Dell Winders on LRL detecting

[J_Player]

This is a special thread where we can get information about the theory and practice of LRL detection from experts with years of experience. This is where we can look for the straight facts that long-experienced LRL users have discovered, not the advertizing hype we read on LRL websites. This is not a place for posting unfounded claims or photos of treasures found.... NO, this is where we can ask the seasoned LRL users who knows from experience how these devices work. This is where they can tell us the facts of what an LRL can do, and their limitations. This is a place we can use as a resource to learn the real principles behind the LRL. This is where we can look to learn what the most knowledgable LRL users know about these machines. If there are any LRL experimenters, then this thread should be an invaluable resource for developing improved machines. The first post below is a copy of two posts made by Dell Winder's, veteran treasure hunter and developer/tester of LRLs. His explanations agree well with Esteban and others who post here, but with a few key differences. Hopefully Dell and others with his long experience in this field will add more to this thread to help explain the details of the fields and conditions that make the LRLs work, or limit their performance.

[J_Player]

These are 2 posts copied from this forum from Dell Winders explaining some of the principles of LRL detection:

[POST-1]
In my opinion, the Mineoro, does NOT actually detect the presence of an underground target. It does detect the "field" of the target at the surface above the ground. With other electronic LRL instruments I've detected the discriminated "field's" of concentrations of clusters of Gold from an aircraft at altitudes as much as 3000 feet above the earth.
In the early 1990's a NOVA TV documentary showed a division of NASA had developed the same method of discriminating the "field" of underground anomalies from an aircraft. The difference was we had spent about $70,000 to develop an analog prototype, and the division of NASA had invested over $1 million in a computerized version. We both used conventional geophysical methods and Ground truthing to verify our locations.

The idea of long time buried Gold being detectable vs freshly buried Gold not being detectable was originated by Claude Cochran, an LRL super salesman during the late 1989's as a competetive advertising scheme.

In my experience, It is true that the deeper fresh Gold is buried, the longer it will take for the "Field" to reach the surface where the "field' might be detected. Certain geologic conditions appear to not allow the concentrated earth "field" around some sub-terrain Gold buried even for thousands of years to ever reach the surface and therefore not all Gold will be detectable using this Remote sensing concept.

In my Field testing of the Mineoro, I used a 1 ounce Gokl Krugerand, lieing on the surface of the ground to tune the Mineoro, and specifically to determine if the target SOF was strong enough to be within the Mineoro's operating limitations. When the SOF was strong, the Mineoro, detected the unburied Gold from a distance of 12-15 feet. When SOF conditions were weak, the Mineoro would not detect the "field" of the un-buried Gold, and also, it would not detect the "field" of the long time buried Gold either. This is consistent with All LRL's I've used, or tested, whether electronic, or non-electronic.

At least some understanding of the Physics that are being applied are an integral part to the electronic development this remote sensing concept.

I hope my field experience provides some "food for thought". Good Luck!

[POST-2]
I guess what I am trying to say is that it appears to me that all these types of devices [including negative ion detectors] operate on the same principles of physics with slightly different variations of application.

The one common denominator that I have observed is that 18 years of residual effects of Solar magnetic activity greatly affects the operation of all these devices, as well as Magnetometer, and to a lesser degree the depth penetration of conventional metal detectors.

The conditions when these electronic, or non-electronic devices will work, or will not work, has been consistently predictable whether I am using electronic metering, or a pair of Dowsing rods to meter the Strength of Field (SOF) suffecient for these devices to operate.

To put it bluntly, there are magnetic conditions and fluxuations in which none of these devices will function effeciently, or will even work. This can be a problem with testing your design.

I was using the Mineoro, as an example because you were speaking of an Ion detector, which is the scientific principle the Mineoro, claims to be using.

I have never field tested the posted schematic, but If this schematic is indeed intended as a Gold discriminating Ion detector, and comparing it with the Mineoro field results, I suspect it will be affected by the same limitations as all other LRL remote sensing devices, whether electronic, or non-electronic.

I hope my field experience provides some "food for thought". Good Luck!

"WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, CAN BE DONE" Dell

[J_Player]

Thank you for the explanations, Dell.
Three questions come to mind in reading your posts:

1. In trying to get an understanding of the physics that are being applied to LRL detecting, here is the biggest question that comes to mind is about these "fields": What kind of a field lingers near a buried target? Are you talking about an electrostatic field? an electromagnetic field with a frquency of oscillaton? A pure magnetic field? Are there ions in this field? What are the characteristics of the feild that is being sensed?

2. You say that the "long buried gold" being different than freshly buried gold (for detection purposes) was an advertising scheme of Claude Cochran. Does this mean that you have found no difference in detecting "long buried gold" and "freshly buried gold"?

3. You posted: "The conditions when these electronic, or non-electronic devices will work, or will not work, has been consistently predictable whether I am using electronic metering, or a pair of Dowsing rods to meter the Strength of Field (SOF) suffecient for these devices to operate."
What method can we use to consistently predict these these conditions and thus know when our LRLs will not work?

[Elie]

This is a special thread where we can get information about the theory and practice of LRL detection from experts with years of experience. This is where we can look for the straight facts that long-experienced LRL users have discovered, not the advertizing hype we read on LRL websites. This is not a place for posting unfounded claims or photos of treasures found.... NO, this is where we can ask the seasoned LRL users who knows from experience how these devices work. This is where they can tell us the facts of what an LRL can do, and their limitations. This is a place we can use as a resource to learn the real principles behind the LRL. This is where we can look to learn what the most knowledgable LRL users know about these machines. If there are any LRL experimenters, then this thread should be an invaluable resource for developing improved machines. The first post below is a copy of two posts made by Dell Winder's, veteran treasure hunter and developer/tester of LRLs. His explanations agree well with Esteban and others who post here, but with a few key differences. Hopefully Dell and others with his long experience in this field will add more to this thread to help explain the details of the fields and conditions that make the LRLs work, or limit their performance.
How is this thread different from all other threads?

[Elie]

By the way, as you pointed out, Dell Winders is behind some of these long range locators himself.

[J_Player]

This is different because Dell has more years experience thatn any of the others of us with LRLs, and he is able to give answers from experience that the rest of us cannot. This is different because it is NOT a forum thread to argue about the credibility of LRL theory. It is a thread to find out exactly what those who have the experience will tell us.

If it is your purpose to ridicule anyone in this forum then please find another forum with much better targets than you find here. Neither Dell or I am here to sell any machinery or prove anything. I just want to know the facts from the expert's point of view without a lot of garbage and mis-quoting from people who don't have the experience.

[Lake]

Maybe they're measuring changes in earth etheric field?
http://www.biofieldsciences.com/Human-energy-field.htm

Buried object could cause local changes in it.

At least we can separate field of a living stuff (plants, rocks,..) from "non-living" stuff (coins) using life energy meter?
Some instruments for measuring:
http://www.orgonelab.org/cgi-bin/shop.pl/page=ylemeter.htm
http://www.orgonelab.org/lemeter.htm
http://www.ambro.hu/borze/egely/index2.htm

Perhaps using a biological sensor such as petrovoltaic rock could be very good for that:
http://www.soteria.com/petro/

Or scalar field:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/sclxmtr.htm

Or time shift anomalies for at least ores:
http://www.ctglabs.com/tsd1.htm
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/SmartSPOT/SmartSPOT.htm

[J_Player]

Dang...!!

Now these references you posted seem kinda ... errrr... escoteric...

According to Dell, what they are sensing is somehow linked to electrostatic fields and ions that are a secondary indicator of buried treasure. I don't think I recall him mentioning anything about life energies or scalar fields.
I wonder what Dell will tell us about how the LRLs work based on his experiences?

[Dell Winders]

Please be patient with me. I'm engaged in a project for the next several days and I can only take time for quick replies. Thanks! Dell

[Elie]

This is different because Dell has more years experience thatn any of the others of us with LRLs, and he is able to give answers from experience that the rest of us cannot. This is different because it is NOT a forum thread to argue about the credibility of LRL theory. It is a thread to find out exactly what those who have the experience will tell us.

If it is your purpose to ridicule anyone in this forum then please find another forum with much better targets than you find here. Neither Dell or I am here to sell any machinery or prove anything. I just want to know the facts from the expert's point of view without a lot of garbage and mis-quoting from people who don't have the experience.
When will I learn to save my text after spending FOREVER on a post? Anyway (not having gotten any sleep last night), here are the main points:
You claim that those who do not promote or believe in long range locators somehow do not have the right to post in this thread.
That is ridiculous, therefore this thread is not different from any other thread promoting long range locators.
I am only ridiculing ridiculous statements about long range locators.
Dell promotes his ability to "find" treasure with a long range locator.
Many people try to put over an incredible amount of garbage on treasure hunters.
They do this in order to make a buck, or to appear to be "in" on the subject at hand. They often do it for both reasons.
A good example of this is "Karl von Mueller," who actually knew a great deal about treasure hunting, but who made up all kinds of "information," which he used to pad and embellish his writings.
This has caused many treasure hunters to waste a tremendous amount of time, trying to find imaginary people, businesses, literary references, etc.
Von Mueller's fabrications (greatly understated below by Steve R) have been perpetuated by Fred Hollister and many others, who have done so in order to seem like big deals for knowing von Mueller, and who have contributed to his exagerated image.
The following exchange is from the old treasurenet forum:

Jeff K 00:27:54 9/07/2001
Fred,
I use to read all of the author's you mentioned, and subscribed to Examino some 30 years ago. I may be wrong, but I got the impression that KVM may have been the biggest con-man of them all. It just seemed to me that he made-up a lot of stories. [...]

Fred Hollister 10:03:50 9/07/2001
[...] There was absolutely no con in Karl! Period[...]

Steve R 22:45:32 9/08/2001
Fred-
Nice to see you on the Internet. I knew both of them [von Mueller and and another writer] and have nothing too bad to say about either.
Von Mueller probably put treasure hunting on the map as much as anyone ever did. But, remember, he like to have a little fun now and again and some of his tales got a bit tall. I think sometimes, he wanted to see how much he could manufacture from whole cloth and see how it perpetuated itself. Now, maybe not all that commonly, but that did happen. [...]

Fred Hollister 17:22:33 9/07/2001
Steve - Well said, indeed! You know more about this than most, and anybody reading these posts would be well advised to listen. [...]

Jeff K 14:25:12 9/23/2001
Fred... I guess you have difficulties reading between the lines. Steve just confirmed what I said. KVM did make up stories. Period!

This kind of thing happens all the time with long range locators. Someone is always selling them or promoting his ability to "find" treasure with them, or just talking about the MYSTERIOUS or "scientific" ways in which they "work."

And then they claim that an accomplished design engineer of integrated circuits knows nothing...

[Elie]

The entire exchange:

Jeff K 00:27:54 9/07/2001
Fred,
I use to read all of the author's you mentioned, and subscribed to Examino some 30 years ago. I may be wrong, but I got the impression that KVM may have been the biggest con-man of them all. It just seemed to me that he made-up a lot of stories. Also, I can't trust writers, at least in this business, that use phony names, and I believe he used several. Why? My guess is that he never found any treasure either, because he was too busy writing books and newspapers.
Jeff

Fred Hollister 10:03:50 9/07/2001
Jeff - I knew Karl von Mueller. I can not claim to have been his friend - that would have been for him to say, not me. I know a number of people that knew him, as well. And, as mentioned above, I've read everything he wrote that I can put my hands on. I had the priviledge to reprint his book "The Encyclopedia of Buried Treasure Hunting" - and that was probably the least important of the many he wrote and published.
There was absolutely no con in Karl! Period. His primary goal in life was to help people - particularly, to help the "little guy" become independent. Plenty of folks followed his advice and found the path to wealth - and, what is even more important, freedom from the tyranny of the timeclock. He could have sold copies of "The Treasure Hunter's Manual - 6 or 7" for $100 each and gotten it and it would have been worth it. But he shared his priceless knowledge and wisdom for pennies.
Take a look at the many, many publications he brougt back into print and sold for a few bucks each. You can still readily buy "Waybills to El Dorado." Now, THAT is an eye-opening treasure book!
Karl found plenty of treasure - you can bet the ranch on that. And he was the first person to open up the world of professional treasure hunting to the amateur hobbiest. I guarantee you that this website would not be here without him. He was, of course, a columnist for "Western & Eastern Treasures."
Why did he use more than one pen-name? He certainly wasn't the first person to do that. Further, you have to put yourself back to the time he began. Finally, read what Karl says about "Hush your Mush." The only treasure hunter I ever heard of who made publicity work for himself was Mel Fisher - and he had his share of woes from that fickle goddess Fame, as well...
Karl was rightly sytled "The Dean of American Treasure Hunters" and he was the Father of the hobby that continues today. Sadly, he probably wouldn't be thrilled by some of the things that child is doing today - but almost any parent can honestly say that.
Good luck to all -

Steve R 22:45:32 9/08/2001
Fred-
Nice to see you on the Internet. I knew both of them and have nothing too bad to say about either.
Penfield was primarily a "compiler" and it is true he didn't check out all of his sources very well. He may have "borrowed" a thing or two. However, note that newer writers have borrowed from him as well, and some things of "minimal accuracy" (to be kind) from Penfield are now accepted by some to be gospel.
It is much easier to make up a treasure than to dismiss one and put it away. Once they are out there, the stories just stay on and on and on. I know of a couple of instances where the hoaxer admitted his fiction and had friends swear they helped him make it up one night. Still people believe and you can't persuade them otherwise.
Von Mueller probably put treasure hunting on the map as much as anyone ever did. But, remember, he like to have a little fun now and again and some of his tales got a bit tall. I think sometimes, he wanted to see how much he could manufacture from whole cloth and see how it perpetuated itself. Now, maybe not all that commonly, but that did happen.
As time passes we always tend to idealize things that happened many years ago. There are feet of clay to go around for most everyone in this field.
Steve

Fred Hollister 17:22:33 9/07/2001
Steve - Well said, indeed! You know more about this than most, and anybody reading these posts would be well advised to listen.
Good luck to all -

Jeff K 14:25:12 9/23/2001
Fred... I guess you have difficulties reading between the lines. Steve just confirmed what I said. KVM did make up stories. Period!

[Carl-NC]

Undoubtably, in the annals of treasure fabrications, the "Lue" was the most simplistically created (a single map, with almost no explanation), and perhaps one of the most blatantly obvious fictions ever put forth. Yet hundreds of treasure hunters--no doubt many who are otherwise very intelligent--have spent lifetimes and fortunes chasing this folly. A good example of how "treasure fever" can suppress rational thinking.

JP, you started out this thread with the statement that it is to "get information about the theory and practice of LRL detection from experts with years of experience." Then you reply that it is not "to argue about the credibility of LRL theory." If the credibility of whatever theories get presented here are not open to criticism, then this implies that you are prepared to accept and believe whatever is told to you, even if it's complete nonsense. Maybe that's not what you meant.

- Carl

[Dell Winders]

The Editor does not permit enough time for my very slow typing to correct my posts, So I would like to ask Carl, to delete my previous post on this subject. Thanks!


As it has been previously suggested, I do live in the proverbial "Glass House". Most of my use and testing of LRL, and /or Dowsing in the field, has been witnessed, and documented when possible. My life, and reputation for honesty, is one of transparency and has always been open to public scrutiny. I use my real name, provide my real address, and real telephone number, and photos of myself for any of you who wish to conduct your own investigation into my lifetime reputation achievment for honesty. Let those who wish to throw stones reveal just as much information about themselves.

The Skeptic cult has been throwing rocks and boulders to serve their own agenda for 13 years, and yet the proverbal "Glass House" along with it's transparency remains intact, least if I were as some of the lies have claimed, I would not be able to be here expressing my personal opion based on my Field experience with LRL after 25 years.

As a Professional Hunter, I don't use LRL, or any method, with the presumption that it is going to find Gold, or even find anything of value and I don't suggest anyone purchase any Treasure hunting product with the unrealistic expectation that it is going to find riches for them.

It has never been my contention that the use of an LRL, is going to make me, or anyone wealthy, and I don't personally sell my products to consumers without them first being aware of their limitations and to use them as they are intended, "As a time & money saving tool to serve as an aid in obtaining preliminary sub-terrain geophysical information about a specific area, which can help reduce the size of the search area for the possible locations of deep buried anomalies, or vein, in a shorter period of time than by conventional means. This preliminary LRL information helps me, as the operator to determine if the location is feasible for attempting a recovery, or warrants the time & cost of continuing the survey with conventional methods, or conducting an exploratory excavation.

If recovery is not feasible, the time & money saved allows me to continue on to another potential Treasure site. When used in this context, some LRL, as well as Mental Dowsing, have proved to be invaluable information gathering tools in searching for un-researchable treasures, and the possible locations of deep buried Treasure troves. Dell

[Dell Winders]

A news paper article denoting the use of Remote Sensing frequency discrimination for Treasure huntng. Dell

http://www.treasureamerica.com/photo/ctarticle.jpg

[Dell Winders]

Before I waste my time with involvement in this subject on this forum, it should be well understood in advance that I recognize a significant difference in the application , and interpretation of using so called Dowsing rods to meter the effects of electronics & Physics, from the difference in the of intentionally controlling the so called Dowsing rods, for the purpose of mental, Meta-Physical responses to mental questions, or mental programming through the use of suggestion. I am quite familiar with the use of either application.

If you don't accept the possibility that some so called Dowsing Rod(s) can be used for dual applications, then please don't bother posting to me, or about me, because we won't have a common interest to an understanding of the facts.

My reply on the Dowsing thread.
Did you actually read my post? Neither I nor Dr. Bickel ever said dowsing worked on the same principle as his machine that detected mineral deposits. If you go back and carefully read, you will see where I explained that he "taught me the difference between what his machine was measuring and what dowsers are sensing". Dr. Bickel told me in no uncertain terms that his machines had nothing to do with dowsing.


For several years I had the opportunity to work with the operator of an instrument that appears very similar to Dr. Bickel's, instrument, and it was refered to as a Gamma Scan. I have been told a later version actually displays shadowy images of it's distant targets.

You are correct in saying it does not work very well at close range, or detect the "field" of small targets unless they are clustered in a large group of small targets such as concentrations of Gold particles.

The Gold in the Denver, Co mint was one of the test targets used in determining the remote Sensing ability of the Gamma Scan, to detect that amount from an aircraft, up to 350 miles away, and navigate the aircraft according to the Gamma Scan's, point of reference.

Much as the same with Frequency Discrimination (MFD) it is geographicly difficult to isolate and pinpoint the exact location of targets on the ground that are detected from high speed aircraft. To help in this determination, we would bury 25-30 pounds of low grade Uranium ore in the vicinity of the airborne location and wait 20-30 days and redo the scan. By detecting the concentrated "field" of the Uranium ore and it's relation to the airborne Gold location, we could isolate and pinpoint the Gold location.

This discussion started about the Meta-Physical art of Mental Dowsing, has once again evolved to the skeptic cult interpretation of Long Range Locators.
From years of being attacked for my support and practice of both methods as aids for Treasure hunting, I don't think the closed mind set of self proclaimed skeptics will ever be open to truth , or facts that are a challenge to the intelligence of their belief system. Dell

[J_Player]

I opened this thread titled "Dell Winders on LRL detecting" in order to find out what Dell's ideas were on how LRLs work based on his experience. Not to hear more of the same old arguments that all skeptics have to offer on a multitude of forums concerning LRLs. I am well aware of the proofs people have presented to demonstrate the LRLs don't work. I am as skeptical as anyone else in this forum about whether LRLs work. When I was 4 years old I was skeptical of the world being round. It appeared flat to me. I figured if it was round, then this could only be true through some force of magic. I later learned that the apparent magic was not magic at all, but well-respected principles of physics and earth science that allowed the earth to be round. And it was only an illusion due to my frame of reference that caused it to appear flat. It was because I took the time to listen to the complete theory of those who had years of experience in studying the earth sciences and measuring the earth that I was able to understand how it could be round. Had I not listened to what these experts had to say, I would still believe it is flat as I had when I was 4 years old, and I would be preaching along with the other skeptics in the Flat Earth Society. I would be calling the astronauts and rocket scientists a bunch of liars and cheats who bilked the government out of billions of dollars. Today, my understanding of how LRLs work is very limited. I have no way of making an informed decision of whether I should believe they work or not until I can first hear some coherent explanation from the experts who have more experience than me.

With LRLs, there is no standard accepted principle or theory of how they work or how they should be used. The principles vary depending on which user you are talking to. For this reason we have no standard principles on which to decide whethere there is any believable science to explain the use of the so-called LRL. It was my intent to find out from only the most experienced proponents of LRLs how they believe LRLs work based on their long years of experience. It was my intent to look in one single thread to find a reference from the most knowledgable in the use of these machines have to say. It was not my intent to start another debate about whether they actually work or not. It was not my intent to ask if anyone could expose a fraudulant marketing racketeer. If I was looking for a discussion of more proofs to support whether LRLs work not, then I would have titled this thread "LRLs -- do they work or not? Can you prove it?" instead of "Dell Winders on LRL detecting".

It was my hope that in One single place we could learn what theories the experienced experts have to say about what principles LRLs like the Mineoro device work on (not dowsing principles). Apparently this is not possible in this forum. It appers that any attempt to set aside a place where we can read a concise explanation of these LRL principles from an experienced user will be met with fillibustering and ridicule that clogs up the pages. A casual reader has no single place he can go to find out "just the facts" of what the experienced proponent of LRLs have to say without sifting through pages of arguments concerning the validity of LRL theory and attacks on the credibility of others who engage in mass marketing of LRL paraphenalia.

As far as I am concerned, the purpose of this thread has been defeated, and it would be better to move Dell's answers to the TA forum where it has a chance of becoming a concise statement of his understanding of LRL theory and practice without needing to sift through the arguments in order to hear what he has to say.

PS.
A final note to Dell: You can easily deal witb the time limit for posting in this or other forums by typing your message in a text file, then pasting it into the message window. I do this by right-clicking on the Windows desktop or inside a Windows folder, then click New / Text Document. This will open a blank text file with Windows wordpad. You can type and edit your message in wordpad until it is done, then highlight the entire text and right-click for copy. Then go to the forum message and right-click to paste the text you just copied. You can also save the text file on your computer if you wish.

[Carl-NC]

OK, go fer it.

[Elie]

Neither Dell or I am here to sell any machinery or prove anything.
I just realized that I did not mention that, in addition to promoting himself as a long range locator user, Dell does sell long range locators.
And you say that he is not here to prove anything...

[J_Player]

And what machinery has Dell tried to sell to you in his posts in this thread?

[Elie]

And what machinery has Dell tried to sell to you in his posts in this thread?
Did I say that he tried to sell ME anything? He DID post part of a newspaper article, in which HIS company was mentioned.

[J_Player]

It seems to me that you are the one who intimates Dell has an agenda to sell equipment. I am asking what he tried to sell you in his posts in this thread. Do you have an answer? Or are you just spewing more garbage?

[Elie]

It seems to me that you are the one who intimates Dell has an agenda to sell equipment. I am asking what he tried to sell you in his posts in this thread. Do you have an answer? Or are you just spewing more garbage?
I did not say that he sells long range locators ON THIS SITE. Also, I JUST told you that he did not try to sell ME anything. However, if he is not trying to drum up business here, then why did he post part of a newspaper article? It does not contain techical information.

[Carl-NC]

Elie, let's give JP and Dell a chance to move forward on this thread, and see what happens. Thanks.

[Elie]

Elie, let's give JP and Dell a chance to move forward on this thread, and see what happens. Thanks.
What do you mean?

[Qiaozhi]

"Facts speak louder than eloquence." -- Chinese Proverb

Of course (if you are an LRL believer) then you may say that skeptics are "like a frog in a well shaft seeing the sky" - refering to the frog's vision as being narrow-minded and insulated.

Mind you - wells can be comfortable places for frogs to live.http://thunting.com/geotech/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Elie]

"Facts speak louder than eloquence." -- Chinese Proverb

Of course (if you are an LRL believer) then you may say that skeptics are "like a frog in a well shaft seeing the sky" - refering to the frog's vision as being narrow-minded and insulated.

Mind you - wells can be comfortable places for frogs to live.http://thunting.com/geotech/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Please state exactly what you are saying, to make sure that no one misinterprets your post.

[J_Player]

Qiaozhi makes a very good point.http://thunting.com/geotech/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

If Dell has any intention of telling us his understanding of the principles of LRL detecting, it appears that Carl and I are both interested to hear what he has to say.

I should point out that the title of this thread is "Dell Winders on LRL detecting", not dowsing. Dell has already posted a long treatise on his views of dowsing in another thread. This thread started as a thread for LRL detecting, and I have no intrest in seeing it move to the areas of dowsing or other metaphysical instruments. The LRL detecting I am trying to learn about are detectors that rely on geophysical principles. I would like to hear what Dell has to tell us from his long years of experience. I would like to hear about what makes these LRLs work and not work. What geophysical measurements they are sensing, how they are used, and what limitatations they have. After I hear the facts from Dell I will be better able to decide whether I should add these to my tools for locating buried treasures.

[Carl-NC]

What do you mean?

Please allow JP and Dell to have their conversation, uninterrupted. There have been, and will continue to be, plenty of venues for skeptics to state their views, including other threads on this very forum. I'm inclined to allow proponents to present their case. Maybe we'll learn something interesting.

Also a reminder to everyone... civility and forum ettiquette are not suggestions, they are requirements. Treat people as if you are talking face-to-face.

- Carl

[Elie]

Also a reminder to everyone... civility and forum ettiquette are not suggestions, they are requirements. Treat people as if you are talking face-to-face.

- Carl
I AM civil.
Except when it comes to this sort of thing...

[Dell Winders]

Qiaozhi, I like that philosophy. Actually, I like rational open minded skeptics. They make my best customers and have become my good friends.

It's the Skeptic cultist mentality with frog-in-the-well vision, whose constant croaking sounds echoed by the well who are sometimes annoying. I just try not to drink the water the poor frog pees in. Dell

[Qiaozhi]

Please state exactly what you are saying, to make sure that no one misinterprets your post.

The meaning is simple - a bird stops by a well to have a drink (something Dell would like to avoid http://thunting.com/geotech/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif ) and there is an argument with a frog who lives in the well. The argument is about what the sky looks like. Of course, they each have a different opinion. The frog has a very narrow vision and represents the narrow-minded person.

The interpretation of the proverb is different - again based on your point of view - as to whether the frog represents the skeptic or the believer.

Comprendez?

[J_Player]

I see double wisdom in ancient Chinese proverb. http://thunting.com/geotech/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Elie]

The interpretation of the proverb is different - again based on your point of view - as to whether the frog represents the skeptic or the believer.

"It's the Skeptic cultist mentality with frog-in-the-well vision, whose constant croaking sounds echoed by the well who are sometimes annoying. I just try not to drink the water the poor frog pees in. Dell"

Open minded, huh?

[Dell Winders]

GOOD POINT! I still like the analogy. Dell

[J_Player]

The bird stops by the well to have a drink and there is an argument with a frog who lives in the well. The argument is about what the sky looks like. Of course, they each have a different opinion. A dog walks up to the well and hears the argument. He knows what the bird says about sunsets is correct, and the frog cannot prove him wrong because he has never seen the horizon. After much heated debate, the bird tells the dog: "The frog is wrong. Come with me and learn the secrets of the sky". The dog runs along and follows the bird as he flies faster and faster. After running many miles behind the bird he finds he has learned nothing new about the sky. Still running along behind the bird, he asks the bird: "Show me how to learn the secrets of the sky!" At that moment the bird flies high into the sky out of sight.

Moral of story:
1. A dog on the ground has a better view of the sky than a frog in a well.
2. Don't expect a bird to teach a dog to fly.

[Elie]

The frog's only mistake was wasting an incredible amount of time trying to get the dog to LOOK UP instead of following the dishonest bird.
There is NO SUCH THING as a sunset. A "sunset" looks nice, but the sun basically stays stays where it is, and a "sunset" is an illusion.
Frogs in wells see much more than you give them credit for seeing.

[J_Player]

Was the bird dishonest? He only did what the dog asked. He showed him the method to learn the secrets of the sky.

It may be true there is no such thing as a sunset, but only the bird and the dog can see the pretty colors of the sunset, not the frog.

[J_Player]

Since it appears that Dell has no intention of answering my questions in this thread, I will now focus on the discussion of the fable of the frog, the bird and the dog.... http://thunting.com/geotech/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

Since the appearance of the fable of the frog, the dog, and the bird, we hear these commentaries:

"The frog's only mistake was wasting an incredible amount of time trying to get the dog to LOOK UP"
In the fable, the dog can see up, down and all directions to the side. He can also move about the ground to change his point of view. The frog truly does waste his time trying to get the dog to look up. For the dog looks up any time something of intrest can be seen above.

"the dishonest bird"? What dishonest thing did the bird do in this fable? The dog did not learn the secrets of the sky. But this is not because the bird did not show him how. It is because the dog had no means to go high into the sky as the bird showed him.

"There is NO SUCH THING as a sunset." Oh really? There is no such thing? Here is a web page with links to 18 authoratative sources that define a sunset. None of them say there is NO SUCH THING as a sunset. They all tell what a sunset is.

A "sunset" looks nice, but the sun basically stays stays where it is, and a "sunset" is an illusion.
Now we finally arrive at the point of the fable. Where the sun "stays" depends on the frame of reference of the observer. For a person who lives in a flying saucer traveling so he remains in a fixed position in relation to the sun, it would be true that the sun stays where it is. But in the fable, the dog and the bird are not space beings. The dog and the bird both agree that the sun moves from the sunrise position to the sunset position. This is because their frame of reference is a small area at or above the surface of the earth. But the frog in the well argues that there is no sunset because the sides of the wellshaft prevent him from seeing the sun. He has only seen the sky become bright blue and turn dark, accompanied by clouds and stars. The frog has never been able to offer a convincing proof to the dog or the bird that the sun does not exist, much less sunsets.

"Frogs in wells see much more than you give them credit for seeing" You are right. While the fable is only concerned with the secrets of the sky, the frog sees many things at the bottom of the well which the bird and dog will never know about.

[Qiaozhi]

The "Frog and the Sky" is a Chinese proverb.
You are simply embroidering this ancient story by adding legs to the snake.

[J_Player]

Sorry, Qiaozhi.

There is no offence intedned toward the ancient Chinese proverb. The chinese proverbs are some of my favorites because they contain the wisdom of more than 5000 years of learning things that many in the western world too often forget. I created the fable based on this proverb only to illustrate that there are indeed other points of view besides those of the bird and the frog. It was not intended to take away from eloquence of the ancient wisdom in the original proverb. The part about space beings had nothing to do with the proverb or the fable I created. It was part of a rebuttal to an argument made by another poster who said the sunset does not exist.

Fables are often told in western literature to illustrate points of logic and philosophy. I will be careful not to interleave them with the Chinese proverbs, as I did not realize it was offensive. You have my apologies.

[Qiaozhi]

No offence taken.