The Aurificusian Hypothesis

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by Fred

If there is a change of soil conductivity on a relatively large suface, i supose it could affect the voltage gradient above earth.
This could modify ambient Rf noise level, or be directly measured with almost any of the devices presented by Esteban.
This theory of course need (in)validation.
About the IR beam,it could present a "preferencial" path to this way of making the measure, i don´t know how, but for example...drying the air ? Ionizing it ?

If there is a change..... I suppose it could affect..... This could modify.... it could present a "preferential" path..... I don't know how.....

I would be very open to a REAL technical solution, but real solutions by default must be accompanied by real facts, repeatable experiments with valid and supporting outcomes, and be experienced by several observers.

Otherwise all you have are a lot of "could affect", "could modify", "it could" and "I don't know how.... but maybe". There is hardly anything there to hang your hat on... now is there?

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Theseus

I would be very open to a REAL technical solution, but real solutions by default must be accompanied by real facts, repeatable experiments with valid and supporting outcomes, and be experienced by several observers.

I have never claimed to give a REAL technical solution, only one more theorical proposition.
Just like it happened many times before, in this thread with Aurificus and in others before, and Max and JPlayer have constructively and inteligently debated about this IDEA and given information about why it doesn´t work .
I didn´t say "it works" or "here is how it works" , just "it could work that way", based on common sense and previously gathered info.
It´s just a theory, if you don´t like it i respect this that but i was expecting constructive comments.

[detectoman]

my dog what came whit me to desk, whit explanations of esteban lrl tecnic, have built today one own lrl
is joke

[Max]

Originally Posted by detectoman

my dog what came whit me to desk, whit explanations of esteban lrl tecnic, have built today one own lrl
is joke

Seems your dog is smart enough ... to get Esteban's secrets all at one single request!

What's your dog avatar ???

Maybe had some appeal to him...

Kind regards,
Max

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by Fred

I have never claimed to give a REAL technical solution, only one more theorical proposition.

Oh! I'm sorry, your words were

"...I gave a possible technical explanation..."

I was merely pointing out the attributes of a real technical explanation. Not sure how I could be any more constructive.

Now, if you really meant to say; theoretical proposition, then of course that is something different. I expect we have plenty of those to go around, and yours would be as good as any of the others.

[Aurificus]

Originally Posted by Fred

I have never claimed to give a REAL technical solution, only one more theorical proposition.
Just like it happened many times before, in this thread with Aurificus and in others before, and Max and JPlayer have constructively and inteligently debated about this IDEA and given information about why it doesn´t work .
I didn´t say "it works" or "here is how it works" , just "it could work that way", based on common sense and previously gathered info.
It´s just a theory, if you don´t like it i respect this that but i was expecting constructive comments.

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις [iˈpoθesis]) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.

This thread is designed to be exactly that, a Discussion about a suggested explanation(s) for a phenomenon.
i.e. IR LED detection as reported by Esteban & others.

By proposing Theories and being challenged to respond, I have gained a much deeper understanding of what might be occuring to allow Buried Metal Objects to be remotely (and basically passively) located. I'm hoping others are getting something out of it as well.

However, a Discussion on the Criteria for Scientific Proof of LRL, Acceptable "hit rates", Suitable "real" or artificial targets, operater skill. experience, influence etc, etc. etc. are much better presented in the New Thread,
"Criteria for Scientific Proof of LRL" Go for it...

Aurificus