Do The Math!

Status
Not open for further replies.
aarthrj3811 said:
~SWR~
Ransom Chance...cute hehe
The "random chance" odds are not a factor.
Thank You..he was told that early in this thread,
~Carl~
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 lack comprehension of the concept of odd related to the performance of a locating device.

You further lack the understanding of how the performance of said device under ideal conditions, relates to it's possible performance in the field.

This is the difference. The test conditions are ideal.

The area is tested ahead of time to be sure there is no "interference." That is one condition that is better in the test than in the field, as the interference level in the field is unknown, and can lead to false indications as well as preventing indications.

The second condition in favor of the device being tested, is that there are ten exact, visable, locations, one of which contains the target. This is a huge advantage, as every other, of millions of possible locations, are thus eliminated even before the test begins.

In the test, all you need to do is determine which of the ten covered spots holds the target.

In the field, your target could be anywhere, or not even be there at all---nobody knows.

Since the test conditions make it much easier for success of the device, it is totally logical that if the device can't find the target there, then it certainly can't find a target in the field.

You are given ten tries in the test. Finding the target only seven times out of the ten tries will pass the test. That's a 70% score.

It is certain that if a device can't achieve at least 70% success in the test, it can't, in any way, achieve 70% in the field.

If it achieves 50% success in the test, that's getting the target half the time. The odds are that you will be able to merely guess one correct time in ten, since there are ten possible spots. But you might be able to guess three or four correctly, out of ten different tries, and not get any correct guesses on the next set of ten.

So, a good indication of being more than random chance, would be to require 70%.

Personally, I would require ten out of ten. But Carl is giving you a big break.

The only problem now, is that LRLs are fake devices, and so you can't possibly get any success percentage beyond what you would get by just guessing. That is random chance.

But why worry about all that? Just go and pass Carl's test, and your problems will be over, once and for all. But the truth is that you can't do that, can you?

:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:

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?
 

That's real slick.Start a thread about math involved in LRLs and then can't answer a math question about it. Well at least you are doing good on the cute little insults. Good job. Proving The 10,001 Post Prediction 1 Freudian quirk at a time. SHO-NUFF
 

fenixdigger said:
That's real slick.Start a thread about math involved in LRLs and then can't answer a math question about it. Well at least you are doing good on the cute little insults. Good job. Proving The 10,001 Post Prediction 1 Freudian quirk at a time. SHO-NUFF


This thread is about the likelyhood that LRLs will work at all, not about me jumping through stupid diversion hoops for you.

The only post you have made are diversions away from the facts that you can't face, because you are a fraud.


:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:

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?
 

Just a guess, no chance on anything anyone but you wants answered. Since you don't have a clue about LRLs, how do you expect to understand the questions you ask? You don't. That's not why you or your BBFL are here, is it?

Notice how few people post here now? Be proud to be the Typhoid Mary of the forum. Of course truth and facts play no part
in your world here. Only the demanded responses of the prevailing glitch at the time.

Do the math on this. What's the odds that other people have mentioned you need treatment? What's the odds that now you have ran off people other than on this forum? I already know the answers, so does everyone else.

The big thing that you and SWR don't understand is that we are very happy doing what we do. Look at the photos. You can't use a coil detector there unless you machete a clear spot. Even in fields you can't search 1,000 acres in a day. This was our only option to hunt these areas. Sorry you don't understand.
 

~Art`
If that is the truth Please tell us what the cost ratio to success ratio is ?..Art
Are you telling us that Ransom Chance odds can not be used to figure the success ratio of LRL’s?..then this whole thread is just a joke to you?..Art
~Zero~
Since no LRL has ever been proven to actually work, the cost would be a total loss.
Hey LT..Did you notice how upset SWR and his clone “Zero” have been..Post after post of copies of the insult posts. Not because the Math is wrong but because they have no proof. Almost 300 posts of his dribble and all for nothing…He told the truth and shot down his whole thread..Art
 

It appears you and your BBFL are here to spread propaganda about how well these fraudulent devices work.
Just telling what we know about them and pointing out the facts about your skeptic facts..art
 

aarthrj3811 said:
~Art`
If that is the truth Please tell us what the cost ratio to success ratio is ?..Art
Are you telling us that Ransom Chance odds can not be used to figure the success ratio of LRL’s?..then this whole thread is just a joke to you?..Art
~Zero~
Since no LRL has ever been proven to actually work, the cost would be a total loss.
Hey LT..Did you notice how upset SWR and his clone “Zero” have been..Post after post of copies of the insult posts. Not because the Math is wrong but because they have no proof. Almost 300 posts of his dribble and all for nothing…He told the truth and shot down his whole thread..Art



Ah, but there are many forms of proof, con-artie.

The math is one type of proof.

Your fear of a random double-blind test is another type of proof.

Your diversions away from revealing questions is another type of proof.

In fact, everything you do is just more proof that LRLs don't work, and you are a fraud.

And your silly insults, of course, are not proof of your claims, they are only more proof that your LRLs don't actually work at all. So you just post nonsense. Because that's all you've got!

:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:

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?
 

Ah, but there are many forms of proof, con-artie.
There is

The math is one type of proof.
You admit that your Math does not apply to LRL’s

Your fear of a random double-blind test is another type of proof.
What is a “Random double-blind test?

Your diversions away from revealing questions is another type of proof.
Proof of what?

In fact, everything you do is just more proof that LRLs don't work, and you are a fraud.
Who did I de-fraud?
And your silly insults, of course, are not proof of your claims, they are only more proof that your LRLs don't actually work at all. So you just post nonsense. Because that's all you've got!
Is that all the proof you have?
 

Thank you for again repeating your lack of proof and knowledge of the subject..Art

Are we still having fun?
 

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
Gee..I have heard many theories about how they do not work. So why do they work?
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
How do you know that? Have you used all the devices?
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a double blind test.
You may be surprised if we are ever offered a real double blind test
4. The proponent's only rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-3. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. This makes their reports of finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list.
Yes we do find treasure..You say it is dowsing and we say it is not…Can you dowse? Have you ever used one of these devices?..If your answer is no then please tell us where your information comes from.Art
 

aarthrj3811 said:
1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
Gee..I have heard many theories about how they do not work. So why do they work?
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
How do you know that? Have you used all the devices?
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a double blind test.
You may be surprised if we are ever offered a real double blind test
4. The proponent's only rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-3. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. This makes their reports of finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list.

Yes we do find treasure..You say it is dowsing and we say it is not…Can you dowse? Have you ever used one of these devices?..If your answer is no then please tell us where your information comes from.Art



LRLs do not work.

Your attempt to use the Straw Man Fallacy, even though it is warned about to be a con trick, shows your persistence in scamming people.

My proof comes from the links below---








:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:

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?
 

LRLs do not work.
Your attempt to use the Straw Man Fallacy, even though it is warned about to be a con trick, shows your persistence in scamming people.
My proof comes from the links below---
Great proof but looks more like your excuses
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 said:
LRLs do not work.
Your attempt to use the Straw Man Fallacy, even though it is warned about to be a con trick, shows your persistence in scamming people.
My proof comes from the links below---
Great proof but looks more like your excuses
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?




I'm no doof---here's the proof!

ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:


P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
 

~EE~
Your attempt to use the Straw Man Fallacy, even though it is warned about to be a con trick, shows your persistence in scamming people.
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Origin
The origins of the term are unclear; one common (folk) etymology given is that it originated with men who stood outside courthouses with a straw in their shoe in order to indicate their willingness to be a false witness, but it is unlikely that individuals would publicly declare their willingness to commit a crime outside a courthouse.[3][4] Another more popular origin is a human figure made of straw, such as practice dummies used in military training. Such a dummy is supposed to represent the enemy, but it is considerably easier to attack because it, naturally, neither moves nor fights


Yes..That explains your posting methods exactly..Art
 

The Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a double blind test.
4. The proponent's only rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-3. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. This makes their reports of finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list.

:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:

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?
 

The math is fine, con-artie.
You just need more training!
I have been trained by three of the Manufactures of devices I own. Tell me who would do better training than the inventor of these devices?
 

aarthrj3811 said:
The math is fine, con-artie.
You just need more training!
I have been trained by three of the Manufactures of devices I own. Tell me who would do better training than the inventor of these devices?


There are no "inventors" of your fake LRLs.

Since they are nothing, then nothing has been invented.

Stick to the topic. Straw Man Fallacy.

:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:

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?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top