The so-called PHENOMENON

[Qiaozhi]

And then there's this ->

http://www.yoyodyneindustries.com/meditation_beta_blockers/deepdeltadreamers.html

Watch the videos, but be careful ... I've already hurt myself.

[Fred]

Yes,now i feel sick too,
i think i should report the above post

[ivconic]

This is a matter of beleif. That charlatan (as so many others) is taking an advantage on human ignorance and beleif. Fear from unknown is most powerfull weapon. So...this is obvious proof (as so many seen in the past) of how much people on this sad world are actually liable to charlatanism.
But..it is not wonder at all.
Just remember claims from "Zeitgeist" where monetary system is proven to be established on our empty beleifs. Is there a God? No, of course not. Is there real material money in all those banks and even if there are paper money - there is not enough gold in national reserves to cover empty papers. So..of course not. Do we must serve to monetary system and its interests? Of course not. Than who is pushing us to have such beleifs? Who is pushing us to beleive in God? Who is pushing us to race for money?
Who is pushing us to accept and beleive in charlatanism like that?
Answer is; FEAR FROM UNKNOWN.
We may laugh on such stupid charlatan like that man on posted link...ha,ha,ha! It is obvious charlatanism.
But....we are also victims of our own beleifs.
It is just a matter of levels. Our beleifs are on higher levels, but still are product of our personal fears from unknown.
Higher the level - more freedom.

Do not blame charlatans - blame people who beleive them!

[Fred]

This is very true !
Charlatans would´ t exist if there was not someone to buy the stuff.Unfortunately education sometimes also play a role, and some can believe in them because their explanations look "scientifical"
It is easier for many people to live like submitted but with someone else taking responsabilities,so they don´t have to think too much,and feel protected.

[J_Player]

I didn't knew that, really. But i can accept that. Usuallly i am having conventional knowledge (laic you may say) on subjects out of my primary focus.

Originally posted by Qiaozhi
Therefore the conclusion is that a column of ions hovering in the air above a gold target is nonsense, and (even if any gold ions present were not bound by the soil) their numbers would be so few as to be undetectable at any distance, let alone several meters.

Yes, I concluded many years ago that there is no ion column floating 7.2 feet in the air above the treasure. This is pseudoscience that can be proven to be false.

The source of this false information is the Mineoro website, probably written by Damasio or by Alonso. After reading all they have published on their website, I find it interesting they correctly concluded that ions move upward through the soil in a column pattern. I doubt they discovered this information by performing chemical analyses on soil saamples, but deduced that this must be happening based on their LRL and/or dowsing experiments. I also see a number of errors in their theories about mechanisms of long time buried metals, which also appear to have been arrived at by deducing things that appeared to be correct at the time, and with the tools they had at hand.

The idea that the gold ions rise 7.2 feet above the surface may be based on their ability to sense some effect of the "phenomenon" at that distance in the air. What comes to mind is they may be finding an anomaly in the electrostatic field in the air at that distance. Or it may be some other attribute of ionic activity below the surface of the soil that can be sensed in the air above. But it is certain that there is no cloud of hovering gold ions above the target area.

From what I have read, scientists in Australia first bagan to notice this column pattern of metal ions in the 1970s. After more than a decade of studying the mechanism, they funded a commercial branch to develop testing methods that would pinpoint deposits of gold and other industrial metals. The mobile metal ion testing is also used for surveying for minerals that are important for agricultural industries.

The conclusions about ions moving under the ground published by the Mineoro website are the same as the conclusions published by the mobile metal ion testing laboratories. What is different with the mobile metal ion testing laboratories is their conclusions are based on empirical data they observed in test results, not deductions they assumed were correct. Perhaps this is the reason they did not make the error of assuming there are ions hovering 7.2 feet in the air above the ions in the soil.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Esteban]

Hi Ivconic,
I first thought hung only meant to point out some specific feature which makes gold different and unique like you did. But when I read how he says the gold DNA produces a substance which coats the metal, I realized he is talking about nucleic acid produciing an organic substance. I agree with you, that this is not the case for gold, or any other solid metallic object.

You are correct about gold having other alloying elements. Natural gold often has similar alloying elements as are used in jewery, and in similar concentrations. Gold nuggets can be found with over 90% gold, or under 50%. California gold nuggets are usually in the 90% range. The alloying elements are usually silver and copper, and in lesser amounts, lead, platinum, tellurium, zinc or other metals. I sometimes wonder how much of the alloying elements corrode from a long-time buried piece of gold.

But the idea that gold does not corrode has been proven to be false. When you look at a gold item, You cannot see signs of corrosion over the years, but you can sometimes see a patina, as you described. No doubt, the patina has is caused by alloying elements and abrasion to the surface. However, scientists have discovered that long-time buried gold does corrode. The amount is much less than for copper, but enough gold corrodes to cause gold ions to go into solution with the soil around it amd migrate up to the surface, where it quickly becomes bound with elements at the surface and becomes part of the soil as a gold compound or microscopic metallic gold. Althopugh the process is slow, large amounts of gold are moving in the soil by this method. The corrosion of gold under the ground is not something that would happen easily above the surface, because there are colonies of microorganisms below the surface that are excreting chemicals such as cyanide and suolfur complexes which are capable of dissolving gold and suspending it in the soil as ions. A particular strain of gold-attacking bacteria has caused concerns at Fort Knox about the shrinkage of gold ingots stored below in vaults. (These vaults do not allow the gold bars to touch the soil, yet these bacteria are still corroding gold from the surface of the bars. The particular strain thrives dark,places without much oxygen like underground vaults or in the soil or rock crevices below the soil).

There are other microbes that can actually precipitate metallic gold from the ions that are released into the soil, thus forming new nuggets some distance above the original gold that was below. They have also been observed to deposit new, very pure gold on the surface of existing nuggets. Does this sound hard to believe? If it is true, it means there are gold ions in the soil, and not just a few unmeasurable ions, but enough to make nuggets from.

According to geomicrobiologist Frank Reith, "...the precipitation of gold by micro-organisms, and thus in the biomineralisation of gold, which as recent evidence suggests has led to the formation of some of the world largest gold deposits."
But in addition to micro-organisms precipitating metallic gold, there are microbes that ionize and dissolve gold:
"In soils with high contents of organic matter heterotrophic bacteria and fungi appear to dominate the gold dissolution by excreting amino acids, low molecular weight organic acids (LMWOAs), cyanide or organic sulfur compounds. These molecules were shown to have the ability to dissolve native gold and act as complexing agents for the resulting gold ions."

Wet soil samples were incubated with these microbes, then gold pellets were added to the soil. After 20-30 days of incubation, up to 3 ppm of gold was found in solution, compared to none measurable in the sterilized soil samples with gold pellets.
Now, how do atoms from a gold pellet get into solution? They have to become ionized first! Thus it cannot be true that buried gold does not form ions. We are talking about small amounts (3ppm), But this is the amount measured in some small sample test areas after a month in the ground. The investigations into mine sites from the real world show that this process can happen on a much larger scale, creating nuggets that are very pure where microbes precipitated the gold (98% and better).

Not all gold nuggets are created by microbes. Many are formed with cooling molten rock masses. The gold formed by microbes is derived from these primary gold sources in the ground. But it has been discovered that there are many nuggets which have a rich outer gold shell, and a lower purity gold in the center. In some cases these were nuggets formed by molten gold cooling, then later, microbes deposited a layer of higher purity gold on the top surfaces.
Because it takes some time for these microbes to ionize buried gold metal and put it in solution with the surrounding soil, it tells us that long time buried gold is different than fresh gold that was recently put in the ground. In addition, there are microbes that will attack the other metals alloyed with gold like silver, copper, platinum, etc. According to these studies, some soil is richer in these gold-eating microbes than other soil, so we can expect some soils to show a greater difference between fresh gold and long time buried gold.

In the case of the other microbes that convert the ions back into gold metal, we will find gold nuggets that have ions around them being converted into metallic gold to precipitate and grow the nugget. These new gold nuggets may have similar halo properties as gold that is decomposing. Check here to read this article:
http://crcleme.org.au/NewsEvents/News/Archive/2004/AUSIMMReith.pdf

There are over a million reports on microbes that convert gold to ions, and other microbes that convert gold ions to gold metal in the soil. These include much larger concentrations of gold ions, enough to precipitate gold nuggets. See these reports showing how microbes convert gold to ions, and other microbes that convert gold ions to gold metal in the soil:

Microbes manufacture gold nuggets: http://www.geotimes.org/sept06/NN_Microbes.html
Electron micrographs of microbes moving gold associated with Au(III) reduction:
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/67/7/3275.pdf
Microbes convert dissolved gold into solid metallic gold:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1032376.htm
Report says scientists have ascertained the microbe’s process converts approximately 1% of exposed gold per year.
http://www.sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1171
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev32_3/amazing.htm

You will find over a million reports on microbes that eat and ionize gold and other metals if you google for "gold microbe": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gold+microbe&btnG=Google+Search&aq= f&oq=&aqi=

There are several gold corroding chemical processes that have been documented in different locations depending on the soil conditions. In soils with high organic content, the microbe strains that dissolve gold are mostly microbes that produce cyanide and organic acids and complexes which react with metallic gold and bind it in the complex. This complex goes into solution in the soil, and moves with the subterranean moisture. Much different microbes that live only on metallic gold surfaces are able to digest the dissolved ions and precipitate them onto the nuggets where they live. Various chemical mechanisms have been documented, but the researchers are still working to unravel the mysteries of how these processes change in different soils. Apparently the ability of microbes to adapt to their environment is an important part of the puzzle.

Here are a few pages about cyanide producing microbes that dissolve gold:
Microscopic plants and fungi Produce cyanide which is thought to have dissolved ancient gold deposits in alluvial sands:
http://books.google.com/books?id=L8Be8rprGgkC&pg=PA495&lpg=PA495&dq=microb e+gold+cyanide&source=web&ots=E9FBKen7LJ&sig=jaLBL d1JAjV9BDA5NOEGPuoR_co#PPA494,M1

30 species of microorganisms including bacteria, yeasts, actinomycetes, fungi and algae were found to accumulate gold from laboratory solutions. This abstract also describes how Pseudomonas cells can be treated to absorb and desorb gold on demand. http://www.springerlink.com/content/u142554485g84k31/

Microbes moving gold in Southern Australia by various chemical methods:
http://crcleme.org.au/NewsEvents/News/Archive/2004/AUSIMMReith.pdf

I just finished reading over an hour of reports on mining exploration where they claim they have been finding gold ions that rise in a column to the surface soil above buried gold ores. According to Dr. Mark Fedikow, exploration geochemist and mineral deposits geologist, approximately 1000 sample sites have been analyzed using the mobile metal ion process (MMI) to locate gold and other mineral deposits since 1993 in over 30 countries. Dr. fedikow says the MMI technique of chemical and electronic analysis results in distinctive anomalies directly over mineralized zones. The MMI sampling has been successful for finding metal ions in the surface soil from Cu, Pb, Zn Cd, Ni, Co, Pd, Au, Ag, Cr, Nb, and Mg. The technology to locate these mineral deposits was developed by an Australian company who measures ions in the parts per billion and sub-parts per billion range in surface soil. The main testing laboratory for the MMI surveys is SGS Group.

See the SGS Group page that explains the movement of ions uward here: http://www.geochem.sgs.com/mmi__theory_geochem
See more web reports about sampling the soil for traces of metal from the vertical movement of metal ions here:
http://geea.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/3/201
http://www.diggerresources.com/hdrg.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Jan_7/ai_n8682755/
See more than 250,000 web pages showing reports of gold ions being measured in near-surface soil with MMI techniques here: http://www.google.com/search?q=mmi+gold&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

The point is, even though you don't see much gold corrosion, it is happening, and causing gold ions to move through the soil in a vertical column that can be detected by chemical surveys of the soil. Can it also be detected by an LRL?

Best wishes,
J_P

When I read Zahori's article, found the word "ionization" of water in movement. So, regarding this, I start thinking that around metal buried for long time can exist ionization, the famous halo. The word "ionization" and the famous column also you can see in Mineoro's pages. This is the reason why you put a chair and detection continue in vertical... an experiment made here 30 years ago.

And of course, can be detect by an electronic LRL via secondary effect, maybe a kind of "electric cloud", because when you remove the target, the site "breath". But I think also some gas trapped can produce it.

Regards

[Dell Winders]

Originally Posted by J_Player
The technology to locate these mineral deposits was developed by an Australian company who measures ions in the parts per billion and sub-parts per billion range in surface soil.
Therefore the conclusion is that a column of ions hovering in the air above a gold target is nonsense, and (even if any gold ions present were not bound by the soil) their numbers would be so few as to be undetectable at any distance, let alone several meters.

Originally Posted by Dell Winders
EXCELLENT!

Selective memory at work again?

Nope! You are wrong again. (a habitual trait?) That's NOT my theory, and never what I based any field studies on. I never heard of the Ion theory until I seen it discussed on Geotech by the Scientific pretenders.

I doubt that you have noticed that I have a tendency to lean towards metering concentrations of the earths magnetic field surrounding near surface anomalies. This is what all my DB field experiments, and tests are based on.

It works for me, but I'm just a dumb uneducated country hillbilly who has spent his years gaining practical field experience. Who am I to argue with text book Scientific experts? Dell

[Qiaozhi]

Nope! You are wrong again. (a habitual trait?) That's NOT my theory, and never what I based any field studies on. I never heard of the Ion theory until I seen it discussed on Geotech by the Scientific pretenders.

I doubt that you have noticed that I have a tendency to lean towards detecting concentrations of the earths magnetic field surrounding near surface anomalies. This is what all my DB field experiments, and tests are based on.

It works for me, but I'm just a dumb uneducated country hillbilly who has spent his years gaining practical field experience. Who am I to argue with text book Scientific experts? Dell

And what DB field experiments are these?
Please elucidate us.

"WHAT DOESN'T WORK, CANNOT BE MADE TO WORK."

[Dell Winders]

Why should I waste my time on your stupidity? Dell

[Fred]

Why should I waste my time on your stupidity? Dell

Why did you 3 posts above?

[Qiaozhi]

Why should I waste my time on your stupidity? Dell

You seem to have forgotten these simple rules:

• Be polite. Name calling will get you banned quickly.
• Be factual. If you make an extraordinary claim, be prepared to get challenged.

Clearly you have no idea of the definition of a double-blind test. That is why you are referring to DB field tests. In other words, randomly digging holes, and employing selective memory to make the results appear better than guessing. Plus confirming detection results with other non-working pseudo-scientific devices, or even (cough) dowsing.

No wonder you don't want to answer the question!

"WHAT DOESN'T WORK, CANNOT BE MADE TO WORK."

[Dell Winders]

J Player, despite the intrusion from the peanut gallery, I still enjoyed your excellent, informative article.

Thanks! Dell

[Qiaozhi]

J Player, despite the intrusion from the peanut gallery, I still enjoyed your excellent, informative article.

Thanks! Dell

This is what all my DB field experiments, and tests are based on.

It works for me, but I'm just a dumb uneducated country hillbilly who has spent his years gaining practical field experience. Who am I to argue with text book Scientific experts? Dell

But is completely unable to provide supporting evidence. Presumably because there isn't any.

"WHAT DOESN'T WORK, CANNOT BE MADE TO WORK."

[J_Player]

J Player, despite the intrusion from the peanut gallery, I still enjoyed your excellent, informative article.

Thanks! Dell

Thank you Dell,

Perhaps you could answer my previous questions that have remained unansered:

Can you tell us the facts about the hundreds of double blind tests you conducted?
To start with, let's focus on a single one of the tests you conducted.

Pick out any one of your hundreds of double blind you want to use for an example:
1. Where was the test conducted?
2. Who was the proctor?
3. What was the protocal of this double blind dowsing test?
4. What was the object of the double blind test? A gold item? a silver item? something else?
5. Was the operator aware of any results before the test was fully completed?
6. What were the results?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Dell Winders]

Sorry JP, I don't have the time for all the stupid questions and remarks that follow.

You folks have made it quite clear for years that you are not interested in my 40 years of Treasure Hunting field experience, which encompasses field comparisons with most Treasure Hunting & recovery technologies.

I now relegate a small amount of time to viewing this forum, and an occasional comment, and shaking my head and smiling in disbelief at the Skeptic's intellect on this forum.

I do appreciate the time and effort it takes for you to collect and put together internet searches into an interesting single category. Thank you for that.

I've watched in disbelief for several years as you folks have fumbled thru concepts and far out theory's to try to figure out how Frequency Discrimination, LRL's or Dowsing works, only to conclude that it doesn't, and those that are doing what you say can't be done, are liars, frauds, and scam artists. That's not a mentality I can respect.

So no thanks, to your request for me to elaborate. I will say, I use the KISS method, and my most recent blind comparison tests, between a magnetometer, and a pair of Dowsing Rods, demonstrated there is a definite correlation between the magnetic "strength of field" of the earth, and the reaction of a pair of Copper, hand held, Dowsing Rods, to the SOF of buried magnetic, and non-magnetic anomalies.

Idiots will mock, but for those of you with interest, this will give you a start in the direction of learning for your self. Good Luck!

Skeptics, don't bother trying to waste my time with idiotic questions. I won't be replying. Dell