Nat Geo Channel show

[WesP]

I watched a show on the Nat Geo channel the other night about a "Remote Viewer" a "Dowser" and a "psychic" that were trying to find a gold treasure that was hidden by a priest in the mission days of early California. They used all the tricks. Forked stick, Crystal plum bob, remote viewer drawings etc. The located the place they were sure it was buried. Dug here, there and everywhere the dowser "Got a hit" The psychic was sensing that it was the right place. I even noticed that they were carrying a a "Metal detector" but they never mentioned it or why it was carried along on the search? Needless to say at the end of the hour long show the dowser was experiencing some kind of mental problem so they ended the search "Empty Handed"!!!!!!!!!!!!What a surprise......I thought for sure that they were going to prove all of us "Idiots" wrong. Maybe Motown Mike has a reason for the failure.
It was probably those damn video cameras interfering with the signal lines

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by WesP

I watched a show on the Nat Geo channel the other night about a "Remote Viewer" a "Dowser" and a "psychic" that were trying to find a gold treasure that was hidden by a priest in the mission days of early California. They used all the tricks. Forked stick, Crystal plum bob, remote viewer drawings etc. The located the place they were sure it was buried. Dug here, there and everywhere the dowser "Got a hit" The psychic was sensing that it was the right place. I even noticed that they were carrying a a "Metal detector" but they never mentioned it or why it was carried along on the search? Needless to say at the end of the hour long show the dowser was experiencing some kind of mental problem so they ended the search "Empty Handed"!!!!!!!!!!!!What a surprise......I thought for sure that they were going to prove all of us "Idiots" wrong. Maybe Motown Mike has a reason for the failure.
It was probably those damn video cameras interfering with the signal lines

I think I found answer in the article that MIJ linked us to from another thread.
This is an interesting article about how some receivers send out a signal in order to receive a signal.

Much of what he says is true.
It is well known that regenerative receivers work on this principle to receive broadcast signals.
But some of what he says is hard to believe.
For example, I would like to see his powered antenna gather as much energy as he suggests it can for powering lights and motors.
He did a masterful job of building the hype to imply that this principle of adding a transmitting signal to a receiver causes it to suck energy out of the air,
But I don't see any examples of simple circuits he built which demonstrate the energy we can actually use to power lights and motors in a practical application.
All I see is a bunch of talk and no action.

This somehow seems reminiscent of the gifted people in Your TV show.
They seem to be as credible as Dr. hung, or Mr. (Mont), who also produced a lot of talk in the Geotech forums, but with no action.

Then reading the farther down in the article, I see the author published a way to actually measure the psychic signals with electronic instruments.
He explains that our ears also hear by sending out an audio signal in order to suck sound out of the air.
Of course these signals our ears send out are controlled by our brain and our thoughts.
So all we need to do is to set up a very sensitive microphone at a person's ears to record the audio signals that are coming out from his ears.
Then we can intercept the psychic signal or the signal line as it impinges on the brain.
Here is what he suggests:

http://amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html#dnn

Originally Posted by the guy who put this science article on the internet

OK, now hire a schitzophrenic who hears voices, and see if you can record the "voices" via whitenoise environment and ear-canal microphones.
Ask the disconnected personality fragments some questions, see if they answer.
You've invented the Ousiograph! Now go interview the "Voices" on the Tonight Show ...with or without the cooperation of the victim.

Who'll be the first to explore this silly idea and find out if I'm full of balony?

With further research we see what the "Ousiograph" is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousiograph
Now I have a much better idea of how to understand Mike(Mont).



Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Originally Posted by WesP

It was probably those damn video cameras interfering with the signal lines

Or too negative thinking of TV viewers.

[Mike(Mont)]

I watched the "Psychic Gold Hunt" show. While the remote viewer appeared to have a very accurate description of an area, that in my mind does not prove there is a treasure located there. Maybe, maybe not, maybe it was recovered. The dowser hit all over the place and that is a sure sign he was not on the target and could mean there was no target there. I have been recovering from surgery and I certainly don't claim to be any kind of remote viewer anyway, but I did not get any response watching the video. Maybe some TV viewer in a better state saw something. It is my opinion they were trying to rationalize "He must have gone down this hill." That's a red flag warning. I feel sorry for the dowser, he was desperate to make a find. He even went over to the other side of the hill and the RV'er dismissed that with the "It can't be over there." So yes, they all seemed inexperienced at least in treasure hunting.

[Mike(Mont)]

I guess NatGeo TV is desperate for treasure hunting shows. Or maybe they are trying to discourage it by showing amateurs who fail? Remember H3Tec? I kinda reminds me of the Sam "Lobo" Wolfe magazines how Sam Sacfferi got a couple know-nothing articles published. I said Wolfe must have been hard-up for material.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Mike(Mont)

I guess NatGeo TV is desperate for treasure hunting shows. Or maybe they are trying to discourage it by showing amateurs who fail? Remember H3Tec? I kinda reminds me of the Sam "Lobo" Wolfe magazines how Sam Sacfferi got a couple know-nothing articles published. I said Wolfe must have been hard-up for material.

Hi Mike(Mont),
I think you are exactly correct.
National Geographic should not show amateurs who fail.
They should show experts who really can locate the treasure.
Why not you?



Best wishes,
J_P

[Mike(Mont)]

Yes, I thought the same thing, sort of a "day in the life" of a real locator. But something you skeptics cannot seem to understand is even though a person might have good locating skills does not guarantee they will find treasure. Like the skeptic on the Psychic Gold Hunt show, he uses faulty logic when he says--If they don't find anything that proves psychic phenomena is a scam. He isn't informed enough to even discuss it, so he uses the emotional argument like a lawyer does on a dumbed-down jury. And your statement is more of the same. It's the "I" word (unlearned) that Carl banned from this forum and tnet.

I don't want celebrity status and besides, they would go broke trying to put enough make-up on me.

[Mike(Mont)]

When you talk to NatGeo tv tell them I do a show for $100,000 assuming the filming doesn't run past one week (we will have to renegotiate). I will tell all my locating secrets and accept celebrity status. I will even allow a skeptic to come on so I can bash them on national TV.

P.S. I was only joking about the make-up.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Mike(Mont)

When you talk to NatGeo tv tell them I do a show for $100,000 assuming the filming doesn't run past one week (we will have to renegotiate). I will tell all my locating secrets and accept celebrity status. I will even allow a skeptic to come on so I can bash them on national TV.

P.S. I was only joking about the make-up.

Your price to demonstrate how you will fail to locate the treasure has risen from $2,500 to $100,000 ?



Best wishes,
J_P

[Carl-NC]

Mike, why do keep insisting that I've banned words that I have not banned? Which I-word? Ignorant? Idiot? Ichthyosaurus? Please tell us.

Personally, I agree that the price for failure on national TV should be worth a lot more than failure in a private setting. Humiliation on that scale is easily worth $100,000. Your everyday Mike-is-the-only-witness failures ain't worth squat, though.

Mike, have you noticed you're your own worst advocate?

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

Mike, why do keep insisting that I've banned words that I have not banned? Which I-word? Ignorant? Idiot? Ichthyosaurus? Please tell us.

Personally, I agree that the price for failure on national TV should be worth a lot more than failure in a private setting. Humiliation on that scale is easily worth $100,000. Your everyday Mike-is-the-only-witness failures ain't worth squat, though.

Mike, have you noticed you're your own worst advocate?

Hmmm....
I could fail to find the treasure for $100,000 - no problem.
And I don't even mind if people laugh cause I couldn't locate the treasure with whatever contraption they want me to use.
You know how long it takes to earn that much money from doing something useful?
Longer than a week I'm sure.


Best wishes,
J_P