• 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.

Debunked: Exploration company "Georesonance" believes it may have found MH370

bume

Member
Bume is trying to be fair and balanced. But that is not what we do in science. We don't give a fair and balanced hearing of Genesis creation or creation science or extra terrestrial creationism, simply because they conflict with all the observations and measurements we make as scientists. If one wants to argue that our observations and measurements are accurate but are wrong because of a mysterious factor that only a handful of "scientists" in Sevastopol understand, then they should move to Sevastopol and join the anointed clan.

The question was really more about definitions than fairness. So feel free to call them bad scientists, misguided scientists, junk scientists, whatever, I'm ok with that. But if there's some dividing line that supposedly clearly defines them as not scientists at all despite them working with such titles in a university etc. I would simply like to know what such definition can be.

So all I'm saying is that if GeoResonance says they have that many scientists working on this stuff, in my opinion that can very well be true. But it doesn't mean they are any good or that the "science" they do makes any sense.

This is really a sidetrack but I'm just objecting such strong artificial divisions on concepts that are hard to define anyways. For example, I have my master's degree and I'm reading scientific papers on a daily basis in relation to my work, and doing stuff that would be likely called science or research if I was in a university doing it. But as I'm not, it's not usually called that. So it's mostly a matter of location and job title in this case.

Also in a more general sense a good debunking is just that much stronger if it doesn't contain claims that can't be proven or properly defined as then it becomes the sort of argument were all sides are exaggerating and telling half-truths and as a result it's hard to say who to trust.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Do you have any evidence of that?

(And no, it probably doesn't make any difference to the results)

Other than then using impossible technology, the absolute lack of any other similar photos showing any elements anywhere, their web site looking like it was set up yesterday, and their ridiculous hand-waving excuses. No, it's just my opinion.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
As an aside I will add that two days ago I was at Newgrange, the oldest astronomical observatory on Earth. Pretty good science going on in 3200BCA, and they didn't need Kirlian photography to do it, just observation and measurement.
 

bume

Member
The sad thing is that while we all agree that Kirlian is junk and argue on definitions, nobody has confronted GeoResonance with any questions about it. Like is it true that your fancy methods involve that and do you actually believe in it (considering the scientific community doesn't). I believe whatever they would say, or refuse to say, would tell us a lot more about them.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The sad thing is that while we all agree that Kirlian is junk and argue on definitions, nobody has confronted GeoResonance with any questions about it. Like is it true that your fancy methods involve that and do you actually believe in it (considering the scientific community doesn't). I believe whatever they would say, or refuse to say, would tell us a lot more about them.
Call them and ask then. I suspect they have got a LOT of calls from reporters, but dodged any tough questions.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
Other than then using impossible technology, the absolute lack of any other similar photos showing any elements anywhere, their web site looking like it was set up yesterday, and their ridiculous hand-waving excuses. No, it's just my opinion.

This is why I love this website. I feel like Everett McGill, "we live in a veritable age of reason", but the age of rational thought is evaporating. So here we can keep it going. People don't want to think anymore, they prefer to believe.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
The sad thing is that while we all agree that Kirlian is junk and argue on definitions, nobody has confronted GeoResonance with any questions about it. Like is it true that your fancy methods involve that and do you actually believe in it (considering the scientific community doesn't). I believe whatever they would say, or refuse to say, would tell us a lot more about them.


OMG Bume. Haven't you read their responses to these queries? "You are not a nuclear physicist and can not possibly understand subsurface NMR." And if you are a nuclear physicist. "You have never had access to the "secret" Russian technology that has only been declassified for the anointed few."

(quotes are mine for dramatic effect only)
 
The true scientist is a sceptic who assumes that what we think we know is probably wrong unless proved otherwise, and we do that by trying to prove the alternate explanation fits the observed state or outcome better or at least achieves the same result... in the latter case proving that both explanations are likely wrong. It is not up to me to somehow prove that the GeoScammers technology does not work, it is up to them to prove that it does, and the best way for them to do that is to show results, which they have not. Einstein for example, a true scientist, always had his own doubts about General Relativity only modestly ameliorated after Eddington made his eclipse observations, and he was correct to feel so in light of all that we think we have learned since that 1919 experiment. But even if clouds had dashed all hope of observation and the expedition had returned empty handed, or the predicted 1.6 second deflection of a star's light had NOT been observed to occur, Einstein would not have been insisting that his theory was correct and the observations of others flawed, which is basically what GeoScammers and their supporters are claiming.
 

bume

Member
OMG Bume. Haven't you read their responses to these queries? "You are not a nuclear physicist and can not possibly understand subsurface NMR." And if you are a nuclear physicist. "You have never had access to the "secret" Russian technology that has only been declassified for the anointed few."

Which is exactly why it doesn't work if somebody just more or less generally states their disbelief to any tech capable of seeing a plane deep under water. But you don't have to be any sort of scientist to ask a specific question about a documented part of their process.

Call them and ask then. I suspect they have got a LOT of calls from reporters, but dodged any tough questions.

It's highly unlikely they would answer anything to me but let's say CNN, aka the MH370 channel, would make a news item that these documents show the connection to Sevastopol and that Kirlian photography is used and this is what the scientific community thinks about that technology. Then they would call GeoResonance and ask about these. If they won't answer the call or the question, then the article would state exactly that: "GeoResonance didn't answer our calls"/"refused to answer the question". Readers can make their own judgments based on that. That's a common method used by many publications for pressuring some companies to answer their queries.

After all, GeoResonance has tried to play the role of a good guy whose calls others fail to answer or whose tech does not seem to be of interest to others. It would ruin that image if they themselves would become publicly unresponsive.
 
Last edited:

David Coulter

Senior Member.
I am sorry Bume but the days of Walter Cronkite are gone. CNN will only follow the latest breaking news, be it a scientific lead or not. It is all about what is "trending", not what is news.

From a revenue perspective there is no reason to "expose" Georesonance. Their only possible source of income outside FSU government money is from commercial petroleum or mineral exploration. No reputable player in these industries would ever consider using the type of voodoo geophysics that GR promotes. Mineral exploration managers, in particular, barely trust highly scientific and tested conventional geophysical methods and hate any "black box" methods.

Take a moment to look at the GR website example of a "successful" petroleum exploration program. Note that the preliminary and refined target areas cover over 50% of the exploration area. If the lease is over an area that is known to have highly prospective geology, GR has a nearly 100% chance of there being a producing well inside one of their anomalies. You could do as well with a random "blob" generator.
 

Dr StrangeLove

New Member
Someone over on flyertalk posted this a few weeks back:
with a link to the following article about the missile test:

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...e-prithvi-ii-missile-test-fired-successfully/

You don't s'pose GeoResonance saw the news about the missile, which is why they chose the location in the Bay of Bengal? The missile range is enough and, as they've pointed out, they didn't actually say what they'd found was MH370. But, if searchers found the missile, GeoResonance could say "there you go - we told you something was there!"

P.S Will they sue for defamation any of us here at Metabunk who have said they are liers and/or scammers?
 

bume

Member
I am sorry Bume but the days of Walter Cronkite are gone. CNN will only follow the latest breaking news, be it a scientific lead or not. It is all about what is "trending", not what is news.

I'm very much aware of that fact. Investigative journalism is dead and most media are simply repeating parrots for other media or some sort of officials. And then they have basically blamed the Internet for their shrinking profits and tried to correct the situation by building paywalls for their repeated low quality content. That's why I see sites like this as the solution for actually getting up to date information with deeper knowledge. But at the moment there are still the obvious gaps of not reaching the masses and hence having enough muscle for getting some answers directly from GeoResonance for instance.

From a revenue perspective there is no reason to "expose" Georesonance. Their only possible source of income outside FSU government money is from commercial petroleum or mineral exploration. No reputable player in these industries would ever consider using the type of voodoo geophysics that GR promotes. Mineral exploration managers, in particular, barely trust highly scientific and tested conventional geophysical methods and hate any "black box" methods.

That government money is still money taken from the pockets of regular folks somewhere there. But then again, the governments would likely waste the money to something worse anyway, so I guess no real harm done there.

Take a moment to look at the GR website example of a "successful" petroleum exploration program. Note that the preliminary and refined target areas cover over 50% of the exploration area. If the lease is over an area that is known to have highly prospective geology, GR has a nearly 100% chance of there being a producing well inside one of their anomalies. You could do as well with a random "blob" generator.

Playing with probabilities like that is of course a common method for scams, especially when combined with the tendency to only remember the successes, and successes are of course the only results listed in references. But that also works to enforce ones beliefs like "I prayed for my team to win and 2 out of 4 times my prayers were answered".
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I'm very much aware of that fact. Investigative journalism is dead and most media are simply repeating parrots for other media or some sort of officials. And then they have basically blamed the Internet for their shrinking profits and tried to correct the situation by building paywalls for their repeated low quality content. That's why I see sites like this as the solution for actually getting up to date information with deeper knowledge. But at the moment there are still the obvious gaps of not reaching the masses and hence having enough muscle for getting some answers directly from GeoResonance for instance.

Playing with probabilities like that is of course a common method for scams, especially when combined with the tendency to only remember the successes, and successes are of course the only results listed in references. But that also works to enforce ones beliefs like "I prayed for my team to win and 2 out of 4 times my prayers were answered".

First, the internet is a legitimate thorn in the side of traditional journalism. The business model of most papers
leaned heavily on subscriptions and classified ads. Craigslist unwittingly harmed journalism in America.

Sites "like this" are not the future. Mick is a freak (in a great way). The (ad-free) integrity and user-friendliness of this site are
no 'business' model at all. We will not be getting our news in the future from intelligent, benevolent Brits who retire early.

Second, as any Padres fan will tell you, if we pray for our team to win, and 2 out of 4 times it actually does, it is a miracle!!
 

bume

Member
You don't s'pose GeoResonance saw the news about the missile, which is why they chose the location in the Bay of Bengal? The missile range is enough and, as they've pointed out, they didn't actually say what they'd found was MH370. But, if searchers found the missile, GeoResonance could say "there you go - we told you something was there!"

But wouldn't it be quite impressive (and surprising) if they actually found that in the exact coordinates GR specified? Unless of course GR got the coordinates of that missile somehow else.

P.S Will they sue for defamation any of us here at Metabunk who have said they are liers and/or scammers?

Sure! And they are likely to give me a medal for trying to convince you that they are just... gullible fools ;). (Just kidding)

My guess is that they haven't even read this site, or at least don't really care about what's being said. Otherwise I would have expected them to at least correct that claim about the Armenia ship. Although obviously they seem to be pretty lazy to update their website despite the publicity. Makes me wonder how serious they are with their company anyway or do they even have other businesses or day jobs to work with. I don't really believe their time is going to any "exploration work" at the moment considering the situation in Ukraine and all.
 

bume

Member
The fact that their techniques have been labeled "junk science" by government officials and scientists is a pretty good argument for a summary judgement.

There's a difference in calling it "junk science", which is a statement of disbeliefs about their methods, and calling them scammers, which more or less signifies the science part is not even relevant as they are just scamming on purpose. Specific claims like calling their images fakes goes even further to that direction. That's the point I have been trying to make numerous times.

As said, I wouldn't be too worried about lawsuits or such, they are likely just trying to tone down the criticism, but for me it's more about the credibility of a conversation like this and having a chance in getting the mass media and people in general to take sites like this more seriously. That credibility suffers from each and every argument that can't be proven or justified and it's hard to make your mind if there are two sides both making such claims.

So far the only real mainstream media attention I have seen towards this thread was that small piece on ABC Media Watch. The sad thing is that while this thread has a lot of significant information that hasn't been in the media and could be validated quite easily by them, even that small segment didn't include anything like that. They more or less said there's some bunch of random dudes laughing to this. And if I remember it correctly, all the quoted parts where from the first page, so they probably didn't even read further. For that reason it's great that there's an updated summary on the first page but even that seems to have some issues and doesn't quite reflect the current state of knowledge in the thread.

For example. it states that "Experts at NASA concur this is nonsense, and likely a publicity stunt" but when I look at the linked content, it does not indicate those NASA experts said anything about the publicity part, that part was from CNN aviation expert. And that claim about the Armenia ship is a great example how it only takes one obviously false claim to lose ones credibility. It might be just an error in translation or something, but there are many who have called GeoResonance scammers based on that claim alone.
 

bume

Member
Fine Bume, rather than having a nom de plume I am's what I am's (Popeye the Sailor Man). Let them come to Ireland to sue me.

I should have added that those comments were not directed to you but just in more general, so I hope you didn't take it that way. And while the world these days seems to rotate around court houses, with increasingly ridiculous cases, I believe the GR guys are only interested in the official side of things and even that is likely just talk.
 

bume

Member
First, the internet is a legitimate thorn in the side of traditional journalism. The business model of most papers
leaned heavily on subscriptions and classified ads. Craigslist unwittingly harmed journalism in America.

Sites "like this" are not the future. Mick is a freak (in a great way). The (ad-free) integrity and user-friendliness of this site are
no 'business' model at all. We will not be getting our news in the future from intelligent, benevolent Brits who retire early.

Internet is one of those disruptive technologies (alongside e.g. mobile phones and 3d printing) that have and will force a lot of industries to either adapt or face the consequences. That includes business models as well.

I didn't mean sites like this so literally that they wouldn't have a business model for instance. And let's see what Mick will do if this becomes hugely popular and somebody comes to talk to him with a wheelbarrow full of cash ;).

I believe the publisher-subscriber model is going to give even more way to more of a peer-to-peer direction and everything in between. And there are many conceivable business models there and the media should already engage with their readers more and utilize the wisdom of the crowds, including sites like these, if they are incapable of performing proper investigative journalism themselves.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
I should have added that those comments were not directed to you but just in more general, so I hope you didn't take it that way. And while the world these days seems to rotate around court houses, with increasingly ridiculous cases, I believe the GR guys are only interested in the official side of things and even that is likely just talk.


Not taken that way. Just a joke as my scientist wife uses the Popeye thing in her male dominated field....
 
Scam - "a dishonest scheme; a fraud", thus one who engages in such is a scammer, like GeoScammers. It was obvious to anybody skilled in even tangentially related disciplines (imaging, NMR, RF, geo-exploration, mathematics, logic, probability theory, current events and history, etc.) that the images they were presenting to the world were fraudulent because in any one of those fields one can discredit the entire outcome... the flawed logic of the claimed two-pass search procedure, low field NMR imaging capabilities, signal to noise ratios in data, maximum satellite imaging resolution and how that relates to the required scope of the search and target area, the use of a nuclear reactor to radiate a piece of film somehow originally exposed and developed from digital satellite imaging data and extract more information than what was in the original data set, as well as the history of these guys and past claims such as "locating" a ship in the Black Sea that has yet to be found. This blimp can be shot down with anything from a fighter jet to a bow and arrow.
 

ETric

New Member
I looked up the history of the company's website at archive.org^^ (https://web.archive.org/web/20110128130011/http://georesonance.com/ (http://archive.today/rQs4H) (http://archive.today/rQs4H)). Since 2011 the website promoted "holistic healing utilizing the vibrational qualities of various earth elements" [sic]. In 2013 it was then replaced with a placeholder page, and the current form of the website appeared only in April 2014, it means only after the MH370 disappearance.

The owner of the domain did not change since 2011, so it is excluded that the current company purchased the domain name after the original one was abandoned: http://who.is/domain-history/georesonance.com (http://archive.today/dnGIC) (http://archive.today/dnGIC)

This is incorrect.

The owner of the domain did, in fact change. The websites prior to 2013 represent an entirely unrelated business.

The owner of the previous business offering "holistic healing" was owned by Alma and Harry Landis, who'd given up that domain name years ago. They and their business have absolutely nothing to do with the current GeoResonance site and business.

I actually sent an email to Alma (her last name is now Sander), asking her about her former business.

I asked:
"Does your company have anything to do with the current company using the domain georesonance.com? It's now an "imaging spectroscopy" site. It's making headlines right now because of the MH370 Malaysian Airlines jet."

Her reply:
"not the current company. i developed a "massage therapy technique" in 2006 called geo resonance therapy utilizing crystals, tuning forks and other stuff for relaxation."

Please don't draw conclusions based on unproven assumptions. If you're not going to take the effort to follow up and confirm facts, then you're just as bad as the business you're trying to debunk.

I'm not saying the current GeoResonance business isn't a sham, but your claim that the older websites are related to the current GeoResonance is incorrect.
 
Last edited:

David Coulter

Senior Member.
txt29's comments came early in the debunking thread. At the time I suspected that the previous domain owner doing holistic healing might be different than the Georesonance characters. But the website provenance was not critical to debunking the company and its "technology". What it did do was open a line of investigation into the multiple companies that all make similar technology claims that emanate from Sevastopol. The fact is that these "companies" (more likely a promoter with a website) pop up all the time. They are just the modern equivalent of snake oil salesmen.

Getting back to physics.... The primary debunking evidence is that optical wavelengths measured by multispectral imaging satellites can not penetrate water more than a few hundred meters under ideal conditions (and can't penetrate solid rock at all). And optical wavelengths do not interact with matter in a way that can be used to identify elements (you need x-ray florescence or laser ablation with a source within a few cm's from the target material to do that). And yet these are the basis of the Georesonance claims.
 

bume

Member
Somebody has created a Wikipedia page for the company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeoResonance

According to that:

I also tried to do some searches for those numbers earlier but couldn't find anything.
 

ETric

New Member
Let's step back from GeoResonance a moment. If they're a sham, what does that make Inmarsat? All of their patented technology and proprietary algorithms have yielded exactly zero results in nearly three months. Worse, it appears they are withholding key data to allow for independent analysis, in an apparent attempt to save face. It's becoming quite clear they misled dozens of ships and planes and wasted millions of dollars directing resources to a now discounted location. Further complicating matters is the news about the pinger signals, which the US Navy deputy director now says were likely NOT from the plane, and his comments have generated some conflict within Navy channels.

Inmarsat's boasting sounds a lot like GeoResonance's. They have both thrown around the words "patent" and "proprietary" and "science" to bolster their claims and neither have panned out. Actually, only Inmarsat's has definitively and empirically not panned out, since no one has felt the need to stroke GeoResonance's ego and actually take a ship out to their alleged coordinates.

For all the disdain thrown at GeoResonance, we should acknowledge that Inmarsat is the only company here that's apparently screwed the pooch.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And let's see what Mick will do if this becomes hugely popular and somebody comes to talk to him with a wheelbarrow full of cash
Let's step back from GeoResonance a moment. If they're a sham, what does that make Inmarsat? All of their patented technology and proprietary algorithms have yielded exactly zero results in nearly three months. Worse, it appears they are withholding key data to allow for independent analysis, in an apparent attempt to save face. It's becoming quite clear they misled dozens of ships and planes and wasted millions of dollars directing resources to a now discounted location. Further complicating matters is the news about the pinger signals, which the US Navy deputy director now says were likely NOT from the plane, and his comments have generated some conflict within Navy channels.

Inmarsat's boasting sounds a lot like GeoResonance's. They have both thrown around the words "patent" and "proprietary" and "science" to bolster their claims and neither have panned out. Actually, only Inmarsat's has definitively and empirically not panned out, since no one has felt the need to stroke GeoResonance's ego and actually take a ship out to their alleged coordinates.

For all the disdain thrown at GeoResonance, we should acknowledge that Inmarsat is the only company here that's apparently screwed the pooch.

But what Inmarsat sells here is satellite communications. And that works just fine. What GeoResonance sells is detecting elements with magic, and that does not work at all.

Inmarsat, it seems, have also tried to figure out where the plane was - as far as I can tell they did a good faith effort at this. Although their lack of transparency is a bit annoying. But to compare the two is nonsensical. To suggest Inmarsat is worse is just silly.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
...a "massage therapy technique" ...utilizing crystals, tuning forks and other stuff"
Finally, after months of GeoResonance's mysterious double super-secret Kirlian photography "technology,"
Alma introduces some science ;)...well, relatively speaking, of course.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
Let's step back from GeoResonance a moment. If they're a sham, what does that make Inmarsat? All of their patented technology and proprietary algorithms have yielded exactly zero results in nearly three months. Worse, it appears they are withholding key data to allow for independent analysis, in an apparent attempt to save face. It's becoming quite clear they misled dozens of ships and planes and wasted millions of dollars directing resources to a now discounted location. Further complicating matters is the news about the pinger signals, which the US Navy deputy director now says were likely NOT from the plane, and his comments have generated some conflict within Navy channels.

Inmarsat's boasting sounds a lot like GeoResonance's. They have both thrown around the words "patent" and "proprietary" and "science" to bolster their claims and neither have panned out. Actually, only Inmarsat's has definitively and empirically not panned out, since no one has felt the need to stroke GeoResonance's ego and actually take a ship out to their alleged coordinates.

For all the disdain thrown at GeoResonance, we should acknowledge that Inmarsat is the only company here that's apparently screwed the pooch.

There is another thread on Metabunk to discuss Inmarsat's calculations.

The bottom line is that Inmarsat used real science (timing offsets and the doppler effect) to calculate a very rough estimate of the location at which the aircraft last sent a handshake communication. The search areas are defined by a very rough estimate of how long and at what speed the aircraft flew after the last handshake (an estimation made by aviation experts, not Inmarsat). All of the recent searches and bottom scanning were not based on info from Inmarsat, they were based on (now discredited) detection of a black box ping-er. The general area based on the handshake calculations and final aircraft performance is very large and will probably take years to search. After all, it took 2 years to find AF447 and they had a very good idea of where it went down.

Georesonance, on the other hand, is using junk science (ATSB's term). The results they show are impossible to achieve with multispectral imaging. And the location they provided was searched with negative results.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Let's step back from GeoResonance a moment. If they're a sham, what does that make Inmarsat?
The difference is in a claim that doesn't hold up to basic physics, and one that may be a matter of erroneous math. Fairly different. Not to say there shouldn't be a more open appraisal of Immersat's work, but saying they're equivalent is not true.
 

DaveL

New Member
Remember that what Inmarsat is, first and foremost, is a telecommunications firm. They are not a survey or salvage company. They made an attempt to extract information from existing telecommunications data, using a series of well-established physical principles and several assumptions, in the hopes of narrowing down the search area. Some of those assumptions may not have held true, and that may make their predictions meaningless.

But that hardly makes them the same as Georesonance. Their product, what they sell to their clients, is the satellite telecommunications technology that, to all appearances, works reliably. This was a foray outside their area of expertise.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
Some of those assumptions may not have held true, and that may make their predictions meaningless.

Let's assume that the Inmarsat calculations were checked by multiple national aviation and telecom experts (not really valid for people that believe in a vast international conspiracy or the Georesonance nonsense). Given the envelope of error, all Inmarsat did was get an approximate location of the last handshake ping plus approximate heading and speed. After that it came down to A LOT of assumptions about remaining fuel and what a 777 would do after fuel depletion started. One engine goes out and the plane starts turning, but which way? A lot of people think that technology can perfectly find the exact location of the debris, but this is likely a high speed tumbling impact with scattered debris.
 

ETric

New Member
To suggest Inmarsat is worse is just silly.

No one is suggesting Inmarsat is worse. But the two companies share very public self-aggrandizing marketing tactics of their methods. Inmarsat boasted that they were using (and I'm quoting directly here) a "groundbreaking but traditional mathematics-based process" utilizing the Doppler effect. They were doing very much more than simply determining approximate location of the last handshake ping.

My point is that the disdain for GeoResonance seems quite exaggerated compared to Inmarsat and what they've (not) done. People are incredibly upset over the idea that GeoResonance could waste time and money while Inmarsat appears to have actually wasted real time and real dollars. People are also, as is clear from above ^^^^ :) , quick to defend Inmarsat despite their lack of results and refusal to supply complete data.

Incidentally, if you're interested in the physics of what Inmarsat's claimed, there's a good article here:
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2014/03/how-did-inmarsat-really-find-flight.html
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Inmarsat boasted that they were using (and I'm quoting directly here) a "groundbreaking but traditional mathematics-based process" utilizing the Doppler effect.

I don't think that was boasting - to me it sounded more like a caveat.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
"Yes, and just as a caveat, we want to warn you that what we're doing here is groundbreaking." :p

There is nothing wrong with a technical or scientific company using the word "groundbreaking"; after all, that is the point of science and technology. The Georeonance claims, on the other hand, are hyperbolic.

The fact that money has been spent on dead end searches is the nature of air crash investigations. One of my concerns is that people no longer trust engineers and scientists in general. They attempt to find one tiny discrepancy in data or analyses and use that to impeach an entire line of investigation. This is quite different that the debunking of the Georesonace story, wherein the science doesn't add up based on underlying scientific principles.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"Yes, and just as a caveat, we want to warn you that what we're doing here is groundbreaking." :p

Er, yes. And actually listening to the original source of that quote, it sounds like he's saying that even though it's groundbreaking (in that it's new), it's really not as speculative as that suggests, as it's based on math, and it's been peer reviewed, and other people helped them with it.
1:20 here
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 35
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 5
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top