Professional Soldiers ® - Passive Human Detection System

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- Professional Gear (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=33)

- - Passive Human Detection System (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27747)

It's Not Snake Oil!

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/acces...998/980977.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

What is your affiliation with this company and their product?

TR

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.

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=FAE...page&q&f=false

A link to the newest patent for a better detector (He added a laser)
http://www.google.com/patents?id=kBE...page&q&f=false

One question:

In the patent description, it states

Quote:

"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?

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?

Quote: