The Locator Locates! (Danie Krugel)

Great gibbering gobs of gormless goo! The madness of crowds (read the comments to feel both sadness and anger) has just grown by several orders of magnitude. Currently it is focussed on the disappearance of young Madeleine McCann from a hotel in Portugal:

Danie Krugel is more than willing to go to Portugal immediately, but he must know if Madeleine’s hair is available and if the parents and police are interested in his services which by the way is free of charge.
So, once again, Danie Krugel has a brilliant opportunity to demonstrate his claimed ability to locate missing people with a sample of their hair.

Go, Danie, go!

But don’t be surprised at a last-minute glitch that prevents Danie from giving assistance (or rather, saves Krugel’s bacon). This is becoming something of a regular feature, so I’ll not start baking humble pie just yet.

'Luthon64

At this time, Madeleine McCann is still missing. The staunch gusto with which some had put forward Danie Krugel’s possible involvement in locating her seems to have died with barely a whimper. Maybe Danie will step up to the plate of his own accord – but don’t hold your breath. I’m sure he’d have absolutely no trouble finding a sponsor to pay his fare to Portugal and the UK. Success in tracking down the missing four-year-old would just about guarantee him everlasting fame and fortune, and since he has apparently been approached in this regard, it is very curious indeed that Danie is keeping such a low profile. Some might think he’s skulking or shirking or using avoidance and evasion ploys but perhaps it’s his diary that is too full of much more pressing engagements.

Also, there’s still no sign of Carte Blanche’s promised follow-up programme, now several months overdue. Nor have Krugel’s promises of a great revelation materialised. Maybe we should hire Danie to find Ruda and Derek so as to remind them.

(And sometimes I get out of bed via its underside…)

'Luthon64

Is this bloke Danie Krugel for real? Im asking as i would like to try and get in touch with him as i want to know if he could go to Portugal and help find Madeleine Mc Cann. Im an ex South African but my folks,sisters and brothers still live in SA. Im here in the Uk so can anyone help me out here? Thanks

Yes, the man definitely exists. He works as a glorified rent-a-cop at the Free State Central University of Technology (CUT) in Bloemfontein. You can find his contact information here:

Pictures of the man can be seen here, here, here and here.

The question you need to ask yourself, however, is whether what Krugel claims is in any way likely to be true. Certainly, his claims are highly improbable from a scientific point of view because they seem to violate our understanding of the world: how can DNA (or hair) possibly keep track of its source, even in principle? Krugel refuses to say on what basis this is supposed to work. He says it is, “Science, science, science!” but won’t be more specific than that. What is known is that Krugel is an ex-policeman who has as a collaborator a private investigator called Leon Rossouw who specialises in tracking people via their cellphones and the cell network.

But, please, feel free to invite Krugel to find Madeleine McCann, something he has been challenged to do at least twice. If you’re really lucky, you’ll even get a reply from Krugel. But before you do, you might want to read the posts in this thread carefully and follow the links where such have been provided.

'Luthon64

Did anyone catch Carte Blanche last night? Are you as baffled as I am?

I only caught the end (looking at the transcript I didn’t miss much), but it seems they got a psychic and Danie Krugel to find the missing girls in the Gert van Rooyen case. They then dug at the spots where the psychic and Danie said these girls were. Found some bones. Had DNA analysis done on them. Found that they were human and some of them were female (but couldn’t match the DNA to the parents of the missing girls). Showed the show to parents of the missing girls who said “now we can find closure”. They said they were going to give the evidence they found to the police.

What evidence are they talking about? They didn’t find any! ??? My wife and I were completely baffled as to what the point of the whole show was.

Okay, let’s get a little realistic, shall we? But first, read the Carte Blanche transcript here.

The short version: Some small bones and bone fragments were found by Carte Blanche at a dam near suspected child murderer/paedophile Gert van Rooyen’s home. van Rooyen, who supposedly committed suicide after killing his mistress in a police pursuit back in January 1990, is alleged to have abducted, molested and murdered at least five young girls in the Pretoria area. The bones are said to have been found as a result of information provided by Danie Krugel, and also assisted by Marietta Theunissen who says she can talk to dead people. Krugel used his “Science, science, science!” hair locating technology, while Theunissen says she chatted with one of the victims. The bones were subjected to stringent DNA testing. Importantly, though the bones could not be incontestably identified to be human, they were accepted to be human but could not be tied to any of the victims.

It is a given that supporters of Krugel and Theunissen will chalk this little charade up as an overwhelming success. Ruda Landman most certainly did, swallowing the entire line fed by these two shameless hucksters.

Krugel was employed by the police for several years and is very likely to have retained contacts within SAPS, and it is very likely that he has access to inside information. Also, the van Rooyen police docket disappeared some time ago. The case was quite high profile and much has been written about it in the last 16 years. It is, moreover, likely that the area identified for examination by Krugel and Theunissen is in some sense an obvious choice for hiding or disposing of a corpse.

But here’s the cracker. Theunissen has previously “worked” on the van Rooyen case and was therefore acquainted with many of the facts:

In haar loopbaan as hulpwerker het sy tot dusver meer as 200 moordsake help oplos, ongeveer 100 selfmoordsake aangepak asook hordes sake van kinders wat verdwyn en wegloop. Toe daar geen nuwe leidrade was nie, het die polisie Marietta nadergeroep om te help met bekende sake soos dié van vermoorde Leigh Matthews, “maar Gert van Rooyen en die vermiste meisies was net te veel vir my. Daar was net so baie duisternis, hartseer en pyn in daardie saak. Dit het my baie uitgeput.”

Yet again Carte Blanche fails both its audience and its journalistic integrity by not mentioning some of these rather telling titbits. What is needed is a controlled test, as per the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge. Almost as convincing would be if Theunissen and/or Krugel were to find Madeleine McCann.

But don’t bet on that happening any time soon.

'Luthon64

I have posted a reference to this topic under the “Junk Science and Alternative Medicine” with the heading “BodyTalk & Quantum Quackery”.

I am not going to repeat any of it here, other than my utter dissappointment in Carte Blanche for entertaining the likes of Danie Krugel and Marietta Theunissen. We are all behind anyone who can assist with ciminal cases and these cases in particular, but are we not going a bit too far? One can argue that one must follow every lead to solve a crime - this is absolutely true and cannot be disputed. Should this, however, include crackpot theories as well?

Luthon64 could not have said it better

Until he shows us all to be wrong, we must assume that Danie lives by peddling false hope via a deception that should have been exposed at birth.

We need to INSIST that this “invention” be tested and proven under a controlled environment (shortly followed by - i would imagine - tarring and feathering of a certain quantum quack & co)

Hello and welcome to the forum, Sentinel.

We need to be careful here to distinguish what could be a genuine lead from that which is probably a hoax. Krugel’s supporters almost always and uniformly advance one or more of the following three arguments in favour of his claims:
[ol]- It is possible that he has discovered something novel;

  • Krugel has been successful in other cases, and
  • We must try even the most unlikely things when looking for missing loved ones.[/ol]

To address the first point, of course it is entirely possible that Krugel really has discovered something new. But is it probable? Absolutely not! Why? Because the man just smirks “Science, science, science,” while there is no known way this alleged technology can work as he says it does; he won’t file for a patent or publish a scientific paper so that his alleged technology can be peer reviewed (he’d probably get a Nobel Prize just for being able to extract DNA signatures quickly from hair using his magic box, never mind tracking its source continuously); he refuses to undergo proper and controlled scientific testing; his history and current background are inconsistent with those of the lone genius inventor, and he is always entirely diffident when it comes to cases where his knowledge can be no better than that of the next person. All of which is a tad suspicious, I think you’ll agree. And saying, as some have done, that he’s an upstanding, trustworthy, humble person of high moral principles does not ― in fact, cannot ― absolve him of having to deliver credible evidence for his claims. Similarly, the idea that he’s worried about having his technology stolen is a washed out ruse: a patent will protect him quite well, and the James Randi validation protocol isn’t interested in finding out how it works, only in finding out that it works.

The second point is selection and confirmation bias in their purest forms. None of the cases Krugel has worked on and none of the tests he was given were adequately controlled to eliminate cheating on his part and/or making use of insider information. The newspaper reports don’t clearly state that Krugel’s involvement was indispensable, and in one case, Krugel led a family around the country on a proverbial wild goose chase (see moonflake’s blog for more details – link in an earlier post in this thread).

The third point is an appeal to emotions that has not been considered carefully enough: if the suggested technique is likely to be bogus then it is equally likely to be a waste of time and resources. All it manages is to keep up the invariably false hopes of the friends and relatives of the missing person, and to further the ultimately selfish delusion, reputation and purse of the woo-woo practitioner. Marietta Theunissen claims to have helped the police in more than 300 homicide cases, including suicides. Her say-so is hardly evidence, but people, including herself, obviously want to believe her. 300 such cases are enough to do a statistical test to determine whether her “help” actually makes any difference to the success or effort when compared to cases where she is not involved, but such tests simply aren’t done despite being relatively easy. And saying, as some often do, that one must not criticise the “spiritual” work of such people because it brings comfort, ignores the fact that they are being lied to as well as the even deeper hurt that will ensue from finding out that it’s a sham. Thus, it should be clear how suggesting Krugel or Theunissen as a potential solution, given the scarcity of credible evidence to support their claims, is no more laudable than suggesting you go and stick your head under water until you have a vision of where your loved ones might be. So again it would be far more sensible to invest that effort in proven techniques, like police work and forensics.

What it all comes down to is that if, at the end of the day, you can truthfully say to yourself that you’ve left the world a slightly more honest place than it was when you woke up, then your day was a worthwhile one.

'Luthon64

Luthon64, thank you for your welcome message…

You have said it all, and I can only add the following comments.

  • What amazes me is that the likes of Krugel and Theunissen are called in again and again (mainly on the public’s request) but their claims of paranormal abilities are never properly validated, nor are accurate statistics provided, as you pointed out.

False leads waste everybody’s time. If my memory serves me correctly, the detectives ended up in Swaziland, based on a false lead during the first stages of this investigation. It is therefore imperative that leads are properly checked. In the case of paranormal leads, not only should the information be validated but the source as well.

  • I am not convinced that we will see the likes of Danie Krugel featuring as one of the James Randi applicants any time soon. His claim is that it is “Science! Science! Science!” and the JREF offer a reward for proof of the paranormal. No amount of debate will convince him that it is anything but science, even though we may argue that his “invention” exceeds what we consider as physically possible, thus paranormal.

  • After the repeat of the story last night, Krugel mentioned during a demonstration that the key to his invention is the power source, but stops there. There are only 3 possible types of power sources I can think of. -1- Power known to man (why mention it then), -2- Paranormal power (in which case the JREF would like a demo), or -3- New technology.

Should this, in fact, be a new breakthrough in power sources, I insist that the Department of Health and Safety investigate this thoroughly to check if it is not detrimental to other people’s health. It could be radioactive or nuclear for all we know.

The only possible way to satisfy this debate would be for Krugel to patent the thing and give it to the world. It’s as simple as that – Occam would approve.

What would his motive be for keeping it from the world? Are we still in the Dark Ages where scientists are burnt on a stake by the Church? Is it still misunderstood by the inventor himself? I think not.

The only probable reason is that Krugel’s “Ouija Board with Quantum GPS interface” is as much real as the myth that my Rottweiler can look into a person’s soul. I have proof – just come very close and stare into her eyes!

Kind Regards,
Sentinel - Patiently waithing for the return of tarring and feathering. (Oops, I said it again!)


You’re (still) welcome. :wink:

Well, the JREF’s MDC doesn’t care how it works, only whether it works. They’ll test dowsers, so Krugel certainly qualifies. This has been pointed out to him and to the media as well. Moreover, on the one hand he’s claiming that it’s “science,” while on the other he won’t play the science game. That behaviour is more usually labelled “hypocrisy.”

If Krugel has discovered a new energy source, that alone would qualify him for a trip to Stockholm, followed shortly by everlasting fame and fortune. But it is hard to make sense of this enticing titbit of information: how can the energy source affect the performance of his machine, unless he’s using the word “energy” the way woo-woos, rather than scientists, use it? After all, energy can be transformed in all sorts of ways, irrespective of its source, so that assertion sounds a bit dodgy.

As indicated earlier, the usual answer to this question is that Krugel is worried that his technology will be stolen by others, but, as I pointed out earlier, there are several ways he could protect himself and still prove that it does what he says it does. In fact, on reflection it seems to me more dangerous to play coy on your own because there’s little to stop a determined gang from simply robbing him of it violently and then claiming it as their own or selling it to an interested buyer. Such things happen anyway in South Africa regularly. It would make much more sense, I think, to prove it to the world with a bang and only then fight off the offers once everyone knows you’re the one who invented it. But obviously we don’t know all of the ins and outs, now do we?

'Luthon64

Hark! Herewith my vision of the future…


Last night’s 3rd Degree programme on e–TV featured a rebroadcast of the piece on Danie Krugel by Charlene Stanley & crew from a little more than a year ago. The report apparently won some journalism prize or other and this fact was, of course, taken to mean that the report is actually good, responsible coverage of the issue. The programme followed its customary format with a live lead-in by Debora Patta, followed by the report. In her lead-in, Patta gave the reason for the rebroadcast (the prize), before posing the question whether this was revolutionary or a hoax, a question not pursued any further. Unfortunately, we don’t have the necessary means, otherwise we would have recorded the episode for subsequent closer scrutiny. However, we took down some notes while the programme was on air, so here’s a brief outline thereof with occasional comments.

After the rolling of the title, the viewer is informed via subtitles of the shocking missing-persons statistics in SA, especially those of children. The narrator (Stanley) suggests that it would be wonderful if these people could be located by using a few strands of their hair. She goes on to say that “some inventors” in Bloemfontein have cracked just this problem: tracing the source of a sample of “signature material.” We may easily be mistaken in this, but both Dr 'Luthon64 and I seem to recall that it was at around this point that DNA was first mentioned in the original broadcast a year ago, but there is no mention of it this time. Dr Matie Hoffman, a physicist of undisclosed affiliation, is shown, saying that there is no known way such a device can work as described. Hoffman speaks for less than 15 seconds and his words mark the only moment of scepticism in the entire report.

Next up is a shot of Danie Krugel toying with a radio-controlled helicopter, about to take off in a grassy field. His voiceover intones gravely that one hundred years ago flight was thought to be impossible, just as now his technology is thought impossible. Bad analogy, Danie: scientists had at that time already figured out many of the basics of fluid dynamics; that’s why they kept on glueing wings with an airfoil cross-section on their experiments. They knew theoretically how flight should be achievable, while there is no known science, past or present, that can account for what you’re claiming. Anyway, Krugel intones a dire warning to offenders that they can run but not hide because he’ll be onto them.

Danie then goes on to describe how the Leigh Matthews case was the turning point for him that prompted him to adapt some “navigational equipment” to human hair, which equipment he had previously used for locating minerals. He says that using a “proper hair sample,” its source can be traced in a “very short time.” A testimonial is then provided by one Pierre Honnibal whose son disappeared. Krugel allegedly found him in “20 minutes” and this convinced Honnibal that Krugel’s canonisation is a mere matter of time. Honnibal’s endorsement is followed by a further endorsement, this time from an investigator named Erasmus speaking Afrikaans, while subtitles give an English translation. Erasmus asserts in no uncertain terms that Krugel “helped” him, and that while he doesn’t know how Krugel’s technology works, he is totally convinced that it does work.

The next section then reports on some impromptu testing of Danie by Stanley and her crew. The first test involves a crew member hiding in the vicinity of a small hill. They take a cutting of his hair. The viewer is told that the target’s cell ’phone is left behind and that he only has a small video camera and a GPS to be used for later verification of his position identified by Krugel. Meanwhile, Krugel himself is located “about four kilometres away,” taking measurements after the hair sample has been handed to him. Stanley tells us that Krugel won’t allow them to film him during the test. There is no mention of any safeguards against cheating, e.g. a third party watching and relaying information to Krugel.

The second test again involves a crew member hiding in a coffee shop in downtown Bloemfontein. Krugel is told that the target is somewhere in a suburb called “Pelissier,” while actually in a neighbouring suburb called “Fichardtpark.” We are shown a tuft of hair held between a thumb and the first forefinger joint (presumably cut from the target’s head) and it is clear that very few, if any, hair roots are included. This is handed to Krugel who takes a few measurements, allegedly “gets a signal” and eventually locates the target to within a few hundred metres, though it isn’t reported just how long the procedure took. A picture of a map is shown indicating Krugel’s prediction and the actual location of the target but it is shown too briefly and indistinctly to conclude anything useful. This time no comments are made about what equipment the target had, and again no mention is made of any safeguards and/or controls against cheating by Krugel.

The next test involves a “smaller version” of Krugel’s equipment, deployed in the search for an infant who had been hidden earlier under a blanket in a house. A hair cutting is given to Krugel who then locates the child but again many important details are simply skipped over in favour of the wow-factor. The fourth test is a real case in which a domestic servant had stolen jewellery and other goods from her employer and then disappeared. Krugel is shown inspecting a bucket of dirty water, presumably the remains of a mopping operation of the servant’s quarters. We are told that Krugel finds “three strands of hair.” He then sets his gear up at night, supposedly “to give the suspect enough time to get home.” Or maybe to line up his ducks – take your pick. Next thing, Leon Rossouw appears. Rossouw is a private investigator and occasional partner to Krugel, and he specialises in locating people using their cell ’phones and the cell infrastructure, an important piece of information that is simply omitted in Stanley’s report. Rossouw investigates for the “next few days,” and eventually finds the suspect “about 200 metres” from Krugel’s pinpoint.

Continued…

… Continued.

The fifth and final test is again a real case in which four teenage girls went missing in Bloemfontein. Pictures and a hairbrush are given to Krugel who “asks around” if anyone has seen the girls, but without any success. Why, one wonders, would Krugel need to “ask around” if he has this magnificent invention? After all, it is almost a certainty that there would be at least some hair on the girl’s hairbrush Krugel was given, a point that wasn’t raised at all. The girls turned up later that evening at a shopping mall (so they couldn’t have been all that missing). They were asked where they had been between 14:00 and 16:00 that day, which was when Krugel did his location shimmy. It turns out that the girls weren’t far from the place Krugel had identified. It wasn’t made clear whether the girls had been moving around during the period in question, nor what other attractions besides shopping malls there were in the area, nor whether any of them had cell ’phones.

At the end of the report, Charles Nqakula, SA’s Minister of Safety and Security, is shown saying how magnificent Krugel’s invention is, how criminals must beware, how much this will do to advance respect for SA’s science in the world, and how they are “collaborating closely” with the inventors. Oh, and Nqakula briefly mentions getting DNA from hair as the signature material.

Now that we have listened fairly dispassionately to what Stanley and Krugel would have us believe, we have the following urgent request to anyone who wants to put Krugel to the test: get two or three performing magicians to help design and observe the tests because they know what to look for and how to avoid being tricked. Because as long as reporters like Stanley pretend that (a) their “experiments” and “tests” are credible, and (b) that they have done their job properly by airing a single physicist’s dissenting voice, they are lying to both the public and to themselves.

'Luthon64

Thanks for the summary - I never caught the original 3rd degree show, or this rescreening, and unlike that paragon of journalistic integrity, Carte Blanche, they don’t seem to think it’s worth offering online transcripts. So it was interesting to see that they didn’t really do anything different in their piece than CB did in theirs… Susan Puren must be mightily miffed at being passed over on this one, seeing as her stories might as well have been filmed from the same outline.

The Stanley report on Krugel predates the first of the two Carte Blanche inserts by about four months and is the first TV report we’re aware of that covers the topic, apart from it possibly giving Carte Blanche the impetus for their efforts. What puzzles me is that 3rd Degree’s Debora Patta can be such a bloodhound when challenging social or political injustices and abuses, and simultaneously such a puppy in matters where confrontation is equally apropos. As I hint at in my summary, the situation is portrayed in such a way that the casual observer would be tempted to think that the orthodoxy is reluctant to acknowledge, let alone accord due recognition to, the lone genius inventor for whose claims there are heaps of substantial evidence. That is, the man is Galileo Krugel.

Sad, such ignorance. :frowning:

'Luthon64

I didn’t get to see carte blanche’s two stories about Danie, but fortunately was able to read the transcripts. I recall from this story that the camera man was sent to a cemetery to hide and be found. This bothered me for a long time, especially in light of forcing techniques which many “mentalist” magicians use (one of your crack debunking team in addition to the “sleight detectors”, I’m sure).

If we entertain this idea for a little while, consider that it is very likely that the cameraman thought that he had come-up with the idea himself. The reporter and crew on the scene would all be very impressed (as impressed as when the mentalist asks “were you thinking of the 3 of diamonds?”). So how could it be achieved? Cleverly constructed sentences can be used to place an idea in a person’s head, usually by absence which gets the participant to “fill-in” the missing word or by use of similar-sounding phrases. You might talk for a while and drop-in these sentences:

“… my device was used on a case where the sample was found under six feet of cementry on a construction site …” (we usually tune errors like that out in our daily conversation having understood the real meaning: cement).

“… I received a lot of criticism in the early days and they were grave. Digging through books I found that Einstein suffered the same criticism …” (said fast enough it is not detected and with the right emphasis can be “received”).

You could construct any number of disguised sentences and use cliches like “dead centre” to hammer-home the idea. But instead of waving your cape and writing a prediction on a card, you ask them to go “find a place of rest for a while so that you can be comfortable while we try to track you down”.

Forget about the hair, it’s too easy, this guy’s “signal” will be very strong.

Of course we are ascribing some amazing abilities to someone who isn’t known to have had magical interests in his past (did he work as a police entertainer perhaps :P). Maybe it’s all a lot more ordinary than that, are cameramen in he habit of bringing GPS devices on shoots? Perhaps Danie was kind enough to provide them with a spare unit he had available and it would prove useful when later they could correlate the results with his actual coordinates.

The transcript has only six lines about this entire experiment, no information on who suggested the test, every item that went with the camera man, were there other guesses before the cemetery was chosen, were they told when to start looking (cameraman phone in) or did they agree to wait “5 minutes” (which indicates to the cameraman that he should be in place, ready to be located within the time limit)? There are too many questions and not enough description of the test.


On another forum, someone suggested that maybe it's all a big ruse that the Minister and the media are in on, a way to tell the less educated criminal out there that the days of getting away with it are over - the police have a new weapon. Maybe that's why Mazarakis was so vehement in support of Danie.

But again, we may be ascribing too much to Danie Krugel.

Oops, on that classic example of Argumentum-Ad-Hominem, I will leave it for a day.

Indeed. There are, as you suggest, far too many specific factors that haven’t been adequately controlled for in these “tests.” That’s why they don’t – and can’t – count as evidence. But I think it’s human nature (not wanting to appear the fool) that has the reporting teams all uppity and defensive about their reports. It seems their minds were already made up about Krugel when they assembled their “tests” and so any criticism of the “tests” is perceived as personal criticism and rejected as such, a perception that is, of course, plain twaddle.

Hmm, it’s possible, yes, but I don’t think it’s likely, given how convoluted the story is, but then it could be a case of the crime fighting equivalent of steganography. In the SA context, it would be more effective, I think, to invoke another mode of magical thinking, say one in which the spirits of ancestors feature as “supercops.” There may be some obscure family – or similar loyalty – ties between Krugel and the report producers, but again this is pure speculation.

The real problem is how easily many people accept those reports as gospel (or simply are apathetic) instead of seeing through them and loudly challenging Krugel and the purveyors of the reports to put forward some actual evidence (instead of anecdotes and a host of kindergarten “tests”). By playing coy, Krugel is milking this propensity that many people seem to have.

'Luthon64

I’m new to these parts, so don’t bite me.
What I would like to know if this Danie chap’s invention is so bloody marvellous, why isn’t somebody sending him over to Portugal to find Madeleine McCann?

Welcome, welcome! Biting, when it happens, usually comes later…

Send him? Considering the substantial reward for returning Madeleine McCann, it’s telling that Krugel didn’t leap at the chance immediately. Plus, he’s been repeatedly invited to do so – check out the rest of this thread and the News and current events sub-forum for more about this. moonflake’s blog has quite a bit on Krugel too.

'Luthon64

Danie Krugel is involved in the Madeleine McCann disappearance. He is featured in a Bad Science blog entry:

The bottom line, then, is that many newspapers are happy to peddle sensationalist bunkum, despite the protestations of many qualified experts. They seem to think that contrasting one expert’s view against that of an unknown like Krugel plus anecdotes is sufficient to qualify as “balanced reporting.” What they have evidently lost sight of is the sheer volume of experts and expertise arrayed behind the objector, while Krugel stands largely alone.

But what else is new?

'Luthon64