From: Self <Single-user mode>
To: Jim Bryant <JBryant2@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: WHY DO YOU NOT RESPOND
Send reply to: kconover+@pitt.edu
Date sent: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:50:03 -0400
On 5 Aug 98, at 20:08, Jim Bryant wrote:
> I sent you the following message last week. I must assume you got it
> since it did not come back to me. I would expect a professional and a
> gentleman to at least reply. Jim Bryant
Hi, Jim! Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, I've been out of town and
then working two overtime shifts in addition to my regular shifts this
week. Your message deserves a more detailed reply than I can do right now
(got to be back at work for the 3P-1A shift tonight), but I'll give you a
more detailed reply in the next few days.
Take care.
From: Self <Single-user mode>
To: Jim Bryant <JBryant2@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: NICE WEBSITE, LET'S DISCUSS DKL'S LIFEGUARD
Send reply to: kconover+@pitt.edu
Date sent: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:22:44 -0400
On 28 Jul 98, at 17:21, Jim Bryant wrote:
> Dr. Conover, I'm impressed by your homepage. I see we have some of the
> same interests, like a Scottish connection. I'm a member of Clan Hay
> and belong to the St. Andrew's Societies of Washington and Baltimore.
> We are also interested in DKL's LifeGuard, except I know it works and
> you are active in saying it does not. This is ashamed because LifeGuard
> save lives. I met you at the DKL presentation to the SAR group at the
> University OF MD.
Hi, Jim. Glad you enjoyed the web site. I got three separate
messages from you on this topic, but as far as I can tell, they're all the
same, so I'll reply to the one with the last time noted in the header.
Again, my apologies for taking so long to answer- I haven't had a full day
off for the past six weeks.
> I'm the associate of Howard Sidman you mentioned in your letter
to the
> FBI. I wanted to talk with you at this meeting because your obvious
> interest in the LifeGuard was so quickly soured. You didn't give us a
> chance to show it worked and avoided further contact. We both know of
> many great inventions that were scorned by "experts" because they did
> not fit into their boundaries of knowledge or failed some test that the
> invention was not designed to do. Some people have agendas or competing
> products to sell, but I can't imagine a person with your expertise and
> accomplishments wanting to delay a new technology that saves lives.
Jim, I'm glad to talk to you. At the meeting where you and Howard
demonstrated the device, I was initially fascinated by Howard's
presentation -- but then I saw what seemed to be insurmountable
technical objections to the device working as you claimed, based on
the expertise you cite above. I stayed in the background as I didn't want
my skepticism to interfere with your free demonstration -- I was afraid
that confronting you with my initial doubts would be impolite, at the
least, as you and Howard had been invited to this meeting -- and might
make you leave without finishing your demonstration.
> Do you know that law
> enforcement organizations have used it successfully to capture bad guys?
> I tracked a friend a couple of weeks ago out to 2000 feet, a good 25% of
> that through forest, using a LifeGuard Model 1.0. This last weekend I
> was practicing with a LifeGuard Model 1.0 in the woods. It should be a
> great SAR tool because you can hold it in your hand as you walk and the
> antenna assembly points toward the human target. After about an hour in
> the woods I got turned around and was confused on how to get back to my
> starting point. I used LifeGuard to locate my friend waiting back at
> the car through several hundred meters of thick woods and returned to my
> starting point. When I first saw this technology I thought it was a
> fraud also. Then my Navy friend Howard Sidman let me use a very early
> device in July of 1996 to locate my neighbor through a wall. Since then
> I have worked hard to understand the science behind it. We have a
> scientist that can walk you through all the references. Did you know
> that sharks can locate their prey's electric field and it is documented
> in a book? I have invested time and a good chunk of money into this
> project. I stake my reputation and family fortune on it. If you would
> like to include my name, and address in your next letter to the FBI
> please do so. Since I commanded a nuclear fast attack submarine during
> the Cold War and was a political-military officer in the Pentagon I know
> they all ready have a big file on me. Please check out my website and
> its links and then ask yourself why a person like me would be involved
> in a fraud. http://www.pwcweb.com/manassascab/captjim.html How many
> devices are there in an operating room that look simple, but require
> extensive training and experience? If you had asked I bet I could have
> had you using LifeGuard in a few minutes. Once you feel the torque, or
> tug as we call it, generated during detection you know it works. It has
> limitations, it does not work in all situations, and is a skilled
> instrument. The basic training course takes two days, but to become a
> trained operator you need an additional 20 to 30 hours of training. We
> provide a qualification card at the end of this course to help you
> achieve this. You say you like high tech equipment. Let us show you
> that it really works and you could be the first one to use it in a real
> world SAR operation. Jim Bryant
>
> MANASSAS CAB COMPANY RESIDENCE
> 7565 Gary Road 10227 Jamaica Lane
> Manassas, VA 20109-2608 Manassas, VA 20109-7107
> VOICE: 703-361 8614 703-368 7817 (Voice Mail)
> FAX: 703-257 4028 703-361-4636
> MOBILE: 703-587-5314
> EMAIL: manassascab@look.net JBryant@look.net
> HOMEPAGE: http://www.pwcweb.com/manassascab/captjim.html
Jim, I can understand your feeling that the device works. However,
the history of science is full of distinguished scientists who have
been misled by anecdotal evidence, or even by misinterpretation of
the evidence. An example is of "N-rays" which were discovered by
a famous French scientist, and investigated successfully by several
other well-known scientists -- only to find out later that that, unlike X-
rays, N-rays truly didn't exist.
To test a device, especially if one had tried it and "knows" it works, one
has to be very careful to make sure that wishful thinking, even at a
subconscious level, doesn't sway the results. Thus the importance of a
control group and blinded evaluation of results -- to me in medicine, this
is critical, as anyone who has come up with a new drug or treatment
undestandably has an emotional stake in seeing it work. The literature is
full of things that seemed to work at first, but later were found to be
useless or even harmful -- look at Laetrile, Thalidomide -- the list goes
on and on.
With my training and intereste in physics, I really do understand the
theoretical basis for the LifeGuard -- and I think it could truly work,
though the technical obstacles are almost overwhelming. The central
problem is that dieletric forces are tiny, tiny, tiny, and need to be
amplified millions of times to be detectable. And in all the technical
material and explanation that I've seen, there is nothing that explains,
even in very broad terms, how the LifeGuard can "couple" with such a tiny
force to impose enough of a force that you can feel a "tug" as you
describe above. Although I certainly don't know for sure, the "ideomotor
effect" that's mentioned by James Randi in his letter to Mr. Sidman (let
me know if you haven't read it, I'll send a copy), and described in the
articles I'll send you, is a much more likely explanation than anything to
do with a dielectric potential coupling to the device. And, since the
time of Scottish philosopher David Hume in the 1700's, "extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof", I will continue to be skeptical of
the claims for the DKL device until I've seen _extraordinary_ proof.
Since I've got your address from your email, I'll snailmail you a
couple of articles that may help explain my skeptical position.
At this point, despite looking quite hard, I've yet to see adequate
theoretical justificiation for how the device works, nor any empirical
evidence, in the accepted scientific sense, for what seem to be
extraordinary claims. Thus, the device fits into my definition of
"unproven." And, _selling_ an unproven medicine, or an unproven device
designed to save lives, is by definition fraudulent (cf previous letter).
Others may reserve "fraud" for selling medicines or devices that have been
"disproven" or that are _consciously_ known to be ineffective.
My concern is that you and others who have found the DKL devices
to "work" may have been unconsciously misled, by using anecdotal
and not scientific evidence, into supporting something that
_appears_ to work, but is likely just a very, very convincing illusion.
As you'll see from the information I'll snailmail, many famous scientists
have been in the same boat. And the most respected of them have looked
carefully at the new data, said "I was wrong" and become even more famous
and respected as a result.
I see the DKL has published an "executive summary" of a test on
their web site -- but it says nothing about the background of the lab
conducting the test, nor of any controls that were used for the test,
which are essential for any scientific article's summary. I suggest that
you pressure DKL to publish the full protocol of the study, and the
details of the data on the web site, as Sandia did with theirs --
otherwise people will discount the LAW study as fluff. And, since again
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" DKL will need to have
several truly independent studies (i.e., with funding mechanisms clearly
laid out and acceptable according to accepted IRB=Independent Review Board
standards) to offset the Sandia study and make it worthwhile for
indpendents such as me to look at the device again.
Thank you.
From: Self <Single-user mode>
To: Jim Bryant <JBryant2@compuserve.com>
Subject: N-rays
Send reply to: kconover+@pitt.edu
Date sent: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:34:24 -0400
For information on N-rays and similar scientific errors, please check out:
http://proxima.astro.virginia.edu/~astr347/Astr347/nrays.html
http://wheel.ucdavis.edu/~btcarrol/skeptic/blondlot.html
http://wheel.ucdavis.edu/~btcarrol/skeptic/pathosc.html
http://www.clark.net/pub/cosmic/blondlo8.html
From: Self <Single-user mode>
To: Jim Bryant <JBryant2@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: N-rays
Send reply to: kconover+@pitt.edu
Date sent: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 18:44:12 -0400
On 21 Aug 98, at 17:19, Jim Bryant wrote:
> Bob Carroll's site was excellant as usual. He may not be the best
> critical thinker, but he writes well. The clark net site is weak (what
> is the score card for?) and the other was about light pollution, weird.
>
> I agree if you can not repeat the results of an experiment there is a
> problem. We can repeat the results in double blind tests, just not the
> way Sandi did it. Sandia forced us to do the test the way they wanted,
> they ignored our input. Law worked with us to develop a testing
> program. This is new technology, like sonar in 1914. They had to learn
> that sound bends and the noise level of the ocean changes depending on
> where the deep scattering layer is. I find people I do not know are
> there, try it.
>
> If you do not want to be open minded about this let's just stop. Would
> you like to talk to our chief scientist and have hime walk you through
> it. Many a doubting EE has changed his/her mind. Ask to get a copy of
> teh Law Report. Jim
At this point, after a negative double-blinded empirical study, I'm not
interested in hearing any more about theory until I see some better
empirical data (at least until I can stop working so much overtime and get
caught up on academics, at least). Please show me the protocol and the
data, i.e., the detailed information on the LAW study, and then we can
talk about it.
Please also take a look at the stuff I mailed to you today, should be
there in a few days.
Thanks. Take care.
From: Self <Single-user mode>
To: Jim Bryant <JBryant2@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: NICE WEBSITE, LET'S DISCUSS DKL'S LIFEGUARD
Send reply to: kconover+@pitt.edu
Date sent: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 18:48:33 -0400
On 21 Aug 98, at 16:41, Jim Bryant wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I understand you are a skeptic and I respect
> that. In nuclear submarine command I had to listen to dozens of reports
> daily and skeptically analyze each one for errors. Frequently there
> were and I would have to personally check ship's position, reactor
> operating status or observe the contact myself on the sonar screen or
> periscope. That is howa skipper saves the taxpayers serious money. I
> had the same bad feeling about this technology, but I was wrong.
>
> I was in a recent online discussion with Bob Carrol, I see you used his
> site for reference on the N-rays. This skeptic tried to say that Law
> Engineering and Environmental Services did business consulting. When I
> caught him he agreed they did testing, but inferred they would approve
> any product for money. If you have not see the discussion go to reader
> comments on DKL on his site. This is why DKL is concerned with release
> of the entire report becasuse people say they are open minded, but they
> have some kind of agenda.
Funny, I just searched the Web for "N-rays" and ended up with his
site.
> This noted skeptic was not interested in seeing the completed Law
> Report, he just wanted to trash it. I was involved in the Law testing
> and there are 20 pages of data tables and as many pages of discription
> of test protocals. Yet people want to discredit the whole technology on
> one test of 25 runs. Why don't you try asking DKL for the complete Law
> Test so you can read how the conclusions were made in the Executive
> Summary. I'm sureif you do an internet search ypou can find that the
> Law Group does product testing for a living.
I'd be happy to see a copy. I'm not interested in asking for it, but if
it's available publicly (i.e., posted on a Web site for others to review)
I'd be happy to review it.
> As for the physics, have you read any of Dr. Pohl's works. You find
> that a single living cell can push a plastic particle a mm away. Look
> at Dr. Phol's equations for dieoeletric force and tell me what is unique
> in comparison to the commen EE equations we work with? If you can do
> this we can engage on teh science.
Differences of scale. At cellular scales, gravity is negligible and
surface tension is overpowering, as are electrostatic forces. Dielectric
forces are not as strong as electrostatic forces at that level, and both
electrostatic and dielectric forces just simply aren't strong enough to
turn a half-pound device in your hand on a swivel, certainly not compared
to the gravitic effects of just a slight tilting of the device to one side
or another.
Take care.
Date sent: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 10:42:40 -0400
From: JIM bRYANT <JBryant2@compuserve.com>
Subject: SCIENCE
To: "Dr. Keith Conover" <kconover+@pitt.edu>
> Differences of scale. At cellular scales, gravity is negligible and
> surface tension is overpowering, as are electrostatic forces. Dielectric
> forces are not as strong as electrostatic forces at that level, and both
> electrostatic and dielectric forces just simply aren't strong enough to
> turn a half-pound device in your hand on a swivel, certainly not compared
> to the gravitic effects of just a slight tilting of the device to one side
> or anothe
You twist your science to suit your own bounds of knowledge. Have you
ever read any of Dr. Pohl's work? Have you tried to run the numbers using
his equations, well several people have and the numbers show it works. .
If you had tried the instrument and felt the torque, not Randi's ideomotor
BS but felt the torque or tug as we call i you would not be in this
situationt, but you were too busy being closed minded. At SR/DR many
people were able to feel the torque and came away believing it works.
Besides Randi's idea would only work if you knew some one was there. How
do we pass double blind tests if we are making it work. Everyone we show
it to tries to catch us tilting, with the model 1.0 I can better show you
it defy gravity during a detection. You are just close minded and you
have bet your reputation that this is a fraud and now you are doing every
thing you can to convince yourself you are right. You can still save your
reputation if you try some critical thinking. Jim
Date sent: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 10:53:26 -0400
From: JIM bRYANT <JBryant2@compuserve.com>
Subject: DKL LIFEGUARD
To: "Dr. Keith Conover" <kconover+@pitt.edu>
Why do you lecture me like this. You do not know what you are talking
about. I asked if you had looked at Dr. Pohl's equations and tell me what
is different that dealing in normal EE, but you did not you say because of
the Sandia test. You stake your reputaion on a 25 run test where the
contractor had no input in desiging the test. Lets try discussing Dr.
Pohl's equations and each factor in them and then the possibility that the
body's field is more like a line source that a point source. Jim
> With my training and intereste in physics, I really do understand the
> theoretical basis for the LifeGuard -- and I think it could truly work,
> though the technical obstacles are almost overwhelming. The central
> problem is that dieletric forces are tiny, tiny, tiny, and need to be
> amplified millions of times to be detectable. And in all the technical
> material and explanation that I've seen, there is nothing that explains,
> even in very broad terms, how the LifeGuard can "couple" with such a tiny
> force to impose enough of a force that you can feel a "tug" as you
> describe above. Although I certainly don't know for sure, the "ideomotor
> effect" that's mentioned by James Randi in his letter to Mr. Sidman (let
> me know if you haven't read it, I'll send a copy), and described in the
> articles I'll send you, is a much more likely explanation than anything to
> do with a dielectric potential coupling to the device. And, since the
> time of Scottish philosopher David Hume in the 1700's, "extraordinary
> claims require extraordinary proof", I will continue to be skeptical of
> the claims for the DKL device until I've seen _extraordinary_ proof.
From: Self <Single-user mode>
To: JIM bRYANT <JBryant2@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: DKL LIFEGUARD
Send reply to: kconover+@pitt.edu
Date sent: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 21:26:40 -0400
On 23 Aug 98, at 10:53, JIM bRYANT wrote:
> Why do you lecture me like this. You do not know what you are talking
> about.
Since you are being insulting, I will no longer correspond with you.
Good bye.