Different Ways of Testing LRLs

[EE THr]

Then how do you know there are 2000 or more stories with photos on their Websites?

An educated guess..With 8500 units sold by only 15 of the manufactures I would say that is a good guess based on what I know…So prove that there is less than 2000 “TESTIMONIALS” on the internet…After all they can tell their stories and show the Photo’s and no one calls them names..Art

con-artie;

We've been all through your alleged "8,500 users" before. You finally came up with your "proof" of a total of less than two dozen, I think it was. Because of something someone said on this forum. Hmmm, 8,500 down to under two dozen. Caught in another lie, con-artie!

No, artie, you're trying to do the same backwards logic that you use with Carl's test. You made the claim, now show the evidence. Oh, that's right, you can't; because you simply lied!

Who can "tell their stories"? Those people don't exist! Haven't you ever seen actors on commercials? They're not real, 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?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

No, artie, you're trying to do the same backwards logic that you use with Carl's test. You made the claim, now show the evidence.

Oh, that's right, you can't; because you simply lied!

#22.

When are you going to get back to the topic, and say what your idea of fair test procedures are, exactly?






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]

Who can "tell their stories"? Those people don't exist! Haven't you ever seen actors on commercials? They're not real, con-artie!

Gee..I am sure that I exist and I am not an actor..So again you are wrong..Art

 

[EE THr]

Who can "tell their stories"? Those people don't exist! Haven't you ever seen actors on commercials? They're not real, con-artie!

Gee..I am sure that I exist and I am not an actor..So again you are wrong..Art

Do you have your story and photos on their Website?

 

[EE THr]

con-artie;

When are you going to get back to the topic, and say what your idea of fair test procedures are, exactly?







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]

Do you have your story and photos on their Website?...

What do you mean by Their web site ? I have my stories and Photo’s on many web sites..I have posted on many boards on T-Net..I enjoy passing the information that I have to others. That is a big part of being a Treasure Hunter…Art

 

[EE THr]

Do you have your story and photos on their Website?...

What do you mean by Their web site ? I have my stories and Photo’s on many web sites..I have posted on many boards on T-Net..I enjoy passing the information that I have to others. That is a big part of being a Treasure Hunter…Art

OK, so that's one.





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?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

allo EE, you posted -->When you refer to "something which cannot be explained," the key word there is "something." It assumes that there is, in fact, "something" to explain.
************
Simple, explain to me something in the Universe that can actually be explained. Shall we start with EE's simple electrical factor ,"what really 'is' electricity"? Do we really know, or do we just simply have a convenient theory that can actually be used repeatably with confidence to construct things despite probably being completely incorrect I prefer the Holistic Universe explaination.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

allo EE, you posted -->When you refer to "something which cannot be explained," the key word there is "something." It assumes that there is, in fact, "something" to explain.
************
Simple, explain to me something in the Universe that can actually be explained. Shall we start with EE's simple electrical factor ,"what really 'is' electricity"? Do we really know, or do we just simply have a convenient theory that can actually be used repeatably with confidence to construct things despite probably being completely incorrect I prefer the Holistic Universe explaination.

Don Jose de La Mancha

First, I don't know what the Holistic Universe explanation is, and I'm not sure I want to ask! 8)

Second, you are correct about not knowing what electricity really is. They don't even know what causes it.

That's not so bad, but did you know that they don't even know what makes capacitors work? Look it up sometime! There are "theories," but they won't even state that they're "pretty sure"!

They haven't got it "all wrong," but pretty nearly. All of Science, in fact, is that way.

But, there is the one thing that they've got going for them, and that is, as you said, "repeatability."

And they've got some definitions that they all agree on. So they can at lease talk about it. And think about it. Thats a good first step, if they continue researching in a Scientific manner.

-----

The problem, as all this relates to the LRLs, is that---

1. Nobody wants to agree to any definitions (part of which are posted in the "Maybe We Can Agree" topic).

2. The LRL promoters continually attempt to drift off into definitions to which nobody in Science agrees.

3. The LRL devices, themselves, do not match up with any known Scientific definitions of workability.

4. The LRL devices have never been reasonably proven to actually work.

5. Particularly in light of #3, it becomes imperative that #4 be overcome, by passing a test like Carl's.

6. Their refusal to even try #5, combined with the nonsense of #3, and the attitude of the LRL promoters, plus all the red flags of their exact match-up with the entire list of Predictable Patterns of Con Artists, totally locks-up the evidence that they are fraudulent.

7. If the things really did function as advertised, there would be absolutely no good reason why someone wouldn't have already won Carl's $25K. Period. That just isn't even debatable anymore.



It's just as simple as that.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI EE the first part of your post is ok. ***** &

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[fenixdigger]

Here's a novel idea. Substitute any lrl for the rods in the SHO-NUFF experiment. For "signal" oriented devices, switch with the sample.

That should cover almost all of them. You guys finished crying and ready to experiment yet


It's tuff enough---- SHO-NUFF

 

[EE THr]

Here's a novel idea. Substitute any lrl for the rods in the SHO-NUFF experiment. For "signal" oriented devices, switch with the sample.

That should cover almost all of them. You guys finished crying and ready to experiment yet


It's tuff enough---- SHO-NUFF

The topic title, if you had read the Original Post, refers to the LRl promoters suggesting their own way of organizing a proof test, since they always whine about Carl's method of testing.

It is to give them the opportunity to input their ideas, and name a procedure that is agreeable to them.

It's not for you to promote your little game.

So please knock it off, and get back on topic.

Or go to your own thread.





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]

If you are talking about those whining about "bad vibes spoil the test," then no, it has not been explained.

Real easy to explain..It is a Skeptic Excuse.

The LRLs are advertised as a functioning piece of electronic equipment, period. And the ads infer that they will find treasure (among other things). Therefore, either they can do this, or they can't do this, per the expectations of the potential consumer, as generated by the makers' ads.

Here we go again with the advertisement Proof…

Further, the makers claim that the LRLs work by Scientific principles. Since Scientific principles are all based on proven facts, the makers are making Scientific claims, which require, in turn, Scientific proof.

The Treasure Hunting devices are the Proof. Part of becoming an informed consumer is participating in a Hands On Demonstration

The LRL promoters cannot provide this Scientific proof, and there are no valid reasons why they shouldn't either prove their claims, or cease making them.

So you are telling us to shut up and go away..

Trying to stretch definitions and giving emotional excuses does not excuse them from the necessity to prove claims, especially of products which are aggressively marketed for high profit.
No..We leave te excuses to the Skeptic…Art

 

[EE THr]

The LRLs are advertised as a functioning piece of electronic equipment, period. And the ads infer that they will find treasure (among other things). Therefore, either they can do this, or they can't do this, per the expectations of the potential consumer, as generated by the makers' ads.

Here we go again with the advertisement Proof…

You have just declared that "reality is your enemy." That's been apparent all along, but now you have admitted to it. Thanks, con-artie.

As I stated before, you guys are just amazing!

Plus, in defending the manufacturers' false advertising, you have admitted to being a true shill.

Double amazing!

But thanks.





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]

If you are talking about those whining about "bad vibes spoil the test," then no, it has not been explained.

Lets see now…Where have I saw this complaint before..I remember now..From a few Mental Dowsers but mostly skeptics..The forum was about Dowsing.

The LRLs are advertised as a functioning piece of electronic equipment, period. And the ads infer that they will find treasure (among other things). Therefore, either they can do this, or they can't do this, per the expectations of the potential consumer, as generated by the makers' ads.

Here you go again wanting to talk about advertisements.

Further, the makers claim that the LRLs work by Scientific principles. Since Scientific principles are all based on proven facts, the makers are making Scientific claims, which require, in turn, Scientific proof.

Please explain just what Scientific principles you are talking about.?

The LRL promoters cannot provide this Scientific proof, and there are no valid reasons why they shouldn't either prove their claims, or cease making them.

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

 

[EE THr]

If you are talking about those whining about "bad vibes spoil the test," then no, it has not been explained.

Lets see now…Where have I saw this complaint before..I remember now..From a few Mental Dowsers but mostly skeptics..The forum was about Dowsing.

No, it's from you, con-artie.

When you keep complaining about "biased" people at Carl's test.

That is, when you are not whining about there not being lots of people tested, like there are in drug company tests. Of course, you have never, and will never, explain how you want all these people to take the test---all at once? A target for each person? Or all looking for the same target? Instead of answering, you just try to change the subject. Always. In fact, I predict that you will do it now.





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]

That is, when you are not whining about there not being lots of people tested, like there are in drug company tests. Of course, you have never, and will never, explain how you want all these people to take the test---all at once? A target for each person? Or all looking for the same target? Instead of answering, you just try to change the subject. Always. In fact, I predict that you will do it now.

Read the history of both Tests that you have indorsed. Why has no one ever been tested ?..Read the definitions of how real Double blind tests are preformed. It is not the LRL users who desperately need prove of their believe systems..Our proof is on every Manufacturers web site..Yours can only be found on skeptic web site..

Quote from: EddieR on Jan 27, 2010, 11:43:58 AM
I'm simply asking how the movement can be proven without a doubt to be ideomotor.

You can prove this with simple double-blind randomized tests.
Quote
You can prove this with simple double-blind randomized tests.

So that tells us that there is no proof…Art

Re: Finally an Answer
Reply To This Topic #44 Posted Jan 27, 2010, 05:39:37 PM Quote

If you choose to ignore the results of the tests, or choose not to do the tests at all, then yes, there is no proof.

 

[EE THr]

That is, when you are not whining about there not being lots of people tested, like there are in drug company tests. Of course, you have never, and will never, explain how you want all these people to take the test---all at once? A target for each person? Or all looking for the same target? Instead of answering, you just try to change the subject. Always. In fact, I predict that you will do it now.

Read the history of both Tests that you have indorsed. Why has no one ever been tested ?..Read the definitions of how real Double blind tests are preformed. It is not the LRL users who desperately need prove of their believe systems..Our proof is on every Manufacturers web site..Yours can only be found on skeptic web site..

I've already showed you the real definition, but you keep trying to quote some silly method used by drug companies, as an excuse to falsely invalidate Carl's legitimate test, just because you know you can't pass any test.

Also, you refuse to stipulate a procedure for testing that you would approve of, because you know that you couldn't pass one of your own design, either.

Because LRLs are a fraud, and you, con-artie, are a fraud too.


And, that you did just as I predicted above, proves it!




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]

What is wrong Little buddy…Carl’s word is not good enough for you?

 

[fenixdigger]

Now Art, don't start talking about tests. They can't do a simple experiment that they have total control over.

Pretty soon, they will start saying we wouldn't let them do it, then calling us liars about it. Predictable??

SHO-NUFF