Quote:
Originally Posted by Qiaozhi
With these type of demonstrations it is as important to not only understand what we are seeing, but also what we are not seeing. In this case I would like to know how many "targets" were detected with the LRL, but where subsequently nothing was recovered. In other words, what was the ratio of good targets to empty holes?
|
There are many other things which we will never see in a demonstration.
I remember during the Texas show the H3 Tec did not detect false locations for places where there was no silver.
But the H3 Tec also did not detect the places where there was large silver such as the 10 ounce bar in Carl's pocket or the coins that Tim Williams hid.
We saw the same performance for Micheal's Mineoro FG-80 which made no indication of large targets that he could detect with metal detectors.
Morgan also reports the same for Mineoro... that it fails to detect gold which he buried from the distances which Mineoro says it will detect.
This kind of failure to detect buried targets is something we will not see in a simple demonstration video unless there is a test garden with long time buried metals in known locations like Morgan has.
If a long range detecting machine does not detect a 1 kg ancient gold plate buried 15cm, then the treasure hunter will not stop to check with a metal detector.
The treasure hunter will continue to walk past the treasure and look other places.
We will never be able to count how many times this happens or does not happen from a simple demonstration video.
But we can count how many times we dig empty holes, and holes that do not contain gold, silver or copper.
The problem is that most people do not keep any record of the holes which are empty.
And they do not count the holes with metal that is not gold, silver or copper unless these holes contain something they want to keep for an interesting recovery.
They do not count how many holes they dig to find aluminum foil or bottle caps or old nails.
This is the reason why we never hear any scientific data to tell what kind of percentage of success they find with their locators in a demonstration video.
And this is also the reason why we do not call these demonstration videos to be randomized scientific tests.
We call them the true name as a demonstration video which shows what the person who makes the video wants to show.
We know these are not scientific tests which give reliable proof of anything except to prove that a video camera was running during the demonstration.
These are simply demonstration videos which show what can be seen at the time and place where the video camera lens was recording.
Best wishes,
J_P