Temperature, the best friend of LRL's

[Geo]

Sure...
We all have it the same for looking only at answers that tend to support our own thinking.
The only difference is the degree of our willingness to look at other answers too.

Best wishes,
J_P

Hahaha... Yes.
We agree ...
When you read the threads in remote Sensing, you see exactly what you say.

Regards

[ALEX.356]

J Player #108

I consider JP's post significant and GEO will certainly pay attention to it.
You need to investigate the LRL's behavour 24 times a day. i.e. every hour , noting of course date, time temp. and humidity and range of detection.
We ll be able to eliminate some paragons and arrive at some conclusions studying these data.
Kind regards,
Alex 356

[hung]

You need to investigate the LRL's behavour 24 times a day. i.e. every hour , noting of course date, time temp. and humidity and range of detection.
We ll be able to eliminate some paragons and arrive at some conclusions studying these data.
Kind regards,
Alex 356

All data regarding the phenomena behavior has been discussed here by me and Esteban for the past 4 years in this forum based on our own experiences and also on many conversations we both had with Alonso and Damasio.
So any temptaive to do what you suggest above would be just like one to 'reinvent the wheel'.. Read the many posts about it available.

I just read some explanations above about this, claimed by some scientists and they are wrong. This is natural, as they talk about a phenomena which they ignore and use their scientific basis of other things and fail when trying to fill 'the shoes' for a specific scenario.

Unlike some here think, if the LRL(ionic/electrostatic based) is fine built and tuned for the phenomena, detection is fine during all day although around noon is when the poorest caption is achieved. At evening/night, sometimes it becomes even better.

Regards.

[Fred]

All data regarding the phenomena behavior has been discussed here by me and Esteban for the past 4 years in this forum based on our own experiences and also on many conversations we both had with Alonso and Damasio.Regards.

Too bad that during all this time you were not able to get to any real conclusion.
So nice try with "reinventing the wheel" but no cigar

[Theseus]

I just read some explanations above about this, claimed by some scientists and they are wrong. This is natural, as they talk about a phenomena which they ignore and use their scientific basis of other things and fail when trying to fill 'the shoes' for a specific scenario.
Regards.

Spoken like a true pseudo-scientist.

And now I will debunker the debunkerer....

If adequate methods of testing hypotheses aren't known or applied, faulty explanations of actual phenomena can live on through generations, simply because the only thing that matters is that "it seems to work.

The propensity to score the hits and neglect the misses is probably the number one reason for the flourishing of superstition and pseudoscience today, including dowsing.

Simple truths about nature can't choose to hide from the skeptical minds and be seen by the gullible at the same time.

Once a device or phenomenon has developed around poor theories, it essentially halts all useful progress by its practitioners until the idea is reintegrated with the larger scientific community. The institutionalization of theories and devices in an uncritical atmosphere and away from the larger scientific community almost guarantees that there will be a continuing sequence of "positive" results, sometimes for centuries, even though the phenomena remain slippery, understanding remains vague, and discovery of new knowledge is left to the rest of science. In short, a duck is born. Quack, quack.



Read it and weep.

[J_Player]

Spoken like a true pseudo-scientist.

And now I will debunker the debunkerer....

If adequate methods of testing hypotheses aren't known or applied, faulty explanations of actual phenomena can live on through generations, simply because the only thing that matters is that "it seems to work.

The propensity to score the hits and neglect the misses is probably the number one reason for the flourishing of superstition and pseudoscience today, including dowsing.

Simple truths about nature can't choose to hide from the skeptical minds and be seen by the gullible at the same time.

Once a device or phenomenon has developed around poor theories, it essentially halts all useful progress by its practitioners until the idea is reintegrated with the larger scientific community. The institutionalization of theories and devices in an uncritical atmosphere and away from the larger scientific community almost guarantees that there will be a continuing sequence of "positive" results, sometimes for centuries, even though the phenomena remain slippery, understanding remains vague, and discovery of new knowledge is left to the rest of science. In short, a duck is born. Quack, quack.



Read it and weep.

Poor thesis? ...
Quack, quack....?
Hmmmm...

You are addressing Dr. hung, self-proclaimed debunkerer, expert, and discoverer of gold DNA....
"Gold is the most powerful 'self defensive' metal when it comes to avoid any harm to its structure, such as rust, oxidation, etc. Its DNA produces a substance which coats the metal to fight against those 'threats'".

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=84058&postcount=41

When I asked hung to show us some kind of evidence to convince us gold has DNA and the substance it produces, here was his reply:
"This is a private survey I'm involved.
I have absolutely no interest whasoever in discussing it or convincing anyone about it".

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=91456&postcount=97

Apparently, This gold DNA is so secret that not even hung can talk about it. How's that for attempting to institutionalize his theories in an uncritical atmosphere, and away from the larger scientific community?
Have you seen the larger scientific community anxiously trying to find the gold gene that produces this substance so they can use it for corrosion prevention in other metals, and eliminate billions of dollars spent to paint metals? Perhaps everyone except hung has discovered that gold does not have DNA, and therefore does not produce any substance to coat the metal. The only evidence of this substance produced by gold DNA seems to exist in the mind of master-debunkerer hung.

I seriously doubt we have any danger of people accepting Dr. hung's diatribe as science for centuries.
In fact, I seriously doubt anyone pays attention to his secret science proclamations
... not even Esteban has shown signs of believing hung's "gold DNA story", or half the other BS he proclaims.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Max]

Hmmm....

if Dr. Hung say it works...

you can be almost sure... It doesn't!

It's a proof then that LRLs don't work as claimed ?

Kind regards,
Max

[Qiaozhi]

All data regarding the phenomena behavior has been discussed here by me and Esteban for the past 4 years in this forum based on our own experiences and also on many conversations we both had with Alonso and Damasio.
So any temptaive to do what you suggest above would be just like one to 'reinvent the wheel'.. Read the many posts about it available.

I just read some explanations above about this, claimed by some scientists and they are wrong. This is natural, as they talk about a phenomena which they ignore and use their scientific basis of other things and fail when trying to fill 'the shoes' for a specific scenario.

Unlike some here think, if the LRL(ionic/electrostatic based) is fine built and tuned for the phenomena, detection is fine during all day although around noon is when the poorest caption is achieved. At evening/night, sometimes it becomes even better.

Regards.

If this is supposed to be an example of debunkering, then it's a very poor example.

[Mike(Mont)]

I use a frequency generator for locating gold well over 300 days a year. The older I get, the warmer I like it. Over the last couple of years I decided 37 F is about the minimum temperature I can work in and still get a solid signal. I have found 50 F is a very good temperature to work in. Hotter weather tends to dry things out too much around here. I avoid hot weather in general. Melting snow is about the best conditions. In the morning hours, if there is dew on the grass enough to get my shoes wet it doesn't work very well. I watch moon cycles. When the moon or tide is going down it's good, but I can usually work is most conditions as long as it is not too windy. The wind around here creates a static charge from the blowing dust. I also like days after a cold front has passed but sometimes the wind is too gusty.

[J_Player]

If this is supposed to be an example of debunkering, then it's a very poor example.

Poor example of debunkering?
Are you sure?

"Debunkering" is not a word, and has no meaning other than the one Dr. hung made up. But he has kept the meaning of his new word secret, so we can only guess what it means. After recent developments, I must abandon my previous guess that he was referring to exiting his bunker for a breath of fresh air. Based on Dr. hung's posts in the Remote Sensing forum, I would speculate that "debunkering" might mean putting forth proclamations of science without any evidence to support them, as shown in his post above.

We see he posted: "All data regarding the phenomena behavior has been discussed here by me and Esteban for the past 4 years in this forum based on our own experiences and also on many conversations we both had with Alonso and Damasio.
So any temptaive to do what you suggest above would be just like one to 'reinvent the wheel'.. Read the many posts about it available".

I am speculating that this is a prime example of Dr. hung's word: "debunkering". If I am correct, we can see clearly what is the object of "debunkering":. This is Dr. hung's method of establishing credibility for his theories that he wants to use to prove others wrong... without using any scientific evidence to support them.
We see that he first states "All data regarding the phenomena behavior has been discussed here..." Hmmmm....
All the data?
... or just the data hung wants to promote to prove his point?
In fact, I haven't seen any credible data posted by Dr hung... only sketchy attempts with sloppy measuring methods, including videos that are generally believed to be fakes. This is not a recent technique of Dr. hung... He began years ago saying the Mineoro FG LRLs would detect fresh gold when the humidity is between 40-60%, with no evidence to suggest it is true. Then, when people were complaining of random beeps and no gold detection, he said the gold must be buried at least 10 years.

But in the case of Dr. hung's post above, he is talking about detecting the "phenomenon" using an ionic-electrostatic field detector, not a modified simple magnetic detector as Geo posted. So, apparently, Dr hung does not want us to notice that he is not referring to the response of a magnetic field detector at various times of the day. Also, he is ignorant of the time window when we can expect to receive the best detection. He has obviously never read anything about the variations of this time window, or of variations of the magnetic and telluric fields at different locations on the earth. He only knows what he found using a Mineoro LRL designed to locate gold ions hovering in the air 7.2 feet above a buried treasure. In fact, if he is referring to an FG model, the gold may not even be buried, yet is sending ion signals to the gold chamber.

But wait... "debunkering" has another feature... It is also used to enlist the support of posts by other forum members, even if these posts do not actually support Dr. hung's thinking... "...has been discussed here by me and Esteban for the past 4 years in this forum..."
Now, wait a minute...
What Dr. hung posts is not the same as what Esteban posts. According to Esteban, Mineoro is inferior to the locators he makes himself. Esteban does not make the same performance claims for Mineoro LRLs that hung claims, has never posted anything about gold DNA, and he does not claim the same times of day are good or bad as hung claims. So should we think that Esteban corroborates all that Dr. hung proclaims?
I think not. But then, this is just another feature of ways you can use Dr. hung's new word "debunkering".

The word "debunkering" is a pseudoscient's dream... It gives a quack license to proclaim any factoids without any evidence to support them, allows using irrelevant references, and allows referencing other, more respected sources to support the BS, even if the other sources do not really support their BS.

But I could be wrong about all this. I am only speculating on the meaning of the word "debunker".

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

As I have informed Hung already, his signature incorrectly uses the word "debunkering" (which means absolutely nothing) and the correct word should be "debunking".

However, with his usual "head in sand" method of working, he has simply ignored this information and continued to use "debunkering", as if it is a real word that means something. Such is the selective memory of the pseudo-scientist.

[Theseus]

As I have informed Hung already, his signature incorrectly uses the word "debunkering" (which means absolutely nothing) and the correct word should be "debunking".

However, with his usual "head in sand" method of working, he has simply ignored this information and continued to use "debunkering", as if it is a real word that means something. Such is the selective memory of the pseudo-scientist.

I agree. Most all of us are aware that his (hung's) word "debunker" is strictly a word made up (or misspelled) by hung, and obviously has no defined formal meaning. However, whenever I read it, I give him the benefit of the doubt, and just assume he really meant "debunk".

On the other hand, I believe I was perhaps the first or one of the first to bring attention to his obvious lack of real "debunkering" when it comes to providing information that might support his otherwise pseudo scientific rhetoric.

I like to use the word the way he misspelled it for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that if he can be so careless as to use a meaningless word in his signature, than by association anything else he says is likely to have the same carelessness and association to errors.

Second, I keep asking to see more examples of what he "thinks" is debunking (or using his term debunkering) because so far I've not seen a single contribution from him that would qualify as debunking other poster's remarks.

[J_Player]

I agree. Most all of us are aware that his (hung's) word "debunker" is strictly a word made up (or misspelled) by hung, and obviously has no defined formal meaning. However, whenever I read it, I give him the benefit of the doubt, and just assume he really meant "debunk".

On the other hand, I believe I was perhaps the first or one of the first to bring attention to his obvious lack of real "debunkering" when it comes to providing information that might support his otherwise pseudo scientific rhetoric.

I like to use the word the way he misspelled it for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that if he can be so careless as to use a meaningless word in his signature, than by association anything else he says is likely to have the same carelessness and association to errors.

Second, I keep asking to see more examples of what he "thinks" is debunking (or using his term debunkering) because so far I've not seen a single contribution from him that would qualify as debunking other poster's remarks.

Hmmmmm....
Have you considered that my first guess at the meaning of the word might be correct?

I mean, If Dr. hung spends most of his time inside a bunker with the rest of his team inventing new science, then sooner or later, he must come out for a breath of fresh air, or to buy some hot melt glue, or something. I would think that grammatically this is a correct spelling of a word that means "to exit the bunker". And it makes sense... if Dr hung's PC is not inside the bunker, then he must debunker every time he wants to make a post. So we see he debunkers whenever he makes a post.

The word "debunker" reminds me of another similar word in English language, "defenestrate", which means "to toss out the window" This is a word invented for one incident: the "Defenestration of Prague," May 21, 1618, when two Catholic deputies to the Bohemian national assembly and a secretary were tossed out the window (into a moat) of the castle of Hradshin by Protestant radicals. It marked the start of the Thirty Years War. The word "defenestrate" is used today in other contexts for tossing things out the window, like "defenestrate the rules of science... we're in the bunker where we can make up our own rules", or "Windows cannot open this file. To open this file correctly, defenestrate, then try running the file again..." or "defenestrate him from the bunker! he's a skeptic".

Hmmmm.... Well, debunker has the correct grammar structure to mean "exit the bunker". but somehow, Dr. hung's usage of the word doesn't fit that meaning exactly. If he meant exiting the bunker, maybe he would say:

"Should I imagine injustice and untruths towards working LRLs, I'll defenestrate from the bunker and vomit my diatribe in the forum"

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

I like to use the word the way he misspelled it for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that if he can be so careless as to use a meaningless word in his signature, than by association anything else he says is likely to have the same carelessness and association to errors.

That's also why I continue to use the non-word "debunker" and also "debunkering" when referring to his meaningless posts.

Second, I keep asking to see more examples of what he "thinks" is debunking (or using his term debunkering) because so far I've not seen a single contribution from him that would qualify as debunking other poster's remarks.

And neither have I.

[Theseus]

Hmmmmm....
Have you considered that my first guess at the meaning of the word might be correct?

I mean, If Dr. hung spends most of his time inside a bunker with the rest of his team inventing new science, then sooner or later, he must come out for a breath of fresh air, or to buy some hot melt glue, or something. I would think that grammatically this is a correct spelling of a word that means "to exit the bunker". And it makes sense... if Dr hung's PC is not inside the bunker, then he must debunker every time he wants to make a post. So we see he debunkers whenever he makes a post......
Best wishes,
J_P

Since I try to keep an open mind at all times....

Yes, your first guess could be accurate, but IMO, highly unlikely.