How can so many countries and so many experts be taken in?

[Harry Bloomfield]

The explosives detector, supposedly developed from a golf ball locator.
My gob is totally smacked - how can so many people, so many countries,
so many experts and the military all be fooled by such a device when it
is obvious to even the dimmest of us, that the device could not
possibly work?

I've developed a gadget which you sit in front of a TV, it bleeps when
nags are being shown around the ring before the race. The bleep
indicates which will be the winner. I'm selling them for £100K each in
a sealed box which must never be opened. I don't guarantee it to be
right everytime, but it works frequently enough to make it extremely
profitable.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

[Adrian]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 11:30:26 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

> The explosives detector, supposedly developed from a golf ball locator.
> My gob is totally smacked - how can so many people, so many countries,
> so many experts and the military all be fooled by such a device when it
> is obvious to even the dimmest of us, that the device could not possibly
> work?

Simple.

Kickbacks.

[Paul D Smith]

"Adrian" wrote in message news:kltji0$8pe$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

+++++++++++++
Got to agree. I imagine there will be quite a few people looking over their
shoulder nervously, especially where large numbers of loved-ones have been
lost to improvised bombs.

Paul DS.

[F]

On 02/05/2013 11:30 Harry Bloomfield wrote:

> The explosives detector, supposedly developed from a golf ball locator.
> My gob is totally smacked - how can so many people, so many countries,
> so many experts and the military all be fooled by such a device when it
> is obvious to even the dimmest of us, that the device could not possibly
> work?

Because those who were doing the buying were provided with a financial
incentive to do so? Think it's usually known as a bribe.

--
F

[Mark]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 11:30:26 +0100, Harry Bloomfield

<harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>The explosives detector, supposedly developed from a golf ball locator.
>My gob is totally smacked - how can so many people, so many countries,
>so many experts and the military all be fooled by such a device when it
>is obvious to even the dimmest of us, that the device could not
>possibly work?

IIRC it was based on that well-proven technology - sticks used for
water divination.

>I've developed a gadget which you sit in front of a TV, it bleeps when
>nags are being shown around the ring before the race. The bleep
>indicates which will be the winner. I'm selling them for £100K each in
>a sealed box which must never be opened. I don't guarantee it to be
>right everytime, but it works frequently enough to make it extremely
>profitable.

Advertise it on Channel 5.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

[Brian Gaff]

Yes its not the first one of these either, there was the device that was
supposed to detect oil bearing rocks that took some years to be seen for
what it was, some cheap sensors and an oscilloscope.
I really do not understand it either. When you sign a dotted line to buy
something you need to be damned sure its what it purports to be, so none of
this don't open it stuff cuts ice if I were holding the purse strings for
an organisation.


I'm wondering if its the military version of a Placebo.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Harry Bloomfield" <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mn.12b27dd512...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk...

[Brian Gaff]

Yeah, you don't see many explosive golf balls in any case, do you?


I have a better bomb detector. You just destroy every vehicle and replace
it with another as they cross your checkpoint. Probably cheaper than buyin
these things.. grin.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

"Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kltji0$8pe$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

[tim......]

"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:klu3cv$kae$1...@dont-email.me...

> Yes its not the first one of these either, there was the device that was
> supposed to detect oil bearing rocks that took some years to be seen for
> what it was, some cheap sensors and an oscilloscope.
> I really do not understand it either. When you sign a dotted line to buy
> something you need to be damned sure its what it purports to be, so none
> of this don't open it stuff cuts ice if I were holding the purse strings
> for an organisation.
>

The police (including ours) seem quite happy buying face recognition systems
to add to their CCTV monitoring despite not one shred of evidence that they
are capable of spotting suspects when they randomly appear in crowds (which
is the purpose that they want it for)

tim

[Clive Page]

On 02/05/2013 17:17, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Yes its not the first one of these either, there was the device that was
> supposed to detect oil bearing rocks that took some years to be seen for
> what it was, some cheap sensors and an oscilloscope.
> I really do not understand it either. When you sign a dotted line to buy
> something you need to be damned sure its what it purports to be, so none of
> this don't open it stuff cuts ice if I were holding the purse strings for
> an organisation.

Not only that, the purchasing officer involved in spending such a
substantial amount of money will have had to get authorisation from
his/her manager, and maybe further up the management chain.

It seems to me that all of the organisations who were taken in by such
an obvious fraud ought to sack every single one of those involved. And
hold an inquiry as to how such a thing could ever have happened. If,
as seems quite likely, there was fraud involved, then this means that an
even more far-reaching inquiry is required.

I guess those of us whose taxes support these irresponsible
organisations, like the UN, ought to be grateful to the fraudster for
bringing all this to light.


--
Clive Page