Different Ways of Testing LRLs

[EE THr]

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

con-artie, you are right. And you have convinced me that Carl's word is good.

So now you have no excuse to not take his test.

Thank you very much. I'll just quote this post whenever you try to weasel out of it, in the future.

Good going!



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 👍

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

[EE THr]

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

This topic is about tests, Eienstien!


And weren't you the one whining about people not staying on topic, a while back?

You've come full circle in your circular logic---again.




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?

 

[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


This topid is about tests, Eienstien!

And weren't you the one whining about people not staying on topic, a while back?

You've come full circle in your circular logic---again.




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?







Thanks Capt for letting me know about this one, priceless.

The TOPID (snicker) of my post was about tests, Eienstien (snicker) Just a clue, the little red line means you made a bo-bo.

Must have had your beer goggles on. And this from the master of off topic posting. Great transference.

A SHO-NUFF a day keeps the trainsfurense (snicker) away. O-TAY??

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

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.

Do the Drug Companies not use a legal Double Blind Tests ? Are the Drug Companies the major users of Double Blind testing in the World ?..
Here is another definition of A Double Blind Test published in the Skeptics Dictionary..
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. The purpose of controls, double-blind, and randomized testing is to reduce error, self-deception and bias. An example should clarify the necessity of these safeguards. It sure seems that you do not know what a Double Blind Test is..
Carl’s stated reason for the test is not to see if LRL’s will work but prove that Dowsing does not work..

 

[hung]

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

Q: What is really electricity?
A (Science): Don't know.

Q: What is really magnetism?
A (Science): Don't know.

 

[EE THr]

A SHO-NUFF a day keeps the trainsfurense (snicker) away. O-TAY??

And once again you try to stoop to sick-ology to insult people. But you don't even make an amateur grade at that.


Come up with a fair way to Scientifically test LRLs, or just post in your own lame topic.


And, above 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?

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

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.

Do the Drug Companies not use a legal Double Blind Tests ? Are the Drug Companies the major users of Double Blind testing in the World ?..
Here is another definition of A Double Blind Test published in the Skeptics Dictionary..
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. The purpose of controls, double-blind, and randomized testing is to reduce error, self-deception and bias. An example should clarify the necessity of these safeguards. It sure seems that you do not know what a Double Blind Test is..
Carl’s stated reason for the test is not to see if LRL’s will work but prove that Dowsing does not work..

con-artie;

What you keep quoting is for testing drugs on many people.

Carl's test is much easier for you. You only need to pass one person to collect the $25K.

So, you're complaining that Carl's test is too easy.

Sorry, con-artie, you're just making a fool of yourself.




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 you keep quoting is for testing drugs on many people.

Where does it mention Drug Companies in the Skeptic definition?,,,

Carl's test is much easier for you. You only need to pass one person to collect the $25K.

Do you not know what words like .. control and the experimental groups..and words ending in
“S” mean ?…Those words mean that Carl’s Test will not prove anything

So, you're complaining that Carl's test is too easy.

I mean that Carl’s test is not a Double Blind Test as advertised

Sorry, con-artie, you're just making a fool of yourself.

That will be terminate by the Treasure hunters and not you..Art

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. The purpose of controls, double-blind, and randomized testing is to reduce error, self-deception and bias. An example should clarify the necessity of these safeguards.

 

[EE THr]

Maybe a bo-bo is an imaginary boo-boo.

 

[aarthrj3811]

The questions were

Where does it mention Drug Companies in the Skeptic definition?,,,

Do you not know what words like .. control and the experimental groups..and words ending in
“S” mean ?…Those words mean that Carl’s Test will not prove anything

I mean that Carl’s test is not a Double Blind Test as advertised
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. The purpose of controls, double-blind, and randomized testing is to reduce error, self-deception and bias. An example should clarify the necessity of these safeguards.

 

[EE THr]

con-artie;

"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."

Testing drugs is different than testing equipment.

Drug testing measures the effect a drug has on many people.

Equipment testing merely tests to see if the equipment does what it claims to do.

Double-blind tests eliminate anything which knowledge of where the target is, might cause that could affect the test in an other than accurate manner.

Are you suggesting that many LRLs need to be tested all at once, like it was a drug company test?

All you need to do to in Carl's test is find the correct target seven times out of ten. What don't you understand about that?

Why would a whole group of people be necessary? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[aarthrj3811]

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.
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, unbiased, and non-insulting than this!

We have told you our views
We have given you the definitions of Double Blind test.
We have given you our views of the two tests that the Skeptics are pushing.
We don’t need to take a test to use our LRL’s
Instead of begging, get to work on a fair test..The ball has always been in you hands.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.
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, unbiased, and non-insulting than this!

We have told you our views
We have given you the definitions of Double Blind test.
We have given you our views of the two tests that the Skeptics are pushing.
We don’t need to take a test to use our LRL’s
Instead of begging, get to work on a fair test..The ball has always been in you hands.Art

Nope. Sorry, con-artie. You don't like Carl's test, so it's now up to you to say what you think is fair.

You design a test.

The ball is in your court. (That's how the saying actually goes...you're not from around here, are you?)



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]

Nope. Sorry, con-artie. You don't like Carl's test, so it's now up to you to say what you think is fair.

Read Carl’s web site about his test..The only thing that test will prove is that one person can or can not use his device correctly. Number two is that it is not a double blind test..It seems that the Skeptics own dictionary agrees with me.
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. The purpose of controls, double-blind, and randomized testing is to reduce error, self-deception and bias. An example should clarify the necessity of these safeguards.
Please read this difination…Art

 

[EE THr]

Read Carl’s web site about his test..The only thing that test will prove is that one person can or can not use his device correctly.

That depends on how many people take the test, doesn't it.

Besides, it proves that you are one person who can't pass 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?

 

[EE THr]

con-artie;

"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]

~EE~
"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
both experimental subjects
Thank You again..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~
"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
both experimental subjects
Thank You again..Art

con-artie;

"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."


News Flash: An LRL is not human.




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]

Looks to me like you are upset because you exposed the skeptic scam..

 

[fenixdigger]

I have some real questions and I will look at the next 2 posts to see if you guys can answer them.

First some facts.

You have no intentions of ever using a LRL

You have no intention of spending a massive amount of practice time on dowsing or experiments of LRLs

Now the questions.

With that said, why is it so important to see any test results or proof of any kind?

How will anything we could possibly furnish, impact your treasure hunting?

Why are you afraid to try the SHO-NUFF experiment?

Why have we not seen any pictures of you guys doing any type of detecting or any finds you have made?

If these questions are too hard or not worded clear enough, let me know.