.mil/WEBFLIS/ASPscripts/pub_search.aspx) and did a search by the CAGE code. No NSNs are listed.

I've also tried searching the Defense Department Procurement Gateway (https://progate.daps.dla.mil/home/) but so far have found nothing, either by searching by the CAGE code or by reviewing the 3982 contracts awarded so far this year. However, since there were so many, I only looked at the item description for something that might be an explosive detector, and since most of the contracts are listed without an item description, I only actually looked at the contracts awarded on Feb 5 and 6 (the 6th was the date of the press release).

I wrote HSI asking them for the contract number. I doubt they'll tell me, but what the heck. Anyway, that's a fairly long screed about this -- I'll post any updates I have as I get them (if I get them), for those who might care.

CAGE stands for "Commercial and Government Entity". Any commercial entity apply for one, jump through the obligatory government hoops, pay the fees, and get a CAGE code. Same with the DUNS number.

Here's a link to their complete information.

https://www.bpn.gov/bincs/begin_search.asp

And type in the CAGE code in the uppermost left search box, then press search. HDI is not listed as a dba nomer, so I don't know where that comes from unless they just updated.

Interestingly, INPUT (www.input.com) (requires subscription which I have) does not contain any record of this company (sniffex or HSI) which means they've never been awarded a fair and open contract. Could still have been a sole source procurement, which INPUT would not detect. I couldn't find them under FedBizOpps either. I think they're blowing smoke...

[Jackalgirl]

CAGE stands for "Commercial and Government Entity". Any commercial entity apply for one, jump through the obligatory government hoops, pay the fees, and get a CAGE code. Same with the DUNS number.

Ah hah! Thanks for the clarification. A question: have you ever had dealings with the IG and/or DCMA? If so, do you know if they're interested in companies claiming contracts with the government that don't exist (if, indeed, this was some sort of open purchase that isn't showing up in the regular places)? I do still plan on reporting this.

[Beady]

If so, do you know if they're interested in companies claiming contracts with the government that don't exist...

I think the Federal Trade Commission might be more interested. Claims of government contracts could affect stock value.

[delphi_ote]

In my experience, there is no more wasteful area of government than Defense Department R&D. This is just a typical example of a project where anyone who knows anything about the product being tested or idea being proposed would laugh their asses off even thinking about it. The whole system sometimes seems like one giant con job, and I'm constantly reminded of Milo Minderbinder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Minderbinder).

Being that a huge portion of our budget goes to the Defense Department, and a huge portion of that is spent on R&D, we definitely need some ethical and rational oversight and public scrutiny of this industry.

[Moochie]

It does, along with the following old favorites:
Jumbo shrimp
Honest Politician
Pretty Ugly
Deafening Silence
Religious Education
Free Love

I feel this topic deserves its own thread.

M.

[Moochie]

All kidding aside, the smartest people use their military careers to further their own lives, rather than let the military use them.

Those six years as an Electronics Technician in the Navy supply system really paid off! Now I'm the "Technical Resource Manager*" for a transportation project run by an international organization.

(*Translation: Inventory controller for all the technical equipment; Technical Documentation archive manager; and Training Specialist; all on a project that covers 3 counties in southern California. I even get to do a little R&D in my own shop! Ahh... Life is good.)

Yeah, far as I know, it's much the same here. Pees me off that I didn't have the gumption to apply for a navy job when I was of recruitment age. I might still be involuntarily retired at age 57, but at least I'd have a decent pension.

M.

[Moochie]

No, I don't think they're dumb at all.
In my experience (former Air Force officer), nine times out of ten, these things are mandated by some Congresscritter who is promoting a company in his or her district. All the Congresscritter has to do is make a phone call to someone in the Pentagon, and the word goes downhill to the relevant organization to do the test. Everyone knows it's an utter waste of time and taxpayer money, but they have no choice. Due to the rather strict hierarchy of a military structure, it's very difficult to bark back at the big dogs. You just get it over with and return to your normal business.

How a capitalist society works?

M.

[Moochie]

Ah, Zep, don't forget the trucks with a boatload of explosives driving by the dowser! That, to me, was one very amusing part of the report. That had to be planned, don't you think? Sheer genius, if it was!

Yeah, it points to some crafty navy personnel, doesn't it?

M.

[Moochie]

I'm in the Navy. Alas, as much as I wish we were all Horatio Hornblower, the Navy is full of dumb people (and very smart ones). I rather think that in this case, hopfen is on the right track in suggesting that this might be a politically-driven thing (if it is in fact true).

I have written the DOD Technology Division asking for a copy of the report, or where I might find it online. They responded wanting my official Navy email, which I provided. So when I get a chance, I will hop it into work and check.

I have also written Mr. Randi, asking for a copy of the press release (and I'll be trying to get to Sniffex's website to see if they claim that the Navy has bought anything of theirs). At that point, I'll be attaching all of this into an email to the Inspector General, the governmental group that tracks government fraud, waste, and abuse. Hopefully they'll follow up. Can't guarantee anything, but that's what they're there for.

Note: I'm not speaking in any official capability for the Navy or the US Government. But this whole issue cheeses me off and I have a right to report it.

Well, it's good to know there are some actual thinkers among those charged with doing what most don't bother with.

M.

[Rob Lister]

Yeah, it points to some crafty navy personnel, doesn't it?

M.

Actually, that may have been happenstance. This must have taken place at a weapons depot after all. Still, I wouldn't put it past them to 'redirect' a truck or two for a few minutes just for the laugh.

[Kess]

No, I don't think they're dumb at all.
In my experience (former Air Force officer), nine times out of ten, these things are mandated by some Congresscritter who is promoting a company in his or her district. All the Congresscritter has to do is make a phone call to someone in the Pentagon, and the word goes downhill to the relevant organization to do the test. Everyone knows it's an utter waste of time and taxpayer money, but they have no choice. Due to the rather strict hierarchy of a military structure, it's very difficult to bark back at the big dogs. You just get it over with and return to your normal business.

God, this brings back some painful memories...

A couple of years ago some specialised Force Protection equipment I helped design was subjected to a lengthy series of competitive trials by the US Army at Yuma. We had to jump through all sorts of hoops, follow daft, highly regimented test procedures (clearly written by people with little knowledge of the technology or proper test methodologies), and so on to demonstrate our equipment met all the requirements. We felt we did pretty well... but then everyone involved was astonished when the $500M contract went to an obscure US company who seemed to have virtually appeared out of nowhere and had no obvious track record in the business.

One thing they did have on their side was a heavyweight Senator.

In the 2 years since then, indications are that that company's equipment doesn't work at all well (which raises the question of how on earth it got through all those allegedly mandatory Yuma trials...), and the US Army is now trying to cover its ass and recover from the situation. Latest indications are that they are gearing up to re-run the competition to find some equipment that will do the job.

After everything they put us through last time I would be tempted to tell them to stick it, but the money involved is phenomenal so it seems we'll just have to do it all over again - and hope this time it's going to be a fair competition!

Remember this was equipment designed to help protect the lives of US troops in Iraq, so it's quite possible that lives have been lost because inferior kit was chosen.
A very frustrating experience, and a real education in the US military procurement process.

Kess

[Rob Lister]

God, this brings back some painful memories...

A couple of years ago some specialised Force Protection equipment....a lengthy series of competitive trials....daft, highly regimented test procedures ...to demonstrate our equipment met all the requirements. ...but then everyone involved was astonished when the $500M contract
went
to an obscure

US company

who seemed to have virtually appeared out of nowhere and had no obvious track record in the business.

Reading Section L&M of a typical Delivery Order-type RFP will not tell you but likely you were greatly downgraded simply because you were NOT a US company [your bosses knew that going in even if you didn't].

It isn't protectionism in the economic sense, but it is in the defense sense. Our Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) makes a government military agency jump through all sorts of hoops to select a non-us supplier over a domestic supplier. It's nothing personal, but it is generally needful. Your 'foreign' product probably needed be so superior (by orders of magnitude) that you might have lost to company providing rolls of toilet tissue to put under the soldier's shirts.

Hey! If you tell me the RFP number I can probably work out the weights for you (or rather against you).

ETA: it is not impossible for a US Senator to nudge a Fair and Open selection on one direction or the other but it's pretty tough to drive it there directly because the selection process is carefully crafted to prevent that from happening. Rather, when a Senator wants something like that, they find a way to make the procurement a Sole Source selection (far fewer decision makers, palms to grease, favors to repay). That eliminates the need for 'actual' competition but the repercussions can be painful if the contract is substantial and the media is have a slow news day.

[Zep]

Ah, Zep, don't forget the trucks with a boatload of explosives driving by the dowser! That, to me, was one very amusing part of the report. That had to be planned, don't you think? Sheer genius, if it was!Sheer genius on the part of the tester to notice and use an obvious observation, I'd suggest. Clearly they would test an explosives "sniffer" on real live explosives, which would more than likely be kept in an ammunition store (unless the US Navy keeps its bang-bangs in food stores??). So one would expect truckloads of the stuff to be going by reasonably regularly! Duh!

I pity the poor tech having to bother about writing this report up! I'm sure he must have felt there was something else, something useful, to defend his country that he could have been doing instead...

[gnome]

If they don't have a Navy contract, isn't this out and out fraud? Someone could go to jail.

If they DO have a navy contract... we all need to write some letters.

Hoping to find out which way it goes...

[Rob Lister]

If they don't have a Navy contract, isn't this out and out fraud? Someone could go to jail.

If they DO have a navy contract... we all need to write some letters.

Hoping to find out which way it goes...

They never claimed to have a contract, only a Purchase Order. To Witt:

...announced today the receipt of their first purchase order from the US Navy for deployment of Sniffex, ...

A purchase order can be under any number of open contracts that don't require direct award -- the government, like we all, has slush funds for such purposes.

Still, I don't buy it, simply because of the wording that followed (it's all being kept very secret for now!). The PO is either classified or not classified. If they can say it exists then the details of it can also be disclosed. It clear they are misleading, I'm going to go out on a very sturdy and thick limb and say they are probably lying outright.

At any rate, they never claimed anything that I can see as easily actionable or worth pursuing.

Oddly, they do NOT use their trademark on their webpage -- that's either a rookie (and stupid, and potentially costly) mistake or ... something else.

You can find the actual mark at http://www.uspto.gov and searching trademarks for text 'sniffex'

[Hutch]

Rob, jackalgirl, very well done. I work for the US Army (non-procurement, but I deal with the Acquisition Corps quite a bit and IU agree, if this was a small Purchase Order (under $25,000, IIRC), a lot of the rules go by the wayside. It's interesting that the HSI press release does not mention the number or value of the Order, which many major companies will do.

I don't know if the US Navy uses them, but the US Amry has used the IMPAC Credit Card program for small purchases and I wonder if someone (of wooish nature and perhaps in contact with this group) made a purchase and wrote up enough hoo-hah to fool his/her boss (wouldn't be the first time bosses got fooled...). If that is the case, it will be next to impossible to track the buy.

I just hope it was for a limited quantity through a 'friend' so thecompany can advertise that they sold the product to the US Military--which helps a lot in future sales, especially overseas...

If I had only six months instead of five years left to work, I would be so tempted torun a sting on these folks (and I could do a convincing one) but it would require using official USG paper and documents and I am not sure my command would be that understanding.

If you get a copy of the EOD report, let me know, I'll send it to a couple Alabama Congressman who are 'pro-war' types and would be most concerned if the troops are maybe getting s*** products.

[Jackalgirl]

Hi Hutch, Rob, and Biff Starbuck too ---

Thanks to all of you for your input and help. Rob, I think you're probably right, and thanks for pointing out the contract vs purchase order distinction. It would be awful if someone purchased the darn thing on a Gov't credit card -- there would technically have to be a purchase order on file /some/where, but I imagine it would be hard to find. Unless the Inspector General were to demand that Homeland Safety Int'l tell the IG who made the purchase -- I hope that the IG will be willing to do this, since this is an immediate-hazard-to-life-and-health issue.

If you get a copy of the EOD report, let me know, I'll send it to a couple Alabama Congressman who are 'pro-war' types and would be most concerned if the troops are maybe getting s*** products.

I think I'll be getting the copy through official channels, which makes me highly suspect that I won't be able to post, pass on, or otherwise publish it. However, if you write the Naval EOD Technology Division (of NAVSEA) at tsc@jeodnet.mil from your official DoD email address, I'm sure they'll send you a copy. If your Alabama Congressdude writes, I'm also sure they'll reply. : )

I myself haven't gotten a copy of the report yet, and don't expect one for a couple of days (Monday is a Federal holiday), but as soon as it comes I'll be filing a report with the IG. I also spoke with my Chief (my supervisor wasn't in today; I'll backfill him tomorrow) and he's totally on-board with me filing this report.

[Biff Starbuck]

I still have lots of questions about just what the truth behind this order might have been before the press release spun it out of proportion. When I looked up the old news from the company, this was my favorite press release:Sniffex, Inc. Announces Agreement to Sell Military Equipment

IRVING, TX -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 02/06/2006 -- Sniffex, Inc. ("Sniffex") (OTC: SNFX), producers of Sniffex, an explosives and weapons detection device, announced today the completion of an agreement for products now sold to all branches of the US military by TR Gear, a Plano, TX, company. The agreement provides Sniffex with the rights to sell any of TR Gear's military equipment through its worldwide agent network. The Company stated that access to these products is the beginning of a long term strategy to acquire additional products for its agent network to sell. Products will be acquired through numerous distribution agreements and company acquisitions...
Some of you skeptics probably think they cleverly worded the headline so it would sound like they were selling equipment TO the military, not just selling products similar to what the military uses. Not me. I am sure no one ever just skims headlines without reading the full article. ;)

Second, I would guess the technology division folks who tested these the first time might not be too pleased at having to waste their time and the government's money on this issue again. In the excerpt Randi posted, in each of the first 5 quoted paragraphs the report says in 5 different ways that the devices didn't work. And the sixth paragraph says the device is prone to the ideomotor effect, which is the effect which creates the illusion that dowsing rods work. The Navy can't say their experts didn't warn them.

[TsarBomba]

Although this has nothing to do with whether the U.S. Navy has actually bought any of these devices, the U.S. military has in the past wasted absurd amounts of public money researching technologies of dubious (to say the least) scientific validity. Case in point would be the extensive research into developing weapons and energy technologies from the nuclear isomer hafnium-178. Even after a panel of distinguished scientists told DARPA and the rest of the Pentagon that the halfnium-178 research was little more than a pseudoscientific pipe dream, the pentagon kept throwing money at an imaginary weapon, over and over again. Anyone interested in these issues should read Imaginary Weapons: A Journey Through the Pentagon's Scientific Underworld by Sharon Weinberger.

[Fnord]

I was told that the Navy baseball team at Fort Leavenworth is composed primarily of Storekeepers (SK's) and Supply officers. I can not verify this, though, as it is hearsay ... a rumor ... yeah ... pure scuttlebutt ...

[lostnick3]

as a former fleet sailor i'm not surprised maybe the device needs to be used only by a qualified remote viewer.

how does this sniiffer compair to the one their using at airports to poke thru my dirty laundry?

[Jackalgirl]

as a former fleet sailor i'm not surprised maybe the device needs to be used only by a qualified remote viewer.

how does this sniiffer compair to the one their using at airports to poke thru my dirty laundry?

The main difference is that the ones used at airports work.

The "Sniffex" name is misleading; it's not a vapor detector. It supposedly identifies "field interference patterns", not vapor particles. It is, in essence, a dowsing rod. The Naval EOD Technology Division tested it and came to the conclusion that it functions by the ideomotor effect (i.e., it is an unbalanced rod that moves because of the subconscious movements of the "operator") and that it is no more effective than guessing.

[Biff Starbuck]

Rather than asking who a "qualified remote viewer" might be, I will just say that I think remote viewing actually sounds like a better deal than this product. That sniffey rod sure seems to require a lot of walking back and forth and holding my arms out. That would get tiring.

I will start a company for remotely detecting explosives, but without all of that walking. I will sell the Magic Infinity Ball. It will be a black sphere that you can ask if a particular item or area contains explosives. After you turn the sphere over, you will see your answer in a little window. This will be much safer than walking around near explosives like some other products require, and you can sit comfortably at your desk. And for only $5000, it will cost less than our competitor's "sniffey" rod. Best of all, I can prove that the accuracy of my device is exactly the same as the competition!

Magic Infinity Ball advantages:
Costs less
Safer
Less fatiguing so personnel can work longer and more effectively
100% as accurate as the other guys!

I should call my congressman and see if he can force the military to buy a few for testing :)

In all seriousness, if you are going to make completely uneducated guesses about where bombs are, you should do it from very, very far away.

p.s. No, you haven't seen this product before, and I swear that is an infinity symbol, and not an 8. :)

[Slimething]

I will sell the Magic Infinity Ball. It will be a black sphere that you can ask if a particular item or area contains explosives. After you turn the sphere over, you will see your answer in a little window.

Just make sure it always answers "yes". If that doesn't suit you, also include "perhaps" or "possibly" but, for obvious reasons, never let it say "no". Then again it's a moot point if you sell it with a Lifetime Guarantee (not transferable). :D

[Huntster]

Yes, the Navy really is that dumb.

Keep thinking that way.

Does the oxymoron "Military Intelligence" mean anything too you?

Yup, in an insider kind of way.

After all, they took me as an enlistee at the age of 32 and promoted me six times in six years, after which I took my G.I. Bill, my V.A. Loan, and my Honorable Discharge.....

Enlistee at 32 years of age? Promoted?

Well, maybe they are "dumb"..........

and made something of myself.......

Well...........

Funny how that works, isn't it?................

And now you want to talk squat about them?.................

Maybe you didn't learn enough...........

[Lonewulf]

Well...........

Funny how that works, isn't it?................

And now you want to talk squat about them?.................

Maybe you didn't learn enough...........

I was under the impression he was being facetious. As in, not serious.

[Biff Starbuck]

Just make sure it always answers "yes". If that doesn't suit you, also include "perhaps" or "possibly" but, for obvious reasons, never let it say "no". Then again it's a moot point if you sell it with a Lifetime Guarantee (not transferable). :D

Good thinking. I should probably also buy a product liability insurance policy. :)

Can you imagine the claim someone would have against a company selling a non-working explosive detection device if their loved one was blown up while using it? Or for anyone killed in a business supposedly protected by one of these? In my opinion any business that gives a false sense of security to its customers by protecting them with dowsing rods will probably be facing some tough lawsuits. The only thing worse than providing no protection is promising safety and then not delivering.

[Jackalgirl]

I filed my report with the IG. Here's the text of the actual complaint:

On February 6, 2007, Homeland Safety International (formerly known as "Sniffex, Inc", CAGE code 415D3) released a press release, announcing:

"Homeland Safety International, Inc. (OTCBB – HSFI) (www.homelandsafetyintl.com) announced today the receipt of their first purchase order from the US Navy for deployment of Sniffex, the Company’s explosives detection device. Homeland Safety indicated that this was the first order, other than for testing purposes, it had received from the US Military." (http://www.homelandsafetyintl.com/investors/press14.asp - Accessed 23FEB07)

If this is not simply a story made up to sell stock, then it potentially represents IMMINENT DANGER to any person who attempts to utilize this device in the field to detect explosives.

Despite its misleading name, the Sniffex device is NOT a vapor detector. Rather, it reportedly works by detecting "an interference field pattern" (http://www.homelandsafetyintl.com/products/sniffex.asp - Accessed 23FEB07). It is, in fact, nothing more than a dowsing rod. Dowsing, although anecdotally a popular paranormal myth, has never been effectively demonstrated: in fact, the ability of dowsing to find target materials disappears under controlled conditions.

James Randi, who maintains a skeptical commentary at http://www.randi.org (the James Randi Educational Foundation) reported on this press release and published an exerpt reportedly from the US Naval EOD Technical Division, dated September 2nd, 2005 and titled "Test Report: The Detection Capability of the SNIFFEX Handheld Explosives Detector":

"The test objectives were to evaluate the vendor's claims concerning the device's ability to detect explosives. Testing was performed in a manner consistent with the specifications of the SNIFFEX, and was designed only to evaluate the device's principles of operation, not to test its limits. Thus, explosive weights were considerably more than the minimum detectable amounts (20 or more pounds vs. 0.1 pounds), while distances were kept well within the maximum delectable ranges (10-25 feet vs. 300 feet) and the vendor was given the opportunity to take multiple passes prior to making a determination vs. 2-3 as stated in their literature. As shown in Table 1, the SNIFFEX handheld explosives detector performed no better than random chance over the course of testing…

The SNIFFEX did not detect explosives. A summary of the results is shown in Table 2. Every effort was made to meet the vendor’s needs to allow the device to operate under ideal conditions…

The vendor never suggested that the SNIFFEXs were malfunctioning during any test despite the fact that the devices were not correctly identifying the location of explosives…

On one occasion, the vendor wondered if the building was influencing the accuracy of the device, even though their device is purported to be able to detect explosives through most any barrier. In response to this, the operator proceeded to walk around the outside perimeter of the building while twenty pounds of TNT were inside. As he walked, the SNIFFEX indicated that explosives were present within the building as evidenced by a clear antenna deflection. [Randi comments: The vendor/operator had already been informed that there was an explosive target stored somewhere within that building.] However, as he was noting the positive indication of explosives in the structure, two explosives trucks containing a total of 1,000 pounds of explosives drove up behind him to a distance of approximately twenty feet away. The SNIFFEX failed to show any indication of this much larger quantity of explosives…

Based upon the observed test results, the SNIFFEX handheld explosives detector is not capable of detecting explosives regardless of the distance between the device and any explosives…

The antenna [on the SNIFFEX] is prone to deflection from slight breezes, magnetic influences, and improper handling. Furthermore the device is extremely susceptible to a well-documented phenomenon known as the ideomotor effect…"
(http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-02/021607failure.html - Accessed 23FEB07)

More can be read reguarding the ideomotor effect at the Skeptic's Dictionary online: http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html

In my own explorations of public-access logistics services online, I cannot find any reference to any contracts made with this company between the beginning of this year and February 6; nor can I find any actual NSNs listed for the company's CAGE; however, since the press release specifically mentions a "purchase order", I am concerned that some agency or command in the Navy bought this equipment with an open purchase or credit card purchase.

On 17FEB06, I wrote to NAVEODTECHDIV asking for verification that the report was actually released by NAVEODTECHDIV (i.e., that it existed) and a copy of the report so that I could verify that the report did, as Mr. Randi reported it, indicate that this product does not work. My request was forwarded to the appropriate SME and I have yet to receive a response. So I am unable to verify the veracity of this quotation. However, if this is indeed accurate, the product demonstrably DOES NOT WORK and its purchase, if true, is not only a case of waste but also places its operator in imminent harm of death or grievous bodily harm should it actually be deployed in field conditions.

I urge the Inspector General to investigate the claim that the equipment was purchased and the report by NAVEODTECHDIV indicating that the equipment is ineffective. Should I receive a copy of the report from NAVEODTECHDIV, I will immediately forward it to the Fraud, Waste & Abuse email address via official email. Thank you for your time.

Very respectfully,

[ me ]

I decided not to wait. Almost a week is enough, I thought, and besides -- as a fellow Forumite pointed out -- the IG can get this if they need it.

For anyone who's interested in this type of reporting, check out the Inspector General's website:

The Actual Form: http://www.dodig.mil/HOTLINE/fwacompl.htm
Report FAQ: http://www.dodig.mil/HOTLINE/hotline6.htm

Interestingly enough, from the FAQ:

WHO MAY USE THE HOTLINE?

DoD civilian and military personnel, Defense contractor employees, as well as private citizens.

Bear in mind that if anyone wants to put in a report, it's important to include an extremely large amount of detail. The ads on the local military TV characterize it as: "Who, What, When, Where, Why". You really have to have your ducks in a row before you make your report. But is an available service, and can be utilized anonymously too.

[Biff Starbuck]

Jackalgirl,

But don't you feel bad about making the report now that you have had a chance to read Paul Johnson's e-mail to Randi? He says Sniffex works, so it must be true!

Obviously those "radicals" were working against Sniffex and planned to make it appear to fail the tests. I wonder how much Randi had to pay those molecules to get them to interfere with the tests only during the times it would make the Sniffex look bad. ;)

[Jackalgirl]

Jackalgirl,

But don't you feel bad about making the report now that you have had a chance to read Paul Johnson's e-mail to Randi? He says Sniffex works, so it must be true!

Obviously those "radicals" were working against Sniffex and planned to make it appear to fail the tests. I wonder how much Randi had to pay those molecules to get them to interfere with the tests only during the times it would make the Sniffex look bad. ;)

Actually, I'm terrified that someone in the IG will read this, then decide that there must be something to this "Sniffex" thing -- you know, the "any publicity is good publicity" axiom.

Yeah, that "radical" business had me rolling my eyes. As if any REAL environment inoo which this thing would conceivably be deployed would be pristine.

It sort of reminded me of RoboCop. Now, mind you, I loved that movie when it came out. I still do. But my Dad has a habit of watching these movies I love and pointing out things in them that make no sense whatsoever (I wish I had that ability innately like he does, but I have to work for it). For example, I was very, very impressed by the ED-209. I mean, it was just cool-looking. My father was simply, vastly, amused by it. "Look," he'd say. "It can't go down stairs!" And then he'd cup his hands and pretend to be speaking through a bullhorn: "Attention criminals! This is the police! Would you please come downstairs!"

Of course, the Sniffex is by no means the ED-209 of explosive detectors. It is so WAY not so cool-looking.

[LeCynthia]

Randi agreed to a test with just 4 boxes? That's a 1 in 4 chance of winning the million, much better than the lottery. If I fill out an application can I run this test? I like those odds.

[Biff Starbuck]

Randi agreed to a test with just 4 boxes? That's a 1 in 4 chance of winning the million, much better than the lottery. If I fill out an application can I run this test? I like those odds.

Obviously the key is not the number of boxes, but the number of times the test is repeated to show the result was not just random luck. For 13 correct answers out of 20 attempts, that would randomly happen only in 2 tries out of 10,000. Sniffex claims over 90 percent accuracy, which is 18 out of 20. Even if Randi cut them a break and only required 16 or 17 out of 20, the odds of randomly doing that would be pretty slim.

Then again, since in that e-mail Johnson basically said Randi's exposure of the Sniffex had killed people, I wouldn't give them much of a break. I say make them prove what they say in their advertising. Since Sniffex advertises 90 percent accuracy, even up to 100 meters away and through steel and concrete, surely getting that same accuracy from 5 feet away through a cardboard box shouldn't be too much to ask.

I personally think Randi's exposure of the Sniffex has probably SAVED lives.

[Ysidro]

There's a lot more where this came from in the book, "The Men Who Stare at Goats."

OMG. Some of my martial arts instructors are in contact with a guy they claim has been studied by the military. Supposedly he has put to sleep and "put to sleep" goats in another room. Pure woo of course and I don't mind saying so to them. Fortunatly, they don't mind me saying so either. In the end, everything comes down to "prove it" in our school.

Except for some "old stories" I guess....

Anyway, this has to be connected. I have to get names and dates, I think. Maybe I can blow their woo out of the water.

[Jackalgirl]

Howdy all --

A quick update: the EOD Tech gurus sent me a copy of the test. Unfortunately, it is marked "For Official Use Only", so I can't post it or forward it along. But I will say I don't see anything in it markedly different than what Mr. Randi talked about (it just obviously goes into more detail, and is very interesting).

The Inspector General says, on their FAQ page (http://www.dodig.mil/HOTLINE/hotline6.htm), that "[n]ormally, inquiries are completed within 180 days." So I'm not expecting resolution in the next week, even. But I'll let y'all know what ultimately happens.

Boy, if that Johnson guy is ticked off at Randi for merely writeing about the Sniffex, he's really going to be ticked off at me.

[Solus]

I didn't even read this thread but the answer is yes. :D

[ShowMe]

Obviously the key is not the number of boxes, but the number of times the test is repeated to show the result was not just random luck.

Fill one of the boxes with real explosives.

Let the gentleman who wrote Randi run the test.

Whichever box he chooses gets removed. He gets to stay with the other three.

The box that has the explosives in it is then remotely detonated.

If his product is so exceptional I wonder if he would have a problem putting his own life on the line? He certainly doesn't have a problem doing it with other peoples lives.

Of course we all know the answer.

[Beady]

If his product is so exceptional I wonder if he would have a problem putting his own life on the line?

IIRC, Challenge rules prohibit endangerment.

[BillyJoe]

If his product is so exceptional I wonder if he would have a problem putting his own life on the line? It probably doesn't apply here because this person must surely know the device doesn't work. In general, however, it would be impossible for any detection device to work with 100% reliability. WE must be careful not to demand more than can normally be expected.

[glsunder]

Isn't this the same company? I assume so, since www.sniffex.com seems down right now.

http://www.stocklemon.com/08_01_05.html

Funny that it's apparently ran by a spammer.

[Biff Starbuck]

The new website is homelandsafetyintl.com

For some reason, they decided to branch out to other products that might actually work sometimes. Kind of a novel business plan they are trying :D

The company name and stock ticker symbol were also changed.