EddieR
Hero Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 914
- 26
- Detector(s) used
- Whites XLT, MXT,..Tesoro Vaquero, Silver UMax, Compadre, Tejon,..BH LandRanger..Pioneer 505.. GC1023..Teknetics Delta 4000, Gamma 6000, Eurotek Pro..Fisher F2, F4, F5, F70
Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's
First of all, I stand by what I said in my post. You can try to shimmy sham around it, but it still stands.
Next, as for the questions you asked...
1. You asked if I think science is valid. Of course I do. But many of the people who support/define it ARE NOT. Some scientists willingly ignore evidence contrary to the results they want. They fabricate studies to "prove" their findings. Their "findings" matches what the person/group in charge of the funding wants. All of this has been seen over and over in the past. Now, if "people of science" will do this, then is "science" valid? (The term "science" being used here is referring to their flawed/fake findings)
2. You asked if I thought that LRL's previously and/or currently on the market will reliably locate "treasure".
I have stated in the past that I can only speak for the devices I myself have used, which was a LectraSearch VS100. Initially, I thought that it worked, as I easily located a ring that I had lost earlier. But, after performing tests recently (with the same device that I used before) I easily concluded that the device does not perform as advertised (electronically). It's a dowsing rod.
Now, the other LRL's on the market? I have no idea. I've never used them. So in all fairness, I cannot say yes or no concerning them.
EE THr said:EddieR said:The whole reason I always ask for quotes is BECAUSE I NEVER SAID WHAT YOU CLAIM I SAID. I thought that was simple to understand, but in dealing with you, "simple" evidently is too much overload. Sorry about that. Your reading comprehension is wrong, as usual.... but I've come to expect that from your kind.
If you aren't against Science, then why were you whining about me bringing it up? Sorry, you're just trying to weasel out of your own contradiction.
This is the way your kind thinks: You guys can generalize your posts and take free reign to extract concepts from others posts, but anyone who opposes your posts (i.e. agenda) should word their postings exactly as meant and should only go by what your kind specifically posts (never taking a general conceptualization from them). Now why is that?
Translation of Eddie-speak: "I don't like you mentioning the ideas that I put forth, when I contradict myself. And I'll add to that some nonsensical gobbeldy-gook that maybe some gullible people will think means that you are guilty of something or other similar to the goof that I made. Then maybe I won't look so bad."
Nice try, Innocent Eddie, but no cigar.
As for your video.... Seriously!!! There are thousands of videos out that show UFO's, aliens, bigfoot, chupacabra, nessie, and lord knows what else. Some of the videos have been taken by law enforcement officers (UFO) and pilots (UFO). But, UFO's still aren't proven to be real. Why not? There is video, there are reliable witnesses, it's on the internet, etc. All the reasons you say makes the Eugenics program true can also be said about UFO's.
It's all about a little thing called H-I-S-T-O-R-Y, Eddie. All the stuff in the video is taken from recorded history. And unlike your UFO nonsense, there is physical evidence supporting what is told in the video, in addition to the testimony of credible professionals, and the Eugenics/Psychiatry program's own documents.
But no, you would rather be on the side of baby killers and people who walk around with a transistor hot-glued to a coat hanger, imagining they "found treasure."
BTW, I never said I believed any stories about LRL's (another of your bogus claims). I never said I believed any about metal detectors either. SO?
OK. Regardless of who said what when, here is your big chance to set it all straight, and save face---
1. Do you think Science is valid?
2. Do you think that LRLs previously and/or currently on the market will reliably locate "treasure"?
First of all, I stand by what I said in my post. You can try to shimmy sham around it, but it still stands.
Next, as for the questions you asked...
1. You asked if I think science is valid. Of course I do. But many of the people who support/define it ARE NOT. Some scientists willingly ignore evidence contrary to the results they want. They fabricate studies to "prove" their findings. Their "findings" matches what the person/group in charge of the funding wants. All of this has been seen over and over in the past. Now, if "people of science" will do this, then is "science" valid? (The term "science" being used here is referring to their flawed/fake findings)
2. You asked if I thought that LRL's previously and/or currently on the market will reliably locate "treasure".
I have stated in the past that I can only speak for the devices I myself have used, which was a LectraSearch VS100. Initially, I thought that it worked, as I easily located a ring that I had lost earlier. But, after performing tests recently (with the same device that I used before) I easily concluded that the device does not perform as advertised (electronically). It's a dowsing rod.
Now, the other LRL's on the market? I have no idea. I've never used them. So in all fairness, I cannot say yes or no concerning them.
![:-\](https://www.treasurenet.com/smilies/undecided.gif "Undecided :-\")
<tinkle tinkle> Of course, you will ignore this call for proof, just like all the other times, 'CAUSE YOU AINT GOT DIDDLEY!!! 
BTW...ya forgot to post that proof (again) about me being disbarred. Of course, we shouldn't expect any more from a two bit con such as yourself, should we? 
