Bionic 01 Video

[J_Player]

This sudden rash of condescending comments and remarks directed towards LRL aficionados (believers, salesmen and debunkers) really does not seem to be producing any significant contributions in the way of tangible proofs, evidence or details of validation.

I suggest the new tactic is a failure, and we simply return to the old methods where we point out that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; and let it go at that. When the evidence fails to be presented, then we have our answer. Period.

But aren't we supposed to listen to what LRL experts have to say?
Didn't they say it is necessary to establish a dialogue so the discussion would not be ended after the first post is made?
I thought we were supposed to carry on a discussion with minimum logic, even when the LRL guys make us 'face the truth'.
The object of the LRL believer is not to provide proof. It is to collect believers without proof.
And this cannot be done if we do not believe what they say is the truth.

So you think the Remote Sensing forum rules to be prepared to back up your extraordinary claims is a good idea?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

But aren't we supposed to listen to what LRL experts have to say?

That's why I'm a reader here. If reading and listening are synonymous, than I am listening.

Didn't they say it is necessary to establish a dialogue so the discussion would not be ended after the first post is made?

I think I read that several postings back (Author: Hung); however, I don't see where the condescending approach is doing anything to promote dialog. If anything it is turning them off, or status quo at best.

The object of the LRL believer is not to provide proof. It is to collect believers without proof. And this cannot be done if we do not believe what they say.

Do you think it's working?

So you think the Remote Sensing forum rules of being prepared to back up your extraordinary claims is a good idea?

Best wishes,
J_P

I certainly do. If you don't; what would be a better rule?

[J_Player]

So you think the Remote Sensing forum rules to be prepared to back up your extraordinary claims is a good idea?

originally posted by Theseus
I certainly do. If you don't; what would be a better rule?

I like the idea of being required to back up your extraordinary claims. But I wonder if it would be good to see some kind of rule to kick out chronic pseudoscience experts who refuse to back up their claims, and whine when people ask them to prove what they say is true.

Isn't the intent of the Geotech rules to keep un-challenged pseudoscience in places like TNet and away from here?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

I like the idea of being required to back up your extraordinary claims. But I wonder if it would be good to see some kind of rule to kick out chronic pseudoscience experts who refuse to back up their claims, and whine when people ask them to prove what they say is true.

Best wishes,
J_P

In a perfect world, or alternatively a perfect Remote Sensing Forum, perhaps that kind of wording for a rule might be considered.

However, as we both know, there is no such thing as a perfect world or a perfect RS Forum. And, in light of Carl's phrase in his Intro sticky; "I would like to keep this forum as open as possible.." - it would seem that demanding the purveyors of pseudo and wish science back up their claims, or move on, would be contrary to the desire to keep the forum as open as possible.

I personally keep holding onto the idea that some day one of the LRL aficionados will actually come forward with a meaningful piece of evidence. Perhaps I am overly naive, but if we banish them from the forum, there is no possibility of ever learning or experiencing useful evidence from them.

[J_Player]

In a perfect world, or alternatively a perfect Remote Sensing Forum, perhaps that kind of wording for a rule might be considered.

However, as we both know, there is no such thing as a perfect world or a perfect RS Forum. And, in light of Carl's phrase in his Intro sticky; "I would like to keep this forum as open as possible.." - it would seem that demanding the purveyors of pseudo and wish science back up their claims, or move on, would be contrary to the desire to keep the forum as open as possible.

I personally keep holding onto the idea that some day one of the LRL aficionados will actually come forward with a meaningful piece of evidence. Perhaps I am overly naive, but if we banish them from the forum, there is no possibility of ever learning or experiencing useful evidence from them.

Should also hold onto the idea that there is a possibility I will see meaningful evidence of gold DNA and that substance it produces to inhibit corrosion?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Should also hold onto the idea that there is a possibility I will see meaningful evidence of gold DNA and that substance it produces to inhibit corrosion?

Best wishes,
J_P

It's one thing to keep listening with an open mind, and consider various possibilities for proposed theories and claims. However, I think as listeners we also have a personal responsibility to ourselves, to separate (filter) the ridiculous from the sublime, and not waste a lot of time or resources evaluating that which was presented in jest or pure silliness. Of course that's just my opinion...

[J_Player]

It's one thing to keep listening with an open mind, and consider various possibilities for proposed theories and claims. However, I think as listeners we also have a personal responsibility to ourselves, to separate (filter) the ridiculous from the sublime, and not waste a lot of time or resources evaluating that which was presented in jest or pure silliness. Of course that's just my opinion...

That sounds like a good plan. Maybe somebody will provide some substantial information to show whether the Bionic 01 is really locating gold items at a distance or not.

Best wishes,
J_P

[g-sani]

That's normal when some people share the same awareness.
It's the same for you, ozzy here and aft 1733 for instance. Very similar and lookalikes.

But you can't compare the discussions that happen here with the ones over TNET. They not even compare.
TNET discussions are deep with real experienced LRL users.
Here the skepthics don't even know of what they are talking about. We can't pass from page 1.

Don't feel bad when you feel you think you 'lost a battle' in discussions with Art and Dell for instance. This is not a war... On the contrary, try to learn something from them. I am positive that it's just a matter of time for you to become an ex-skeptic. This will happen sooner or later.

Of course everybody will be an ex-skeptic sooner or later.
That's destiny, but I have to say that there is a limitation that is different from person to person.Time!
If time would be the same for everybody then we would have the same experiences, we would agree to everything and probably we wouldn't be here making discussions.
In other words somebody realises something today and somebody else does it tomorow.Yesterday their thoughts were different and today are the same.
It is like if we say that all people are the same.Of course they are not.
I have to admit it and I am enjoying doing it that some years back I was a skeptic myself.
So what? Now I am not.
Time is the best doctor arround.This is what they say over here and I believe that this is the truth we like it or not.

[putrechigi]

video

new video in country

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akO1jzVEds8&feature=channel

if there aren't joke i think that every metal industries is finished

[putrechigi]

hi

new video in country

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akO1jzVEds8&feature=channel

if there aren't joke i think that every metal industries is finished

hung you are right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-a4buGeOec&feature=channel

[Tim Williams]

I would like you to try something if you don't mind. Have the user put gloves on and repeat the test. I am not trying ti disprove but prove it may work.

[hung]

hung you are right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-a4b...eature=channel

I knew it. There was simply no reason why the laser would not work in the horizontal axis, since a simple pentaprism aproach makes it work both in the X and Y axis.

The indoor video clearly shows the laser modulated to the gold frequency and it does not reflect any other target at the wall when moved sideways.
Congratulations to OKM for the evolution regarding the previous model. Now it's easy to pinpoint the target. Maybe my team will get one to team up with the MIDAS.

The outdoor videos show the device detecting at distance in normal mode. Notice how the laser is turned off.
I will talk to Alonso about maybe employing a laser beam in substitution to the IR leds for pinpointing in the Mineoros. Let's see what he says.

Putrechigi, thanks very much for posting the videos. You were faster than OKM's support regarding a reply to my querie.
Now everything is clear.

Best regards.

[Theseus]

I knew it. There was simply no reason why the laser would not work in the horizontal axis, since a simple pentaprism aproach makes it work both in the X and Y axis.

The indoor video clearly shows the laser modulated to the gold frequency and it does not reflect any other target at the wall when moved sideways.
Congratulations to OKM for the evolution regarding the previous model. Now it's easy to pinpoint the target. Maybe my team will get one to team up with the MIDAS.

The outdoor videos show the device detecting at distance in normal mode. Notice how the laser is turned off.
I will talk to Alonso about maybe employing a laser beam in substitution to the IR leds for pinpointing in the Mineoros. Let's see what he says.

Putrechigi, thanks very much for posting the videos. You were faster than OKM's support regarding a reply to my querie.
Now everything is clear.

Best regards.

Take a real close look at this video. Pause the video and watch where the laser pointer is when the light starts flashing. There is a point of reflection from the shelf; not the target, and the light starts blinking before the laser is even on the gold.

Suppose there is a pushbutton switch or trigger switch that is activated by the operator when the laser is on (or near the target).

To prove that is not the case; tune the device to be activated by the gold target. Then place the device on a table, not held by an operator. Then at some distance away, move a gold target into the laser beam and show the lights flashing only when the target is in the beam.

That still doesn't prove it is only detecting gold, just that the operator is not pressing a switch to activate the lights.

Next would be to try and move a small dental inspection mirror into the beam, or perhaps other shiny metal objects.

[Fred]

This is why i wrote it could be distance related.

[J_Player]

This is why i wrote it could be distance related.

You mean like a laser range-finder?

Best wishes,
J_P