NON-ELECTRONIC LRL

[Carl-NC]

If it ain't too late to edit your book, you know it might be better to classify locators as "body response" vs. "non-body response".

After a lot of back-n-forth I settled on:

Passive devices: swively thing without a battery (dowsing rod, Anderson, PPL, etc)
Active Devices: swively thing with a battery (MFD, Electroscope, etc)
Electronic Devices: non-swively thing (FG80, Bionic, etc)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

I won't state the name of the Scientist, but an excerpt from ABC 20/20 starts at about 9.26

Thanx for getting the correct minute marker. I've found the reference to the "molecular frequency generator" at that starting place.

Next I went to the magic of google, and typed in "molecular frequency generator". Nearly EVERY SINGLE HIT was right back to this Noah's ark thing. And .... I hesitate to put links in here, because invariably most of them were well-meaning sincere Christians, who are happy about Biblical archaeology. And they are merely including the citations in their own writings. Needless to say, links will cross-over into the realm of religion. Which is fine and dandy. But I just hesitate to put in denominational things. Or put another way: The fact of whether or not "that's Noah's ark" will not validate or invalidate a particular doohickey instrument they used. They also used metal detectors, GPR, etc.... (which are conventional and non-controversial).

Other links were critics of the possibility of this being Noah's Ark site. Whether because they're skeptical of religious claims, or whether they're believers, yet distancing themselves from hocus pocus methods. Yet some of the critics TAKE ISSUE with the "molecular frequency generator". Saying it is nothing more than dowsing. Pure and simple. So while they may or may not agree with the Ark thing, yet they point out that MFD is hocus pocus.

I will let the reader google for himself . To see that the MFD inclusion in this video does not in any way give credibility to it. It's merely saying it was used (no doubt by sincere people who believe in it). And un-informed Bible enthusiasts have no reason to question the various instruments used . Esp. when they're high-sounding, they just ASSUME "it must be legit". So those believers, in their own periodicals, just pass along the link. You can hardly blame them, eh ? I mean, sure, it'd be great if the Ark were found. And whether or not it IS the ark is outside of this conversation. I'm not bringing religion or the bible into this (although I'm a believer).

 

[Tom_in_CA]

To the extent iron was found there in Del's video: Bear in mind that metal detectors and GPR were also used. So who's to say that MFD did any of the "finding" ?

Also: If it is simply dowsing (with lipstick on it), well gee: If someone is standing in an apparent ship/boat shape hull formation, then it's not a leap of logic for their subconscious to take over, and ... presto: the rods cross at WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT to be hull and rib line formations. No different than burying a silver dollar (where you already know where it is supposed to be), and walking around with rods: Your rods can cross at the dollar. Which could be nothing more than your subconscious tilting it at "the most likely spot".

So if the MFD charted out lines before a metal detector etc... did: It could just be the subconscious obvious locations where a reasonable person would expect lines to be. And then subconsciously the rods cross there. Just as in dowsing where rods point to "most likely spots" , which is often the critic's explanations of what's happening with dowsing. Nothing more than gut instinct. Well gee, I could have gone out to a boat formation and ... with a little know-how on ship-building, could do the same this with no instruments whatsoever. Eh ?

 

[Ditlihi]

Mr. Shuck and Jive

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

"Amateur archaeologist". Wyatt was hardly a capital S "Scientist". I'm an amateur archeologist. I even subscribe to National Geographic and Archaeology magazines. ;-)

Or do you mean Fasold - who accompanied Wyatt? Who later co-authored a paper in 1996 describing the site as a natural formation.

In 1996, Fasold co-wrote a paper with geologist Lorence Collins titled "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure" which concluded that the boat-shaped formation was a natural stone formation that merely resembled a boat. The same paper pointed out that the "anchors" were local volcanic stone. The abstract reads:

A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia.

​

In April 1997, in sworn testimony at an Australian court case, Fasold repeated his doubts and noted that he regarded the claim that Noah's ark had been found as "absolute BS".

And with his molecular whatever gadget he "discovered" in 1985 a site that Irwin (an American) had mapped and visited in 1973.

Keep trying.

 

[Carl-NC]

"Amateur archaeologist". Wyatt was hardly a capital S "Scientist". I'm an amateur archeologist. I even subscribe to National Geographic and Archaeology magazines. ;-)

Or do you mean Fasold - who accompanied Wyatt? Who later co-authored a paper in 1996 describing the site as a natural formation.

Dr. John Baumgardner, former geophysicist at Los Alamos. Baumgardner initially supported the Ark claim, but after further surveys (by people who knew what they were doing) he dismissed the whole thing. Many years ago I had a conversation with Baumgardner, he admitted he was initially misled by the MFD but now (then) realized it was just dowsing and the MFD "results" had no correlation with the real magnetometer and GPR surveys. He said the whole thing is an ordinary natural formation.

 

[Contactlight]

Terry,the problem with skeptical science is that its only looking at "one side of the equation" and its areally narrow minded viewpoint.
There are some LRL'sthat really do work,they cant all be a scam.
Theres alot more going on in the universe than just the visible measurable spectrum.
You should take a look at whats being discovered by Quantum physics and open your mind.
After all isnt all matter just really energy that can be broken down on an atomic level?
Even Albert Einstein said that "everything is really vibration"
Pretty heavy statement coming from one of the most brilliant minds to ever walk on this planet dont you think?
Here take a look at these articles and "open your mind just a little";
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/estatics/Lesson-1/The-Structure-of-Matter

http://www.thequestion.ca/2016/03/17/everything-life-vibration-albert-einstein/

 

[Carl-NC]

Even Albert Einstein said that "everything is really vibration"

I think some woo-woo made up that quote and attributed it to Al.
The problem with gullibillies is they don't have the critical thinking skills needed to separate reality from make-believe.
LRLs are make-believe.

 

[signal_line]

I think some woo-woo made up that quote and attributed it to Al.
The problem with gullibillies is they don't have the critical thinking skills needed to separate reality from make-believe.
LRLs are make-believe.

You mean like my Jack and the Beanstalk analogy? Not much different than your tabloid "reports".

 

[signal_line]

I can understand where Carl is coming from. Those L-rods require more time to learn than most any sane person is willing to give. I'm trying to do something about that. Maybe some day I will be put on a throne and people will pay me homage. LOL Now that's a faery tale. Until then I guess I go back and eat crow for a living.