Quote:
Originally Posted by Dell Winders
During my many years of field experience searching for Gold, I don't find this to be true. Perhaps text book logic needs to be revised.
|
Revisions would be forthcoming if the evidence to the contrary was fully documented and the experiment could be repeated by others under controlled conditions and produced the same results.
Quote:
|
In conducting aerial surveys for gold deposits before GPS was available, the instrumentation we used would detect and record Gold deposits but this would only bring us in the proximity of the Gold for a ground search.
|
What specifically was the instrumentation used?
Quote:
|
To locate the Gold deposit(s) we would bury 25 pounds of low grade Uranium ore in 2-3 locations within the general proximity of the aerial location, then wait 3-4 weeks. The Uranium ore appeared to take on the characteristics of the Gold, and metered the same as Gold with our instruments.
|
Which are the (presumably measurable) "characteristics" being referred to?
Quote:
|
When we returned to the aera after an alloted time, we would detect the known locations of the Uranium ore, as well as the unknown location of the Gold deposit, and by calculating the distances between the known targets, and the unknown target we could isolate and pinpoint the location of the Gold deposit.
|
What kind of detecting apparatus was being used?
Since the gold deposit locations where unknown, how did you figure you had actually detected them?
If the unknown target locations are by definition -unknown- how do you calculate a distance from the known location to the unknown location?