Before we go into the REEST story here is a copy of a report that the prosecution did not want released, of a Government to government assistance task carried out independently of Global Technical ltd, Ask yourself, why would the UK MOD do that for something that doesn't work at all!!
What is the story of REEST?
REEST, the Royal Engineers Export Support Team. Part of the Ministry of Defence. Tasked with promoting legitimate UK defence exports.
In 1999, the REEST were introduced to the Mole and were keen to experiment with it. After a month or so they offered Global Technical Ltd the chance of having a Private venture report written about it. This offer was taken up by the company and paid £500 for that.
The report trials were formulated by REEST as they are the UK experts in explosive search and disposal. The trials were formulated by Clifford 'Gonz' Wright, and conducted by Cpl Ian 'Jock' Forde and two others.
The trials were over a number of days and nobody from Global Technical Ltd was present at the explosive search assessment.
This is the content of the report minus photos that will be published later.
This original report was 'lost ' by the MOD. Strange that the writer remembered every point that was written and that this report below is alleged to be a fabrication.
THE REEST LIES
Cpl Ian Forde made a trial of the Mole for 4 days after testing out and learning how to operate the device along with 4 other team members. He sets up a series of tests in conjunction with Clifford Wright.
The outcome of these tests are that the device does not work, yet the report is written and passed up the chain of command for approval. A copy held on file with the Chattendean office, a copy held by Lt Col Cromptons office and a copy held by DESO.
Shortly after this report the REEST recommended that Global Technical Ltd approach DESO for assistance for marketing the product. [But we thought the equipment does not work!! Why talk about the services DESO offer?]
The services of DESO were taken up and marketing made to the defence attaches around the world as well as to those of foreign governments operating in the UK.
DESO were sending out copies of the report to these people for a device that didn't work. Did none of these people read it. Of course they did and it said the Mole worked.
Back to the team, they believe it doesn't work, but took it onto their books after approval from DESO.
Over the next 6 years various exhibition were attended by REEST on behalf of Global Technical ltd.
At these exhibitions they informed people that it did not work and shouldn't be purchased. REALLY!! does anyone actually believe that.
Overseas purchasers often sought reference from both DESO and REEST and at no time did any enquirer receive a negative response.
Clifford Wright left REEST and became director of EODUK ltd. Strangely enough 2 years after leaving he requested current details and pricing for the Mole. I though he said it didn't work!
Maybe that was a mistake. Yet 3 years after that in 2006 he requested assistance again from Global Technical ltd to market the MOLE.
At the trial he was asked why if it did not work why did he ask at least twice for a price, he said just following up an enquiry and did not care if it worked or not. Also he offered Global Technical Ltd representation on his equipment website to promote the Mole/GT200.
CLIFFORD 'GONZ' WRIGHT has lied about the report he wrote either from pressure from the UK government for threat of arrest or trying to cover up his involvement. He knows the truth about the report.
He is now Director of Guartel Ltd of the UK. Want to do business with this person!!
Here is his proven interest in the GT200/Mole that he forgot to mention at trial:
Cpl Ian Forde
Says his tests for the report failed.
Lets review that shall we:
Jan 2000 He makes a presentation and demonstration to the Indian MOD at Chattendean. It was successful and resulted in further tests and trials being made in India. The British High commission in India were involved in a number of these events.
Apr 2000 He makes a presentation and demonstration to members of the Singapore Home affairs department. These tests prove successful and in the future lead to sales.
May 2000 The Cyprus Chief of Police and head of Research and Development are informed by the UK Defence Attache posted in Cyprus that they should look at the Mole. It had good reports from the UK. Yes, REEST.
They apply to come to the UK and the demonstration is approved by the UK MOD. Ian Forde makes the demonstration. It was successful.
THe REEST and Global Technical are invited to Cyprus to make further trials. These trials were a success. Who made the trials - Ian Forde.
But hold on, didn't he say it didn't work - How on earth then did he manage to make a successful UK demonstration and a successful double blind trial in Cyprus. I'll tell you, because it worked.
When asked at the trial why he didn't report the fact that the Mole didn't work he replied it wasn't his job to and there wasn't time to alert other members of the team. Really, the team travelled together many times, they operated from one office and i believe the Nuremburg Defence doesn't work anymore.
He lied. He knew the Mole worked and supported it for years. Was he pressurised to change his story? BY UK MOD or the government. Strange that these two report writers actively involved in the production of the trial report are the only members to change their stories, all other REEST members confirmed at the trial that the Mole/GT200 did actually work and the prosecution did not call any more team members because they were supporting the defence position.
What else did he and the team do:
Introduced the Mole to the Italian government. Yes, sales followed;
Irish Defence force, sales followed;
Thailand via a third party UK company asking the REEST to make the demo for them, nothing to do with Global Technical. Yes sales followed.
Mexico first introduced to the Mole by the REEST on board a UK Navy warship.
Saudi Arabia and sales followed.
Just an example of his mind set
Lt Col Crompton stated at the trial that during a demonstration to Saudi clients without members of Global Technical being around, they achieved positive results, one member 100%, he had 75-80% and another member 0%, it just didn't work for him. He also stated that when he left the REEST he took a copy of the freely available reports home with him and kept it in his garage so he could show his children that there are extraordinary things in this world that cannot always be understood but cannot be ignored. This report was recovered by the police and remains the earliest one 'officially ' held.
Sgt Johnson operated the Mole on Tomorrows world. This was approved by senior military personnel for the REEST to attend the presentation for the BBC. On the BBC it was confirmed that 'he didn't know how it worked, it just worked'.
But hang on, didn't Cpl Forde and WO2 Clifford Wright say it didn't work. How on earth was approval given by the UK MOD for REEST members to go on national television so soon after 9 11 and promote a device that doesn't work!!
SMELLS LIKE A COVER UP!!
The UK Ministry of Defence have a Military Mission based in Saudi and Major Peter Hurry was requested by the Crown Prince Guard to attend a trial of the Mole/GT200.
The double blind operational trial was a success. The Crown guard asked the British Military Mission for their assessment and were informed that references would be sought from the REEST and shortly after were informed that the product was useful. Sales and training followed.
A relationship was built with Saudi clients for around 10 years. The initial orders made were followed by many more over the years without complaint.
check out this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCqaDWyrA2Q
The REEST were called as PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND SAID IT WORKED.
Look at these documents and say the UK government did not assist. Even in 2010 Global Technical Ltd were still being invited to events.
Have GTL really lied about the government knowing exactly what was going on since 1997?
Additional proof of UKTI/REEST help
About REEST for internal discussions
Here is the content of the REEST report
ROYAL ENGINEER
EXPORT SUPPORT TEAM
TRIAL REPORT
TRIAL OF MOLE
PROGRAMMABLE SYSTEM
DETECTOR
GLOBAL
TECHNICAL LIMITED
10 NOVEMBER 99
Royal Engineer
Export Support Team
Islington Farm
Road
Wainscott
Chattenden
Kent ME3 8BD
Telephone:
Civil: 01634 822537
Army Network: 94661 + Ext.
Facsimile:
01634 822522
Officer Commanding Ext.
2522
SMI Ext.
2508
Chief Clerk Ext.
2508
QMSI (EOD, IEDD, Search) Ext. 2513
QMSI (Combat Engineering) Ext. 2513
QMSI (Plant & Logistics) Ext. 2513
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
This
document is the property of Global Technical Ltd. If any company or organisation wishes to use
any pictures, design, or concept described in this report then they must, in
the first instance, apply for the appropriate licence from Global Technical
Ltd:
GLOBAL TECHNICAL LTD
PO BOX 165
Gravesend
Kent
DA13 0WH
Tel: +44 1474 813484
Fax: + 44 870 169 4017
TRIAL OF
MOLE PROGRAMMABLE
SYSTEM
DETECTOR
RE EST REPORT No: 99/28-1032
CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions and recommendations of a practical
nature in this report reflect the views of the Engineer in Chief. Recommendations regarding acceptance into
service or scales of issue, however, reflect only the views of the Royal
Engineer Export Support Team, and are subject to confirmation by the Engineer
in Chief.
TRIALS OFFICER: WO2 QMSI CA Wright RE
TRIALS STAFF: Search Identification
Disposal Section
TRIALS
UNIT: RE EST
SPONSOR: GLOBAL TECHNICAL
LTD (Private Venture)
DATES: November 1999
LOCATIONS: Lodge Hill
Training Area
Area
of Bedford, Luton and Dunstable
Trials
Officer: Approved:
Date: November 1999
Cover Photograph. Picture of
equipment in use during initial training phase.
DISTRIBUTION
External:
Action:
GLOBAL
TECHNICAL LTD x 1
Internal:
File
Number 98/28
REPORT ON THE ²MOLE” PROGRAMMABLE SYSTEM DETECTOR
(ANNUAL TRIAL REPORT
SUMMARY)
Trial Officer: WO2 (QMSI) C Wright RE Trial
Dates: August 99 – Nov 99
Trial Report no: 99/28 Tel
No: 01634 822537
MOD Sponsor: N/A Authority: MDS1 (Engr) DESO
INTRODUCTION
1. Global Technical Ltd (as a private venture) has produced a revolutionary approach to the detection of explosive, ammunition and contraband in the form of the MOLE. The system can be programmed to search for, individual or a combination of substances by selecting the appropriate sensor card. The Programmable System Detector looks for the atomic structure of the substance and once located locks on giving its location. The system operates by the generation of static electricity within the body, which sets up a field around the searcher, activating the unit and making it attract to the substance. It utilises no other power source, giving it an unlimited operation time. It has no moving parts other than the direction indicator, therefore requiring no maintenance. The detector can be used on foot, from a vehicle, aircraft or ship. The whole system is fairly robust and flexible, requiring the minimum amount of training to begin operation.
ANNEX A TO
PVR REPORT
DATED 10 NOV 99
DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS OF COMPONENT PARTS
1. Mole is supplied in a compact carrying case with an overall weight of 1.15 kg Individual component part dimensions are listed in the table below.
Ser
(a)
|
Item
(b)
|
Dimensions mm
(c)
|
Remarks
(d)
|
01
|
Carrying case
|
180 x 190 x 100
|
Complete with strap
|
02
|
Remote sensor
|
100 x 125 x 22
|
|
03
|
Direction indicator handle
|
161 x 47 x 20
|
|
04
|
Connection lead
|
12mm Diameter
|
Extends to 150mm without
distortion to cable
|
05
|
Sensor card
|
54 x 86 x 0.5
|
AIM
2. The aim of the Trial was to
conduct tests and evaluation of the detector submitted for assessment, in order
to assess its suitability for employment in envisaged scenarios.
OUTLINE OF EQUIPMENT
3. The trial utilised a
production detector, which is continually under development.
4. One person operates the
detector, however dependent upon tasks more detectors can be used for larger
area coverage. This would certainly be
the case for the tracking of items.
5. The detector is made up
three component parts, all of which are easily man portable.
6. The
complete equipment package would require a greater number of sensor cards to
appeal to all Agencies. Global Technical
Ltd is investigating this with assistance by the RE EST.
MOLE being
used to search.
RE EST Report No: 99/28
TRIAL OF MOLE PROGRAMMABLE SYSTEM DETECTOR
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
1. Global
Technical Ltd, an independent UK based company, has produced a private venture
portable detector, for use by all Agencies involved in fighting
crime/smuggling. The equipment is
manufactured out of a combination of steel and plastic and is for use in when
there is a requirement to provide information to agencies when manpower, time
and resources are at a premium. The
system is designed to be used in most all search environments aiding in the
indications in the smuggling of illegal substances. The system is designed to be of use in a
variety of conditions, very quickly, upon arrival and with very little preparation time.
AIM
2. The
aim of the Trial was to conduct operational tests and evaluation of the
detector submitted for assessment, in order to assess its suitability for
employment in the envisaged scenarios.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
3. The
MOLE programmable system detector has been proved by the company and the REEST
that it can in fact be very accurate at pinpointing illicit substances. Its
tracking capabilities are especially good. It has only minor limitations, which
during the trial proved to be acceptable.
CONTRACTOR
4. All rights are owned by:
GLOBAL TECHNICAL Ltd
PO BOX 165
GRAVESEND
KENT DA13 0WH
CONDUCT OF TRIAL
5.
The trial was conducted over a four-day period at the
Royal Engineer Export Team locations at Chattenden Camp, Rochester and the area
of Dunstable. Day one consisted of all
personnel involved with the trial to become familiar with the operation and
handling of the equipment. Day two and
three consisted of a field trial in the Lodge Hill Training Area. Day four
consisted of a trial in the Dunstable area. Details of the day’s activities are
located within the Annexes, C, D, E and F of this report.
LIMITATIONS
6. The
trials were not carried out in adverse weather conditions or at night with
daytime temperatures not dropping below 20 degrees centigrade. Wind conditions
were minimal throughout the four days.
EQUIPMENT
CARRIAGE AND PORTABILITY
7. The
complete equipment comes enclosed in a rugged nylon carry case complete with
shoulder strap and zip fastenings a belt loop is also supplied attached to the
case.
ASSEMBLY AND DISMANTLING
8. Assembly is easy and straightforward.
The following assembly instructions are as follows.
1. Remove component parts from case.
2. Connect handle and direction indicator to
non-intrusive remote sensor.
3. Select sensor card and insert into remote
sensor.
4. Hold in search hand and extent wand to its
fullest extent.
DETECTION TRIALS
9. Detection trials are laid out in
annexes C, D, E and F to this report.
CONCLUSIONS
10. It was first noted that when the REEST
were contacted with a view to completing a private venture report on the MOLE
the team were like most, a little sceptical in its detection capabilities. However the scepticism soon subsided once the
trial had commenced. The MOLE proved to work in all scenarios as stated by the
company and proved to be exceptionally accurate during the tracking phase of
the trial. The low technology look is seen as a down side due to people’s
perception. The general consensus of
opinion was that of not believing in the MOLES capability, however as the REEST
have proven this is soon overcome when put to the test. Only minor limitations
were encountered during the trail but it has to be noted that the MOLE will not
work for some operators. Any operator will require an unspecified amount of
training to successfully operate the MOLE to determine the readings given by
the equipment
Annexes:
A. Dimensions / Weights of Portable equipment.
B.
List of test substances used during Trial.
C.
Scenario 1 Area Search.
D.
Scenario 2 Building Search.
E.
Scenario 3 Improvised Vehicle Checkpoint (VCP).
F.
Scenario 4 Long range tracking.
ANNEX A TO
PVR REPORT
DATED 10 NOV 99
DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS OF COMPONENT PARTS
2. Mole is supplied in a compact carrying case with an overall weight of 1.15 kg Individual component part dimensions are listed in the table below.
Ser
(a)
|
Item
(b)
|
Dimensions mm
(c)
|
Remarks
(d)
|
01
|
Carrying case
|
180 x 190 x 100
|
Complete with strap
|
02
|
Remote sensor
|
100 x 125 x 22
|
|
03
|
Direction indicator handle
|
161 x 47 x 20
|
|
04
|
Connection lead
|
12mm Diameter
|
Extends to 150mm without
distortion to cable
|
05
|
Sensor card
|
54 x 86 x 0.5
|
ANNEX B TO
PVR REPORT
DATED 10 NOV 99
LIST OF DETECTION SUBSTANCES
USED DURING TRIAL
SER
|
SCENARIO
|
SUBSTANCE
|
REMARKS
|
( a )
|
( b )
|
( c )
|
( d )
|
01
|
Area Search
|
EXPLOSIVE
|
|
Semtex
|
|||
PE 4
|
|||
HME
|
|||
Black Powder
|
|||
CURRENCY
|
|||
Egyptian
|
Egyptian
|
||
Sterling
|
|||
02
|
Building Search
|
EXPLOSIVE
|
|
Semtex
|
|||
Black Powder
|
|||
PE4
|
|||
HME
|
|||
03
|
Vehicle Check Point
|
EXPLOSIVE
|
|
Semtex
|
|||
Black Powder
|
|||
PE4
|
|||
HME
|
|||
ANNEX C TO
PVR REPORT
DATED 10 NOV 99
SCENARIO 1 AREA SEARCH
GENERAL
1. The
scenario was run as a Military / Police search of an area and involved one
detector for the purposes of the trial.
One member of the team deposited a substance into a hide location and
the second team member was required to locate the said item using the mole
detector only. The substance were
changed as was the operator to give some idea of flexibility and accuracy, in a
given time scale.
2. The
areas used for this scenario are shown at Appendix 1 to Annex C of this report.
3. The
following conditions were noted during the trial:
a. Weather Conditions A fine sunny day with little or no wind temperature reaching 25 degrees centigrade
b. Time Start: 1330 Hrs
Finish: 1530 Hrs
c. Sensor Card used for the
search: E11
d. Remarks: Areas used were a disused overgrown
football pitch and an open area with a railway line bordering it.
Area 1 Disused football
pitch measuring 110m x 60 m
The area was overgrown with
thistle bushes making the secretion of samples very easy also rabbit warrens
littered the pitch adding to places the target could be hidden.
The pitch was divided into
two, initially the samples of explosives were placed on the ground in full view
of the searcher the results being that out of 5 placements MOLE indicated on
all 5 targets. Following this the targets were camouflaged or buried, again out
of 5 placements MOLE indicated on all 5 down to a radius of 3-5 meters. All
readings were taken from the side of the pitch from a distance of 25-50 meters
making MOLE effective of searching area boxes of 50m square.
Area 2 Open area with
railway line measuring 100m x 70m
Similar results were
obtained using this area but with the exception of 2 false alarms out of 6
placements the cause could have been due to the undulating terrain encountered
on the area.
ANNEX D TO
PVR REPORT
DATED 10 NOV 99
SCENARIO 2 BUILDING SEARCH
GENERAL
1. The scenario for this search
was conducted in a residential street, used for search training (Coupar
Street). The scenario was run as a
hidden substance within the confines of the street. We were hoping to narrow down the location of
the substance to one house, or given area within the street.
2. The following were noted
during the scenario:
a. Weather Conditions: A fine sunny day with a small breeze maximum temperature
22 degrees centigrade.
b. Time Start: 1000
Hrs
Finish: 1330 Hrs
c. Sensor cards used: E10
E11
d. Remarks:
All tests were carried out firstly without any
personal equipment being carried, secondly a fully equipped operator complete
with weapon was used for the trail. There was no change in effectiveness of the
MOLE although it must be noted that the operator was not carrying any live
rounds when fully equipped.
The MOLE was first tested to
see if it could locate which street the explosives were hidden this proved to
be no problem out to a distance exceeding 200m. The equipment was used to
locate the specific house where samples were hidden again this proved to be no
problem out of 10 walk by’s it scored 10 hits, this included moving the
substances from house to house. The direction from which the operator
approached was changed from the front of the house to the back of the house on
all occasions MOLE indicated on the target house when all substances were
removed from the location there was no significant lock on.
MOLE locking on to suspect house
Tests were then moved inside
to determine the search capabilities in a fully furnished house. Items were
placed firstly in an upstairs bedroom under the mattress of a single bed, MOLE
was used to square the bedroom and locked on to the substances instantly. The
operator encountered a slight problem watching the direction indicator at the
same time trying to avoid the furniture again this was tested several times in
several locations all were locked on to by MOLE also when the targets were removed
there was no significant lock on in that room.
A further test was carried out using the downstairs
area of the house again with similar results with the exception of when three
samples were placed into the same room it would require an experienced operator
to determine the readings encountered as they were difficult but not impossible
to detect. Also the same problems that were encountered upstairs with furniture
were duplicated using the downstairs room.
ANNEX E TO
PVR REPORT
DATED 10 NOV 99
SCENARIO 3 VEHICLE CHECK POINT/ CAR PARK SEARCH
GENERAL
1. This scenario took the form
of a Vehicle checkpoint (VCP) established within the local training area, and
was trafficked by military vehicles / civilian cars several were rigged with a
detectable substance. The operator had
only information on the substance to be detected to allow him to use a correct
sensor card. Upon completion of the
first detection the operator changed as well as the substance to be detected.
2. The following were noted
during the scenario:
a. Weather Conditions Fine sunny day with no wind and a maximum
temperature of 26 degrees centigrade
b. Time Start: 0930
Hrs
Finish: 1230
Hrs
c. Sensor Cards used:
E11
d. Remarks: Firstly the vehicle used was searched
statically on a tarmac road using explosive samples and currency, the readings
were taken from all sides of the vehicle starting 50m before the vehicle and
finishing 50m passed the vehicle. The road was marked in 20-meter bounds and
readings were still being indicated passed the 220-metre point. This was
repeated using a different operator and the same results were recorded.
At distances of up to 3
meters MOLE can pinpoint which part of the vehicle any substances are hidden,
this was tested using the boot area, bonnet area and under the drivers seat all
were indicated accurately.
For the second test the
target car was driven past at various speeds and 50% of the time substances
were hidden on board. The operators stood approximately 3 metres away from the
side of the road, which the car was driven along. Tests showed that although
breathing was enough to power the MOLE if the operator moved a short distance
of 3-5 meters every 30 seconds it greatly enhanced the performance of the
equipment. All speeds and results can be seen below.
Ser
(a)
|
Substances
(b)
|
Speed
(c)
|
Detection
(d)
|
Remarks
(e)
|
01
|
Explosives Currency
|
Crawl
|
Yes
|
|
02
|
Explosives Currency
|
5 MPH
|
Yes
|
|
03
|
Explosives Currency
|
10 MPH
|
Yes
|
|
04
|
Explosives Currency
|
12.5 MPH
|
Yes
|
|
05
|
Explosives Currency
|
15 MPH
|
Yes
|
Direction indicator become
slow at this speed not giving a clear indication but still giving a reading
|
For the third and last test
substances were taken to a car park containing approximately 57 vehicles and
hidden on 4 different target vehicles, simultaneously MOLE pinpointed all
target vehicles and also which part of the car the items were hidden with ease
this was repeated several times with the same results. When all substances were
removed from the car park there were no significant lock on's MOLE only gave 2
false readings out of 5 walk throughs, these readings were disregarded when the
car park was crossed at a different angle.
