At least they included this bit from Dr David Klatzow:
Dr Klatzow: "There is no evidence at the moment that he is actually measuring quantum entanglement, which is a real phenomenon. There are many, many people who are right in the thick of quantum physics and for a man to come out of a police background and with no quantum physics and no scientific training to make this world-shattering discovery is, to say the least, very unlikely."
...
[Dr] David insists that proper scientific protocol needs to be set up to test Danie's machine. He says that information in the public domain could have played a role in Danie's successes.
Dr Klatzow: "There is observer bias. There are people who have agenda's on this - one way or the other. The police have one agenda, the police have another agenda. It may be a pure agenda, and I am not suggesting for one moment that his agenda is anything but. And there are too many loose ends in the tests that have been done to date to make them scientific."
But then they have Prof Heleen Coetzee showing what she knows about science:
Heleen: "I think he's done enough to show that this thing works. I know that there are certain ways of doing research, where if you have done enough of the same thing, and you get the same results, statistically it is provable that this thing is right."
No Heleen, he has not done anything to show that the machine is anything but an empty box with fancy lights. All of his finds could just as easily been done with good detective work. There is nothing to suggest that the locating device played any part in finding the victims at all. You either have a very low standard of what constitutes as research or you don't have a clue what real scientific research is.
