I’m a natural skeptic. If you want to convince me about anything, you will have to show me. I’ve seen some strange things in life for which I have no explanation short of referring to spiritual mumbo-jumbo.
Two examples. (a) 30 years ago camped near Algonquin Provincial Park where there are known graphite deposits, I met a guy doing the garbage pick-up rounds one morning. He noticed a detector in the back of my truck and came over to chat about his graphite prospects. He casually mentioned he could dowse for graphite. I said to him “Oh… well lets see you do it” and he did so using a freshly cut Y shaped tree branch. He said that I should be able to do the same, so he blindfolded me, spun me in circles, and walked me around a few times and then holding each upper part of the “Y” with the main stem out in front I detected a chunk of graphite. The stem was yanked down to the ground exactly over the graphite with such a force that it was all I could do not to let go of it. (b) About 20 years ago, doing an inspection of a major landfill site just north of Toronto, I asked about the location of the main discharge line to the street sewer for sampling purposes. The engineer grabbed two L shaped steel rods, holding one in each hand by the short stem of the “L” with the longer rod directly in front. When he came over the discharge pipe, these rods each immediately swung to the outside parallel to the underground pipe. To make a long story short… I tried it, and it did the same, exactly pinpointing the pipe location.
I’ve never been able to duplicate these feats on my own. Those L shaped rods were gifted to me and I now use them for probing old bottles in prospecting country, particularly useful in deep leaf mould deposited in hillslope crevices. I’ve tried talking to those rods about finding silver nuggets and ores over here in Ontario… but no dice.
So… I like to think I’m receptive to new or unexplained ideas, but you still gotta show me.
All the chatter in the world about LRLs does not mean a thing without unequivocal documentation. Criticizing Carl Moreland does not add to the credibility of LRLs either. I also don’t subscribe to the notion that there should be any conflict between prospecting-capable metal detectors and LRLs. Given that LRLs actually work on a consistent basis, they ought to compliment metal detectors.
These instruments cost money. As do prospecting-capable metal detectors, that are known and proven consumer products. In short… they work, we understand how they work… that information is readily available… and they do so reliably and consistently. It all makes sense.
So… there’s no need for a mystery here. Pronouncements about LRL performance capabilities without a shred of independent, unequivocal documentation carry very little weight with readers… such posts about various metal detecting instruments are far too common on these forums. One doesn’t know what to believe.
If you want credibility... then you must document the validity of your claims accordingly.
Why not simply have two or three of the known guys on this forum join you for a field evaluation. Have them bury a few gold nuggets of different sizes at between six inches and a foot depth, GPS those locations so the nuggets can be relocated when the testing is complete. Then you find them with your LRL unit… video documentation would be a good idea. Report the results back to this gold forum. What could be easier to do?
Jim.
