Is Long Range Locating dead?

[signal_line]

Well, if you ask some EE that works for a metal detector company, the answer would parrot the wikipedia phony crap. Look, I know there are many LRL's out there that are basically worthless. Most aren't worth a hundred bucks. Typically take a $30 frequency generator and some bent welding rod and charge over a thousand bucks. So yeah, there have been a few greedy people who really just stick their middle finger out. Human nature is disgusting sometimes. Honestly, I really don't think some of these money grabbers even know how to use one.

I've spent untold hours with L-rods. They work if you can learn how to use them. If you are like me, count the learning time in years or decades. Then a big problem comes when you get out in the field--wind, uneven ground, brush, lots of stuff to distract you. More in a bit.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[smokeythecat]

I have a friend who has en expensive unit. He says it works. Where I know there is gold on a beach from a shipwreck, it would be impossible to use the device because it is always windy at the ocean. Even a slight breeze would make the thing impossible to use.

 

[signal_line]

So it's not that L-rods don't work , just that they take a very long time to master, if ever. When i was "growing up" there wasn't much else to use that i could afford. Pretty sure this is the reason Dell Winders went with the L-rods with the MFD. I don't think he realized how few people can really learn good enough to actually use them and find something. Dell said as much, 80% operator skill, 20% equipment. So when you hear someone tell how evil the L-rods are, get a good laugh about it knowing that person is like the mother who called her son an S.O.B. LOL

I should rephrase the question: "Are L-rods dead or just obsolete?" You notice I didn't ask if they worked or not. Of course they do with a skilled operator. And don't get the wrong idea, even the all electronic units require some knowledge and skill to use. What I am using now is remarkably similar to a metal detector--only about a thousand times more range and the ability to point within inches to a piece of gold in a pile of nails. And really about the same cost as a good M.D. I know some people are going to scream like they are being skinned alive. Kinda reminds me of all the fake news. Yeah, politics is alive and well around here.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I am enjoying your post signal-line. It's very on-script for the subject. Any attempt for critics/skeptics to question this, is easily batted away. Examples:

Well, if you ask some EE that works for a metal detector company, the answer would parrot the wikipedia phony crap....

Yes . You can't trust anything you read on wikipedia, right ? Unless it concurs with one's views. Then, of course, it was correct. Never mind that that wikipedia is simply the consensus of contributors, and that their sources (bibliography) can be looked up to see where their assertions come from. It's just much easier to 'diss the source. You can 'diss a dictionary. Or diss any source you want. Unless, of course, it backs up our own biases. Then, of course the source was correct, eh ?

.... take a $30 frequency generator and some bent welding rod and charge over a thousand bucks .....

Right: It's not that LRL's are non-working snake oil, right ? It's merely that any non-working ones, that can be pointed to, by the skeptics, are merely singular examples of unique ones that don't happen to work. It will be never-ending: No matter HOW many non-working ones the skeptics can point to, those too will simply be lumped into the "spurious" category. And at no time does it ever prove that the whole enterprise is bogus. Right ? Thus becoming bullet-proof.

........ They work if you can learn how to use them. . ....

This is my favorite: At no point can any skeptic ever test one. Because when the unit is shown not to work, it NEVER means "they don't work". It always merely means that the tester/user "didn't learn how to use them". Right ?

.... .. If you are like me, count the learning time in years or decades. . ....

Years or decades. I like how you use plurals. Because then it can become "never-ending". Example: If the person testing/trying them spent years, you merely tell them to "try for a decade". If at the end of 10 yrs. they still don't find squat, you merely tell them to "try for 2 decades". If at the end of 2 decades it still doesn't work, well gee, you tell them they need 3 decades. See how that never ends ? Thus it's NEVER that it "doesn't work". It's always that the user "needs more decades". Right ?

.... Then a big problem comes when you get out in the field--wind, uneven ground, brush, lots of stuff to distract you.. ....

Right. If ever you don't find a goodie, well then: Durned that 1) wind, 2) uneven ground, 3) brush, 3) distractions, etc.... It's never that it doesn't work. We can add all sorts of other impediments to this list: 4) Sun spots, 5) magnets that were in nearby people's pockets, 6) trace elements of minerals in the ground, etc.... Right ?

I have a friend who has en expensive unit. He says it works. ....

Would love to know what his definition of "works" is. Waving the thing around enough likely looking ruins, or places he's already researched that should contain something ? And then pulling out a detector to "pinpoint" (that's the ticket). And .... lo & behold ... metal ! (maybe even a goodie).

But this fails to account for the fact that ANYWHERE you dig (where human activity was abundant) you will , of course, find metal when you dig. History is FILLED with stories of persons accidentally stumbling onto goodies when they weren't even looking (gardeners, ditch-diggers, house-rebuilders, etc....) . Then how much more-so a person who's gone out researching likely spots? With the express dedicated purpose of "finding goodies" ? Of COURSE he will eventually find something. And then ... presto ... the wand worked ? Or was it random eventual chance ?

... they take a very long time to master, if ever. ....

You are awesome signal-line. Not only have you covered the "decades" line, but .... to make it even more bullet-proof, you can add "if ever" . To cover those who spend a life-time trying to discern "bogus or not" .

... 80% operator skill, 20% equipment. So when you hear someone tell how evil the L-rods are, get a good laugh about it knowing that person is like the mother who called her son an S.O.B. LOL ....

Yup. Right on script: It's not that they don't work. It's that the operator skill wasn't sufficient. Thus it can NEVER be tested. Any shown inability is merely the operator skill. Right ? And if the skeptic goes to show scientifically impossible, well that's an easy script too: "Un-discovered science", Right ? Just as in science once thought the earth was flat, or that heavier than air flight was impossible. Utterly bullet-proof.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....even the all electronic units require some knowledge and skill to use. .....

Ok, let's test this out for size: If you prop up an electronic metal detector on a table. Turn it on and set up slight threshold. And have 100 persons come into the test room and wave a quarter in front of the coil. I'm going to bet you that it will "beep" for all 100 of those persons. Right ? No matter WHAT their "skill level" was on metal detectors. Right ? No matter whether they "believe" or not. No matter whether they've "practiced" or not. The metal detector beeps every single time, right ?

Thus no, your analogy doesn't work. The principle can be scientifically tested in double-blind experiments and pass 100% of the time. Sorry.

 

[signal_line]

Some day someone with real LRL knowledge should do a review on LRL's. The first thing that will be pointed out is the reliability of any swivel handle device is due to the operator's skill and knowledge and many other factors like emotional state. Anybody who claims 90 - 95 percent accuracy will quickly be proved wrong. Most of those type reports come from people who really don't know, just like the phony skeptic reports. One good day and it's easy to make crow. Even the all-electronic contraption doesn't get that high of accuracy day in, day out.

When I get this all-electronic out, there will be an LRL Revival. The fire ain't out.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Do you see the inherent fail-safe unassailable "out lines" your post presents ? It's perfect "bullet-proof" logic. And if I used the same logic-lines, I could equally "prove" a peanut-butter covered tennis shoe as a work-able treasure-hunting device. It would be beyond dispute. Just as your lines of reasoning have shown here.

Some day someone with real LRL knowledge should do a review on LRL's. ....

Implication ? : That any "review" that shows it doesn't work, was ... (drum roll) done by a person without "real knowledge" of LRL's. Hence we can immediately dismiss any tests that show it doesn't work. D/t the tester wasn't qualified. Right ?

Same logic can work for my tennis shoe device. Right ? Much too easy

 

[signal_line]

When i first got into L-rods I couldn't find crap. It wasn't until I got a frequency generator. i was hooked for life, or rather until I got the all-electronic contraption working.

I'm sure you've heard the expression of "where the rubber meets the road". You know with L-rods that point is more like the Grand Canyon. What little traction there is is like waving your arms in the air trying to fly, or much less.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I'm sure you've heard the expression of "where the rubber meets the road". ....

By this is presume you are referring to "results". Ie.: finds, goodies, etc..... What good stuff did you find once you got the all-electronic contraption working ? And was it necessary to use a detector to "pinpoint" ? If so, how do you know you just weren't waiving it at enough "likely looking ruins/spots", then pull out a detector, and ........ surprise, metal ?

But if you didn't use a detector to pinpoint, I would be very much interested in knowing the specifics, and what you found.

 

[3cylbill]

years ago in eastern western treasure mag there was an article about the power of inner knowledge..TPOIK ..all i can say is that it works for me .I have been looking at back issues and it may have been 20 years or so ago and worth finding...

 

[signal_line]

years ago in eastern western treasure mag there was an article about the power of inner knowledge..TPOIK ..all i can say is that it works for me .I have been looking at back issues and it may have been 20 years or so ago and worth finding...

I know what I know--dabbling in the psychic stuff has risks. IMO people who claim "I ain't 'fraid of no ghosts." never got far enough into it. Reminds me of the people in Africa who wear a pendant that is supposed to protect them from crocodiles. Every year thousands get killed.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

years ago in eastern western treasure mag there was an article about the power of inner knowledge..TPOIK ..all i can say is that it works for me .I have been looking at back issues and it may have been 20 years or so ago and worth finding...

"gut instinct" and "subconscious bias's". Nothing mystical or supernatural or psychic, etc.... And if that is said to explain the ability of dowsing or LRL's, then that actually disproves them. What I mean is: If it's MERELY the person's subconscious ability to look at a landscape, and tell you the most likely spot something will be, then PRESTO: The rod or LRL was doing absolutely nothing.

For example: I know one of the guys who was in the first wave of the nugget craze boom here in the late 1970s to early 1980s in CA. That was when MD'rs in the Sacramento area were figuring out how to make coin-machines fine-tuned enough to find nuggets in nature (ie.: prospecting). After many years as one of the big movers and shakers in those circles of friends, this guy got SO good, that he could simply look at the lay of the land. And walk right to the most likely place where nuggets would be found.

Same for coin hunters, cache hunters, etc...: If they are REALLY good, they can look at a landscape and make guesses as to the most likely place a person would hide a cache. Or the most likely place fumble fingers coins would be going on, etc...

Hence if this subconscious expertise is what some people think is at play with LRL's and dowsing, then they have effectively just DIS-proved dowsing & LRL. What I mean is, they could simply have walked out to the same area, and studied for landscape WITHOUT their wands or rods.

So if someone is a believer in dowsing or LRLs, they would actually be doing a dis-service to themselves to use this explanation for how it works. It undermines the very instruments they say they believe in. Doh!

 

[signal_line]

Probably thought I should say I've spent a lot of time with L-rods and a frequency generator. If I hadn't got into the electronic receivers I would still be using the L-rods--but I'm not and once in a while i get them out to see if I was wrong. It's not that the L-rods don't work, just that there are obstacles in using them that I don't need to deal with anymore. And that's after thirty years of practice.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I doubt Long Range Treasure Detecting is dead.

As P.T. Barnum said: "There's a sucker born every minute".

Give it time. A fresh batch will turn up.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...As P.T. Barnum said: "There's a sucker born every minute". ...

Charlie, you're not insinuating for one moment that LRL's are snake oil sucker material , are you ? If so, then how do you explain the testimonials of successes by those seen on this thread and forum section? Or how about the magazine advertisements showing dudes posing next to the jar of coins they just found ? Photographs don't lie after all. Tsk tsk. Repent, or we'll be laughing at you all the way to the bank. Tsk tsk

 

[Shambler]

This has been up a long, long time. Easy money for you believers.

LRL Challenge:
Geotech - Technology for Treasure Hunting

 

[Tom_in_CA]

This has been up a long, long time. Easy money for you believers.

LRL Challenge:
Geotech - Technology for Treasure Hunting

Shambler, this is *much* too easy to debunk. That challenge means or proves nothing. Haven't you heard the various come-back lines ?

1) The tests are unfairly rigged. Made impossible to pass.

2) And they are akin to trying to rough up an md'r by saying: Show me you can find a gold coin at this park or ghost town, or else I won't believe that metal detectors work. Ie.: even an MD'r is going to have good and bad days, and doesn't always find a goodie. SO WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD for LRL "proof " ?

3) It takes years of practice. So if you ever point out someone who failed those skeptic's tests, well that merely means the test participant wasn't skilled enough. If he's been doing it for a year, well, he needs 2 yrs. If he's been at it for 2 yrs, well then he needs 5. If he's done it for 5, well he needs 10. And so on till infinity. It's never that the devices don't work, it's just that the tester wasn't skilled enough.

4) #3 explanation is ESPECIALLY handy when it's the skeptics themselves who try to test a device. Well ... tsk tsk ... they didn't practice and learn long enough.

5) You have to believe. And while I *know* this sounds "mystical", but the proponents will point out, that in a certain way, so too do you have to "believe" in metal detecting. Ie.: if you're having a down day (depressed about something, mind not concentrating) well then, surprise surprise, you'll find less md'ing that day. Same with LRL: You must "believe". Hence a skeptic can never test one, since, by definition, he doesn't "believe".

6) Skeptics standing nearby the testing can foil the tests by various means. Like by having magnets in their pockets.

7) Durned that mineralized soil interference, sunspots, solar flares, wind affecting the rods, etc .... Any time it doesn't work during a test, does NOT mean "it doesn't work". It merely means you look around, and find some source of interference.

Thus the fact of some skeptics un-claimed challenge money means absolutely nothing to the topic of "do they work?" Hence repent and buy one. Lest we be laughing at you all the way to the bank. Muahahaha

 

[Shambler]

25k for a double blind test, and it costs you nothing to participate yet no one enters. It's doubtful a master ninja with 50 years experience, and psychic ability could find 25k in one outing. It's such an easy test....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....yet no one enters....

And they don't enter for very good reasons. As outlined in post #17 above

.... It's such an easy test....

Not when they're rigged and unfair.

Repent and buy and LRL now !

 

[Dell Winders]

25k for a double blind test, and it costs you nothing to participate yet no one enters. It's doubtful a master ninja with 50 years experience, and psychic ability could find 25k in one outing. It's such an easy test....

If the contest sounds too easy to be true, it probably is. A good publicity gimmick for the promoter though. Dell