EE THr
Silver Member
Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
Decide for yourself. Here are some things you should want to consider.
It should be noted that this topic neither contests nor advocates dowsing, itself. So any comments about dowsing will be considered strictly inappropriate, and will be reported as seriously off-topic.
There are certain significant points, which indicate that the claims made by LRL promoters, are seriously lacking in credibility. Here is a list of the most important ones. The items in the following list have never been successfully rebutted, or proven to be untrue.
The Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud
1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a double blind test.
4. The proponent's only rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-3. 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 charge high prices. This makes their reports of finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list.
Is There a Way to Know if You're Being Scammed?
In order to help identify fraudulent activity, it has been found that there are certain "flags" which may be used to alert people to scams, and confidence games (con games) and those who proffer them (con artists).
The following list enables people to apply the predictability test of The Scientific Method, and thus know for certain if they are being conned (See definition #4).
The following applies to all con artists, frauds, and scammers---
The Predictable Pattern of LRL Con Artists
1. The CA (Con Artist) appears to be a successful treasure hunter, by boasting a lot.
2. The CA offers friendly advice on how you, too, can be a successful treasure hunter.
3. The friendly advice eventually involves making an expensive purchase of an LRL.
4. The expensive purchase is a fraudulent item, and doesn't work.
5. The CA claims you aren't using it right, and that you just need training.
6. The CA responds to normal questions about the circuitry, with pseudo-science.
7. If the pseudo-science is challenged, the CA says you're "too stupid" to understand it.
8. The CA calls challengers knowledgeable in electronics, "skeptics," to infer they only have doubts.
9. Then the CA says he doesn't care if you don't "believe" in the pseudo-science.
10. But the CA does care,[*a.] a lot; enough that he then strongly insults all "skeptics."
11. If the CA is really stuck for an answer, he will simply outright lie, even fake photos and videos.
12. When their lies, or their pseudo-science is further challenged, the CA simply insults you, as a diversion.[*b.]
13. When insulted back, the CA claims you're picking on him.[*c.]
14. Next, the CA claims that you must prove the item doesn't work.[*d.]
15. You say that the burden of proof is on him, because he is the claimant in the first place.
16. The CA says that because he is successful, he doesn't need to prove anything.
17. The CA says his "word" is proof enough of his success.
18. The CA may also claim that "testimonials" are proof, when obviously they are not.
19. The CA will use ad hominem attacks[*e.] on the questioner, trying to invalidate him, as a diversion.
20. The CA claims that "skeptics" are trying to "think for others," so should stop questioning.
21. The CA will say you have a mental disorder, as a diversion away from the questions.
22. If on a forum, merely to divert the topic or questions, the CA will post nonsensical comments when he is cornered by exposing his claims as false, and him as a liar.
23. To try putting you on the defensive, the CA may simply call you a liar.[*f.]
24. To try stopping your questions, the CA may attempt to stump you, by asking "false questions."[*g.]
25. The CA then begins again at #1.[*h.]
26. [*a.]There is logical reason to strongly suspect that the repetitive, aggressive "user" CA is actually working for the product makers. The reasoning is that because the LRL makers can't directly state in their advertisements that their devices actually find anything (for legal reasons), they must rely on fake "users" to make those statements for them, thus trying to distance themselves legally from those statements. Circumstantial evidence is valid in court, and common sense will show that evidence. Who else would spend great quantities of their time promoting LRLs, when they have never been proven to actually work as advertised, or as claimed by these people?
27. [*b.]The CA answers a question with an insult. This is to elicit an emotional response from you, in order to divert the subject of the discussion away from the real topic; because they cannot satisfactorily answer the real topic questions.
28. [*c.]This is where the CA tries to claim that they are the "victim," and you are just there to "disrupt the topic," even if it's your topic! They also try to claim that you are just a mean person, and that they are only there to "help people."
29. [*d.]"You prove they don't work," is merely a baiting tactic, as the CA knows full well that it is technically impossible to prove a negative. They will try to use your own questions against you, in this non-logical situation. And if anyone does show proof they don't work, the CA simply says, "That doesn't mean anything!" Yep, a totally nonscientific, illogical, childish reply. Because that's all they've got..
30. [*e.]The CA will use any means to invalidate or insult "skeptics," including God, and is particularly fond of attempting to apply amateurish pseudo-psychology, twisting terminology and definitions around, culminating in a statement that you are insane. The most common insult seems to be that the skeptic is "too stupid to understand how it works." This insulting is often done as a "baiting" tactic, to draw the person into an emotional agrument, and conveniently off the topic!
31. [*f.]The CA will call the questioner a liar, try to say the questioner is illogical, try to use non-logic, or anything else which would seem to nullify the questioner's points in asking for proof of the CA's claims, or just to try and drag the discussion off-topic.
32. [*g.]CA asks False Questions, which are based on premises that are false, so logical answers are literally impossible (Always make them prove their premises). These are known as "interrogatory statements," because they are shrouded in a question, while they covertly make a statement (the false premises). These are posed by very sneaky people who are trying not to be caught in their lies, but when they pose these phony questions, they already are! They also like to answer questions which were never asked, which is, as mentioned in the Big Four Proofs of LRL Fraud, above, is the classic Straw Man tactic.
33. [*h.]The CA's motto is "If you just keep telling the same lie, some people will believe it."
34. CAs can be observed spewing continuous, nonsensical, #10; when they realize that all is lost for them.
35. CAs also, in desperation, like to say that there is something wrong with double-blind tests. However, they never say what is wrong with them, or how they think a test should be run. This is actually a specialized version of #23 combined with #28, but it's cagey use by CAs merits separate mention.
36. Another failure of the LRL promoters, which is directly related to the double-blind test, is that they absolutely refuse to state whether their device is a dowser, dowsing enhancer, or is strictly electronic in it's functioning. The reason they won't commit to one of these, is because if they do, it can be proven wrong. So they withhold defining it, to enable them to do the "LRLer Shuffle," a dancing around to avoid getting cornered by common sense, logic, any form of Science, or in other words, reality.
37. The conclusion of the entire pattern shows up when the CA insists that others trust him by simply believing his claims, yet he always distrusts others. This is proven when an LRL promoter says they "won't get paid" the stated reward for passing a double-blind test, even though there is a legally binding contract for performance. Or they don't trust that it is a fair test, even if administered by an unbiased proctor. It's a "You must trust me, but I can't trust you" condition. And that's the classic "Confidence Game."
38. As a very last resort, when all seems lost, the Con Artist will claim that he is actually the victim and that the truths used to prove his fraud are actually insults. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, but Con Artists operate far away from the truth, so this sort of thing is all natural for them.
39. Another tactic commonly used by the CA, is to try and get an emotional response, and thus pull the discussion off-topic, by nitpicking. The CA will pick out any small error in your rebuttal, like a typo, or some minor technical detail, or just any little irrelevant thing at all, and try to invalidate you and your entire message for it, as though it somehow contradicts all of what you are saying, and entirely validates everything they have said. This shows that they are being totally illogical, and is a sign of desperation on their part.
40. Another diversionary stalling tactic that the CA uses, when he has totally run to the end of his dead-end street of falsehoods, is the Wild Goose Chase. He will demand that you provide a quote of something that has been said a hundred times, to "prove" that it was said. Or to prove something that you never claimed. He doesn't realize that, by the time he gets this desperate, he has already been exposed as a fraud a long time ago! Humorous.
41. The latest cute trick attempt of the LRL promoters is to demand that those exposing their devices as fraudulent, try using them. How silly is that? Who in their right mind would buy an LRL that has been proven many different ways to not function, just to have some LRL promoter pull a classic #5? I didn't think they were that lame, but I guess there is no end to their ignorance.
Comment about the above list: Even though this list has been up for awhile, the LRL promoters continue to perform according to these Predictions! Apparently they don't care about being exposed by the scientifically accepted Proof of Prediction standard. They just can't stop themselves! Very interesting. But also very sad.
And then there is this excerpt from Wikipedia---
Long Range Locator
Media exposure and controversy
Author Tom Clancy came under fire for including the DKL Lifeguard, a long range locator purported to be useful for detecting people, in critical passages of his novel Rainbow Six. A study by Sandia National Laboratories proved the Lifeguard to be completely useless, and other designs by the Lifeguard's creator Thomas Afilani have been shown to contain numerous dummy components with no clear function.
Accusing the manufacturers of fraud, Great Britain banned export of the GT 200 (used by the government of Thailand) and also the ADE 651 (used by the government of Iraq) in January 2010.
If I were to offer advice to anyone, it would be, "Think for Yourself."
Decide for yourself. Here are some things you should want to consider.
It should be noted that this topic neither contests nor advocates dowsing, itself. So any comments about dowsing will be considered strictly inappropriate, and will be reported as seriously off-topic.
There are certain significant points, which indicate that the claims made by LRL promoters, are seriously lacking in credibility. Here is a list of the most important ones. The items in the following list have never been successfully rebutted, or proven to be untrue.
The Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud
1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a double blind test.
4. The proponent's only rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-3. 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 charge high prices. This makes their reports of finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list.
Is There a Way to Know if You're Being Scammed?
In order to help identify fraudulent activity, it has been found that there are certain "flags" which may be used to alert people to scams, and confidence games (con games) and those who proffer them (con artists).
The following list enables people to apply the predictability test of The Scientific Method, and thus know for certain if they are being conned (See definition #4).
The following applies to all con artists, frauds, and scammers---
The Predictable Pattern of LRL Con Artists
1. The CA (Con Artist) appears to be a successful treasure hunter, by boasting a lot.
2. The CA offers friendly advice on how you, too, can be a successful treasure hunter.
3. The friendly advice eventually involves making an expensive purchase of an LRL.
4. The expensive purchase is a fraudulent item, and doesn't work.
5. The CA claims you aren't using it right, and that you just need training.
6. The CA responds to normal questions about the circuitry, with pseudo-science.
7. If the pseudo-science is challenged, the CA says you're "too stupid" to understand it.
8. The CA calls challengers knowledgeable in electronics, "skeptics," to infer they only have doubts.
9. Then the CA says he doesn't care if you don't "believe" in the pseudo-science.
10. But the CA does care,[*a.] a lot; enough that he then strongly insults all "skeptics."
11. If the CA is really stuck for an answer, he will simply outright lie, even fake photos and videos.
12. When their lies, or their pseudo-science is further challenged, the CA simply insults you, as a diversion.[*b.]
13. When insulted back, the CA claims you're picking on him.[*c.]
14. Next, the CA claims that you must prove the item doesn't work.[*d.]
15. You say that the burden of proof is on him, because he is the claimant in the first place.
16. The CA says that because he is successful, he doesn't need to prove anything.
17. The CA says his "word" is proof enough of his success.
18. The CA may also claim that "testimonials" are proof, when obviously they are not.
19. The CA will use ad hominem attacks[*e.] on the questioner, trying to invalidate him, as a diversion.
20. The CA claims that "skeptics" are trying to "think for others," so should stop questioning.
21. The CA will say you have a mental disorder, as a diversion away from the questions.
22. If on a forum, merely to divert the topic or questions, the CA will post nonsensical comments when he is cornered by exposing his claims as false, and him as a liar.
23. To try putting you on the defensive, the CA may simply call you a liar.[*f.]
24. To try stopping your questions, the CA may attempt to stump you, by asking "false questions."[*g.]
25. The CA then begins again at #1.[*h.]
26. [*a.]There is logical reason to strongly suspect that the repetitive, aggressive "user" CA is actually working for the product makers. The reasoning is that because the LRL makers can't directly state in their advertisements that their devices actually find anything (for legal reasons), they must rely on fake "users" to make those statements for them, thus trying to distance themselves legally from those statements. Circumstantial evidence is valid in court, and common sense will show that evidence. Who else would spend great quantities of their time promoting LRLs, when they have never been proven to actually work as advertised, or as claimed by these people?
27. [*b.]The CA answers a question with an insult. This is to elicit an emotional response from you, in order to divert the subject of the discussion away from the real topic; because they cannot satisfactorily answer the real topic questions.
28. [*c.]This is where the CA tries to claim that they are the "victim," and you are just there to "disrupt the topic," even if it's your topic! They also try to claim that you are just a mean person, and that they are only there to "help people."
29. [*d.]"You prove they don't work," is merely a baiting tactic, as the CA knows full well that it is technically impossible to prove a negative. They will try to use your own questions against you, in this non-logical situation. And if anyone does show proof they don't work, the CA simply says, "That doesn't mean anything!" Yep, a totally nonscientific, illogical, childish reply. Because that's all they've got..
30. [*e.]The CA will use any means to invalidate or insult "skeptics," including God, and is particularly fond of attempting to apply amateurish pseudo-psychology, twisting terminology and definitions around, culminating in a statement that you are insane. The most common insult seems to be that the skeptic is "too stupid to understand how it works." This insulting is often done as a "baiting" tactic, to draw the person into an emotional agrument, and conveniently off the topic!
31. [*f.]The CA will call the questioner a liar, try to say the questioner is illogical, try to use non-logic, or anything else which would seem to nullify the questioner's points in asking for proof of the CA's claims, or just to try and drag the discussion off-topic.
32. [*g.]CA asks False Questions, which are based on premises that are false, so logical answers are literally impossible (Always make them prove their premises). These are known as "interrogatory statements," because they are shrouded in a question, while they covertly make a statement (the false premises). These are posed by very sneaky people who are trying not to be caught in their lies, but when they pose these phony questions, they already are! They also like to answer questions which were never asked, which is, as mentioned in the Big Four Proofs of LRL Fraud, above, is the classic Straw Man tactic.
33. [*h.]The CA's motto is "If you just keep telling the same lie, some people will believe it."
34. CAs can be observed spewing continuous, nonsensical, #10; when they realize that all is lost for them.
35. CAs also, in desperation, like to say that there is something wrong with double-blind tests. However, they never say what is wrong with them, or how they think a test should be run. This is actually a specialized version of #23 combined with #28, but it's cagey use by CAs merits separate mention.
36. Another failure of the LRL promoters, which is directly related to the double-blind test, is that they absolutely refuse to state whether their device is a dowser, dowsing enhancer, or is strictly electronic in it's functioning. The reason they won't commit to one of these, is because if they do, it can be proven wrong. So they withhold defining it, to enable them to do the "LRLer Shuffle," a dancing around to avoid getting cornered by common sense, logic, any form of Science, or in other words, reality.
37. The conclusion of the entire pattern shows up when the CA insists that others trust him by simply believing his claims, yet he always distrusts others. This is proven when an LRL promoter says they "won't get paid" the stated reward for passing a double-blind test, even though there is a legally binding contract for performance. Or they don't trust that it is a fair test, even if administered by an unbiased proctor. It's a "You must trust me, but I can't trust you" condition. And that's the classic "Confidence Game."
38. As a very last resort, when all seems lost, the Con Artist will claim that he is actually the victim and that the truths used to prove his fraud are actually insults. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, but Con Artists operate far away from the truth, so this sort of thing is all natural for them.
39. Another tactic commonly used by the CA, is to try and get an emotional response, and thus pull the discussion off-topic, by nitpicking. The CA will pick out any small error in your rebuttal, like a typo, or some minor technical detail, or just any little irrelevant thing at all, and try to invalidate you and your entire message for it, as though it somehow contradicts all of what you are saying, and entirely validates everything they have said. This shows that they are being totally illogical, and is a sign of desperation on their part.
40. Another diversionary stalling tactic that the CA uses, when he has totally run to the end of his dead-end street of falsehoods, is the Wild Goose Chase. He will demand that you provide a quote of something that has been said a hundred times, to "prove" that it was said. Or to prove something that you never claimed. He doesn't realize that, by the time he gets this desperate, he has already been exposed as a fraud a long time ago! Humorous.
41. The latest cute trick attempt of the LRL promoters is to demand that those exposing their devices as fraudulent, try using them. How silly is that? Who in their right mind would buy an LRL that has been proven many different ways to not function, just to have some LRL promoter pull a classic #5? I didn't think they were that lame, but I guess there is no end to their ignorance.
Comment about the above list: Even though this list has been up for awhile, the LRL promoters continue to perform according to these Predictions! Apparently they don't care about being exposed by the scientifically accepted Proof of Prediction standard. They just can't stop themselves! Very interesting. But also very sad.
And then there is this excerpt from Wikipedia---
Long Range Locator
Media exposure and controversy
Author Tom Clancy came under fire for including the DKL Lifeguard, a long range locator purported to be useful for detecting people, in critical passages of his novel Rainbow Six. A study by Sandia National Laboratories proved the Lifeguard to be completely useless, and other designs by the Lifeguard's creator Thomas Afilani have been shown to contain numerous dummy components with no clear function.
Accusing the manufacturers of fraud, Great Britain banned export of the GT 200 (used by the government of Thailand) and also the ADE 651 (used by the government of Iraq) in January 2010.
If I were to offer advice to anyone, it would be, "Think for Yourself."
