RALETC Official Results of Veil G5 Testing - Part 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veil Guy

The bottom line is really simple and I really don't understand why so much of RALETC's energies are being directed in this manner. Do tests of G4 versus G5 or simply do tests as RALETC is supposed to do. The results will be the results. Please just test it as it was intended and on a variety of cars. Certainly if you want to test it with one coat on the headlights or two coats to see if there are any differences of any significant degree, by all means do so. As part of our development we do this as well and we have found that there is a point of diminishing return. Even if the headlights are 100% non reflective (completely eliminated from the reflective equation) PTs will occur with any vehicle with the worst vehicle shapes and colors giving the highest.

---

Can you clarify which customers can use G5 and which customers can not. I hate the idea of giving people a false sense of security. Why not make it clear who will and who will not benefit from G5

Based on your past posts and correct me if I am wrong you have stated that the following types are cars are a good candidate:

1. Cars that are darker in color
2. Cars that dont use front license plates (FYI.. 31 states require a front license plate)
3. Cars that dont have chrome on them
4. Cars that have more of a Triangle type front end.

Looking over your literature and website I dont see any requirements for the product which leads people to believe that just covering their head lights and fog lights will buy them some time but if they have a chrome grill regardless of their headlights being protected at 1000ft a gun aimed at a headlight will reflect off the grill with the beam being almost 3ft wide.

The normal vehicle that we use for testing is always a metallic white Nissan Altima with lots of chrome because its a hard car to protect. We believe that when testing you should always try for success on the hardest of cars and test in the worst case scenarios.

Attachment 3708

Now if G5 worked as intended on this type of test car we would still almost get IPT because it does not fit the requirements for a successful G5 vehicle because of its paint, stance and the chrome all over it. Can you please make it clear for everyone what types of cars they must have for G5 to give results that you have seen? When Salty is feeling better we can test G5 and I will get a different car to use but I want to stick with a car that is an average popular car that most people own. All your customers cant be driving around in corvette's so I want to keep this test real. Please also do not take this as an attack but people really need clarity when purchasing a product to know if it will work on their particular vehicle. There are no requirements listed anywhere and I think its something that needs to be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veil Guy

Very simple. Such detailed discussion of our formulations and method of use in a public context makes me uncomfortable. It's been done before over the years and each time that's what I feel. It makes me very uncomfortable. That's how I feel about all of this. May I suggest you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in development and patenting something only to find yourself getting or being pushed into a public discourse as to the details of what you do/did? Then let's talk about it. Perhaps you would be more appreciative of our perspective. I am sure Mirage/YC and many others have already looked at the details. It is easily searchable both on Google and on the USPTO site. If Mirage was really interested in providing constructive feedback, it would be far better for that to occur out of the public eye and without the involvement of a vendor. It's called discretion and it would be better received in that context. That's what I meant.

VG

---

I know all I need to know about your patent and have for a while now. You have basically patented a mixture of products, but I am curious what vendor are you referring to me being involved with? With respect to constructive feedback, I have already spoken to you about the product during the preliminary testing and you clearly did not take anything I said heart and released it exactly as it was despite my feedback. You focused on ALPR testing and that's all you wanted. You were so concerned that ALPR would be your undoing that you went out and purchased your own ALPR camera after you found out that RALETC had one and LONG AFTER you had already claimed your product would defend against them. You didn't even give me enough product to do a vehicle lidar test. I wonder why that was? That's fine we are going to do one now and We will have HUD results and we will show exactly what is being targeted. I suggest on your tests before you go around quoting PT distances you do the same because without HUD evidence you could be aiming at a tree as far as we know and claiming your product is preventing a speed reading. With all of your deflections lately you are discrediting yourself even more. If you would simply answer the questions posed about your product you might find that the same people you are currently targeting as your enemies might be your biggest supporters. We will see what the results have to say...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BestRadarDetectors

Can you clarify which customers can use G5 and which customers can not. I hate the idea of giving people a false sense of security. Why not make it clear who will and who will not benefit from G5

Based on your past posts and correct me if I am wrong you have stated that the following types are cars are a good candidate:

1. Cars that are darker in color
2. Cars that dont use front license plates (FYI.. 31 states require a front license plate)
3. Cars that dont have chrome on them
4. Cars that have more of a Triangle type front end.

Looking over your literature and website I dont see any requirements for the product which leads people to believe that just covering their head lights and fog lights will buy them some time but if they have a chrome grill regardless of their headlights being protected at 1000ft a gun aimed at a headlight will reflect off the grill with the beam being almost 3ft wide.

The normal vehicle that we use for testing is always a metallic white Nissan Altima with lots of chrome because its a hard car to protect. We believe that when testing you should always try for success on the hardest of cars and test in the worst case scenarios.

Attachment 3708

Now if G5 worked as intended on this type of test car we would still almost get IPT because is does not fit the requirements for a successful G5 vehicle because of its paint, stance and the chrome all over it. Can you please make it clear for everyone what types of cars they must have for G5 to give results that you have seen? When Salty is feeling better we can test G5 and I will get a different car to use but I want to stick with a car that is an average popular car that most people own. All your customers cant be driving around in corvette's so I want to keep this test real. Please also do not take this as an attack but people really need clarity when purchasing a product to know if it will work on their particular vehicle. There are no requirements listed anywhere and I think its something that needs to be done.

---

Let me ask a question. Do you think if a retailer is selling/sold RMR they are/were selling a false sense of security or a plate cover hair spray purported to defeat flash back systems? Does anyone here really believe that anyone here actually believed that an RMR device was EVER effective at doing what it was claimed to do? Like since from the very beginning they were offered? Or a detector that has proven very poor at doing some particular thing? Or a jammer that has issues with any gun at any particular time? The notion of having a false sense of security or selling something that leads/lead to a false sense of security can be hairy discussion.

The Internet has a long memory: https://archive.org/

To answer your question I can't account for all of your possibilities of vehicles. The point it if you are going to insist on testing on the worst case vehicles, you are going to get the worst case results (the point of the thing). Thing is though that is only one side (the extreme side) of the spectrum. Why not test the middle and the better side to give readers a full picture of the range of performance of any/all CMs. That's the more complete thing. Then customers can even make more informed decisions, IMO.

I don't believe chrome plays a big part in reflections certainly relative to the headlights and plate. I've said this a million times and I will say it again, a good way to see if a vehicle has an affinity to stealth treatment is to do a flashlight test at night. Walk a certain distance away from the vehicle until the entire front of the vehicle (roof line included) is covered in light. Walk from one side to the other changing the illumination angles. It should be very clear where the weaknesses are.

I also think it is important to put things into their context Tom as well. Closed course testing is an acid test against every CM when the targeter knows full well that there are CMs on a vehicle. In the real-world LEOs target much more casually (although this is changing as they are becoming aware of jammers and how to target in a manner to mitigate them, with advanced ECCMs or not). So short of that new dynamic, everything should tend to perform better in the real world. Do you realize that after more than 10 years of offering Veil that it has one of the lowest return rates for our vendors? Significantly lower than detectors. Extremely low. Also reports of ticket issuance has also been extremely low. Heck, no CM is perfect. I've said this before even RALETCs best performing jammer (three head) running at $1000 before install only yielded an 83% jamming effectiveness. Veil is less than 1/10th of that. If I were to spend $1000 plus on a CM, I'd be sure to want to have more than 8/10 chance. I believe with Veil those odds improve. With WAZE, those odds improve further. With a great detector, those odds improve further. With attentive driving, those odds improve further.

Certainly vehicles that have more vertical/perpendicular surface area particularly when they are white or light metallic (which in effect contain little mirrors) are going to be the worst case. In those cases, I would certainly recommend a pairing. Cars that have a more triangular front end are certainly good. So are vehicles like the challenger and the mustang since the hood lines are basically "flat" and are not a source of return. Headlights that go to the sides of the vehicle also can really benefit. It's impossible for me to test every vehicle out there, color, or shape. All I can say with confidence is what ever the situation is, I believe Veil will always help. It's not always going effective in certain targeting scenarios, but at about $100, it's pretty cheap insurance and if you apply it to more than one vehicle, it's even cheaper insurance. Whether there is sufficient value to someone, is a personal choice thing.

VG

Well in that case I am going to go chase a calf. Dumba$$ wandered off last night. I can hear her bawling down by the river. I need to get her before the wolfs/hogs do.
Look forward to the test results and y'all have a good day. Salty get yourself better there son.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veil Guy

Let me ask a question. Do you think if a retailer is selling/sold RMR they are/were selling a false sense of security or a plate cover hair spray purported to defeat flash back systems? Does anyone here really believe that anyone here actually believed that an RMR device was EVER effective at doing what it was claimed to do? Like since from the very beginning they were offered? Or a detector that has proven very poor at doing some particular thing? Or a jammer that has issues with any gun at any particular time? The notion of having a false sense of security or selling something that leads/lead to a false sense of security can be hairy discussion.

To answer your question I can't account for all of your possibilities of vehicles. The point it if you are going to insist on testing on the worst case vehicles, you are going to get the worst case results (the point of the thing). Thing is though that is only one side (the extreme side) of the spectrum. Why not test the middle and the better side to give readers a full picture of the range of performance of any/all CMs. That's the more complete thing. Then customers can even make more informed decisions, IMO.

I don't believe chrome plays a big part in reflections certainly relative to the headlights and plate. I've said this a million times and I will say it again, a good way to see if a vehicle has an affinity to stealth treatment is to do a flashlight test at night. Walk a certain distance away from the vehicle until the entire front of the vehicle (roof line included) is covered in light. Walk from one side to the other changing the illumination angles. It should be very clear where the weaknesses are.

I also think it is important to put things into their context Tom as well. Closed course testing is an acid test against every CM when the targeter knows full well that there are CMs on a vehicle. In the real-world LEOs target much more casually (although this is changing as they are becoming aware of jammers and how to target in a manner to mitigate them, with advanced ECCMs or not). So short of that new dynamic, everything should tend to perform better in the real world. Do you realize that after more than 10 years of offering Veil that it has one of the lowest return rates for our vendors? Significantly lower than detectors. Extremely low. Also reports of ticket issuance has also been extremely low. Heck, no CM is perfect. I've said this before even RALETCs best performing jammer (three head) running at $1000 before install only yielded an 83% jamming effectiveness. Veil is less than 1/10th of that. If I were to spend $1000 plus on a CM, I'd be sure to want to have more than 8/10 chance. I believe with Veil those odds improve. With WAZE, those odds improve further. With a great detector, those odds improve further. With attentive driving, those odds improve further.

Certainly vehicles that have more vertical/perpendicular surface area particularly when they are white or light metallic (which in effect contain little mirrors) are going to be the worst case. In those cases, I would certainly recommend a pairing. Cars that have a more triangular front end are certainly good. So are vehicles like the challenger and the mustang since the hood lines are basically "flat" and are not a source of return. Headlights that go to the sides of the vehicle also can really benefit. It's impossible for me to test every vehicle out there, color, or shape. All I can say with confidence is what ever the situation is, I believe Veil will always help. It's not always going effective in certain targeting scenarios, but at about $100, it's pretty cheap insurance and if you apply it to more than one vehicle, it's even cheaper insurance. Whether there is sufficient value to someone, is a personal choice thing.

VG

---

So basically you are saying you want us to think of this as a whole defense system where jammers, Veil, and other CM's are combined. That really doesn't show what your product can do, but I suppose that is the intent. Just sell as much as you can while people believe it is helping them when they need it most. BTW the ALP system is way more than 83% effective when installed properly. I'll put my car and my ALP up against anyone and I will yield greater than 83% ALL DAY LONG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

I know all I need to know about your patent and have for a while now. You have basically patented a mixture of products, but I am curious what vendor are you referring to me being involved with? With respect to constructive feedback, I have already spoken to you about the product during the preliminary testing and you clearly did not take anything I said heart and released it exactly as it was despite my feedback. You focused on ALPR testing and that's all you wanted. You were so concerned that ALPR would be your undoing that you went out and purchased your own ALPR camera after you found out that RALETC had one and LONG AFTER you had already claimed your product would defend against them. You didn't even give me enough product to do a vehicle lidar test. I wonder why that was? That's fine we are going to do one now and We will have HUD results and we will show exactly what is being targeted. I suggest on your tests before you go around quoting PT distances you do the same because without HUD evidence you could be aiming at a tree as far as we know and claiming your product is preventing a speed reading. With all of your deflections lately you are discrediting yourself even more. If you would simply answer the questions posed about your product you might find that the same people you are currently targeting as your enemies might be your biggest supporters. We will see what the results have to say...

---

BRD, of course. Tom posted a plate that you returned to him with way too much Veil applied to it. Our agreement was to keep all results between us since we were at pre-production. Perhaps it was an oversight on your part, but by Tom posting the picture I felt that that was a violation of our agreement (if only by proxy). Tom has also expressed his concern about glossiness. Feedback that I was appreciate of, btw, but I am assuming that was a result of a discussion that you've had with him given the experiments you have been posting. If I am wrong about that, my apologizes.

VG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veil Guy

Let me ask a question. Do you think if a retailer is selling/sold RMR they are/were selling a false sense of security or a plate cover hair spray purported to defeat flash back systems? Does anyone here really believe that anyone here actually believed that an RMR device was EVER effective at doing what it was claimed to do? Like since from the very beginning they were offered? Or a detector that has proven very poor at doing some particular thing? Or a jammer that has issues with any gun at any particular time? The notion of having a false sense of security or selling something that leads/lead to a false sense of security can be hairy discussion.

To answer your question I can't account for all of your possibilities of vehicles. The point it if you are going to insist on testing on the worst case vehicles, you are going to get the worst case results (the point of the thing). Thing is though that is only one side (the extreme side) of the spectrum. Why not test the middle and the better side to give readers a full picture of the range of performance of any/all CMs. That's the more complete thing. Then customers can even make more informed decisions, IMO.

I don't believe chrome plays a big part in reflections certainly relative to the headlights and plate. I've said this a million times and I will say it again, a good way to see if a vehicle has an affinity to stealth treatment is to do a flashlight test at night. Walk a certain distance away from the vehicle until the entire front of the vehicle (roof line included) is covered in light. Walk from one side to the other changing the illumination angles. It should be very clear where the weaknesses are.

I also think it is important to put things into their context Tom as well. Closed course testing is an acid test against every CM when the targeter knows full well that there are CMs on a vehicle. In the real-world LEOs target much more casually (although this is changing as they are becoming aware of jammers and how to target in a manner to mitigate them, with advanced ECCMs or not). So short of that new dynamic, everything should tend to perform better in the real world. Do you realize that after more than 10 years of offering Veil that it has one of the lowest return rates for our vendors? Significantly lower than detectors. Extremely low. Also reports of ticket issuance has also been extremely low. Heck, no CM is perfect. I've said this before even RALETCs best performing jammer (three head) running at $1000 before install only yielded an 83% jamming effectiveness. Veil is less than 1/10th of that. If I were to spend $1000 plus on a CM, I'd be sure to want to have more than 8/10 chance. I believe with Veil those odds improve. With WAZE, those odds improve further. With a great detector, those odds improve further. With attentive driving, those odds improve further.

Certainly vehicles that have more vertical/perpendicular surface area particularly when they are white or light metallic (which in effect contain little mirrors) are going to be the worst case. In those cases, I would certainly recommend a pairing. Cars that have a more triangular front end are certainly good. So are vehicles like the challenger and the mustang since the hood lines are basically "flat" and are not a source of return. Headlights that go to the sides of the vehicle also can really benefit. It's impossible for me to test every vehicle out there, color, or shape. All I can say with confidence is what ever the situation is, I believe Veil will always help. It's not always going effective in certain targeting scenarios, but at about $100, it's pretty cheap insurance and if you apply it to more than one vehicle, it's even cheaper insurance. Whether there is sufficient value to someone, is a personal choice thing.

VG

---

ALP's in real world scenarios will be close to 100% effective as long as the install is proper. However G5 has shown to have IPT's even at distances past 1000 ft, which would mean 0% effectiveness in most real case scenarios. The fact is, anyone running a half decent jammer does not need Veil. And for those you run just Veil alone, are driving with a false sense of security as G5 has been shown by several members to result in IPT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

So basically you are saying you want us to think of this as a whole defense system where jammers, Veil, and other CM's are combined. That really doesn't show what your product can do, but I suppose that is the intent. Just sell as much as you can while people believe it is helping them when they need it most. BTW the ALP system is way more than 83% effective when installed properly. I'll put my car and my ALP up against anyone and I will yield greater than 83% ALL DAY LONG.

---

I am happy to hear that. It's just on RALETC's website, the highest number I've seen posted is 83% and that was on RR's three headed vehicle. Am I missing something here? How many vehicles have you tested where jammers WEREN'T installed properly? Out of level or mis-pointing? Generally during these meets, I see people making corrections and repositioning. So have many who have them installed and do not have the benefit of attending one of these events is driving around with optimal setups? Does that lead to a false sense of security for them?

I have repeatedly asked for tests showing baselines, jammers, jammers+veil and have yet to see one. Defense in depth is always the best approach and in the case of jammers, if performance numbers are shown to improve, then it will be very clear what supplementation of passives can do. I believe YC posted here something to that effect although I don't believe it was in a "public" thread. Too bad too, because it was a terrific post that could be every informative for everyone new to the game.

VG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Only Sarge

Well in that case I am going to go chase a calf. Dumba$$ wandered off last night. I can hear her bawling down by the river. I need to get her before the wolfs/hogs do.
Look forward to the test results and y'all have a good day. Salty get yourself better there son.

---

Indeed on both counts.

Gotta love that we got one of our biggest dumps of snow on the first day of Spring. :)

VG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veil Guy

BRD, of course. Tom posted a plate that you returned to him with way too much Veil applied to it. Our agreement was to keep all results between us since we were at pre-production. Perhaps it was an oversight on your part, but by Tom posting the picture I felt that that was a violation of our agreement (if only by proxy). Tom has also expressed his concern about glossiness. Feedback that I was appreciate of, btw, but I am assuming that was a result of a discussion that you've had with him given the experiments you have been posting. If I am wrong about that, my apologizes.

VG

---

You are very much mistaken. I wasn't going to show this because I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you can clearly see Veil is REFLECTING

Attachment 3709

That's my hand, my cell phone, and oh you can see my pool in the background....