Morgan and Geo's Videos

[J_Player]

...Devout believers of LRLs will hail the videos as a success that proves beyond all doubt the PHENOMENON exists ... while skeptics will see something different. Without double-blind testing this will always be the case. You will see what you expect to see...

Hi Qiaozhi,
I believe you are correct in your assessment of the opinions we will hear from viewers of Morgan's and Geo's videos. And I also agree that double blind testing would greatly reduce the range of opinions. If you wanted to use double blind testing to remove doubts about whether a phenomenon exists where long time buried metal is, or if you wanted to double blind test a particular device to see if it was able to detect a long-time buried metal object, then my question is this:

How would you structure a double blind test to be performed at a public demonstration event that is held in a public or private expanse of land where we can expect to find metal targets that have been buried a long time, like maybe 20 years or more?

best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

Hi Qiaozhi,
I believe you are correct in your assessment of the opinions we will hear from viewers of Morgan's and Geo's videos. And I also agree that double blind testing would greatly reduce the range of opinions. If you wanted to use double blind testing to remove doubts about whether a phenomenon exists where long time buried metal is, or if you wanted to double blind test a particular device to see if it was able to detect a long-time buried metal object, then my question is this:

How would you structure a double blind test to be performed at a public demonstration event that is held in a public or private expanse of land where we can expect to find metal targets that have been buried a long time, like maybe 20 years or more?

best wishes,
J_P

Apparently - or so we are told - the newer LRLs (note that the number of required buttons has now increased from 2 to 4) are capable of detecting fresh gold. In this case, double-blind testing is possible. While the existing claims were that the gold has to be longtime buried, then double-blind testing is not possible. In addition, any number of excuses could be put forward as to why the tests fail to meet expectations.

With the PD it does not appear that longtime buried gold is a requirement.

[Qiaozhi]

The "debate" of Morgan and Geo's videos does not appear to have been as vigorous as expected. Especially since there has been something like 70 downloads. Surely others must have an opinion?

[J_Player]

The "debate" of Morgan and Geo's videos does not appear to have been as vigorous as expected. Especially since there has been something like 70 downloads. Surely others must have an opinion?

Sure, here are some opinions:
First, these are the best quality LRL videos I have ever seen anywhere. We can see they are visible and taken in good light, they show details of the LRLs being used, and they have a semblance of something better than the average amateur videos we have seen here before. Most important, I don't see evidence of any deliberate attempt to skew what is seen as the performance of the detectors.

Also, I see two forum members who we know well demonstrating what they found. And we know this event was open for all the forum members who wanted to come and see and try out the detectors with their own hands. This gives me the feeling there is no intent to put on a deceptive demonstration.

What does it all mean? It means the detectors beeped when we heard them beeping during the conditions we saw in the videos. Of course, we did not see all conditions from watching a video, only what the lens can capture. This is why I prefer being there live to see more than what is shown on the videos. Some additional things the video did not show is the relative humidity, temperature. time of day, soil conditions, solar flare information, and a lot of other things that don't seem to make much difference to a casual observer.

Knowing Geo and Morgan, and seeing their videos and what they say about them, my opinion is I've seen enough to convince me it is worth going to a live demonstration to see and test it with my own hands. Then I would be able to perform more of my own testing to convince myself that they work or not, and how well they do what is claimed.

As far as the "Phenomenon" existing, I have known it existed before I came to the Geotech forums. But I don't agree with all the descriptions that we hear about it in this forum. My basis for knowing about the "phenomenon" is from some scientific testing performed in locations where there are objects buried a long time, as well as above-ground protruberances that have been established for a long time. But If I was not a believer in the "phenomenon", then nothing I have seen in this forum including these videos would convince me that it exists. I would need to see it live and bring some electronic test equipment to check it out before I would believe it.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jarek]

Morgan and Geo great work, I'm glad someone had finally posted some nice videos.
It seems to me that the general public is simply expecting great results from an emerging field. Are the results achieved by regular MD so great? but we should keep in mind that metal detectors have been in use for XXX number of years. They were widely used during WWII and were constantly improved to achieve what have now. But still after so many years, as far as I'm concerned we don't even have a coil that would detect gold only. How many pull tabs and bottle caps we have to pick before we find a ring?
Therefore for me what I saw on those videos was a great achievement. I wish best of luck to all those like: Geo, Morgan, Esteban and others who are in pursuit of discovering new things not yet known to the science.
In the Shintoism (religion of Japan) they say: there is 100% of the world's knowledge, 3% are the things we know that we know (like speaking your own language or using a metal detector ), 7% are the things we know that we don't know (how to fly an airplane or perform a surgery) and the rest are things that we don't know that we don't know.

[detectoman]

wawwwwwwww i look the sceptics are most hard to be convinced, why., i cant understand these, the evidence is clear, have very much reality, your need most tries, you major basif in honesty of morgan, i quest myself? j. player can be convinced after personally it try the pd whit owns hands? waw
geo and morgan are confiability, very much kno, of then think them are liers?

jajaj lo que yo veo es que los incredulos son duros a ser convencidos, porque? yo no puedo entender eso, la evidencia es clara, tiene mucho de realidad, ustedes necesitan mas pruebas? mejor basense en la honestidad de morgan, yo me pregunto a mi mismo, j player podra ser convencido? despues de que el personalmente probara la pd con sus propias manos? waw que extrana situacion, geo es confiable morgan es confiable, aun creen que son mentirosos? guauuuuuuuu

[ivconic]

Morgan and Geo great work, I'm glad someone had finally posted some nice videos.
It seems to me that the general public is simply expecting great results from an emerging field. Are the results achieved by regular MD so great? but we should keep in mind that metal detectors have been in use for XXX number of years. They were widely used during WWII and were constantly improved to achieve what have now. But still after so many years, as far as I'm concerned we don't even have a coil that would detect gold only. How many pull tabs and bottle caps we have to pick before we find a ring?
Therefore for me what I saw on those videos was a great achievement. I wish best of luck to all those like: Geo, Morgan, Esteban and others who are in pursuit of discovering new things not yet known to the science.
In the Shintoism (religion of Japan) they say: there is 100% of the world's knowledge, 3% are the things we know that we know (like speaking your own language or using a metal detector ), 7% are the things we know that we don't know (how to fly an airplane or perform a surgery) and the rest are things that we don't know that we don't know.

Pretty correct. Tend to agree.

[J_Player]

wawwwwwwww i look the sceptics are most hard to be convinced, why., i cant understand these, the evidence is clear, have very much reality, your need most tries, you major basif in honesty of morgan, i quest myself? j. player can be convinced after personally it try the pd whit owns hands? waw
geo and morgan are confiability, very much kno, of then think them are liers

Hi D-man,
I don't think Morgan or Geo are liars.

If you recall, Geo did not believe the pistol detector worked after he and many others built clones that did not work. He was never convinced that they work until he went to a demonstration and tested it with his own hands to satisfy himself that it worked. He never called Morgan a liar, same as I never called Morgan a liar. But Geo wanted to see it working himself and test it out before he would believe it was working.

If you are convinced all LRLs work without seeing them perform in your hands, then I am happy for you. Your world is complete in your belief in LRLs. But not all people are disposed to believe without some rigorous testing before they can be convinced. This does not mean they call other people liers who make claims about LRLs. It means only that they would like to see some live demonstrations.

This is the same way I feel. I would like to try it out myself before I can become convinced it works, same as Geo did before he was convinced.

***************
Yo no creo que Morgan o Geo son mentirosos.

Si usted recuerda, Geo no cree que el detector de pistola funcionó después de que él y otros construidos clones que no funcionó. Él nunca estaba convencido de que funcionó hasta que fue a una demostración y probado con sus propias manos para asegurarse de que funcionaba. Geo nunca llamó a Morgan un mentiroso, igual que yo nunca he llamado Morgan un mentiroso. Pero Geo quería ver que el funcionamiento a sí mismo y probarlo antes de que él iba a creer que estaba funcionando.

Si usted está convencido de todas los LRLs funcion sin verlos actuar en sus manos, entonces estoy feliz por ti. Su mundo es completa en su creencia en LRLs. Pero no todas las personas están dispuestas a creer sin algunas pruebas rigurosas antes de que puedan ser convencidos. Esto no significa que ellos llaman a otras personas emboscadas que hacen afirmaciones sobre LRLs. Sólo significa que les gustaría ver demostraciones en vivo.

Se trata de la misma manera que me siento. Me gustaría probarlo yo mismo antes de que pueda ser convencido de que funciona, lo mismo que hizo Geo antes de estaba convencido de que.

Sorry for poor translation...

Best wishes,
J_P

[ivconic]

"...Hi D-man,
I don't think Morgan or Geo are liars.

If you recall, Geo did not believe the pistol detector worked after he and many others built clones that did not work. He was never convinced that they work until he went to a demonstration and tested it with his own hands to satisfy himself that it worked. He never called Morgan a liar, same as I never called Morgan a liar. But Geo wanted to see it working himself and test it out before he would believe it was working.

If you are convinced all LRLs work without seeing them perform in your hands, then I am happy for you. Your world is complete in your belief in LRLs. But not all people are disposed to believe without some rigorous testing before they can be convinced. This does not mean they call other people liers who make claims about LRLs. It means only that they would like to see some live demonstrations.

This is the same way I feel. I would like to try it out myself before I can become convinced it works, same as Geo did before he was convinced..."



It takes usually 10 years FDA to accept some new drug from the moment of its appearance. From the moment of new drug appear in labs, next 10 years, there are multiplied constant testing and analyzing at several institues arround the world. All the aspect are about to be reconsidered hundred times and more. Those institutes are not allowed to corellate between themself. Test and gained results in one institute are not presented to others as long as testing period last (10 years usually and maybe more).
Finally after that given period, all the results and experiences are gathered and analyzed in details by FDA. Than it is decided about drug future - to put it on the general use in practice or not.
This is usuall routine.
So...that's how real science functioning.

Regardless to what good will our friends had and what nice job they wanted to do for all of us here - but sorry; it is far than being enough to establish even a particle of real truth. Not to mention again all the lacks in what was done. So...lot of job is waiting those who wants to put real life in this subject.
Cheers!


P.S.
One of my closest friend worked for Motorola, auto electronic sensors. Now that sold to Continetal. So he worked as ee, sensors designer. We talked many times about process of how new product to "born". Hard, painfull and tough process! Carl also could say something about it (simillar job).
One simple and trivial sensor to be "born" for general use, for market....sheeeeshhh - long process with many obstacles! Why? Simply cose Motorola is "The Motorola" - not some "ivconic" or simillar lost cases!
So...pull out the conclusions from this!

[J_Player]

It takes usually 10 years FDA to accept some new drug from the moment of its appearance. From the moment of new drug appear in labs, next 10 years, there are multiplied constant testing and analyzing at several institues arround the world. All the aspect are about to be reconsidered hundred times and more. Those institutes are not allowed to corellate between themself. Test and gained results in one institute are not presented to others as long as testing period last (10 years usually and maybe more).
Finally after that given period, all the results and experiences are gathered and analyzed in details by FDA. Than it is decided about drug future - to put it on the general use in practice or not.
This is usuall routine.
So...that's how real science functioning.

Hi Ivconic,
Are you teaching how real science and truth works in relation to treasure locating machines?

Ok, for starters, The FDA does not test metal locators. They test food and drugs to be used by consumers in the USA. This is done because it is a multi-billion dollar industry that can effect the health of consumers, and because of some strong political lobbies that require this kind of testing for prescription drugs.

So let's move on to some reality in the metal locating industry. We are mostly recreational treasure hunters who are interested in machines that will help us to locate buried metals. The usual degree of testing outside the factory testing programs involves the consumer making a visit to a metal detector dealer and looking at a number of metal detectors. Then he tries several models on display in a live demonstration where he is able to test the performance and determine which models perform satisfactorily for his purposes. There is no testing agency that requires metal detector manufacturers to submit their products to a 10 year or more test before the detector is certified to be fit for sale to the public.

In the case of Morgan's LRL demonstration, he hosted an event where any member of this forum could try his LRLs the same way you might try a metal detector at the local dealer. If I were to have attended his demonstration, then I would have been able to test all of his LRLs to my satisfaction and convince myself whether they work or not. I would have been able to determine which, if any were performing in a manner that was suitable for my purposes. I would not need more than a day to make these determinations. I would know after a day of testing these LRLs with my own hands whether I thought any of them are performing well enough to warrant my spending money to buy them.

It is not rocket science to hold a detector in your hands and move it around to see if it is finding buried metals. All you need is to adjust the locator, walk across a place where there are some metal things buried in the ground, and dig a hole wherever it signals there is a target. If it succeeds in finding buried metal most of the time, then I will know it has some treasure hunting value. If it does not show me where buried metal is, then I know I don't want to spend any money to buy it. Of course, I would try it in untested locations as well as where known targets are located, just to make sure it is working in the real hunting conditions where I would want to use it. Pretty simple... same as testing any conventional metal detector. No testing agencies needed.

Regardless to what good will our friends had and what nice job they wanted to do for all of us here - but sorry; it is far than being enough to establish even a particle of real truth. Not to mention again all the lacks in what was done. So...lot of job is waiting those who wants to put real life in this subject.

Particle of real truth?
I believe real truth exists in the mind of the person who perceives it. Regular truth varies from one person to another, so how can "real truth" be the same for all people?
Since when is it required that any testing other than trying a metal locator to see if it works satisfactorily for your purposes should be done? If I were to find a metal detector full of mysterious junk parts inside, that always pointed to the closest buried gold, time and time again, then should I toss it in the trash because it was never tested to somebody's standards to prove it represented "real truth"? Wouldn't I be better to keep using it as long as it pointed to buried gold?

If I actually found such a device, I doubt I would perform any tests on it at all. I would simply go treasure hunting as long as it kept working. The only "real truth" I would care about is the treasure it located every time. If sometime later I discovered it was a fake, I wouldn't care, as long as the gold it found was real.

I don't agree Morgan's demonstration was lacking. But then, I had no expectations that he would include tests that I prescribed must be done without telling him about the needed tests before hand. So I feel happy to see the first open LRL demonstration ever held for the members of this forum. I think his demonstration was more than adequate for anyone who wanted to attend to convince themselves whether the locators worked or not.

Best wishes,
J_P

[ivconic]

"...Hi Ivconic,
Are you teaching how real science and truth works in relation to treasure locating machines?

Ok, for starters, The FDA does not test metal locators. ..."



You already understand my points very well! Don't play naive!
Story about LRL is much greater and older than this recent PD event.
LRL proponents constantly invokes to rellations between official science and their parallel world.
In my previous post i wanted to point on methods how real science really functioning.
Other words - it is to early to be much enthusiastic.
I've been long enough on this forum to remember enormous efforts in the past involved on this subject.
Drug industry is just an industry. But methods and processes are uniform.
Want something to achieve? Want something to establish? Want something to present to the world? Than obey the usuall routine!
Do on proper way or don't do it at all!
That was my point in previous post.

[J_Player]

"...Hi Ivconic,
Are you teaching how real science and truth works in relation to treasure locating machines?

Ok, for starters, The FDA does not test metal locators. ..."



You already understand my points very well! Don't play naive!
Story about LRL is much greater and older than this recent PD event.
LRL proponents constantly invokes to rellations between official science and their parallel world.
In my previous post i wanted to point on methods how real science really functioning.
Other words - it is to early to be much enthusiastic.
I've been long enough on this forum to remember enormous efforts in the past involved on this subject.
Drug industry is just an industry. But methods and processes are uniform.
Want something to achieve? Want something to establish? Want something to present to the world? Than obey the usuall routine!
Do on proper way or don't do it at all!
That was my point in previous post.

Hi Ivconic,
I think you are wrong. The methods and processes for the drug industry are not the same uniform methods as used for the treasure hunting industry. Otherwise, we would not be seeing the new metal detector models until they are 10 years old.

I also don't agree that there is a "usual routine" or "Proper way" that a metal locator must be tested. I think if a detector works satisfactorily for the person who uses it, then it is good enough.

I doubt your attempt to shift the focus to past LRL stories will work when we are addressing the present demonstration hosted by Morgan. It is obvious to most readers that his event is a big departure from the past "stories" without any firsthand witnesses to see if what they were saying is correct or not. We all know that nobody in the Remote Sensing forum has ever invited all other members of the forum to witness their machines working live. So this event is not the same as previous stories where we were expected to believe whatever stories were told just because the words were posted in the forum.

Sure I understand your points. But I think they are flawed, because they do not pertain to the event Morgan hosted. They pertain to multi-billion dollar government regulated insdustries, and to ominous anecdotal LRL stories told in the past. In other words, I think you are wrong. Further, I think you are intentionally using analogies that you know are not pertinent in order to further your agenda. But this is just what I think, I could be wrong.

Best wishes,
J_P

[ivconic]

Hi Ivconic,
I think you are wrong. The methods and processes for the drug industry are not the same uniform methods as used for the treasure hunting industry. Otherwise, we would not be seeing the new metal detector models until they are 10 years old.

I also don't agree that there is a "usual routine" or "Proper way" that a metal locator must be tested. I think if a detector works satisfactorily for the person who uses it, then it is good enough.

I doubt your attempt to shift the focus to past LRL stories will work when we are addressing the present demonstration hosted by Morgan. It is obvious to most readers that his event is a big departure from the past "stories" without any firsthand witnesses to see if what they are saying is correct or not. We all know that nobody in the Remote Sensing forum has ever invited all other members of the forum to witness thier machines working live. So this event is not the same as previous stories where we were expected to believe whatever stories were told just because the words were posted in the forum.

Sure I understand your points. But I think they are flawed, because they do not pertain to the event Morgan hosted. They pertain to multi-billion dollar government regulated insdustries, and to ominous anecdotal LRL stories told in the past. In other words, I think you are wrong. Further, I think you are intentionally using analogies that you know are not pertinent in order to further your agenda. But this is just what I think, I could be wrong.

Best wishes,
J_P

Eh! We can continue like this forever. But we are smart enough not to. We disagree. Ok with that.
I just want to point you on video (link to video) posted somewhere on these pages, long time ago.
Most probably Hung and Esteban will remember exactly where that link was posted. I just remember that i saw it at the time.
It is video showing Mineoro (some model) testing at some corn field. Several people (i think Dell also was there...or maybe i am wrong, excuse me if i made mistake) are testing Mineoro and dug a huge hole and discovered some neckless or something. So...
Looking that video (without prejudices about persons involved) and looking recent videos....i dont see the differences at all. I dont see why and how recent videos provide more truth and proofs than that video from the past?
What is so better in recent videos?
Why all of the sudden to start being so enthusiastic about recent videos and not to about that old video we have been seen in the past?
That was my point all the time here.
Ok... we disagree in many points. I really dont want to waste my time debating with you on such irrelevant subject (for me) here.
I said what i had to say. I have nothing more to say. It is just my personal opinion.
Cheers!

[J_Player]

i dont see the differences at all. I dont see why and how recent videos provide more truth and proofs than that video from the past?

The difference is you and all other forum members were not invited to attend that past event and try the LRLs with your own hands.

Best wishes,
J_P

[ivconic]

Ok, that's true. Correct. But the rest is pretty same generally.