Different Ways of Testing LRLs

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Since anyone who couldn't understand all the above, would be too retarded to care for themselves, they would be institutionalized by now.
Therefore it is obvious that you are even faking that you don't understand those things.
That makes you a total Con Artist, con-artie.
And, as I predicted, you are merely posting nonsense, in a feeble attempt to divert attention away from the fact that everybody already knows anyway---that your LRLs are fraudulent scams to rob those who might be dumb enough to trust you.
Rewarding trust with betrayal is the lowest form of life.
And now you have revealed to all, that you are at that level.

Do you have a license to make that kind of diagnosis?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

~EE~

Since anyone who couldn't understand all the above, would be too retarded to care for themselves, they would be institutionalized by now.
Therefore it is obvious that you are even faking that you don't understand those things.
That makes you a total Con Artist, con-artie.
And, as I predicted, you are merely posting nonsense, in a feeble attempt to divert attention away from the fact that everybody already knows anyway---that your LRLs are fraudulent scams to rob those who might be dumb enough to trust you.
Rewarding trust with betrayal is the lowest form of life.
And now you have revealed to all, that you are at that level.

Do you have a license to make that kind of diagnosis?

Well, let's just see how accurate I was, then.

What is the answer?

Are you too stupid to not understand all that, or are you faking stupidity?

I just can't wait to hear your version of this!









Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

And while you're at it, con-artie, why not tell us what kind of test you would design to be fair?










(Not that you will actually answer that simple question.)



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

And while you're at it, con-artie, why not tell us what kind of test you would design to be fair?

The same as I have told you many times…It is not my job to design tests..Art

 

[EE THr]

And while you're at it, con-artie, why not tell us what kind of test you would design to be fair?

The same as I have told you many times…It is not my job to design tests..Art

So, you refuse to take Carl's random double-blind test.

And you refuse to take your own random double-blind test.

That proves that you can't pass any test of your fake LRLs.

Your silly excuses are too lame to convince anyone.









Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

And while you're at it, con-artie, why not tell us what kind of test you would design to be fair?

The same as I have told you many times…It is not my job to design tests..Art

You only do things that you get paid for, huh?

So it is your job to promote fake treasure hunting devices, then.

Thanks for bringing that out into the light, to be seen by all.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

The same as I have told you many times…It is not my job to design tests..Art

Answer..So it is your job to promote fake treasure hunting devices, then.

~EE~

Thanks for bringing that out into the light, to be seen by all. You only do things that you get paid for, huh?

No..I don’t get paid to post on T-Net
~EE~

So it is your job to promote fake treasure hunting devices, then.

No job..Just a owner/operator of these great inventions.

~EE~

Thanks for bringing that out into the light, to be seen by all.

I am doing my best…Art

 

[EE THr]

con-artie;

You are doing your best to do everything except admit to a legitimate test.










Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

You are doing your best to do everything except admit to a legitimate test.
When you submit a Legitimate Double Blind test I will admit that you did submit one…Art

 

[EE THr]

You are doing your best to do everything except admit to a legitimate test.
When you submit a Legitimate Double Blind test I will admit that you did submit one…Art

con-artie;

Carl's random double-blind test is legitimate. You can submit it to any college, and they will verify that, and you know it.

Your only complaint about it is that there are not enough people. You want it to be the same as drug company testing. Sorry, you won't be getting any drugs at Carl's test.

If you want more people in the test, just bring more people to be tested. Pretty simple.








Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Carl's random double-blind test is legitimate. You can submit it to any college, and they will verify that, and you know it.

Carls test is written for one person..All the difinations of Double blind testing contain word like some of the persons involved, subjects nor administrators, control group, experimental group and right from the Skeptics web site http://skepdic.com/control.html....
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.
Does that difination say anything about Drug Companies?

Your only complaint about it is that there are not enough people. You want it to be the same as drug company testing. Sorry, you won't be getting any drugs at Carl's test.

If you want more people in the test, just bring more people to be tested. Pretty simple.

It is the job of the scientific experimenter to make the arrangements..Art

 

[EE THr]

Carl's random double-blind test is legitimate. You can submit it to any college, and they will verify that, and you know it.

Carls test is written for one person..All the difinations of Double blind testing contain word like some of the persons involved, subjects nor administrators, control group, experimental group and right from the Skeptics web site http://skepdic.com/control.html....
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.
Does that difination say anything about Drug Companies?

Your only complaint about it is that there are not enough people. You want it to be the same as drug company testing. Sorry, you won't be getting any drugs at Carl's test.

If you want more people in the test, just bring more people to be tested. Pretty simple.

It is the job of the scientific experimenter to make the arrangements..Art

Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor.

It says nothing about requiring groups.

It's purpose is to have the highest accuracy.

It can be done on humans or on equipment.

Carl's test is not on humans, it's on the equipment.

Therefore your insistance about "groups" is totally invalid.

And you already know that. You're just trying to nit-pick your way out of it, con-artie.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both

experimental subjects and the experimenters.

In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor.

, usually on human subjects… experimental subjects and the experimenters. Thank you again for the proof… I guess that makes the rest of your post unnessasary..Art

 

[EE THr]

Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both

experimental subjects and the experimenters.

In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor.

, usually on human subjects… experimental subjects and the experimenters. Thank you again for the proof… I guess that makes the rest of your post unnessasary..Art

Now here is the real quote, from Wiki---


Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor.









Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

usually on human subjects.. experimental subjects and the experimenters

Thank You again for proving my point..More than one person..Since you insist on repeating the same old stuff I think this thread has reached it’s end..Art

 

[EE THr]

usually on human subjects.. experimental subjects and the experimenters

Thank You again for proving my point..More than one person..Since you insist on repeating the same old stuff I think this thread has reached it’s end..Art

"Usually," means not always.

Random doouble-blind tests can be performed on equipment, also.

The only person taking the test is the device operator.


Also, you are inserting words into my quote which I did not write. That's called lying, con-artie.


The point is, however, that you have no grounds to claim that Carl's test is not legitimate. It's right there in black and white. Even though you tried to forge my quote, it's still accurate in my post.

And here it is again---

"Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor."

When you need to lie like that to try and form a rebuttal, it shows that even you know that you are wrong. Of course, everyone else has already known that for quite a while!



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,404057.msg2873053.html#msg2873053
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,404057.msg2873075.html#msg2873075
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,404057.msg2873079.html#msg2873079
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,404057.msg2873092.html#msg2873092
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,404057.msg2873162.html#msg2873162
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,404057.msg2873194.html#msg2873194

 

[EE THr]

The subject has been diverted off-topic so many times by the LRL promoters on here, that it's time for a reminder of what this topic is all about---



Different Ways of Testing LRLs

This topic is to allow all those who complain about Carl's test, to state How they would prefer their LRL to be publically tested.

We have heard the LRL promoters say why they don't like Carl's test. All have either said, "I just don't like it," without stating any specific reason; or have offered various definitions of double-blind which were actually specific only to drug testing programs or cola tasting surveys, and were therefore totally irrational and incompatible with any meaningful LRL tests.

So, having failed to find fault with Carl's test, here is their big chance to eliminate any possible misunderstandings, and tell what the really want a good test to be.


Nothing could possibly be more fair and unbiased than this!


I'm all ears....








Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

All test details will be written up in a legally-binding contract 6, and signed & notarized by both parties.

Lawyer fees

Both parties will agree on a test location. Claimant is responsible for any costs associated with the use of a location2. Claimant is encouraged to scan the chosen location for anomalies prior to the start of the test. Proctor may also inspect the test area. Both proctor and claimant may inspect the target to be used. Both proctor and claimant may inspect the concealment devices and/or holes, including scanning with a metal detector. Proctor may visually inspect the locating equipment, but will not open it. Both parties should make every reasonable effort to reach approval of the test conditions.

Location fees…The cost of Scanning the area for about 4 hours..You forget gentlemen..I have attended one of the tests arranged by Carl and have posted what occurred..…Art

 

[EE THr]

con-artie;

Can you either provide a link to your post about the test of Carl's that you attended, or quote it?

It says nothing about a lawyer being paid anything, or being required. Notaries charge about ten bucks. What "location fees"? Who charges for scanning the area, that's for your to do, if you want to.

I think you are making this stuff up.

You won't state what you think would be fair, so that means you won't take any test, ever, even if you designed it yourself! That says it all, right there. I've asked you several times to state what you think would be fair, and you either don't reply at all, or just give some silly nonsense answer. You won't take any test, because you know that you are a fake. It's as simple as that. Sorry, but you have proven that to be true, all by yourself. That's called self evident. Thanks.

And, as for your camplaint about costs, you can cover that with the $25K, plus travel and lodging, and car rental, and still have over $20K profit left!

Besides, you keep saying that you have plenty of money, and don't care about the money. So quite making phony excuses and take the test.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?