Talk:ADE 651

"no form of information could be stored on it."

I'm not supporting these devices at all but, RFID tags certainly do store information; the resonant frequency of the tag. If they stored 'no form of information' they would be useless as security tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.237.20 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sniffex

This and Sniffex and the others might be better off in the dowsing article. Geo8rge (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The dowsing article has a very historical note to it. Maybe something like Modern dowsing devices to cover all modern devices that use pseudo-scientific names for dowsing. Then a redirect for all of these products could point there. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

So what is it then?

The article talks a lot about dowsing and of doubts about this objects efficiency, but thre's little mention of what it 'is' or how it works? ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.236.65 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

From this video it appears that ADE 651 is little more than a standard size credit card made from some unknown material (plastic?) with what looks at first sight to be an inductor coil embedded in it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8471187.stm 86.175.129.237 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This comment was spot on. I revised the first few sentences of the article to describe what the device is supposed to do, with references to the manufacturer's product web page and an NYT article where the reporter observed its operation. M.boli (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fake and scam

Well James Randi foundation was pretty clear that it was a "useless, quack, device which cannot perform any other function than separating naïve persons from their money.". Well no mincing words then so I think the article needs to be a little bit more expanded in this regard. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The article already makes it clear enough, perhaps more than needed. There are quite a few credible references to the problems with the device, there is the arrest and export ban. Simply being blandly factual more than sufficed to cover any point you might make by quoting James Randi. I think that type of piling on reduces the credibility of the article. M.boli (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Image

I don't think we should be using File:US Navy 081016-N-1810F-303 Checkpoint in Abu T'Shir, Iraq-crop.jpg. While it certainly looks like an ADE 651, it's a poor angle (rear view) and without any source telling us what it is that the Iraqi is holding, describing it as "an ADE 651 or similar device" is original research. We're not supposed to add our own interpretations to articles. Accordingly, I've removed the image, as we have no reliable source to associate it with the subject of this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't accept that the device in question looks, somewhat coincidentally, very like the device described in this article? I'd suggest that in all probability the device shown is an ADE 651 but even if it isn't, and that possibility was made clear in the caption, it is still obviously a similar device being used for the same application as the ADE 651 has been used and so I feel it has an educational value in illustrating how these kind of devices are used in Iraq. To counter that potential benefit, what would be the disadvantage of including this image? Is someone going to get the impression that it definitely shows a ADE 651? That possibility should be eliminated by the caption. I don't see the relevnce of WP:OR, it is hardly a creative interpretation of what the image shows to suggest is portrays an Iraqi solider using an ADE 651 or other similar device. We are often required to interpret images because descriptions are sometimes inadequate so the situation here is hardly unique, very rarely do we have a reliable source for the entire caption of images, we have to do our best to accurately say what we see. Adambro (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't even know that it is "a similar device". We only have a partial view of it, and without a clear view or a caption telling us what it is, it's original research to describe it as being something that is based solely on our own interpretation. Don't forget that OR applies to images just as much as it does to article text. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you compared it with the image of the ADE 651? It surely isn't too far fetched to say it is either that or a similar device. I'm well aware that OR applies to images, and also to their captions, but as I've explained, we don't live in a perfect world where everything in images is described by a reliable source. We can look at this image and consider it to be likely to show the device the article is discussing and say so without worrying that we're advancing any position. Adambro (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what: let's take this discussion to the OR noticeboard and ask for some independent input. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(added) Please see WP:ORN#OR question regarding image. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the fuss about the image is. It's a very good shot of the uniformed arse of an Iraqi soldier, no doubt representative of arses in the Iraqi army. How is this a problem? 58.96.94.12 (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Jim McCormick

I submitted a stub article on the the guy behind it for creation (under Jim McCormick (UK businessman) though I don't that's a good disambiguation qualifier), will link from here if/when the article is approved. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.12 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, but I don't think we have enough about him to justify an article yet. I'll redirect it to here for now. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a fair bit out there in the news and among the skeptic community already but sure, whatever. Obviously the story is in the news so I expect additional information will come to prominence over the next few days and I guess one or other special news investigation will furnish enough for a page on this individual. As an aside though, can you suggest a better disambiguation qualifier for when more information comes to light? I don't want to say inventor but saying con-artist seems not quite NPOV even if it's true and and of course we can't say criminal until after the trial. Maybe Jim McCormick (accused fraudster)? 58.96.94.12 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with ChrisO that we don't need an article about him. He is only notable for being behind this device so really the chances are we can adequately cover that individual in this article. Adambro (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

or simply Jim McCormick (serial killer) ? the victims of his actions clerarly surpass all other serial killers in history by number. -- Andy king50 (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no, perhaps not. Adambro (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy

how did this happen? what i dont understand is how did this get past testing both in iraq and uk? might there have been some corruption, at least on the very low level? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.114 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My initial inquiries suggest that it never went through any UK procurement or testing procedure at all, because - if I understand the facts correctly - the UK never bought any. I blogged about this story early in the day, or late last night - before I was aware of this Wikipedia page. I'm now going to revise my post and add additional details. Jon Soroko (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not classed as military equipment, so it also would not have been subject to any export restrictions. The only reason why the Government has been able to restrict its export in the first place and even then only to Iraq and Afghanistan is because it's a potential danger to UK and allied troops in those countries. In practice it probably won't make much difference, since the Iraqi distribution seems to have involved a Lebanese company, probably Protec. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm AMAZED anybody bought these. The manufacturer's own descriptions are pretty much homeopathic. The same language people who sell crystal pendants that de-ionise your Chi, or whatever, use. I can imagine middle-class housewives swallowing rubbish like this, but I thought to command an army or police force in any country, you had to have at least some intelligence. In the "brains" sense, not the "spy" one. Still, if you're gonna rip off a nation's military, they chose the right one. Would be hiding under the bed if I'd sold any to Israel. 188.29.164.229 (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Outstanding piece

I'm new at behind-the-scenes goings-on in the Wikipedia world, and haven't fully thought through the questions regarding images. I would like to say that I think it's an outstanding piece of work, quite thorough, and is going to allow me to revise my earlier blog post on the subject. (I'd included a link - but apparently that's not permitted, so I've removed it). Compared, for instance, to last night's BBC piece, this Wikipedia article is much more thorough and better-sourced.

However, as to categorization, my suggestion is that this piece be findable by persons looking for information on "Fraud," "Procurement Fraud," or "Military Procurement Fraud." Perhaps also Iraq | Corruption and Transparency.

As to the serial killer designation - it's not by any means inaccurate, if the facts are as they appear. But from a criminological perspective - it may have more in common with cases of tainted food intentionally put into the market, but I'm not happy with that analogy either. It's more egregious than the Ford Pinto episode: the Pinto often drove without incident, and in fact did function as an automobile. Might it be more correct to analogize it to the recent (i.e., post-2003) scandals involving defective body armor sold to U.S. troops?

Again, hats off to all the people involved in this process. Our blog gets read by procurement officers - this Wikipedia page will be helpful to them - and also, sad to say, gives us a clear piece of evidence about the state of affairs in the Iraqi government at present.

Jon Soroko Jon Soroko (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon, thanks for the kind words. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if it can be shown that the device was sold in the knowledge that it would do nothing to prevent bomb attacks that subsequently happened then involuntary manslaughter might be a possible legal issue. See Manslaughter in English law#Unlawful act manslaughter and Corporate manslaughter (England and Wales) for more info. Of course, you would then have to show that the company knew that the product was useless at the time that it sold it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am Iraqi, and I live in Iraq, and all what I can say that this (ADE 651) explosive detector is very active, and Iraqi Police has saved tens of thousands of lives by using this device. The problem with device is not that this device doesn't sign on the explosives, No, it is very active in this field and the Iraqi Police has discovered more than 16,000 IED's and more than 800 car bombs by using this device. the problem is, beside the explosive this device always signs on some perfumes, medicines, and shampoos, and some similar things. this doesn't mean that the BBC has the right to conduct such investigation, I think what happened is a part of the Britain media's political campaign against Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and what boost this campaign is the money of Saudi Arabia. What a shame on the independence and the dispassion of Britain Media and especially BBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love iraq (talk • contribs) 10:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your PM seems to agree with the BBC, as do your members of parliament. From the looks of it, the only one defending the fraud is the guy who spent all the money on it. Your PM's assistant is quoted (in the above article) as saying that they will probably investigate corruption in the decision to buy it. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the people who spent the money who are defending this fraud. There are also ATSC astroturfers roaming the internet. -- Tim Starling (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I had been been pleased with my edits on Jan 22 when I and others had incorporated breaking developments into this page and, I thought, addressed some of its problems. ChrisO then replaced the whole thing. Yea, I was a bit miffed.

But it was instantly clear that the page benefited from ChrisO's skill, expertise, and effort, applied when the topic was of current public and policy interest. And ChrisO and others have even subsequently added those elements I thought his initial treatment lacked. This page is win for Wikipedia. M.boli (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! Apologies for not discussing the rewrite beforehand, but I was racing to get the article expanded by the time the Newsnight programme was broadcast. It's had a lot of views in the last few days - at least 15,000 (unfortunately we lost two days' stats) - see [1].

I've also just created a companion article on the GT200, a very similar device. There appear to be some links between the ADE 651 and the GT200, which I'm currently researching. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Fraud uncovered, website offline

http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2010/01/22/placebo-bomb-detectors/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.141.156 (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The ATSC website is no longer offline, and appears to have been active for a couple of months after a makeover. However, clearly whatever action has been taken has not dissuaded McCormick from continuing his operations, as the website has remained unflinching. I'm personally surprised it isn't a trading standards issue. Stevebritgimp (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know what has happened to this guy? His arrest and immediate release in January doesn't appear to have been followed up. I saw a picture on some news website showing the thing being used recently in Baghdad. It does look like the website is online and being updated again. Have Avon and Somerset Police dropped the investigation? 86.133.61.255 (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Fake" and "fradulently" in the first sentence

I reverted "fake" and "fraudlently" out of the first sentence because they are unsourced. The person who edited them into the first sentence should have provided irrefutable sources for so strong claims. For example a report from defense laboratory for "fake" and a court decision for "fraud" would do.

Even without "fake" and "fraudlently", the purveyor's claims are clearly labeled as being merely claims in the first sentence, which conventionally conveys the requisite doubt. Then there is considerable easy-to-understand reliably-sourced evidence starting from the third sentence from which the reader sees that the device likely a fake and its purveyors likely frauds.

The article as it stands suffices to describe the ADE 651. M.boli (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Could the words "non functional" be used instead of the word "fake"? I think "fake" sounds very informal for an encyclopedia. Any thoughts? Mongoosander (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Fake" does indicate what it is: a fraudulent device, unlike "non-functional" which isn't sufficiently precise. I'd be open to a synonym, though.--A bit iffy (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Read what the media are saying. "Fake" is being used pretty much universally. It's a perfectly accurate and concise description. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Prioryman. "Non-functional" describes something designed for a specific purpose (e.g. explosives detection), but for whatever reason it is not currently functional (or broken); the implication being that it could be made functional again perhaps with a repair. Without a battery, an iPhone is still an iPhone but it is non-functional until a charged battery is inserted. If Apple claimed the iPhone was actually a Star-Trek personal teleportation device then it would be a fake because it's clearly not. This device claims to be an explosives detector but is actually just a clone of a $20 novelty golf ball finder (source: The Old Bailey - the similarities are really quite striking!), therefore it is fake and not merely non-functional. If Mr McCormick had instead described the ADE_651 as a device for extracting vast amounts of cash from stupid and corrupt people, then it would not be a fake! C 1 (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Security theatre?

Of course this thing is bogus, but then so are the majority of security checks (including what the TSA do at airports). So... does waving around a "gadget" deter even a fraction of the most stupid potential bombers? Or should we be making the comparison about similar security theatre used elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Golf ball finder

As this device is based on a 'novelty golf ball finder' sold in the US, I am curious to know whether the golf ball finder actually finds golf balls! Presumably not. There are some genuine golf ball finders, but they depend either on visual scanning or on on a microchip or other device being inserted in the golf ball.109.158.130.115 (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A picture of the device?

It would be really useful if the article included a picture of the actual device, or better still, a picture of the device dis-assembled. The article talks about x-rays having been used to investigate it. That makes it sound like it is some kind of monolithic object that can't be taken apart. Surely this can not be the case, and surely -judging from the number that have been sold- a non-copyrighted picture could be obtained or taken (perhaps by someone using the device).1812ahill (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge would be a good source to try asking directly. I'm sure they would oblige if one is still in their possession.   — C M B J   23:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

False positives

Does any source material discuss collateral damage (property destruction, unjustified arrests, provoked firefights, accidental deaths, etc) caused by false positives with this device?   — C M B J   23:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Rename to James McCormick

I think this article is less about the fake device and more about the conman that devised it. I think article is better suited to be about the man rather than the device. The device can have a section of course but the device itself isn't notable on its own IMHO. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps name it something like "Fake bomb detector scam". -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It ain't broke. People googling ADE651 will want to find the article straight up, and ranking of the page is best served by using the actual name of the device. It definitely shouldn't be merged into or 'renamed' as McCormick as he's not the only person behind the device, nor would it substitute well for the current article on him. It also definitely shouldn't be renamed to 'fake bomb detector scam' as there are currently dozens if not hundreds of such scams going on historically and contemporary unfortunately. You may as well rename it 'random device that does nothing' you'll have less clashes. :p

Also, I'd just like to take a moment to say on behalf of myself and the thousands of us (many from here) who lobbied to have these conmen brought to justice for the death and carnage that was going on due to their pseudoscientific woo peddling nonsense, congratulations on justice being served and these things finally being shut the fuck down and taken out of circulation for good. Let's hope the 'inventory' of these woo dowsing rod type devices enjoys his stay at Her Majesty's finest hotel. It took much longer than it should have, but finally justice has been served.

I for one found this scam when this wiki article was a stub and we were fighting to keep it in existence as notable to try and raise it's profile. It's come a long way since then, and damned if we didn't fight tooth and nail to draw attention to this scam loudly enough. A fight well fought though, now hopefully thousands of soldiers won't be relying on bullshit boxes and can go back to things that WORK and keep people SAFER than this did. Like pointing chicken bones and witch craft. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting article deletion, it would still be a redirect. It could even be something like ADE 651 fake bomb detector scam. Currently it looks like the article is about a legitimate product. Mind that the object isn't the main issue here, the scam is. The devices are being used and will remain in use possibly causing injury (loss of limbs) or even death. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

As I found when doing research for this article, the ADE 651 is far better known than James McCormick (though the weight of coverage in the last couple of weeks might have shifted the balance a bit). This is only one of a series of bomb detector frauds that are coming to trial - next up is the GT200 and Alpha 6. In each case, it's been the device that's tended to be at the centre of the controversy and media coverage, rather than the fraudster responsible. For that reason, I'd oppose any move away from the current article name. Prioryman (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you oppose a name such as "ADE 651 fake bomb detector scam"? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I would, as that's unnecessarily long-winded, and it's also editorialising. Prioryman (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ADE 651. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528050202/http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1 to http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=19642

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on ADE 651. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prosec.com/ADE651.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cumberlandindustries.com/content/security/CD3/ADE6513/ADE6512.png
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713175921/http://www.la-ch.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3241%3Aejercito-combate-al-narco-con-tecnologia-de-punta-iinservible&catid=42%3Ageneral&Itemid=62 to http://la-ch.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3241%3Aejercito-combate-al-narco-con-tecnologia-de-punta-iinservible&catid=42%3Ageneral&Itemid=62
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ade651.com/efectividadin.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/13%2Blives-at-airport-threatened-by-bogus-bomb-detectors-610-za-08
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0%2C1518%2C673669%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20100131%2FFOREIGN%2F701309904%2F1002

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on ADE 651. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mzH8dWfX?url=http://www.prosec.com/ADE651.htm to http://www.prosec.com/ADE651.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722224812/http://www.registrocivil.col.gob.mx/noticia.php?ib=29240 to http://www.registrocivil.col.gob.mx/noticia.php?ib=29240
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mzH3TCgz?url=http://www.ade651.com/efectividadin.html to http://www.ade651.com/efectividadin.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Bomb-detector-kit-boss-court-face-fraud-charges/story-16522530-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411121040/http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Bomb-detector-sales-scam-denied-Somerset/story-18354393-detail/story.html to http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Bomb-detector-sales-scam-denied-Somerset/story-18354393-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430110729/http://avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid=27307&t=1&lid=3 to http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid=27307&t=1&lid=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207004418/http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20100131%2FFOREIGN%2F701309904%2F1002 to http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20100131%2FFOREIGN%2F701309904%2F1002
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622074919/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010876627_apmliraqbombdevice.html?syndication=rss to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010876627_apmliraqbombdevice.html?syndication=rss
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/paid-46-000-unfit-bomb-detectors-court-told/story-18482857-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

No longer used by the Iraqi military

According to the link, Iraq stopped using this a few years ago, the article should probably be updated to use the past tense https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a21678/dowsing-iraq-bomb-detectors/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.33.167 (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)