Ummm....
so what is a bazooki?
Something from the secret bunker? :???:

Best wishes,
J_P

Hi Manolo.
Sorry, but your sentence in bold is wrong information. Either you misunderstood it or your friend misexpressed himself.
The Bionic 01 mode of searching is performed as an horizontal axis scan.
The early model did not feature the laser pinpointer and the target always had to be pinpointed by triangulation.
So this information is not correct.

Now, if the new model features a laser pinpointer that can be only used in the vertical axis, this simply does not make sense. Scanning the laser in both axis would be very simple by using a pentaprism for instance and it would just plain absurd having one axis limitation in the pinpointing after the device has detected a long distance target.

Imagine if this happened to the IR leds in the FG80...

I'll be in contact with one of the tech guys in OKM Germany and have him clarify this.

Regards.

No, I do not see what you mean. I do see, however, similarities between you and Dell Winders.

Theseus is correct.

Hi manolo,

please, tell to your friend that he has by thus claim acquired the right to stand for the best LRL joke this year.

What about rotary motion?

I guess you are trying to make a joke. Okay.... :D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Otherwise, you must be seriously trying to gain the title of Poster Boy for Personified Paranoia for 2010.

Slight of hand??? Please elaborate... I think you are crediting me with talents I didn't even know I had.

Yes, gullible and technically-challenged are two terms that LRL scam artists rely very heavy on; in order to successfully market their wares. But then, as an up and coming LRL salesman, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. :D

[quote = appeso; 103.739] Hi Manolo.
Ci dispiace, ma la tua frase in grassetto è l'informazione sbagliata. O si frainteso o il tuo amico misexpressed stesso.
The Bionic 01 modalitÃ* di ricerca è effettuata come un asse di scansione orizzontale.
Il modello iniziale non ha la funzione di pinpointer laser e il bersaglio doveva essere sempre individuato con una triangolazione.
Quindi questa informazione non è corretta.

Ora, se il nuovo modello dispone di un pinpointer laser che può essere utilizzato solo in verticale, questo semplicemente non ha senso. Scansione laser in entrambi gli assi sarebbe molto semplice utilizzando un pentaprisma, ad esempio, e sarebbe semplicemente assurdo che un asse di limitazione della individuazione dopo che il dispositivo ha rilevato un obiettivo a lunga distanza.

Immaginate se questo è accaduto per il led a infrarossi in FG80 ...

Sarò in contatto con uno dei ragazzi tech OKM in Germania e hanno lo chiarire questo punto.

Saluti. [/ Quote]
hello hung as you know I believe in lrl and I just said what I said to my friend Mark, 01 bionic 'a new lrl in Italy as soon as anyone has proven the poster' results, I also believe he can 'do errors since it has not done many tests
reguards manolo

hi
 

[quote = WM6; 103.745] manolo Hi,

per favore, dite al vostro amico che ha acquisito dal quindi affermare il diritto di candidarsi per la battuta migliore LRL quest'anno.

A proposito di ciò che il movimento rotativo? [/ Quote]


hahahahhaahahahahahahah:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::l ol:
you happy now?

For the time being, yes, thank you manolo, but the year will be a long time. I think it would be better to translate my post Nr.15 than Nr.30. And sorry for bad feelings.

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.

Hi hung.

Sceptic are talking about convincing evidence only, that some LRL is working.

However, such evidence from nowhere, regardless of whether we are looking at page 1 or page 999.

Don't forget, sceptic have right on working LRL too.

Yes WM6, I agree.
But it's just a matter of attitude. When some skeptics here fight against any LRL possibility, they already have built a wall around them and they will never be able to have access to it. This is evident.
I believe merit also plays a big role. The ones who already got to the point of a working LRL turn protective to their creation.
This is more than understandable. You would do the same. The key to sucess in this subject is: Don't pre-judge something you still don't know, keep an open mind and struggle alone by yourself in your objective.
Regards.

Fro my point of view, the sceptics do not want anything less than working LRL, as believers do. So I think sceptics are open minded in this matter.

However, for believers are the hopes and dreams faithful enough to believe in the existence of a functioning LRL, while sceptics can be satisfied only by solid evidence.

But we all know that in religious question can not be handled by the evidence. Believer's faith is sufficient, and he shall not use evidence.

Here skeptics and believers will never come together.

But this is no problem at all. Sceptics can live with this fact.

The problem are those scam artist that to naive believers charge criminal high church tax.

Hi WM6,
You make a mistake in what you think the LRL believers believe in.
LRL believers also believe in the existence of a funcitioning LRL. They believe in solid evidence -- same as skeptics.
Have you not heard LRL believers tell their stories of solid evidence?

We have stories along with photos to show solid evidence found by LRL believers.
Dr. hung is an expert in the field of solid evidence.
Don't you remember when he reported his facts after years of collecting solid evidence?I know you also saw his photos of measuring millivolts on the Examiner, as well as his videos that prove with solid evidence that his LRLs work. Maybe this solid evidence will mark the beginning of a true two-sided dialogue with reasonable discussion in the Geotech Remote Sensing forum.

Best wishes,
J_P

Do you associate the idea of "wall around them" to "bunker" ? that would explain a lot :lol::lol:

About the bionic, i see it more as a distance measurement unit.Or more exactly distance comparator :razz:
Of course it could also be a simple thermometer, i can see it beeps on the the shelf itself ...

Yes I agree with you Hung. As we know Hung and Esteban and Morgan and others have experienced the detection of the phenomenon of LR Detection, so as the rest do not have any experience they should not accuse them, but instead keep an open mind.
Thanks for sharing your experiences.Happy New Year to all.

Hi Astrodetect,
I also agree with hung. You are right.
We should not accuse him. We should listen very closely to his words.

Quote:

"Gold is the most powerful 'self defensive' metal when it comes to avoid any harm to its structure, such as rust, oxidation, etc. Its DNA produces a substance which coats the metal to fight against those 'threats'." See: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=84058 "This is the principle in which the Rangertell Examiner works. Resonance to the elements subatomic levels when a carrier signal line is shot and returned". See: http://geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=41226#post41226

I will keep an open mind like you do for the facts that hung reports.
When we have an open mind for hung's facts, then we can believe everything he says is really true.

Best wishes,
J_P

You are right J_P, "solid evidence" is not completely proper term, I use it just as synonym for scientific evidence obtained under scientific testing rule.

Show us on photos a coin in hand as solid evidence that LRL works is maybe enough for believers, but as scientific evidence such photos and videos are worthless, because they were not obtained in controlled conditions in accordance with scientific rules.

Photos of a coin in hand as solid evidence that LRL works?
I don't know about LRLs working except I know it is true because hung says it is true.
You are also correct about testing. You need scientific testing in controlled conditions to observe gold DNA because you cannot see this DNA when you hold a gold coin in your hand. But you can see evidence of the substance it produces to protect the coin from rust and oxidation. The gold is shiny, isn't it?

Doesn't this prove that what hung says is true?

Best wishes,
J_P

New condescending tactic not working
 

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

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

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.

Do you think it's working?


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

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