New GeoResonance press release:
http://georesonance.com/20140630 Press Release.pdf
They raise a couple of interesting points and state that it has been confirmed that their location has not been searched.
New GeoResonance press release:
http://georesonance.com/20140630 Press Release.pdf
They raise a couple of interesting points and state that it has been confirmed that their location has not been searched.
GeoResonance is actually more believable than all the authorities combined
Why can't any of the search/investigation country demand for more data?
The arguments from this company are circular. The "confirmation" that their location has not been searched is that nothing has been found, therefore the correct location was not searched, QED. Same arguments about the Armenia. Bangladesh did a search of the exact location (a poor country, but I assume their navy at least has a handheld GPS that would put them within 3m of the target). What would be the motivation to deploy search vessels and intentionally avoid the target?
I agree with Bume. They do not make a circular argument. They merely are saying that they got received confirmation from whoever that the area has not yet been searched. I really think they should search that area. I know Mick and a few others are staunch on their stance that their technology is impossible, but I'm not convinced. Perhaps those who think they are total frauds misunderstand exactly what GR claims their technology to be. I highly doubt MH370 is in that spot, but perhaps some wreckage of some sort is down there. Their persistence, with their reputation more or less on the line, convinces me that it's at least worth a look considering the fraction of time and cost it would take compared to what has already been spentThe arguments from this company are circular. The "confirmation" that their location has not been searched is that nothing has been found, therefore the correct location was not searched, QED. Same arguments about the Armenia. Bangladesh did a search of the exact location (a poor country, but I assume their navy at least has a handheld GPS that would put them within 3m of the target). What would be the motivation to deploy search vessels and intentionally avoid the target?
These press releases have devolved into rants. Why haven't they acquired additional imagery and run more analyses, then put out a press release showing new results?
I agree with Bume. They do not make a circular argument. They merely are saying that they got received confirmation from whoever that the area has not yet been searched. I really think they should search that area. I know Mick and a few others are staunch on their stance that their technology is impossible, but I'm not convinced. Perhaps those who think they are total frauds misunderstand exactly what GR claims their technology to be. I highly doubt MH370 is in that spot, but perhaps some wreckage of some sort is down there. Their persistence, with their reputation more or less on the line, convinces me that it's at least worth a look considering the fraction of time and cost it would take compared to what has already been spent
P.S. Aussi DOD declined comment on that and source said the radar was not tasked to watch west Indian Ocean- that's great
In my opinion all these lies, half-truths, data that is kept secret, mistakes etc.....
As I pointed out before, if GR is so confident of the plane's location, why have they not generated repeated results? They did one image months ago but they have access to 43 scientists. Maybe a few more results that confirm the initial results?
Also Crimea is still a mess so they likely don't have access to their scientists and those scientists likely don't have access to their facilities.
The only possible confirmation one way or another is an onsite (sonar) search. I don't think GR is in that sort of business or have such equipment at their disposal, and such confirmation should be done by somebody else anyway to have any credibility.
If GR really believed in their technology they would have hired a reputable independent company to ROV the site (there are more than a few in the petroleum industry in the Nordics). If the results showed an intact aircraft of 777 size on the bottom of the sea they would go public and be worth billions. But they didn't....
I am not prepared to comment on all of these points and many of the comments on the general search belong in another thread.
My main point is, and remains, that multispectral imaging can not be used to identify chemical elements. This is known by the entire scientific community that deals with multispectral or hyperspectral imagery. No Way, No How, No Where! So the GR claims have been and will be simply dismissed by scientists that understand imaging technology as "junk science", just as it was by the ATSB scientists. The scientific view on this is that the GR claims are analogous to a psychic drawing a trance directed map to the plane.
As I pointed out before, if GR is so confident of the plane's location, why have they not generated repeated results? They did one image months ago but they have access to 43 scientists. Maybe a few more results that confirm the initial results?
As I pointed out before, their claims of being highly respected in the exploration industry are total bunk. I work in the exploration industry and never heard of them before this incident. Companies with similar "special technologies" pop up all the time in internet postings, but never at major mining conferences. Why not? These are conferences that all the exploration decision makers attend; all companies that service and make money off the exploration industry attend and most have trade show booths.
What evidence do you have to the contrary?"My main point is, and remains, that multispectral imaging can not be used to identify chemical elements. This is known by the entire scientific community that deals with multispectral or hyperspectral imagery."
This is known by the entire scientific community that deals with multispectral or hyperspectral imagery.
Nah, showing current scientific consensus is just 'an appeal to authority.'I can dig up some PPT's of lectures I gave to grad students at the Colorado School of Mines on the subject if that is what you want......
I totally agree with that, because the "georesonance" guys never proved a single finding in all their claims. Otherwise, they were busy hunting all the treasures buried in the deep seas for thousands of years with no time to use MH370 publicity to promote their "SCIENCE".
And I believe they chose Andaman Sea is because that's where the last spot the military radar detected MH370 and with the Malaysia woman's claim seeing a downed airplane there, was a better shot than their own crystal ball georesonance photos - anything is better than nothing - since they have nothing to lose and the woman might really see something down there- Remember they claimed it might not be MH370 but some other plane -they already had Plane B.
Sure, it's all just pure speculation and the most likely scenario by far is that there's nothing in that GR location. But in my mind there are too many things where the simplest explanations just don't match my expectations and hence it's worth considering some alternatives.
We know the military background of that university and apparently they are dealing with formerly classified spy sat tech designed for sub hunting.
The Soviets were never quite as clever or practical as the West thought during the Cold War.
...
The bottom line is they used a lot of brut force approaches to science. The smart Soviet scientists I have met had lots of time to think but very limited resources to actually build anything.
Don't lose sight of the fact that GR claim to be able to isolate special unseen electro-magnetic frequencies from essentially photographs. Not possible.
Anti-Spin, please don't partially quote me:
I didn't claim to represent anybody, but I do understand my science.
The science is very straight forward: the wavelengths measured by multispectral and hyperspectral imagery (~300 nanometers to 15 micrometers) do not interact with materials at the elemental level because the wavelengths are too long. They interact with materials at the crystal structure level. Thus, you can differentiate minerals like kaolinite, dickite, illite, pyrophyllite, calcite, dolomite, etc., but you can not identify elements. For that you need much shorter wavelengths (x-ray), or laser ablation spectroscopy (both of which can't work though water).
Multispectral imaging is not a marketing term. It is imagery collected in multiple wavelength "windows" (typically >100nm in width) in the UV to Thermal Infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. As an example, sensors on the Landsat series of satellites are multispectral instruments. In hyperspectral imagery the windows are just smaller (typically 10nm or less) and continuous allowing a spectral response of the surface to be measured.
I can dig up some PPT's of lectures I gave to grad students at the Colorado School of Mines on the subject if that is what you want......
Much of what passes here for debunking of Georesonance' technology relies on the unstated assumption that Georesonance can't know a lot more than folks here do, that is, outright denial of the possibility of their having a superior technology. Perfectly circular reasoning: since I don't know of a better technology, neither can they. Do you guys seriously consider this debunking?
If the methodology is patented it is, by definition, disclosed and documented. That is the entire purpose of a patent, you disclose your method so that you can protect your method. So why not simply attach the patent for the "one proprietary patented methodology"?External Quote:We combine all techniques in one proprietary patented methodology. Some of our patents are: 86497-UA, 55916-UA, 2272305-RU, 2007А000247-EU.
Why not provide a technical presentation on the website?External Quote:The main reason for ignoring the location is the Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB) Chairman Martin Dolan making a statement that GeoResonance methodology cannot do what we claim. This is without ever having anyone contacting GeoResonance for a technical presentation.
Why not provide a technical presentation on the website?
External Quote:
Alexander Y.
Owner, Institute geophysics and problems of the Earth
At the 1st stage, we produce a unique radiation-chemical processing of analog satellite images: a given territory. In the case when the deposits are present, we carry his visualization of moving contours of deposits on a map. The technology allows determining at this stage, the number of horizons and the approximate depth of their occurrence.
In the event that deposits no have been identified, 2nd stage of the survey, of course not conducted.
The customer saves money with the 2nd part of our contract and, moreover, saves considerable resources that are needed would be to obtain such a result by classical geophysical surveys and drilling wells idle.
At the 2nd stage of the work we carry out an expedition and survey the identified deposits directly on the ground. We form sharply directional radiation, modulated spectrum of the desired substance by own equipment.
Due to the fact that the resonance of our test radiation is possible only with the desired substance (e.g., oil), radiated energy is not absorbed into other rocks and passes to a depth of not less than 5 km. In the oil is the phenomenon of nuclear magnetic resonance, re-radiation at the Larmor frequency, which we display on the surface of the earth.
During the expedition, we obtain the exact contours and deep-section of real deposits. From these data, we construct 3-dimensional computer model of deposits (rather than the anomalies, as in the case of seismic 3D).
It should be noted that not one known technology for working with satellite photographs not possible to get such results.
And one that debunks the technology: (emphasis is mine)External Quote:
Bob A.
Instructor at Oklahoma State University
All your references are from wiki sources or you tube and the your technology is based upon affecting water molecules, and you are detecting oil directly
Do you have any concrete data such as surveys done before drilling which drilling then confirmed?
And one that is humourous:External Quote:
Donald H.
Owner, Hill Petro; Consulting Petrophysicist
23.05.13
I attempted to post a comment, on this thread, last week, but for some reason it was never posted. I would like to point out some very important issues:
1. The originator of this thread has stated: "Our technology provides a direct detection of hydrocarbons"
2. The originator also states that the technology uses: "Terahertz range of radio waves".
These two statements add up to some rather large technical problems:
1. Petroleum reservoirs are located at depths of thousands to hundreds of thousands of feet below the surface.
2. Unlike air and free space, the Skin Depths of Terahertz radio waves in the earth are in the order of inches.
3. For example the NMR logging tools current in operation by all four major logging vendors use GHz signal frequencies and have effective depths of investigation of only a few inches.
During periods of high commodity prices "Direct Detection" technologies seem to sprout up like weeds after a rainstorm. Thirty years ago, it was Induced Polarization. This technology, at least, does have a depth of penetration of several hundred feet.
All "Direct Detection" technologies are based upon two premises:
1. Hydrocarbon reservoirs leak light components which rise vertically through the overlying sediments and form some type of anomalous concentration or halo in the near surface soil.
2. This near surface anomaly can be detected using the new technology, which just happens to include buzz words that are appearing in the popular press.
These Direct detection claims are usually based upon case histories which are claimed to show positive correlation with known oil fields. Unfortunately, nearly all operating oil fields have spills which, of course should be detectable from near surface sampling.
The originator site Wikipedia and YouTube, which are hardly accepted scientific references.
Unlike the originator, I am an experienced petroleum and mining E&P professional with over 35 years experience and an SEG member since 1963.
I am shocked that this material is being posted on an SEG discussion site.
Donald G. Hill, Ph.D.
Consulting Petrophysicist
Adjunct Professor of Petrophysics
The University of Southern California
External Quote:
Adam K.
Managing Director at Shift Geophysics
Hi Alexander,
Your previous post indicates that you don't have an education in physics.
I previously asked you to post a link to your papers, which you haven't done. Have these papers been published? Peer reviewed?
Earlier you posted a link to a slideshow, I had a good laugh,especially about using analog satellite photos and laying them over xray film, to get geological information at depth, haha.
Same technique, different company.
I know that, but the interesting thing is that this guy at least acts like he knows many details well, *acts like* he has some understanding of science, and seems to be willing to respond to questions. With a couple of questions he just might be able to prove that the GR tech (which is presumably the same from the same source) can't do what they claim.
For example, if it is really so that they rely solely on old analog space image archives, then obviously they can't detect a plane that has just crashed. Of course that would leave the possibility that they have a different tech for that or something.
You know that it is impossible to "prove a negative".