Morgan and Geo's Videos

[J_Player]

Hi

We not make the film about AIR-TEST

The Alonso PD as good sensitivity to gold. As i told before ,this PD can detect one gold ring near the coil from 25 cm to 50 cm,this depends on how sensitive i can put the gain potentiometer.

Regards

Hi Morgan,
Yes, I know there was no air test in the film. But when testing the Alonso PD away from the camera, you can find some small distance of air detection.
Long range is only seen to find long time buried metals.

Did you ever make any test to see if the Mineoro detectors can find metals at small distance detection for air test of gold and other metals like the Alonso pistol?

Best wishes,
J_P

[mosha]

Did you ever make any test to see if the Mineoro detectors can find metals at small distance detection for air test of gold and other metals like the Alonso pistol?

according to my trials with DC2008: NO WAY.

[J_Player]

Did you ever make any test to see if the Mineoro detectors can find metals at small distance detection for air test of gold and other metals like the Alonso pistol?

according to my trials with DC2008: NO WAY.

Thank you Mosha.
Did you find any detection of buried metals with the Mineoro DC2008?
Also, what part of the world are you located for making these tests?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

It looks to me that Fred is correct. Geo has no reason to spend extra money for anything other than to take his trip to see Morgan's demonstration and find out with his own hands to see if these LRLs work or not. His reports or videos are only what he does for a favor to his friends in the forum. In fact, he has no reason to make reports or show videos to people who are not friends and try to call him names or laugh at him.

But about nondisclosure, Carl-NC has stated in the rules for his own separate contest for LRLs that he does not expect the demonstrators in his event to disclose the working circuits of their LRLs or show circuitry inside as long as it can be shown to be not one of the disallowed classes of devices he defines in his contest rules. So I doubt Carl is would require a nondisclosure agreement, or that he must do any reverse engineering if he were to watch Morgan's demonstration either, same as if he watched a demonstration during his own protocall testing. Carl-NC was invited to see Morgan's demonstration same as Geo was and the rest of us. If he had attended, then he would have been able to perform any reasonable tests same as Geo did or any of us would when visiting for a day or two. He could have tested in unknown fields, to dig all signals found, or any other way he wanted to see if the LRLs worked as claimed, and to check to see if he could find some way it would fail to work.

The idea for Geo or Morgan or anyone else to ship their experimental projects to be tested and returned seems like a poor idea in comparison to the idea of taking a day when anyone is permitted to come and try it out with their own hands. If I wanted to demonstrate projects of my own, the demonstration day would be a way I prefer, rather than to ship a project and wait for it to return, not knowing if it was lost or destroyed in shipping, or accidentally broken during testing while I wasn't there, etc. Even if a $5000 price tag for the loss of a project was insured, I would never be able to recover the time put into building and tuning the device which may be irreplaceable if it is a one of a kind prototype design. If I wanted a project to be thoroughly tested in some scientific test, I would at least want to be there to insure my project was not being misused in a way that could damage it or destroy it. But then, I have no motive to spend a lot of money and time to demonstrate any projects or convince anyone of anything, and I doubt Geo does either. It looks to me like he is sending info and videos only as a favor to a few forum members who are his friends.

Best wishes,
J_P

That's cool.

[mosha]

Did you find any detection of buried metals with the Mineoro DC2008?
Never

Also, what part of the world are you located for making these tests?
Midleast

Best wishes.

[J_Player]

Did you find any detection of buried metals with the Mineoro DC2008?
Never

Also, what part of the world are you located for making these tests?
Midleast

Best wishes.

Thank you mosha,
We now have your experience to add to our database of LRL performance.
You found the Mineoro DC2008 did not detect any buried metals or metals in the air in the Midieast.
Michael also reported no detection from the Mineoro FG80 in the Midieast.

...about mineoros; I personally had one FG80 and used it for about one year in many of hot areas from treasure standpoint ;no result.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

Thank you for your response.

If the reasons for allowing Carl (or any other third-party) to test your LRL are not intuitively obvious to you, especially after what has transpired here on this open forum; than I doubt seriously I will be able to explain them to you. Also, if you have an aversion to Non-Disclosure Agreements, that is not something I can overcome or explain away.

Good luck in your endeavors, whatever your ultimate goals might be.

Thank you Theseus


Regards

[Geo]

It looks to me that Fred is correct. Geo has no reason to spend extra money for anything other than to take his trip to see Morgan's demonstration and find out with his own hands to see if these LRLs work or not. His reports or videos are only what he does for a favor to his friends in the forum. In fact, he has no reason to make reports or show videos to people who are not friends and try to call him names or laugh at him.

But about nondisclosure, Carl-NC has stated in the rules for his own separate contest for LRLs that he does not expect the demonstrators in his event to disclose the working circuits of their LRLs or show circuitry inside as long as it can be shown to be not one of the disallowed classes of devices he defines in his contest rules. So I doubt Carl is would require a nondisclosure agreement, or that he must do any reverse engineering if he were to watch Morgan's demonstration either, same as if he watched a demonstration during his own protocall testing. Carl-NC was invited to see Morgan's demonstration same as Geo was and the rest of us. If he had attended, then he would have been able to perform any reasonable tests same as Geo did or any of us would when visiting for a day or two. He could have tested in unknown fields, to dig all signals found, or any other way he wanted to see if the LRLs worked as claimed, and to check to see if he could find some way it would fail to work.

The idea for Geo or Morgan or anyone else to ship their experimental projects to be tested and returned seems like a poor idea in comparison to the idea of taking a day when anyone is permitted to come and try it out with their own hands. If I wanted to demonstrate projects of my own, the demonstration day would be a way I prefer, rather than to ship a project and wait for it to return, not knowing if it was lost or destroyed in shipping, or accidentally broken during testing while I wasn't there, etc. Even if a $5000 price tag for the loss of a project was insured, I would never be able to recover the time put into building and tuning the device which may be irreplaceable if it is a one of a kind prototype design. If I wanted a project to be thoroughly tested in some scientific test, I would at least want to be there to insure my project was not being misused in a way that could damage it or destroy it. But then, I have no motive to spend a lot of money and time to demonstrate any projects or convince anyone of anything, and I doubt Geo does either. It looks to me like he is sending info and videos only as a favor to a few forum members who are his friends.

Best wishes,
J_P

Hi J_P

[Geo]

It looks to me that Fred is correct. Geo has no reason to spend extra money for anything other than to take his trip to see Morgan's demonstration and find out with his own hands to see if these LRLs work or not. His reports or videos are only what he does for a favor to his friends in the forum. In fact, he has no reason to make reports or show videos to people who are not friends and try to call him names or laugh at him.

But about nondisclosure, Carl-NC has stated in the rules for his own separate contest for LRLs that he does not expect the demonstrators in his event to disclose the working circuits of their LRLs or show circuitry inside as long as it can be shown to be not one of the disallowed classes of devices he defines in his contest rules. So I doubt Carl is would require a nondisclosure agreement, or that he must do any reverse engineering if he were to watch Morgan's demonstration either, same as if he watched a demonstration during his own protocall testing. Carl-NC was invited to see Morgan's demonstration same as Geo was and the rest of us. If he had attended, then he would have been able to perform any reasonable tests same as Geo did or any of us would when visiting for a day or two. He could have tested in unknown fields, to dig all signals found, or any other way he wanted to see if the LRLs worked as claimed, and to check to see if he could find some way it would fail to work.

The idea for Geo or Morgan or anyone else to ship their experimental projects to be tested and returned seems like a poor idea in comparison to the idea of taking a day when anyone is permitted to come and try it out with their own hands. If I wanted to demonstrate projects of my own, the demonstration day would be a way I prefer, rather than to ship a project and wait for it to return, not knowing if it was lost or destroyed in shipping, or accidentally broken during testing while I wasn't there, etc. Even if a $5000 price tag for the loss of a project was insured, I would never be able to recover the time put into building and tuning the device which may be irreplaceable if it is a one of a kind prototype design. If I wanted a project to be thoroughly tested in some scientific test, I would at least want to be there to insure my project was not being misused in a way that could damage it or destroy it. But then, I have no motive to spend a lot of money and time to demonstrate any projects or convince anyone of anything, and I doubt Geo does either. It looks to me like he is sending info and videos only as a favor to a few forum members who are his friends.

Best wishes,
J_P

Hi J_P



Regards

[Jim]

Not trying to be rude or curt here, but it appears those of us with rational questions and observations are being ignored and given a generic stance of “they wouldn’t do that”.

I am sorry, but the videos posted are not impressive in any way. They show two guys with gadgets that beep intermittently when walking straight towards a pile of rocks. The video shows a conventional metal detector that intermittently beeps at the same pile of rocks. Silverpaper, which could be aluminum or tin foil, is dug in the video.

It is hard to hold a rational discussion when other members of this forum apparently have more information than others viewing the videos. We know there is gold buried there because…? Who knows.

The videos speak for themselves. I did not see any gold being recovered.

[J_Player]

Hi Jim,
You are saying your rational questions and observations are being ignored, yet what you posted was ambiguous. in fact your question was not even a question or a statement. Here is what you posted:
"Unless you were there...in person...twenty years ago, the medallion (or now coin) was alledegdly buried in that spot, twenty years ago. Interesting how the trash we saw recovered had not been found and removed in that twenty year span of testing the known target".

I can't make much sense out of what you were asking or saying. In an effort to decipher what is your meaning, I asked you what you are saying:
"I am only going by what Morgan said. If he says he buried a gold piece 20 years ago, then I believe he buried a gold piece 20 years ago.
I am not sure I am understanding you. Are you suggesting that Morgan is not telling the truth about burying a gold piece there 20 years ago?
Or, maybe you're suggesting he was mistaken and buried something else different from gold?"

But you never answered. So how can you claim it's hard to conduct a conversation when you don't answer simple questions to tell us what you're talking about? I don't consider your post to be rude, I would simply like to know what you mean in that post where you are using words like "allegedly buried" and "being there 20 years ago". Did you mean we cannot trust what Morgan tells us, or something different?


Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Another Viewpoint

Hi Jim,
You are saying your rational questions and observations are being ignored, yet what you posted was ambiguous. in fact your question was not even a question or a statement. Here is what you posted:
"Unless you were there...in person...twenty years ago, the medallion (or now coin) was alledegdly buried in that spot, twenty years ago. Interesting how the trash we saw recovered had not been found and removed in that twenty year span of testing the known target".

I can't make much sense out of what you were asking or saying. In an effort to decipher what is your meaning, I asked you what you are saying:
"I am only going by what Morgan said. If he says he buried a gold piece 20 years ago, then I believe he buried a gold piece 20 years ago.
I am not sure I am understanding you. Are you suggesting that Morgan is not telling the truth about burying a gold piece there 20 years ago?
Or, maybe you're suggesting he was mistaken and buried something else different from gold?"

But you never answered. So how can you claim it's hard to conduct a conversation when you don't answer simple questions to tell us what you're talking about? I don't consider your post to be rude, I would simply like to know what you mean in that post where you are using words like "allegedly buried" and "being there 20 years ago". Did you mean we cannot trust what Morgan tells us, or something different?


Best wishes,
J_P

How about another viewpoint here? Perhaps, Jim's comments, like some of mine are born out of a knee-jerk reaction after being exposed to only that recent information which is presented here. I think in that regard you should try to understand two key points about this particular thread.

• Although lots of different Geotech members have an interest in this particular thread, and are posting, we aren't all on equal ground. That is, some are privy to a great deal more historical background (other threads, personal messages, private forums etc.) than others.
• Basically, the written word (in any language), coupled with a selection of "smiley faces", is a tough way to communicate in that it is real easy to convey the wrong thought or message with just the twist of a word or phrase. Join together that fact with the obvious understanding that not all participants utilize the same base language and it is a wonder we don't have more misunderstandings.

Also, some of us come from a background where a strong analytical and investigative nature required the asking of many questions and a research effort that left no stone unturned. That is not to say that others are not analytical, just that some "question" and process data differently.

With this in mind, some investigators will only be able to process and evaluate data they have seen with their own eyes. This is not a fault of the investigator, but is merely their "learned" way of analytically processing data received.

Personally, like Jim, I have many other questions that I might have asked, but based on some of the remarks in response to some previous questions, I will simply let them slide - and make my own conclusions based on the amount of data already shared.

I don't think anyone is doubting the overall voracity of either Morgan or Geo, but by the same token we are not discussing Knitting or Stamp Collecting here. LRL (RS in general) has always been a topic that comes with a great deal of claims, requests for proof and spirited debate from both sides of the aisle. That is just the nature of the beast. In that regard, not all participants will be privy to the same amount of historical data, or might ask questions that perhaps may have been answered in the past, or that might offend others because of an effort to gain more data.

[J_Player]

How about another viewpoint here? Perhaps, Jim's comments, like some of mine are born out of a knee-jerk reaction after being exposed to only that recent information which is presented here. I think in that regard you should try to understand two key points about this particular thread.

* Although lots of different Geotech members have an interest in this particular thread, and are posting, we aren't all on equal ground. That is, some are privy to a great deal more historical background (other threads, personal messages, private forums etc.) than others.
* Basically, the written word (in any language), coupled with a selection of "smiley faces", is a tough way to communicate in that it is real easy to convey the wrong thought or message with just the twist of a word or phrase. Join together that fact with the obvious understanding that not all participants utilize the same base language and it is a wonder we don't have more misunderstandings.

Hi Theseus,
You are right. This is an international forum where probably most of the readers do not have English as their first language. This makes it hard to understand what is written for some people. But I am wondering how Jim, who appears to be native English speaking can come to make such an incomprehensiblle post, then refuse to explain what he is talking about. Why is he complaining that he cannot conduct a "rational conversation" when, at the same time he is concealing his meaning? Does he have something to hide? If he does not want to communicate, then let's move on to your points which are well stated...

Also, some of us come from a background where a strong analytical and investigative nature required the asking of many questions and a research effort that left no stone unturned. That is not to say that others are not analytical, just that some "question" and process data differently.

With this in mind, some investigators will only be able to process and evaluate data they have seen with their own eyes. This is not a fault of the investigator, but is merely their "learned" way of analytically processing data received.

Personally, like Jim, I have many other questions that I might have asked, but based on some of the remarks in response to some previous questions, I will simply let them slide - and make my own conclusions based on the amount of data already shared.

I don't think anyone is doubting the overall voracity of either Morgan or Geo, but by the same token we are not discussing Knitting or Stamp Collecting here. LRL (RS in general) has always been a topic that comes with a great deal of claims, requests for proof and spirited debate from both sides of the aisle. That is just the nature of the beast. In that regard, not all participants will be privy to the same amount of historical data, or might ask questions that perhaps may have been answered in the past, or that might offend others because of an effort to gain more data.

The problem for analytical people like myself and for you is that we are looking at videos that were never intended to be an engineer's hallmark for undisputable proof of anything. What we are looking at are simply videos to show people what they would have seen if they were at the demonstration holding the camera that filmed it. When I understood that this is what I was looking at, then I did not expect these videos to be the same kind of evidence that I find submitted to prove a new discovery for winning a Nobel Prize. I saw them for what they are instead, similar to what you might find made by any metal detector hobbyist posting on youtube. I figured any conclusions a viewer will make are his own, depending on what he feels comfortable concluding. Sure, there is a temptation to imagine these videos should prove something, especially when we see people like Detectoman stating that they will show indisputable proof that will convince all skeptics. But detectoman did not post these videos, he only offered his opinion of them before they were made. I think you can see what I am saying. A lot of people were primed to see indisputable proof, when the videos were simply what you would have seen if you were there holding the camera. I understand how there is disappointment for not seeing indisputable proof under these circumstances. But what about Morgan? He went to the trouble to host a demonstration where he invited all forum members to come see for themselves. But nobody came except Geo. So he took videos to show what they would have seen if they were there. Shouldn't he also be disappointed when he sees people complaining how his videos don't measure up to their expectations? Shouldn't he be wondering how come they didn't come and try their own tests instead of complaining?

I don't see any fault in Morgan's videos or fault in the expectations of people who thought the videos were to be something different than some videos to show what you would see at an average detector demonstration. I understand the motives and reasoning behind it all, and it was to be expected.

You say some investigators will only be able to process and evaluate data they have seen with their own eyes. This is not a fault of the investigator, but is merely their "learned" way of analytically processing data received.
I like to see things with my own eyes and test them with my own hands too. I know that if I can see and test detectors live, I will be able to make my own determination and convince myself what works or does not work. I also declined to attend Morgan's demonstration, so I did not have the chance to evaluate and to process data in that way. But I will not be requiring Morgan's videos to somehow become a substitute for my failure to conduct my own tests. No, His videos are what they are... a picture of what I would have seen if I was there holding the camera. Not the same as if I was holding some detectors and making up my own tests in Portugal. Can Morgan's videos be disputed? Sure they can. Any videos can be disputed. An engineer named Bill Kaysing disputes the lunar landing videos, claiming they are fakes made at "Craters of the Moon" National Park. If some people want to believe that, then fine. If some people want to believe Morgan made something fake, fine too. But don't come around pretending these videos were made to prove anything undisputably to your satisfaction. They are simply some videos made to take a look at what you would have seen if you were there.

Please don't take any of this personally, I am addressing readers in general who continue to demand that Morgan must make videos to satisfy them, even after getting the word about what these videos are. This does not include you, who have remained politely in the sidelines. I know you are a fair person with an open mind who understands critical thinking.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,
You are right. This is an international forum where probably most of the readers do not have English as their first language. This makes it hard to understand what is written for some people. But I am wondering about how Jim, who appears to be native English speaking can come to make such an incomprehensiblle post, then refuse to explain what he is talking about.

I don't know Jim that well, so I won't be able to help you understand his post or his motives. Perhaps it is merely a timing issue, and he may still come by with some additional clarity.

The problem for analytical people like myself and for you is that we are looking at videos that were never intended to be an engineer's hallmark for undisputable proof of anything.

I think there is a reason for that, I'll elaborate below...

What we are looking at are simply videos to show people what they would have seen if they were at the demonstration holding the camera that filmed it. When I understood that this is what I was looking at, then I did not expect these videos to be the same kind of evidence that I find submitted to prove a new discovery for winning a Nobel prize. I saw them for what they are instead, similar to what you might find made by any metal detector hobbyist posting on youtube.

I agree. Again, I think there is a reason for expecting something other than a simple YouTube video. I'll elaborate below...

Sure, there is a temptation to imagine these videos should prove something, especially when we see people like Detectoman stating that they will show indisputable proof that will convince all skeptics.

A..Ha... and now you are beginning to touch on the reason some might have been expecting more.

But detectoman did not post these videos, he only offered his opinion of them before they were made. I think you can see what I am saying. A lot of people were primed to see indisputable proof,...

Yes! The operative word here being primed. But, if memory serves me right, I don't think it was only Detectoman that made the comments. Perhaps, ...but I did not take the time to go back through hundreds of other posts, many of which are not in this thread.

I understand how there is disappointment for not seeing indisputable proof under these circumstances. But what about Morgan? He went to the trouble to host a demonstration where he invited all forum members to come see for themselves. But nobody came except Geo. So he took videos to show what they would have seen if they were there. Shouldn't he also be disappointed when he sees people complaining how his videos don't measure up to their expectations? Shouldn't he be wondering how come they didn't come and try their own tests instead of complaining?

Should Morgan feel bad that out of so many members, only Geo showed up?

Here is my opinion on that question, others may differ: No, he shouldn't. As you may or may not have guessed by now the practice of dowsing and other RS devices (LRLs) have long been an interest of mine. Yes, I've spent considerable resources, both time and money in the pursuit of and investigation of the topic. Still, it is only a part-time hobby with me, but one which I do have an invested interest in. However, it will never be something important enough for me to fund travel half way around the world in order witness a demonstration of, and quite obviously many other members must have felt the same way.

Should Morgan be disappointed about complaints?

Well... that depends. Perhaps at first thought, yes he could be disappointed. However, realistically, he really shouldn't be disappointed because I know from experience no matter what was on the videos, or to what extremes the participants went to in order to create a fair and perfect protocol - there will always be those who will criticize it and find it lacking in some sort of control or test parameter. It's called Monday Morning Quarterbacking, and it is really easy to do.

I don't see any fault in Morgan's videos or fault in the expectations of people who thought the videos were to be something different than some videos to show what you would see at an average detector demonstration. I understand the motives and reasoning behind it all, and it was to be expected.

Good I agree, ...and I'm glad you can appreciate both facets.

Please don't take any of this personally, I am addressing readers in general who demand that Morgan must make videos to satisfy them, not you, who have remained politely in the sidelines. I know you are a fair person with an open mind who understands critical thinking.

Best wishes,
J_P

I don't take what you have said personally... but I do like to respond.

[ivconic]

"... I am addressing readers in general who continue to demand that Morgan must make videos to satisfy them, even after getting the word about what these videos are. This does not include you, who have remained politely in the sidelines. I know you are a fair person with an open mind who understands critical thinking..."


Say...aren't you twisting some facts here?

"...must make videos to satisfy them..." ????

Hopefully by "them" you mean TRUTH?!

Debating with you on any subject usually can turn into neverending story and most probably bad and ugly argue. Once i realized that - i decided to void such situations. I am here on this forum to deal with real stuff, material work and facts - not to debate about and to evolve various wild theories.
So, now i will only remind you; that neither me, neither anybody else NEVER asked Morgan or Geo to "must make videos to satisfy..." .
Morgan himself made many claims about that device and it's functionallity.
After watching those movies i just noticed that I DONT SEE PROOFS of his previous claims - that's all. Simply as that.
On those videos i don't see detailed checks and tests. I don't se proofs.
What i see on those videos is more or less same to what i saw on numerous simillar presentations made in the past, on simillar subject.

Talk much as you want here. Write more novels if you need. But please don't twist facts. All of the sudden you appeared to be first to defend Morgan from .....i really don't know from what?
Bye!