Different Ways of Testing LRLs

[fenixdigger]

Carl;

I have tried several of the things you have suggested in an attempt to find the absolute truth about this. Throwing the balls out in the field did not prove the ideomotor effect.

Using a property owner as a test subject has not done it either.

Now what can I do out in the yard or field to put this to rest one way or the other?

Would the plastic egg thing with 20 D gold pieces work?

I would like to do this with 2 others in the crew as well to see any differences.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

Hey LT..Carl explained about randomized blind test and how random chance doesn't apply to field use….

With LRLs and dowsing, "random chance" applies to randomized blind tests, not to field use. A randomized blind test does 2 things that a field test cannot do. First, it eliminates outside influences that might alter performance results, such as observable clues. Second, it provides a baseline from which to compare results, namely guessing.

Despite intentional attempts to mislead people, random chance doesn't apply to field use. You can't ask, "What are the odds of digging 10 holes in a park and recovering a gold coin?" There is no way to calculate that, because there is not enough information*. But in a randomized blind test, it is quite easy to calculate the odds. Depending on the design of the test those odds can vary, so it is not a fixed number that applies to every test, but it's not a "moving target" either.

You are 100% correct! Use what you know to find treasure! Ferinstance, if you want to prospect, then use your knowledge of geology to assist in finding likely places to look. But here's the Big Question... do LRLs help in this effort beyond what knowledge and intuition offer? The only way to find out is to test the LRL under conditions in which knowledge and intuition are eliminated, and only LRL performance (or luck) remains. That's the purpose of randomized blind testing. And when LRLs are tested this way, they don't perform beyond luck. That is, they don't work

 

[fenixdigger]

Hi Art;

Have you had a chance to check what I told you?

I see what we do and see the changes we are able to make, but any insight to the actuality of it makes the next step easier.

A decisive test will let me know where we are at on this. I'll be able to change procedure to find the most accurate.

The last couple of months have really been more productive than the last 30 yrs. Even though the "peanut gallery" has been aggravating sometimes, their rantings have lead me to look at things that had got past me.

As we are dealing with frequency on some levels, It hit me that a single note "c" is not like a "c" chord. After going to a book on Keeley I had read years ago, I was able to come up with that change I sent you.

On some of the recent posts they have been so close, but yet so far away.

Keep me posted by email when you try that. LT

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey LT…I have not had the time to properly test your idea..It does help with testing for micro gold here at home…The weather here has been terrible so I can not go into the field..I have two offers in on other properties as I can not stay here after my wife’s death…I have to go to Sacramento some time this week to sign the papers for the sale of my home down there..then the game of beating the tax men starts in earnest…Art

 

[EE THr]

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 tested.

Nothing could possibly be more fair and unbiased than this!

I'm all ears....

artie & fenix---

I was referring to a test which would result in proof. You know, one that is controlled and witnessed by a neutral party.

Just say what it is that you want, which would be a fair test of this type.

 

[fenixdigger]

The kind of test I am interested is one that I can use to determine the best accuracy for procedure not devices. That question has long since passed in this neighborhood.

This is for me not someone else. I don't need anymore proof, if someone needs it, let'm get some on their own time.

 

[aarthrj3811]

The kind of test I am interested is one that I can use to determine the best accuracy for procedure not devices. That question has long since passed in this neighborhood.

This is for me not someone else. I don't need anymore proof, if someone needs it, let'm get some on their own time. The skeptics are the ones with no prove....Art

 

[EE THr]

artie & fenix(es)---

11. The CA says that because he is successful, he doesn't need to prove anything.


Just as predicted.

"You can never prove something that doesn't work."

And that's exactly what you are doing---never proving it!

Thank you both---again?





Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
New! Bonus Information!

 

[Carl-NC]

Now what can I do out in the yard or field to put this to rest one way or the other?

You already know that LRLs can't succeed in scientific testing. So what else are you hoping to find out?

 

[fenixdigger]

Well as usual, part right, a lot wrong. I am trying to prove which set of procedures has the best results. To me.

Carl, I'm not worried about scientific, I'm worried about field work. My point is that since you have been dealing with this for so long, you should have an idea of a minimum number of targets that would put it past "guessing" range. Is that 5, 6, 7, false ones to 1 or 2 good ones. How would it affect the accuracy if the real target was put between the fake ones on random?

 

[EE THr]

fenix(es)---

I'm not trying to answer for Carl, but I can tell you a good method of determining how many hits and misses you can use for your field testing.

Have someone bury a real target at the supposed average depth of Spanish treasure, which is said to be the height of an average man. Then have that person cover it up, camouflage the dig well, and go home and not communicate the location of the target to, ever, in any manner.

Don't worry about false targets, because in the field, everything that's not your target is a false target.

Then, every time you make a "pinpoint" location determination, dig for it. If you get an empty hole, just start all over again trying to locate the same target. Pinpoint it, and dig it. And so forth. Just keep going until you find it.

You will very quickly become fully aware of how many "misses" are acceptable.

Don't bother thanking me, you're welcome.

 

[fenixdigger]

Does that mean you are going to dig the holes LOL

We don't dig unless the detector goes beep. To make a recovery, it may take many attempts. I'm NOT explaining why. Other hunters will understand. And let me get ahead of the fire. We are just guessing at spots and after guessing wrong in 4 or 5 places, we luck out and guess right. Because this never has or ever will work.

After this we are going to be weight guessers when we grow up.

I'll do my own tests (simple answers)

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Morning EE: you posted -->"You can never prove something that doesn't work."
*********
Hmm, you certainly can think about it. he he he

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE THr~

I'm not trying to answer for Carl, but I can tell you a good method of determining how many hits and misses you can use for your field testing.

Random Chance does not apply to field use..As per Carl

Have someone bury a real target at the supposed average depth of Spanish treasure, which is said to be the height of an average man. Then have that person cover it up, camouflage the dig well, and go home and not communicate the location of the target to, ever, in any manner.

How is this possible..The skeptics have told us that there are no Spanish treasures, no KGC treasure, no Japanese treasures or Treasure Markers..They are just imaginary stories made up by Treasure Hunters

Don't worry about false targets, because in the field, everything that's not your target is a false target.

We will listen to the great non treasure hunter..

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl, I'm not worried about scientific, I'm worried about field work. ... I am trying to prove which set of procedures has the best results.

Step 1: Determine whether the device physically works or not. If it doesn't, Step 2 is irrelevant.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee Carl..You claim to own about 30 LRL’s or MFD’s….Why not invite 10 of the Skeptic Cult to test your devices ? They could pay the airfare, hotel bills and all other expenses..Then you would have a baseline for your test..You would then have about 1/3 of any Double Blind test completed…Art

 

[fenixdigger]

Ah, you know me, crazy as a loon. I'm gonna stick to working on procedure. It's a lot more challenging. Dealing with things you can't see, that don't exist, using things that don't work. It can't get any better than that.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey LT…Yes it is a challenge..I have always told people that when the day comes that I no longer get excited when I dig a treasure I will quit..That is why I mostly dig for natural gold…When I first see it in my bucket or my pan I know I am the first human to ever see it…Art

 

[EE THr]

Gee Carl..You claim to own about 30 LRL’s or MFD’s….Why not invite 10 of the Skeptic Cult to test your devices ? They could pay the airfare, hotel bills and all other expenses..Then you would have a baseline for your test..You would then have about 1/3 of any Double Blind test completed…Art

artie---

Why not bring 29 of your friends, with their own LRLs, and take Carl's test?

Oh, wait a minute, I don't think there are 29 people who really use LRLs!

So that's why you are demanding that 30 people take the test! Because they don't exist! If they did, they'd be on here backing you up!





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

 

[pronghorn]

We don't dig unless the detector goes beep.

Well that's odd, isn't it?
I thought these LRLs were LONG RANGE LOCATORS,
I thought they could detect targets buried ten feet deep or more,
and modern metal detectors that only detect down
6 inches or so, were long ago rendered obsolete
by the mighty LRL.*
You don't dig unless the detector goes beep?
You really don't believe in your LRL then, do you!
Your friend hung ain't gonna like this.
* http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,341521.msg2790816.html#msg2790816