Indeed. Perhaps my prior posts (which were far more sarcastic in tone) burned that bridge. Oh well.
-Owen
Brushing aside the sceptics, South African senior systems engineer Johan Booysen believes Krugel was "spot-on" in the co-ordinates he gave last month to locate his missing father, pilot Dirk Booysen. The wreckage of his plane and the charred body of Dirk Booysen were found in the dense Baviaanskloof mountains shortly after Christmas. "At first we misinterpreted his co-ordinates, but when we looked again, we saw he had been spot-on," said Booysen. "It was very difficult terrain and Danie never gave us any false hope about my father. He just offered to help - for free - and that's what he did.What do you know, he was spot on all along... ::) How do you misinterpret coordinates?
Yah, we spotted the streetlamp-mounted âSaturday Starâ headline posters which read something like, ââI Know Where Maddie Isâ - SA Cop.â Thinking it might be Krugel, we immediately bought a paper and, sure enough, there he was on page three.
We think the article could have done with quite a bit more sceptical counterbalance, and we found two issues particularly bothersome:
No. The epithet âThe Locatorâ first arose here in this very forum. It had absolutely nothing to do with Krugelâs alleged success. Had Underhill bothered to do a little actual research, rather than twiddling the publicâs wowee knobs, sheâd have discovered that Krugelâs so-called âsuccessesâ do not withstand scrutiny, being based on hype, testimonial, anecdote and a convenient disregard for the manâs several failures.
The second point is the one raised by bluegray V: how, exactly, does one misinterpret coordinates? It seems a safe bet that Krugel uses GPS (i.e. global) coordinates (rather than, say, SA cadastral survey coordinates), because the article states that his equipment makes use of satellite technology. Also, if he was using a less common coordinate system, one might expect him to make this clear to the searchers.
Interestingly, the article quotes Krugel as saying that his equipment is in the process of being patented. Weâll see whether thatâs true or not. Elsewhere, the point is made that Krugel does all his âlocatingâ at no charge, and much is made of his âconcernâ for missing persons. Ultimately, these rhetoric devices are meant to suggest that Krugel is a generous, giving person whose main concern is helping people with little thought for himself. While all of that may be true, it does not â and cannot â affect our scepticism towards the physical claims he is making with regard to hair and his âMatter Oriented Systemâ until he puts forward some real evidence, for example a double-blind test conducted by a credible authority.
At the same time, it must again be reiterated that the Star has served the reading public poorly with this article that has a decidedly credulous flavour. Just what will it take for journos and editors to understand that when a few eminently qualified experts say that there is no known way Krugelâs device can work as he describes, it isnât a case of two or three opinions against Krugel? Because they seem to have a hard time with the idea that there are tens, even hundreds of thousands of scientists rallied behind those dissenting experts. Moreover, the âsuppressed genius inventorâ myth Ă la Galileo is, while very romantic and appealing, an outdated, easily punctured fairytale, which, more importantly, says precisely nothing about whether Krugel can do what he says he can.
'Luthon64
If by âyet to be debunkedâ you mean exposing exactly what Krugel is up to, then youâd be correct. But if instead you mean that Krugelâs methods still need to be shown to be ineffective and based on hype, youâd be wrong: There are several cases where he has failed abysmally and it is in the nature of people and the popular media to push our collective âwowee!â button by punting the successes (without properly investigating them, either) and disregarding the failures. Moreover, the scientific approach demands that we regard such an implausible claim as false until the evidence in its favour compels us to change that view. Krugelâs only evidence is anecdotal, which is a kind way of saying âat best feeble.â
Well neither actually. Iâm merely showing interest in what the hell this guy is doing. Youâve got to admit that thereâs something strange and unprecedented in the way he operates. And yes it does activate the âwoweeâ switches in most people but I donât think you can blame them. Itâs some strange shit.
What I would like to see is either him getting properly exposed as a fraud or his methods being made public.
Also how long is he going to take to get his device patented. Or is that where the problem is?
I donât see any novelty in what he does, it is the same trick that psychics use but with a background in police investigation it means that he can make (slightly) better guesses.
In applying for a patent, an inventor is required to expose every facet of the functioning of the device, the more explicit the better because in order for another person to copy the idea they would need to make at least six fundamental changes for the law to recognise that it is not a violation of the patent. If Danieâs patent application is âIt uses quantum 'n stuffâ then it will be thrown out because it would easily violate other patents from the word go.
The patent application is mostly posturing, because an application makes the POS (I mean MOS) seem credible. Even if the patent application is rejected, he can go on for years continuing to say that it is in the process of a patent application (simply by submitting a âIt uses quantum 'n stuff 'n shitâ amendment - or even by NOT resubmitting and ignoring the rejection). You have to remember that although patents are very public; the patent application process is very private (the idea is not yet protected by law). You are not even allowed to call the patent office and confirm that a patent has been submitted by a particular person.
But what weight is added by having a patent? It can be used as a âparking spaceâ for a future idea. There are patents for the perpetual motion machine (US20070246939), free energy devices, and so on. Does that mean that the device works or that the person is âreservingâ the (ridiculous) idea?
On the topic of Krugelâs purported patenting of his technology, hereâs an interesting titbit:
If Krugel is seeking a patent in South Africa, as seems reasonable to suppose, all of the above plays directly into his hands and we should see some action soonish.
But I for one wonât be holding my breath.
'Luthon64
This just in. This article appeared in the Rapport yesterday, but isnât up on their website yet:
23/02/2008 21:56 - (SA) Uitvinder wat vermistes kry, sĂȘ hy kan kanker bespeur Maryna van WykBloemfontein
Die Bloemfonteiner wat wĂȘreldwyd bekendheid verwerf het met sy DNS-opsporingstelsel om vermiste mense te vind, glo sy nuutste uitvinding kan kankerselle in die menslike liggaam opspoor en dokters help om kanker gouer en vroeĂ«r by pasiĂ«nte te identifiseer.
Mnr. Danie Krugel was die afgelope jaar gereeld in die media-kollig nadat hy die lyk van die vermiste Naledi Ntebele (5), wat buite Brandfort vermoor en verkrag is, binne 30 minute met sy DNS-opsporingstelsel gevind het.
Krugel het ook onlangs ân gebied in Portugal uitgewys waar hy glo die vermiste Britse meisie Madeleine McCann se lyk is.
Hy was ook in die nuus toe hy in die soektog na slagoffers van die pedofiel Gert van Rooyen beendere met sy toestel uitgewys het.
Krugel het die afgelope week sy nuutste uitvindsel aan ân Bloemfonteinse internis, dr. Frieda Pienaar, gedemonstreer.
Pienaar het verskeie bloedmonsters van pasiĂ«nte wat aan kanker ly aan Krugel gegee, asook ân paar buisies wat die bloed van gesonde mense bevat het.
Tydens die toetse in Pienaar se spreekkamer het Krugel die buisies bloed een nĂĄ die ander voor sy klein elektroniese toestel gehou.
Die toestel, wat met data van sekere kankersoorte gelaai is, het aangedui of kankerselle teenwoordig is.
Die toestel het geen reaksie getoon nie wanneer ân buisie kankervrye bloed daarvoor geplaas is.
Krugel sĂȘ die inhoud van sy silwer tassie is nog ân groot geheim, want sy uitvindsel is nog nie gepatenteer nie.
Hy was wel bereid om te sĂȘ dat hy die beginsel toepas waarvolgens dieselfde soort materie onderling kommunikeer.
Krugel het die toetse die afgelope week in Rapport se teenwoordigheid herhaal.
In een van die buisies was ân speldekop-grootte borskankergewas. Die toestel het deur ân aanwyser aangetoon dat kanker in die buisie teenwoordig is.
ân Buisie met bloed van ân gesonde mense is toe aan Krugel gegee om te toets.
Hy het nie geweet wat die bloed se status is nie. Die toestel het die koeranttoets geslaag en nie gereageer nie.
Oor sy nuutste uitvinding sĂȘ Krugel hy kan kanker in ân radius van 4 m opspoor.
Hy het die toestel drie maande gelede begin ontwerp en dit selfs al op mense getoets. âDie toestel het groot moontlikhede. Dit kan selfs moontlik wees om data van ander siektes op my toestel te laai. Sodoende kan siektes baie vroeĂ«r gediagnoseer word en behandeling gouer begin,â sĂȘ hy.
Pienaar, wat die afgelope vyftien jaar spesialiseer in endokrinologie en siektes soos bloedkanker en diabetes, sĂȘ selfs bloed van pasiĂ«nte wat byna van kanker genees is, het ân reaksie van Krugel se toestel ontlok.
âSo ân toestel kan dokters in spreekkamers gouer help om kanker op te spoor sodat verdere toetse gedoen kan word.â
This is an alarming tendency⊠when an opportunistic kook starts moving in a medical direction.
Alarming indeed, thanks for the post.
Seems that Krugel doesnât have a problem with being tested, as long as itâs not a proper test⊠Unless Maryna van Wyk is as skilled in the art of detecting frauds as she is in writing researched one sided puff pieces, I wouldnât take this âkoeranttoetsâ seriously. I doubt there were proper controls and it sounds like the usual unproven claims from Krugel, eagerly excepted by gullible professionals who should know better.
As for Dr. Frieda Pienaar, it is possible her comments are taken out of context, because she does not actually endorse the product. Although some people might certainly get that idea from reading the article. Maybe someone should contact her for comment.
Thanks for that important update, CaptainKlingon.
I have gone to the trouble of translating the article for those whose Afrikaans is anywhere between rusty and non-existent. Any suggestions for improved translation are, of course, welcome.
Opportunistic kook, indeed! Clearly, I must have missed the lecture where âthe principle according to which materials of the same kind communicate amongst themselvesâ was explained and that is why I havenât stumbled on Krugelâs breakthrough.
'Luthon64
Am I reading this wrong, or does the article say that a test-tube containing a thimble-sized lump of breast cancer was detected as containing cancer, and a test tube with only healthy blood was not? In other words, Danieâs magic device v2.0 can detect when naked-eye tumours are floating around in clear test tubes, and when they are not? Holy double-blind testing, batman!
Ooopsie, my bad translation. :-[
I read âân speldekop-grootte borskankergewasâ as âân speldedop-grootte borskankergewasâ, so the correct translation should be âa pinhead-sized breast cancer growth.â
:-[
'Luthon64
Well, thatâs marginally better, but still not what Iâd call foolproof!
Given that Danie has now voyaged into the arena of medicine, which is at least slightly more regulated in SA than policework, do we think that he may actually have to subject his new âdeviceâ to some measure of quality control or certification before it can be employed as a medical diagnostic device? Given the proliferation of alternative medicine diagnostic devices that do precisely nothing, I suspect not, but a girl can hope.
moonflake posted a nice review of Krugels new cancer fighting services here: http://moonflake.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/danie-krugel-expands-his-imaginary-product-line/
Report: Demonstration of the KrĂŒgel Theory Tester (KTT) to a Panel of Experts and Specialists â 12 June 2008.
Meet the âKTT.â Its latest claim to fame seems to be the acquisition of an official name and a catchy acronym.
The report is too full of holes to be taken seriously, chiefly in regard to an apparent lack of any methodological safeguards against deception. Moreover, the largest test distance was five metres â easily within visual range, and one must, then, ask whether KrĂŒgel knew each time exactly where the target sample was. The report claims that the investigating team consisted of ten experts/specialists, each with a minimum Ph.D. qualification, but only five signatures are shown. I think that these people have done themselves a grave professional disservice if I am correct in supposing that the tests were conducted on terms and conditions stipulated by KrĂŒgel himself.
The report concludes:
âRevolutionaryâ indeed! Thatâs why Iâm still wholly unconvinced; quite the opposite, actually: Iâm alarmed that these experts seem not to have taken adequate precautions against being misled on so ârevolutionaryâ a technology and instead given it their collective thumbs-up based on a single and by all available accounts very poorly designed test session. One might be excused for suspecting collusion.
'Luthon64
I agree, I sent an email to the Prof. JFR Lues to learn more. Will see what happensâŠ
This is what we have to go on:
The shifting of the indicator/needle of the KTT apparatus over at least 90° towards the direction of a particular substance, as well as the repetitive movement of the needle in conjunction with the substance were regarded as a positive result. In addition, the tests were conducted at various distances (1-5 meters) as well as during different setups (different individuals holding the material, moving the material in different directions etc.). All demonstrations were done at least in triplicate.Over at least 90°? What is that supposed to mean? I hope it does not mean that 0° shows at 6 o'clock and more than 90° is from 9 to 3 o'clock. That would just be ridiculously imprecise.
The rest is basically a summary of the panelâs credentials and dubious claims of possible applications. As if Phdâs canât be deceived.
It is clear that this is the sort of report that you release when you have no evidence to support your claims, but you want to impress a few gullible people to attract investment.
Probably nothing at all, but itâs nonetheless an excellent idea to attempt finding out more about this from those who conducted the testing.
Yes, it is difficult to make any sense of almost everything in the report. Details are scant and, where given, are ambiguous, incomplete and/or hard to follow. The extreme brevity and awkward compositional style of the report are also unhelpful.
Quite so. As James Randi points out, scientists are ill equipped to detect fraud because nature doesnât lie or cheat, whereas people often do, especially when thereâs some self-interest at stake, which is clearly the case in this KrĂŒgel affair.
Agreed, but KrĂŒgel might also be planning to use the report in (perhaps partial) âsubstantiationâ of his alleged patent application about which, by the way, not a single further word or whisper has been heard since its announcement several months ago.
'Luthon64
[nofollow]http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4014[/nofollow]
âThe discovery and possible application of the technique appears to be nothing less than revolutionary,â a team of five scientists concluded on MOS, on June 12, 2008. ([nofollow=http://cfpcrimewatch.com/crime.php/crime-stories/134]See here[/nofollow]).And as suspected, I haven't heard anything from Prof. JFR Lues yet...
Iâve just discovered that two of my favourite bloggers are actually the same person, by reading the response to Danieâs latest claims at www.vood00.wordpress.com