Saturna
Bronze Member
Psssst, you fall into the second category Art. 
Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
- Thread starter EE THr
- Start date
- Status
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
Good morning Carl \_ 
_/ Essentially what you have posted is exactly what aa has posted. 
??
Don Jose de La Mancha
_/ Essentially what you have posted is exactly what aa has posted. ??Don Jose de La Mancha
OP
OP
EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #63
RDT---
Carl's test is basically for one person at a time, true.
But the person gets 10 separate tries, so I doubt if Carl would mind if 10 people took the test, each with one try. How about that?
I asked artie, but he only responded with, "10 LRLers, 10 dowsers, and 10 never-dowseders." So apparently he wants 30 people to do the test---all at once? And then have 10 tries, using all of them on each try? To find the target 7 times out of those 10 tries? I don't know, because he wouldn't say what the procedures would be in his way. But the dowsers don't make much sense in proving an LRL, either.
So, right now, I'm stumped at exactly what artie wants.
Carl's test is basically for one person at a time, true.
But the person gets 10 separate tries, so I doubt if Carl would mind if 10 people took the test, each with one try. How about that?
I asked artie, but he only responded with, "10 LRLers, 10 dowsers, and 10 never-dowseders." So apparently he wants 30 people to do the test---all at once? And then have 10 tries, using all of them on each try? To find the target 7 times out of those 10 tries? I don't know, because he wouldn't say what the procedures would be in his way. But the dowsers don't make much sense in proving an LRL, either.
So, right now, I'm stumped at exactly what artie wants.
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
HI EE, I have been waiting patiently for someone to explain the one large flaw in the presented double blind test / study.
Don Jose de La Mancha
Don Jose de La Mancha
OP
OP
EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #67
artie---
So far, I believe he has stated that he has a specific question, but he has not stated what that that question is.
So, since you claim to know what this particular question is, you must be a mind reader. That's fine with me.
So, Miss Cleo, tell me what his question is?
So far, I believe he has stated that he has a specific question, but he has not stated what that that question is.
So, since you claim to know what this particular question is, you must be a mind reader. That's fine with me.
So, Miss Cleo, tell me what his question is?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Hey "Scientific Proof of Scientific Claims Advocate (SPSCA)"..I put a question mark at the end of the Don’s statement..So you can now answer it with out the usual ducking and dodging..If you can not clearly see the flaw you may need to actually read the text..
Art
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
Ladies & gentlemen: it is an inferred question, that is obvious. A ? was not necessary, but thanks aa.
Don Jose de La Mancha
Don Jose de La Mancha
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
HI mi buddy EE you posted -->Then the question is really a rhetorical statement, that there really is no flaw?
**********
The first section is partially correct, the second is not.
Don Jose d L a Mancha
**********
The first section is partially correct, the second is not.
Don Jose d L a Mancha
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Standard Test Protocol
Suppose you buy a new device that claims it can detect buried metal. You turn this "metal detector" thingy on, adjust the settings per the manual, wave a silver dollar an inch from the coil, and... it does absolutely nothing. Would you dismiss this failure as a fluke, and assume that it will start working in the field? Or would you try to figure out why it didn't work, in such a ridiculously simple test?
So-called "long-range locators" have been around for a long time now1, with some manufacturers making all sorts of claims about what they can do, mostly revolving around an ability to locate buried gold at a long distance. I have accumulated quite a few LRLs, and have found them to be — consistently and completely — incapable of detecting anything at all, other than gravity2. Some of them appear to be outright money-making scams. However, I am willing to pay a large sum of money if any of those manufacturers, or anyone else, can prove me wrong, and demonstrate a working LRL.
observer bias
Observer bias prevents someone from seeing a situation or a person
objectively. Biases may be subtle and not recognized by the person
who has them. As a teacher, your preconceptions and biases affect
what you pay attention to during an observation and influence the
judgments you make about a person or situation. To effectively
observe, you must be ready to recognize and let go of your assumptions.
A double blind test is a scientific test in which neither test subjects nor administrators know who is in the control group and who is in the experimental group. The intent is to create an unbiased test environment
A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls. A randomized test is one that randomly assigns items to the control and the experimental groups.
The purpose of controls, double-blind, and randomized testing is to reduce error, self-deception and bias
Suppose you buy a new device that claims it can detect buried metal. You turn this "metal detector" thingy on, adjust the settings per the manual, wave a silver dollar an inch from the coil, and... it does absolutely nothing. Would you dismiss this failure as a fluke, and assume that it will start working in the field? Or would you try to figure out why it didn't work, in such a ridiculously simple test?
So-called "long-range locators" have been around for a long time now1, with some manufacturers making all sorts of claims about what they can do, mostly revolving around an ability to locate buried gold at a long distance. I have accumulated quite a few LRLs, and have found them to be — consistently and completely — incapable of detecting anything at all, other than gravity2. Some of them appear to be outright money-making scams. However, I am willing to pay a large sum of money if any of those manufacturers, or anyone else, can prove me wrong, and demonstrate a working LRL.
observer bias
Observer bias prevents someone from seeing a situation or a person
objectively. Biases may be subtle and not recognized by the person
who has them. As a teacher, your preconceptions and biases affect
what you pay attention to during an observation and influence the
judgments you make about a person or situation. To effectively
observe, you must be ready to recognize and let go of your assumptions.
A double blind test is a scientific test in which neither test subjects nor administrators know who is in the control group and who is in the experimental group. The intent is to create an unbiased test environment
A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls. A randomized test is one that randomly assigns items to the control and the experimental groups.
The purpose of controls, double-blind, and randomized testing is to reduce error, self-deception and bias
OP
OP
EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #75
artie---
You can have a proctor administer the test. Carl doesn't have to be there, if I'm reading his rules correctly.
But if you are afraid of "bad vibes," you're admitting that LRLs are merely dowsing devices, and the "electronics" aren't helping you.
Which way do you want to claim?
Pick a story, and stick to it, huh?
You can have a proctor administer the test. Carl doesn't have to be there, if I'm reading his rules correctly.
But if you are afraid of "bad vibes," you're admitting that LRLs are merely dowsing devices, and the "electronics" aren't helping you.
Which way do you want to claim?
Pick a story, and stick to it, huh?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Getting a contract with Carl seems to be why he has never tested anyone
[bg=http://forum.treasurenet.com/images/coinsc.jpg].But if you are afraid of "bad vibes," you're admitting that LRLs are merely dowsing devices, and the "electronics" aren't helping you.[/bg]No I am not
What would I be claiming ?
I just tell the truth..so there is no story to pick..Art
OP
OP
EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #77
artie---
Either claim that LRLs are electronically operated, or that they are merely dowsing devices.
If they are dowsing devices, then you could be affected by "bad vibes," so it's understandable that you don't want to take Carl's test. But then you will be saying that the makers' advertisements are fraudulent. Sorry.
On the other hand, if you say they are electronic, then they can't be affected by "bad vibes," so it doesn't matter if the administrator of the test "believes" in LRLs or not. And you can just go take the test, and prove all your wild claims!
So either pick one of the above, or give some statement of how they can be affected by the administrator even though they are electronic.
Or, you can even come up with some other explanation of why you can't pass Carl's test. I don't know of any other possible explanation for, but you are welcome to try. At least man-up to doing that!
Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
Either claim that LRLs are electronically operated, or that they are merely dowsing devices.
If they are dowsing devices, then you could be affected by "bad vibes," so it's understandable that you don't want to take Carl's test. But then you will be saying that the makers' advertisements are fraudulent. Sorry.
On the other hand, if you say they are electronic, then they can't be affected by "bad vibes," so it doesn't matter if the administrator of the test "believes" in LRLs or not. And you can just go take the test, and prove all your wild claims!
So either pick one of the above, or give some statement of how they can be affected by the administrator even though they are electronic.
Or, you can even come up with some other explanation of why you can't pass Carl's test. I don't know of any other possible explanation for, but you are welcome to try. At least man-up to doing that!
Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
OP
OP
EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #78
aarthrj3811 said:
#19 again.
You have proven it yourself by saying that you can't pass Carl's test, because the administrator "might not like you."
That's the dowser's mantra!
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
fenixdigger
Hero Member
- Feb 8, 2010
- 839
- 44
- Detector(s) used
- Aurora Aqua, Excalibur, Garrett CX2, Gemini-3, MFD's, Sovereign, Viper, E Trac, Dees Nutz rod, Tesoro Sand Shark. Pro pulse.
Way more predictability-------Hmmmmm?
?
OP
OP
EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #80
artie---
We've already been all through your "double-blind" whining, and you lost, remember?
I asked you how many people you would like to be tested, and you refused to answer.
I asked you what you would consider a fair test, and you refused to answer.
You just don't want your fantastic claims to be subjected to testing, because your claims are false. There is no other reason. Now you will resort to insults. Or some other part of the Predictable Patterns list.
Man-up and take the test!
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
We've already been all through your "double-blind" whining, and you lost, remember?
I asked you how many people you would like to be tested, and you refused to answer.
I asked you what you would consider a fair test, and you refused to answer.
You just don't want your fantastic claims to be subjected to testing, because your claims are false. There is no other reason. Now you will resort to insults. Or some other part of the Predictable Patterns list.
Man-up and take the test!
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
- Status
Top Member Reactions
-
3340 -
1904 -
1878 -
1175 -
1091 -
872 -
828 -
827 -
827 -
794 -
776 -
532 -
503 -
485 -
429 -
E
415
-
415 -
397 -
395 -
389
