Yah, we spotted the streetlamp-mounted “Saturday Star” headline posters which read something like, “‘I Know Where Maddie Is’ - SA Cop.” 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:
… the ex-cop - dubbed “The Locator” as a result of his high rate of success in tracing missing people in SA - has broken his silence…
No. The epithet “The Locator” first arose here in this very forum. It had absolutely nothing to do with Krugel’s alleged success. Had Underhill bothered to do a little actual research, rather than twiddling the public’s wowee knobs, she’d have discovered that Krugel’s so-called “successes” do not withstand scrutiny, being based on hype, testimonial, anecdote and a convenient disregard for the man’s 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. We’ll see whether that’s true or not. Elsewhere, the point is made that Krugel does all his “locating” at no charge, and much is made of his “concern” 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 – and cannot – affect our scepticism towards the physical claims he is making with regard to hair and his “Matter Oriented System” 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 Krugel’s device can work as he describes, it isn’t 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 “suppressed genius inventor” myth à 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