1. MH370 speculation has become excessive recently. Metabunk is not a forum for creating theories by speculation. It's a forum for examining claims, and seeing if they hold up. Please respect this and keep threads on-topic. There are many other forums where speculation is welcome.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. InterpreDemon

    InterpreDemon Member

    Coulter is correct on all counts. There is a huge difference between detecting the presence of some material and producing an image of an object comprised of it, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that the same means of detection (processing satellite image data) could be used to detect six different types of materials ranging from aluminum to kerosene, much less create an image. And that is after a more fundamental disqualifier that they would have needed to perform three data acquisitions, not two, in order to filter out all the noise (other moving and stationary objects with similar characteristics). It's all junk science intended for the hopeful but less informed. You might as well keep drinking ionized water, putting magnets on your fuel lines and storing your razor blades under a paper pyramid.
  2. Anti-Spin

    Anti-Spin New Member

    Good questions, but more of a request-for-proposal than a casual estimate.
  3. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    See my earlier posting quoted above which is based on the complex index of refraction of water. Doesn't matter if it is a spy satellite, limitations on EM in the optical range are the same as Landsat. I suggest Landsat because of the large search area - Landsat has the largest footprint of all the moderate resolution satellites. But, since the company is lying about the technology, they might have fabricated the data as well. The intel community only uses satellite imagery to look for subs on the surface or near surface movement phenomena (bio-fluorescence, wake, etc.).
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Anti-Spin

    Anti-Spin New Member

    True that Berezovsky was a mathematician. Bright Russians caught on quite quickly to how neoliberal finances work. Our news calls them oligarchs, if they're in Russia, job-creators if they're in the West. Catch the story about Steve Jobs in the NY Times today?
  5. InterpreDemon

    InterpreDemon Member

    I was referring to the methodology of trumping up charges and throwing people in jail to effect a boardroom coup, which is common over there and in China.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. bume

    bume Member

    I also thought that they know very very EXACT coordinates so that there's nothing else to check than is there something at that exact spot or not. Instead it seems there are now several ships scanning some wider area. Surely if they can show the exact shape of a plane they have detected they also know exactly where they imaged it.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Anti-Spin

    Anti-Spin New Member

    a) GeoResonance claims are by no means "patently false" else the discussion would be settled. You assert opinion, not proof.
    b) Might you have references giving absorption data for LWIR or VLWIR?
    c) Do you mean to say there's no such thing as nuclear magnetic resonance, or only that you haven't heard of it?
    d) Re the "instruments on the market", should we conclude then that everything has been invented and no new patents will be granted? Of course the techniques we're discussing are not likely to be among those"commonly used", else there'd be no controvrsy.
  8. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    I find incredibly amusing that even after all what was already posted here, that there are still people who go on questioning whether this or that technology mentioned by GeoResonance is possible or not. As if it was not sufficient knowing that the mastermind behind the company is a known hoaxer. Just to remind you of some of the theories and ideas spread by Vitaly Gokh (Виталий Гох), the man who is signed under most of the documents and diagrams related to this company:
    1. Mr. Gokh promotes a theory that the Earth is hollow, filled with hydrogen, deuterium, tritium, helium and other gases (http://gokh.net)
    2. Mr. Gokh claims the lunar core is composed of platinum and gold (http://gokh.net/model.html)
    3. Mr. Gokh also concludes that Mars is within 70% made of diamonds, kimberlites, platinum and gold (http://gokh.net/model.html)
    4. Mr. Gokh discovered 37 pyramids in Crimea. According to him, they were built 65 millions of years ago (far before the first humanoids), radiate some magic energy preventing fruits from rotting, contain mumified dinosaur eggs, together with human bodies, etc. etc. (http://www.archaeology.ru/ONLINE/Kovalenko/kovalenko.html, http://blog.a-theism.com/2011/12/blog-post_03.html, ...)
    5. Mr. Gokh knows about advanced underwater civilizations sending signals to us, and once helped Sumerians to rule the world. Besides others he reports light shows of this civilization also in the Bay of Bengal, so I suppose he may soon tell, it was this civilization that kidnapped the MH370 plane (http://gokh.net/stati/146-podvodnaya-civilizaciya-soobschaet-o-sebe.html)
    6. He has also some revealing theories about crop circles (http://gokh.net/stati/126-krugi-na-polyah-i-vse-chto-o-nih-izvestno.html)
    7. There are plenty of other amazing theories on his website (static electricity used in ancien Egypt, information technology used by Pharaons, ...). Just read through the articles on his website - it is better than Däniken.
    8. After his pyramid theory was debunked by serious scientist, he came with a new idea: he suggested that "the bottom of the Black Sea is the repository of the astral souls of the dead. Allegedly, hydrogen sulfide layer that begins after the 200-meter water column (that's true for the Black Sea, I believe), they are cleaned. Cleansing process is long and depends on how much negative energy the soul accumulated for the period of earthly life. (http://www.archaeology.ru/ONLINE/Kovalenko/kovalenko.html - last paragraph)
    Now tell me one single reason why we should bother whether some of the 20 technologies they allegedly used to get their miraculous photos of MH370 in the Bay of Bengal really work or not?
    Last edited: May 3, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. InterpreDemon

    InterpreDemon Member

    They will come up with nothing in the BoB. The only thing we can hope is that they don't find some other wreck or anomaly nearby that GeoScammers can claim was distorted by a local ectoplasmic energy field which affected the operation of their Turbo-Encabulator, one of their nineteen other secret technologies they leverage.

    A description of the Turbo Encabulator can be heard here:
  10. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    This should be the focus.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Anti-Spin

    Anti-Spin New Member

    My sympathy and compliments. It appears that the messenger must be killed.
  12. Andy

    Andy Member

    In clear English if you will ?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Anti-Spin

    Anti-Spin New Member

    Easy: because it can be no worse a failure than the prior search efforts, nor any worse a boondoggle.
  14. Anti-Spin

    Anti-Spin New Member

    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  15. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    I do not understand what you mean. GeoResonance, Mr. Kursa, Mr. Gokh got exactly what they asked - the location they indicated has been searched. They got even more than they asked - they got so much publicity that they will turn rich regardless how ridicule they are. But it looks like it is not enough to you, vooke, and others alike. Well, if you think they deserve to be paid for their effort better, send them some money, or suggest them for the next Nobel Prize!
    • Like Like x 1
  16. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Is this then the "new normal"? Scam artists using the Internet to bilk credulous people (and, BTW, trample on their emotions and hopes)?

    Count me out.
  17. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    So, if I said that my Australian Shepherd
    --whose credibility is much, much better than Vitaly Gokh's--
    barked to me that he knew 370 went down just south of Tasmania,
    you're saying that search resources should be diverted there, as well,
    since…well…a theory was vocalized…?

    Screen Shot 2014-05-03 at 1.57.08 PM.
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  18. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    As a prelude to my response, look at my disclosed LinkedIn profile and get a clue that I am an internationally recognized and peer reviewed published expert in the field of satellite and airborne remote sensing.

    Point a: You are arguing for a logical impossibility. All I can point out is that the physics of the Georesonance science does not hold water. You are demanding that I PROVE it is false. This is the argument that all the scammers put forth. It is not logically possible to prove a negative as the response always is: "it might be possible but we don't know about it yet". It might be possible that witches fly on broomsticks, just because we know the physics of flying broomsticks doesn't work doesn't mean that there isn't some "way" that broomsticks "could" fly.

    Point b: There are tables see: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a312143.pdf.

    Point c: this argument is irrelevant as the scam company is using satellite imagery not NMR

    Point d: the "techniques" we are discussing are disclosed in Ukrainian patents in all their preposterous glory. Look back in the thread to see the nasty details. If the method made sense there would be instruments to exploit it, as there are for XRF and LIBS.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    LOL, my Husky-Australian Shepard mix said, "Dad, stop worrying about those stupid rip-off companies and take me to the park!"
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    And apparently have people who will defend them beyond the point of no -return, saying 'give them a chance, maybe they've invented a science that overturns known science!'
    At what point is it fair to decide they have no credibility?

    And this quote is totally misrepresenting the process - they were given the benefit of the doubt, the claims were followed to a logical conclusion using what people know of the limits of physics, and found to be wanting. It wasn't 'funny arguments' it was actual analysis.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  21. bume

    bume Member

    I fully agree with you that the depth of the water is clearly a huge problem, no matter what kind of satellite they are using. If I remember it correctly they said the plane was supposed to be around 1km below the surface and whereas I lack the expertise on the subject, which you clearly have, for all that I know it certainly sounds pretty much impossible.

    I'm just one of those who do not like to call something totally impossible if there's the possibility that I just might not know something that enables it anyway. And don't get me wrong, throw me with, say, some religious crap or homeopathy, and I will quickly call it bs. But then you also know that I'm pretty damn sure of my opinion and have good reasons for calling that. In this case my gut feeling has been to call their tech bs, but I prefer to sort of leave the door open as long as I don't feel I understand it enough or can trust the opinion of experts who, for instance, can point out some clear error or physical impossibility in it. In this case there have been some published expert dismissals, but it has been evident that they haven't really known what exactly has been claimed or even who really is claiming that.

    That is why I have been trying to find out and make it known what those claims and technologies actually are, so that I can also know that the expert opinion isn't based on incorrect assumptions. This clearly isn't all about some small Australian company as the mainstream media still seems to think. There's good reasons to assume we are dealing with military grade capabilities, actual nuclear reactor, spy sat etc. If an expert (like you) states that assuming all of that, it's still impossible, then I have a good reason to trust it. And that seems to be the case now. And I truly value the possibility of getting an actual expert opinion here, and that is good enough reason for me for trying to do the kind of background work I can do to sort of make sure that the expert opinion is in the right context and the possibilities of misunderstandings are minimized. And I truly hope to see that kind of expert opinion being published by the media as well.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. bume

    bume Member

    I'm certainly not trying to defend anyone doing the sort of claims you listed but have you checked it's definitely the same guy, e.g. same signature or other clear links? Also do you have any knowledge of that other fellow credited as the co-inventor?

    Edit: just checked some what this Gokh has been saying and seems to be that same seeing deep under the surface stuff... To even more unbelievable levels. So yes, this whole thing is starting to look quite clear already.
    Last edited: May 3, 2014
  23. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    A summary of Georesonace based on the Bangladesh navy investigations:

    Yesterday upon the stair
    I met a man who wasn’t there
    He wasn’t there again today
    I wish, I wish he’d go away
    • Like Like x 1
  24. bume

    bume Member

    So in the interest of actually doing some good with the info we have, how about formulating a brief summary of the findings and pushing that to the media?

    Something like forget it's just about GeoResonance, this tracks back to Sevastopol and to this Gokh fellow who has had these ideas, this is the list of companies involved, here's a presentation of what they claim etc.

    Wouldn't hurt if that would be presented by an actual subject area expert stating this tech is not possible...
    • Like Like x 1
  25. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Yes, I am sure it is the same guy. Look for example at the patent document scan on the website of their Slovenian branch Vitava (http://www.vitava.si/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=57&lang=en). It is Patent 13408A in the name of Vitaly Anatolovich Gokh. Vitava, on their slides describes the same process as a number of their other clones worldwide, including GeoResonance. And now have a look at one of the foolish websites of Dr. V.A. Gokh: http://www.vitaly-gokh.narod.ru/gokhr3.htm - it lists the exactly same patent 13408A as being his.
  26. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    OMG Bume, you don't live in the real world. Think about staged reality TV. A logical argument from a real scientist is just TOO boring for the media. It is frustrating but Georesonance's claims will crash and burn, and it will not be reported on CNN. The continuing headline will be: "The ongoing search for 370 continues in the Bay of Bengal", Australian company is dedicating 47 scientists to refine the target... We live in Colbert Nation, everything is truthy.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Yes, that should be definitely done. On page 4, there was member Bazzabazz, who told he was from ABC Media Watch and wanted to talk to me or to Mick West (I think David Coulter was not signed yet at that moment). I've sent him a PM, bud he did not answer. Otherwise, unless someone has a direct contact to the right person at some important mass media, we have little chance to get the report published.
    Last edited: May 3, 2014
  28. bume

    bume Member

    Would you care trying to verify that theory?

    We basically have very clear evidence scattered within this thread that exposes this whole thing and is easy for even mainstream journalists to verify. And I don't think it would be that boring a story that this whole thing traces back to someone who has stated pretty odd things...

    I believe there could be a pretty could chance of you seeing your own face in the TV if this was given to the media with your credentials.
  29. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Normally you'd be right, of course, but in this case, if properly served, it may be very attractive for them, because it will generate another scandalous story. The media could be happy to write about hidden pyramids, UFO's, crop circles, zombies in the Black Sea, etc - that's something the masses are always happy to read.
  30. bume

    bume Member

    Also there's that sort of "hero aspect" for the media who would publish this by having the opportunity to save some resources that at least Malaysia might still send to that spot.
  31. Tas47

    Tas47 New Member

    Maybe ABC 'Fact Check' Unit would be interested http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/contact/
  32. bume

    bume Member

    I'm hoping David is already trying to choose what to wear on CNN, but if not, let me remind you that if you dislike these sorts of companies within your field, here's your chance to do at least something about that too.
  33. Anti-Spin

    Anti-Spin New Member

    I congratulate you on your professional success. I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to argue from authority, but rather let the cogency of your arguments demonstrate your expertise. To your other points:

    I can see why you would assert that Georesonance science does not hold water, but on the other hand, simple assertion doesn't constitute proof against someone who disagrees with you. You're correct: to be completely persuasive, you'd have to prove a negative. This ambiguity is the very reason I'm maintaining an open mind on this issue. It would help if GeoResonance openly discussed their data and it's frustrating that they don't. But whether the physics of GeoResonance does or doesn't hold water is precisely the point under discussion, which can't be settled by statement. (As for witches on broomsticks, not having encountered any, I really don't think about them too much one way or the other.;) )

    Thanks for this. The reason I asked for that is that slide 5 of http://vitava.si/home/images/documents/eng/know-how/poisk_public_eng.pps gave a frequency range of 10-60 THz (5-30 um) for "tight-beam" radiation. Wikipedia indicated that this was in an unattenuated atmospheric transmission band, which you might expect to be used for something like a military laser. Figure 3.6 of your paper likewise indicates a drop in the complex index of refraction in water in this range as well, so deep water penetration at these frequencies isn't totally out of the question. But its frustrating that there's little indication of even roughly how this "beam" is used.

    Actually GeoResonance mentions "resonance that is unique to nuclei" on their website; sounds an awful lot like NMR. In what capacity is the question.

    We'll have to agree to disagree here. IF Georesonance and brethren are onto something, it doesn't sound like it's been so widespread that commercialization would be expected.

    I can approach your position only so far as to say that it's very unclear what GeoResonance claims to be doing, but in my case, frustration doesn't translate to negation, just suspended judgment.
  34. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    1. No plane was found by Bangladeshi Navy at the coordinates given by GeoResonance
    2. The brain of the group, Dr. Gokh is a well known serial hoaxer
    3. The methods they allegedly used, cannot work, at least not in the way they describe
    What more evidence do you need? When a magician cuts a woman into halves, then sticks her together, you will claim it was for real and ask us to prove the opposite too?
    Last edited: May 3, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  35. Martin Burger

    Martin Burger New Member

    I will start a new thread as you suggest. When I was in the mining business I was more familiar with remote sensing techniques and they were pretty incredible back then. That was years ago. I would imagine what is cutting edge today would be impressive. I've had a lot of experience in dealing with incomprehensible data and after a while you get a sense for what is signal vs noise. The GeoResonance guy's voice, you might say, had a truthful resonance and the data looked fine.
  36. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    That will certainly be disputed here based on what has been investigated so far, so can you give any further details, or is it just a general opinion without looking closely at the claim?
  37. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    You are going to have to provide evidence for your claims in accordance with the posting guidelines.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  38. flashcoder

    flashcoder New Member

    As Malaysia, China and Australia prepare for the Canberra talks on the next phase of the MH370 search the GeoResonance tip off that it may have found it in the Bay of Bengal has lead to nothing.


    Another argument why tip from GeoResonance is a fake w/o going into details of any science:
    Yeah do it:
    Last edited: May 3, 2014
    • Like Like x 4
  39. Dr StrangeLove

    Dr StrangeLove New Member

    fubaya, you've touched on an area that I've been thinking about, so time for me to post my thoughts. My current position (as a non-expert) on the (broad, underlying) science/technology behind the claim is that it MAY have some validity, although (like most) I'm still VERY, VERY sceptical. My position is, however, based on GeoResonance apparently having access (direct or via Sevastapol University?) to an ex-military satellite 280km above the earth that has the capability to take "special" ("multi-spectral"?) images, that can then be processed in a special way, including irradiation at the research nuclear reactor IR-100 at Sevastapol University! Indeed, as others have mentioned, Sevastapol Univ. does seem to be at the heart of the technology GeoResonance is claiming they used.
    Furthermore, there are several other companies (e.g. GeoNMR) that claim to use the same/similar technology; and the presentation detailed on pages 30-33 (numbered) of this documennt, a 2008 Newsletter from the Black Sea Universities Network (originally provided by bume):

    does indeed seems to suggest that Sevastapol Univ. are most likely the ones doing all the work, in terms of image collection (?), preparation, processing and analysis. If this is the case, then either it's a (state-sponsored) scam by the University (if the technology is false); or the technology is real (although, perhaps, over-hyped) but GeoResonance's claims are false and they are just trying to boost their business profile.
    If it's a scam by the University, would it be cheekily conspiratorial of me to go one step further and suggest Russian involvement to try and embarrass The West? ;)

    For now, though, I'm going to assume that it is GeoResonance who is at fault here, and what I want to do is stimulate discussion a bit more around the other claims by GeoResonance, i.e. mainly the image gathering and processing work load, in order to "slam-dunk" debunk that area of GeoResonance's claim.
    Let's start with what GeoResonance stated in their press release of May 1st:
    http://georesonance.com/20140501 Press Release.pdf

    and the press release from April 29th:
    http://georesonance.com/20140429 Press Release.pdf

    So, I have some questions/comments for members to get their teeth into:
    1) if the technology is using an ex-military satellite at 280km above the earth (as, e.g., the diagrams describing the technology by Victor Gokh shows) that was tasked to search the area and the survey commenced on March 12th, how could they task the satellite to take images of the area on March 10th and then on March 5th? Can we safely assume that it is highly unlikely that GeoResonance just happenened to be tasking the satellite on March 10th and 5th to take images of the area where they say the plane is located. Hence, I'm concluding that they weren't using the ex-military satellite at 280km, but accessing commercial satellite images. Is that a fair assumption?
    2) if GeoResonance was using commercial satellite images, does anyone have an idea of how long it would take to image an area of 2,327,000 km2? Can it be done in one day (i.e. March 10th)? Can it even be done in 19 days? Could they gather images from numerous satellites covering different areas? Why would any commercial satellites be taking images of the oceans in the area on March 5th? Obviously, DigitalGlobe would have been on March 10th, but not of an area of 2,327,000 km2? I understand that there are satellites that are used to measure ocean tidal movements, etc., but I believe they have quite a long orbit time, plus don't know if they also take images.
    3) if the images were available (even if taken on different days over a period of many weeks), how many separate images would we be talking about to cover an area of 2,327,000 km2? Fubaya mentions 60x60km (for lower orbit satellite - the ex-military one?). This would give 646 images. But, how many would it give for a higher-orbit satellite?
    4) how long does it take to process an individual images (i.e. prepare, irradiate, process, analyse, etc.)? That's a question I can't answer, but I would imagine that it would be several hours, although it could possibly be done in batches of images. If I recall, I think in the links various members have given, mention is made that it takes in the order of weeks to survey even a relatively small area. So, surely, there's no way the process could be sped up in order to process images for an area in excess of 2million km2. Ignoring this for the moment, just as an academic exercise, in order to work out an estimate (as a starting point) I did the following:

    a) assume batch process of 10 images (guesstimate, no science behind it) with sequential processing (i.e. if have a 3-step process, then whilst batch 1 is undergoing step 2 processing, batch 2 is undergoing step 1 processing, etc.), since it reduces the processing time considerably
    646 images = 65 batches
    b) assume 3 step process - sample preparation, irradiate, sample processing (Kirlian photography, etc.), with each step taking an hour (since it makes it easier for me to work out how long it will take to process the 65 batches!) if my calcs are correct, that would require 67hrs processing time
    c) If I recall correctly, the supposed technology requires processing an image for a particular element, and repeating the process for each element to be looked for - is that correct? Therefore, the process would have to be repeated for 7 "elements" - the images here:
    mentions Al, Ti, Cu, Ni, Fe, Cr, and Hydrocarbons. [what is interesting about the images in the above link is that there are separate images for "Engine alloys (Ni, Fe, Cr)" and "Steel alloys (Fe, Ni, Cr)". But, if they are detecting elements, how can they produce two different images, when both images are for the same elements? Are they also able to detect (and distinguish between) metals with different elemental compositions?]
    Hence processing hours = 67x7 = 469
    d) Let's be even more generous and say it only takes an hour to analyse all the data (they've got super-computers, right?)
    This gives 470hrs total time taken to do the work (NB: I haven't included any time to collect together all the images in the first place)
    e) Being generous again, let's assume it's a 24hr operation
    Therefore, 19days = 456hrs​
    So, putting aside the technology, I'm concluding that it would have been physically impossible to carry out the work GeoResonance claims to have done, in the time-period they claim to have done it in - AND, that's for 60x60km size images, AND only for the images from one of the surveys. Therefore, just based on the logistics of doing the work, I would say that GeoResonance are lying, pointing to a company trying to raise its business profile (for a technology that MIGHT work??) by making an outrageous (and shameful) claim!

    Finally, as an aside, how likely would it be that a company based in Australia could have cooperation with, and access to the technology of, Sevastapol University during the Crimean crisis? And, I wonder what would be the estimate of the cost of the whole operation that they claim to have self-funded! Incidentally, Anti-Spin mentioned that GeoNMR is based in Kiev. If that's the case (and they're still in business), then if they were relying on use of the research reactor in Sevastapol, I think they might be a bit screwed now!
    [Wow, InterpreDemon, that PDOS website is cool! :cool:]
    P.S Sorry for the long first post - I do tend to waffle a bit! :) ...and apologies if the posting format is wrong in any way (still getting used to it :confused:)
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  40. InterpreDemon

    InterpreDemon Member

    Strangelove (AKA Sellers), I posted several pages ago the mathematics behind the impossibility of their claims, first in the number of film sheets they would need to process with their reactor, then the fact that they would need to take data from THREE different date samples instead of the two they claimed (you need one before the ditching and two afterward in order to filter out the noise... ships and aircraft in motion), followed by the fact that typical satellites have a return time of 16-18 days, meaning it would be 45 days before they could begin to work on the last data set.
    • Like Like x 1