EE THr
Silver Member
A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud
1. Standard electronics has no explanation for any of the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices, or anything else.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a random double-blind test, even with rewards offered of one million dollars to prove they work, and twenty five thousand dollars for scoring only 70% success. They usually claim that the tests are biased or crooked, yet none have accepted the suggestion of A Scientific Test for LRLs, either!
4. LRL promoters refuse to approve of a credentialed professional organization at which to have their devices or schematics evaluated, such as a university or government agency.
5. LRL promoters refuse to approve of any local metal detector club or local high school science class doing a random double-blind demonstration using their devices.
6. LRL promoters refuse to approve of a, or even suggest their own, protocol for a fair, random double-blind test.
7. LRL promoters refuse to state the average percentage of success, under optimal test conditions, that their devices allegedly reliably have.
8. LRL promoters refuse to state whether their devices are dowsers, dowsing enhancers, or all-electronically operated units.
9. LRL promoters cannot provide a rational answer to why there are no news stories and pictures of treasures being found with LRLs, like there are for standard metal detectors, both in the Main Stream Media and here on the forum. The point here is that they make the claim that LRLs can find much more treasure than conventional metal detectors, because they can search more ground faster due to the "Long Range" of the LRL devices. But common sense says that if this were so, then there would be way more news stories about them and the treasure they found, instead of...zero news reports.
10. LRL promoters cannot provide a rational answer to why the LRL makers, and promoters, and their alleged testimonials, are the only people who claim to have found anything with them.
11. LRL promoters cannot provide a rational answer to why their devices would be worth anything, if they cannot achieve a reliable success rate of only 70% under controlled test conditions. The point being that a controlled test would eliminate any possible interference, which is said by the LRLers to always be a possible problem, and it would reduce the infinite possibility of target locations at various distances, and in 360 degrees of direction, down to only ten, exact and visable, possible target locations, making it much easier to succeed in a test than "in the field."
12. LRL promoters mainstay response, to these issues, or any other challenge to their claims, is to insult the challenger, or give a nonsensical reply, rather than offer responsive data. When someone does this, it is an indication that they have no rational data to offer.
Baker's Dozen Bonus #13: The LRL promoters' only rebuttal to any and all of these, is that they claim to find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by this list. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to try and justify charging very high prices. This makes their continuous reports of allegedly finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list. Besides, just saying you found something, or publishing non-verifiable "testimonials" is not proof. A random double-blind test, fully documented by an unbiased observer, is the ultimate real proof of any device.
These facts have never been rationally refuted.
1. Standard electronics has no explanation for any of the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices, or anything else.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a random double-blind test, even with rewards offered of one million dollars to prove they work, and twenty five thousand dollars for scoring only 70% success. They usually claim that the tests are biased or crooked, yet none have accepted the suggestion of A Scientific Test for LRLs, either!
4. LRL promoters refuse to approve of a credentialed professional organization at which to have their devices or schematics evaluated, such as a university or government agency.
5. LRL promoters refuse to approve of any local metal detector club or local high school science class doing a random double-blind demonstration using their devices.
6. LRL promoters refuse to approve of a, or even suggest their own, protocol for a fair, random double-blind test.
7. LRL promoters refuse to state the average percentage of success, under optimal test conditions, that their devices allegedly reliably have.
8. LRL promoters refuse to state whether their devices are dowsers, dowsing enhancers, or all-electronically operated units.
9. LRL promoters cannot provide a rational answer to why there are no news stories and pictures of treasures being found with LRLs, like there are for standard metal detectors, both in the Main Stream Media and here on the forum. The point here is that they make the claim that LRLs can find much more treasure than conventional metal detectors, because they can search more ground faster due to the "Long Range" of the LRL devices. But common sense says that if this were so, then there would be way more news stories about them and the treasure they found, instead of...zero news reports.
10. LRL promoters cannot provide a rational answer to why the LRL makers, and promoters, and their alleged testimonials, are the only people who claim to have found anything with them.
11. LRL promoters cannot provide a rational answer to why their devices would be worth anything, if they cannot achieve a reliable success rate of only 70% under controlled test conditions. The point being that a controlled test would eliminate any possible interference, which is said by the LRLers to always be a possible problem, and it would reduce the infinite possibility of target locations at various distances, and in 360 degrees of direction, down to only ten, exact and visable, possible target locations, making it much easier to succeed in a test than "in the field."
12. LRL promoters mainstay response, to these issues, or any other challenge to their claims, is to insult the challenger, or give a nonsensical reply, rather than offer responsive data. When someone does this, it is an indication that they have no rational data to offer.
Baker's Dozen Bonus #13: The LRL promoters' only rebuttal to any and all of these, is that they claim to find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by this list. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to try and justify charging very high prices. This makes their continuous reports of allegedly finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list. Besides, just saying you found something, or publishing non-verifiable "testimonials" is not proof. A random double-blind test, fully documented by an unbiased observer, is the ultimate real proof of any device.
These facts have never been rationally refuted.
