Different Ways of Testing LRLs

[EE THr]

It can't be important to have proof of something which doesn't work, because there will never be any proof. The demand for proof, in the form of randomized double-blind tests, is merely to prove that you can't participate in those tests, because you can't pass the tests, because your products are fake.

Asking you to suggest your own version of a randomized double-blind test, which is the topic of this thread, is merely to prove that your complaints about the existing tests, Carl's and Randi's, are obviously phony. Which it has absolutely done.

Your products are fake, and you are fakes. That's the way it is.

The rest of your so-called facts, and your questions are non sequitur.



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 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[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.

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

Must be talking to one of their imaginary friends

It can't be important to have proof of something which doesn't work, because there will never be any proof. The demand for proof, in the form of randomized double-blind tests, is merely to prove that you can't participate in those tests, because you can't pass the tests, because your products are fake.

Asking you to suggest your own version of a randomized double-blind test, which is the topic of this thread, is merely to prove that your complaints about the existing tests, Carl's and Randi's, are obviously phony. Which it has absolutely done.

Your products are fake, and you are fakes. That's the way it is.

The rest of your so-called facts, and your questions are non sequitur.



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?

Good answers.

That makes it real clear.

 

[fenixdigger]

I predict another string of nonsense and childish insults from the LRL promoters, because they can't confront these issues.


Hmmmmm,,,,,,,, back on ignore.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey fenixdigger
It seems our experts have no idea on Different Ways of Testing LRLs. The first thing they need to do is have a lrl to use. Then they would have to study the owners manual to learn how it works, what the switches and dials do and every thing else that has to be done before you can test it. After that they would need to find some samples to practice with. Practice with known targets until they know exactly what the tool is telling them..Then they can decide when it is time to look for unknown targets…Then they will be ready to take to the field to enjoy themselves..
Art

 

[EE THr]

Hey fenixdigger
It seems our experts have no idea on Different Ways of Testing LRLs. The first thing they need to do is have a lrl to use. Then they would have to study the owners manual to learn how it works, what the switches and dials do and every thing else that has to be done before you can test it. After that they would need to find some samples to practice with. Practice with known targets until they know exactly what the tool is telling them..Then they can decide when it is time to look for unknown targets…Then they will be ready to take to the field to enjoy themselves..
Art

Why would anyone want to get an LRL, when you have already told us that they don't work?


Here is how you told us: You have told us that you won't take Carl's test. The only reason is because LRLs don't work, and you know you can't pass it, even at only 70%, under ideal conditions.

Also you have told us that you refuse to define your own random double-blind test, and the reason is the same as above.

Your entire rant about not liking double-blind tests is because you know that your LRLs simply don't work.

Nothing could be better proof, that LRLs are fraudulent, than that. And there is nothing you can do about it, because you have been offered to design your own random double-blind test, that you think would be fair. But to you, the only test that would be fair is if you knew ahead of time where the targets are, like in your phony videos.

There is nothing to your claims about LRLs. They just don't work, and that's it.

And all the fake photos and videos and testimonials can't change these true facts.








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~

It can't be important to have proof of something which doesn't work, because there will never be any proof. The demand for proof, in the form of randomized double-blind tests, is merely to prove that you can't participate in those tests, because you can't pass the tests, because your products are fake.

I sure hope that you can find a Treasure Hunter who purchased a LRL to do double blind test..The rest of your post is just more excuses for not having any proof..

Why would anyone want to get an LRL, when you have already told us that they don't work?

Thank you again for making a list stating that you have no proof..Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Here is how you told us: You have told us that you won't take Carl's test. The only reason is because LRLs don't work, and you know you can't pass it, even at only 70%, under ideal conditions.

Yes I have told you that I will not take Carl’s Test..I have also explained the reason for not recommending that any one fall for this fake double blind test

Also you have told us that you refuse to define your own random double-blind test, and the reason is the same as above.

Why should I waste my time designing a Scientific test that I will never put up the money to have done by experts from the Scientific Commuity.

Your entire rant about not liking double-blind tests is because you know that your LRLs simply don't work.

I know that the 7 LRL’s that I have used all worked. Am I supposed to bow to the skeptics because they have no proof?

And all the fake photos and videos and testimonials can't change these true facts

.
Can you prove that the photo’s. videos and testimonials are fake?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Why do LRL proponents fail to realize/understand that the majority of the opponents posting in these threads are warning about the unscientific theories and blatant fraud surrounding these devices. Run out and buy something that already been proven to be fraudulent, to prove it doesn't work? How asinine.

That is funny..I see all kinds of so called scientific theories posted on this board. All from the skeptics. When we ask for proof we get replies like yours. When we ask for Convictions of fraud all the excuses come out.

Asking LRL promoters/users/makers to kindly validate their claims is out of the question. For obvious reasons.

We have posted testimonials, movies and photo’s of finds..That is called validation..Art

 

[EE THr]

Long Range Locator

Media exposure and controversy

Author Tom Clancy came under fire for including the DKL Lifeguard, a long range locator purported to be useful for detecting people, in critical passages of his novel Rainbow Six. A study by Sandia National Laboratories proved the Lifeguard to be completely useless, and other designs by the Lifeguard's creator Thomas Afilani have been shown to contain numerous dummy components with no clear function.

Accusing the manufacturers of fraud, Great Britain banned export of the GT 200 (used by the government of Thailand) and also the ADE 651 (used by the government of Iraq) in January 2010.





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]

Author Tom Clancy came under fire for including the DKL Lifeguard, a long range locator purported to be useful for detecting people, in critical passages of his novel Rainbow Six. A study by Sandia National Laboratories proved the Lifeguard to be completely useless, and other designs by the Lifeguard's creator Thomas Afilani have been shown to contain numerous dummy components with no clear function.

Accusing the manufacturers of fraud, Great Britain banned export of the GT 200 (used by the government of Thailand) and also the ADE 651 (used by the

All these devices have one thing in comon. They are not Treasure Hunting Metal Detectors..Art

 

[EE THr]

Author Tom Clancy came under fire for including the DKL Lifeguard, a long range locator purported to be useful for detecting people, in critical passages of his novel Rainbow Six. A study by Sandia National Laboratories proved the Lifeguard to be completely useless, and other designs by the Lifeguard's creator Thomas Afilani have been shown to contain numerous dummy components with no clear function.

Accusing the manufacturers of fraud, Great Britain banned export of the GT 200 (used by the government of Thailand) and also the ADE 651 (used by the

All these devices have one thing in comon. They are not Treasure Hunting Metal Detectors..Art

Nope. They are LRLs.

I'm surprised you haven't claimed to own them 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]

RangerTell, Dell Systems, Mineoro and H3 Tec devices are not Treasure Hunting Metal Detectors, either.

That is a falsehood SWR…Art

This is the official re-opening of the TreasureNet Long Range Locator Forum.


PLEASE NOTE: As the administrator, creator and owner of this site, I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE GET RIPPED OFF (defrauded) by people selling so-called "long range locators" (devices, that supposedly, can find precious metals at a distance). I HIGHLY recommend consulting a geophysicist ($100 in consulting fees could save you thousands, and you'll learn something!), before spending ONE DIME ON ANY "long range locator" . With that, I open this forum to the discussion of said devices.

 

[EE THr]

Looks to me like you refuse to say what you think a fair test would be, because you know that then you would have no reason not to take your own random double-blind test---and you know that you can't ever pass even your own test!




I predict that the LRL promoters will respond with another string of childish nonsense and insults, and off-topic diversions, because they have nothing logical to answer with.



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]

Falsehood? Where is your proof or validation of a falsehood?

Unless you've got something supporting your accusations of a falsehood....you've just made a total ass out of yourself

just playing follow the bouncing ball..Art

 

[Saturna]

just playing follow the bouncing ball..Art

Is that one of the games they have you play in the home ?

 

[Frenchman]

I would strongly suggest to everyone, that before you buy a LRL, that you cut a willow or salt willow and test if will pull toward water for you. Some people can dowse and most not. You either have the abilility or you don't. Most don't. Thats reality.

 

[EE THr]

I strongly suggest that nobody ever buys an LRL at all.

For the reasons listed below.













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]

With this topic question, it's now been well over a month since asked, and none of the LRLers have suggested how they would prefer a test to be run.

So, just to bring things back on topic, and to refresh your memories---




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!


I'm all ears....

 

[aarthrj3811]

You fail to understand..We do not need a test to know that our devices work..They Skeptics think that our devices do not work..You are the ones lacking proof so come up with a test that will be expectable…Art

 

[EE THr]

You fail to understand..We do not need a test to know that our devices work..They Skeptics think that our devices do not work..You are the ones lacking proof so come up with a test that will be expectable…Art

No, it is you who pretends to not understand.

Specifically, you pretend to not understand the following---
1. That we are fully aware that your LRL devices are totally fake.
2. That there are no "skeptics" opposing you, only people who know your LRLs are fake.
3. Nobody is saying that you want a test. (Duh!)
4. Since you claim that LRLs work, the onus is on you to prove it, not us.
5. Since you don't like any of our suggestions for a test, it is now up to you to suggest one.

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.









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?