Do The Math!

[aarthrj3811]

Darn Lt. .Did he just tell me how complicated Treasure Hunting is. I always research the area I am thinking about going to..I then print out maps of these areas. I then Map dowse the maps to get my starting points..I then make sure I get all the equipment that I may need into the car..Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Well Art; you know that was an insult, you called him a liar and a con man,,,Oh wait, sorry, that was him. Wellll, you told the truth.

That was an insult to him. Lucky he didn't get blood poisoning.

Man up or shut up ANSWER the questions

If you are referencing my last post, no, there is no insult there. Just facts documented in the previous posts.

You should learn the difference.




fenix brothers---Answer: #32 in the bottom link. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me 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]

~EE~

As an example of how to figure what value you get from an LRL, here is a hypothetical comparison.

Sorry EE…We deal in Reality not hypothetical math..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

As an example of how to figure what value you get from an LRL, here is a hypothetical comparison.

Sorry EE…We deal in Reality not hypothetical math..Art

And here is the reality---

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.



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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]

And here is the reality---

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.

Just you theory..nothing else

 

[EE THr]

And here is the reality---

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.

Just you theory..nothing else

Apparently you don't understand the difference between theory and fact.

That lack of comprehension isn't going to sell LRLs, artie.

All four points on that list are facts.

Deal with it.



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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~

That lack of That lack of comprehension isn't going to sell LRLs, artie. isn't going to sell LRLs, artie.

That is your problem..I do not sell LRL’s..I help people understand them before they purchase one and after they have invested “their money” in one of these devices..Despite all you illogical posts treasure hunters are still buying LRL’s. That should tell you something. With 48,000 Treasure hunters I try to provide a voice of experience to them..You try to provide a voice of doom and gloom by calling treasure hunter dummies. I think that I comprehend the thinking of Treasure Hunters and understand that they are dissatisfied with conventional devices..So , please tell me what I do not comprehend..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

That lack of That lack of comprehension isn't going to sell LRLs, artie. isn't going to sell LRLs, artie.

That is your problem..I do not sell LRL’s..I help people understand them before they purchase one and after they have invested “their money” in one of these devices..Despite all you illogical posts treasure hunters are still buying LRL’s. That should tell you something. With 48,000 Treasure hunters I try to provide a voice of experience to them..You try to provide a voice of doom and gloom by calling treasure hunter dummies. I think that I comprehend the thinking of Treasure Hunters and understand that they are dissatisfied with conventional devices..So , please tell me what I do not comprehend..Art

Please quote where I said, "treasure hunters are dummies." You are a liar on that. Plain and simple.

This topic is about the math of LRLs. If you want to challenge the math, then show your math. But so far you have not posted any. Just off-topic BS. Put that on your own thread. Otherwise you are just being a Troll, by definition. And don't accuse me of insults or name calling. If you are off topic, then you fit the reference in that link. Facts are not insults.



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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]

This topic is about the math of LRLs. If you want to challenge the math, then show your math. But so far you have not posted any. Just off-topic BS. Put that on your own thread. Otherwise you are just being a Troll, by definition. And don't accuse me of insults or name calling. If you are off topic, then you fit the reference in that link. Facts are not insults.

We have challenged your math of coin flips..We have proved that it does not have anything to do with the recommended usage of LRL’s. Even your hero whom you mention in most of your post agrees with us..There is no way that math can be used when a LRL is used properly..So we are not off topic ..

And don't accuse me of insults or name calling. If you are off topic, then you fit the reference in that link. Facts are not insults.

What are you talking about?

 

[EE THr]

This topic is about the math of LRLs. If you want to challenge the math, then show your math. But so far you have not posted any. Just off-topic BS. Put that on your own thread. Otherwise you are just being a Troll, by definition. And don't accuse me of insults or name calling. If you are off topic, then you fit the reference in that link. Facts are not insults.

We have challenged your math of coin flips..We have proved that it does not have anything to do with the recommended usage of LRL’s. Even your hero whom you mention in most of your post agrees with us..There is no way that math can be used when a LRL is used properly..So we are not off topic ..

And don't accuse me of insults or name calling. If you are off topic, then you fit the reference in that link. Facts are not insults.

What are you talking about?

artie---

Your same phony rationalization could be use to say that there is no need for drug testing. Or no need for proof in court. Or, just about anything. Because your logic is based on the premise that coin tossing is all there is to the math. Coin tossing is not related to testing LRLs.

All that matters is "can an LRL reliably find targets?" The answer, of course, is "no."

They can't even achieve a 70% success rate in a controlled environment, so how could they ever find anything out in the field?

If you want to challenge the math with your own math, go right ahead.

But when you simply say that the math doesn't work, you are only making yourself look like a fool.



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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~

Your same phony rationalization could be use to say that there is no need for drug testing. Or no need for proof in court. Or, just about anything. Because your logic is based on the premise that coin tossing is all there is to the math. Coin tossing is not related to testing LRLs.

Thank You…All the math that you have posted was based on coin flips..So we were right about your math

All that matters is "can an LRL reliably find targets?" The answer, of course, is "no."

That is your openion

They can't even achieve a 70% success rate in a controlled environment, so how could they ever find anything out in the field?

Again..just your openion

If you want to challenge the math with your own math, go right ahead.

No math needed..Go out and find a gold signal…Follow the signal to the target. Dig the target and go home

But when you simply say that the math doesn't work, you are only making yourself look like a fool

.
I said that your math had nothing to do with the prime usage of LRL’s so it is no use to us…Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Your same phony rationalization could be use to say that there is no need for drug testing. Or no need for proof in court. Or, just about anything. Because your logic is based on the premise that coin tossing is all there is to the math. Coin tossing is not related to testing LRLs.

Thank You…All the math that you have posted was based on coin flips..So we were right about your math

All that matters is "can an LRL reliably find targets?" The answer, of course, is "no."

That is your openion

They can't even achieve a 70% success rate in a controlled environment, so how could they ever find anything out in the field?

Again..just your openion

If you want to challenge the math with your own math, go right ahead.

No math needed..Go out and find a gold signal…Follow the signal to the target. Dig the target and go home

But when you simply say that the math doesn't work, you are only making yourself look like a fool

.
I said that your math had nothing to do with the prime usage of LRL’s so it is no use to us…Art

What is your problem with coin flips? It is only an example of 50-50 odds, and has nothing to do with the odds of any device finding a target. It is up to the device to find a target, it's not up to a coin. So your attempt to invalidate the 50% odds of a coin toss doesn't apply, but is only a lame attempt at a Straw Man Fallacy rebuttal.

No, just my opinion, because it's a fact that no LRL has ever been successful under scientific conditions, we only hear fairy tales about finding treasures from you and your ilk.

This is a math threat, not a fairy tale thread about your imaginary treasure adventures. Those belong somewhere else, because the LRL forum is about LRL devices, not tall tales.

If the math topic has nothing to do with your idea of prime usage of LRLs, then why are you post about your use of them, knowing full well that it is off topic? That's called Trolling.

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.



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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 say so

 

[aarthrj3811]

P.S. I predict that the LRLers will have no rational response to this, but will instead reply with nonsensical insults or gibberish. Or will divert away from LRLs, and want to talk about ME, instead, whining because I post truth and facts. Let's see what happens....

Just as you predicted the only thing that can be said about this post is that it has no rational relationship to LRL’s being used for what they were designed to do…No insults just plain old fact…Art

 

[EE THr]

P.S. I predict that the LRLers will have no rational response to this, but will instead reply with nonsensical insults or gibberish. Or will divert away from LRLs, and want to talk about ME, instead, whining because I post truth and facts. Let's see what happens....

Just as you predicted the only thing that can be said about this post is that it has no rational relationship to LRL’s being used for what they were designed to do…No insults just plain old fact…Art

Where in the topic title does it say that it's about field use?

Where in the original post does it say it's about field use?

Nowhere.

It is about the mathematics of LRL success or failure. It relates test conditions to field use, but field use is not the topic.

I know that you don't like scientific tests, because obviously your LRL can't pass one, as no LRL ever has.

And I know that you don't like the mathematical analysis of LRL testing, because it exposes the fact that LRLs don't work.

So you might as well quit whining about the math, and about your supposed "field use," because you have already made it obvious that you can't actually get your hoax devices to work, and never will, as they stand today.

The more you cry about math and testing, the more you expose your fraudulent game.

But the more you expose that, the better, so either way it works for me!



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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]

Just as you predicted the only thing that can be said about this post is that it has no rational relationship to LRL’s being used for what they were designed to do…No insults just plain old fact…Art

~EE~

Where in the topic title does it say that it's about field use?

No it does not

Where in the original post does it say it's about field use?

No it does not
But..It says nothing about “testing”..You have not compared the devices to other equipment or any of the other thing you state..Just a bunch of bogus math.
Do The Math!
Posted Apr 14, 2011, 10:42:45 AM
Quote

Do The Math!

The LRL promoters were complaining about personal insults, in a couple other threads here, so there won't be any personal insults here. Just the mathematics of LRLs, and of LRLs compared to other equipment.

First let's establish the success rate percentage math, and what it means.

If you toss a coin, the random odds of guessing which side will land up, is 50-50. In percentages, this is expressed as an average success rate of 50%.

So, if any type of locating device is used to select between two unknown targets, with one of them being an agreed upon desireable target, and the other not, you would have the same random chance of 50-50 for just guessing---with or withour any locating device.

That means that a success rate of 50%, for a locating device, is really zero, because it's no better than random chance or just guessing.

So, the only percentages that are significant for testing dowsing or LRLs, are those between 50 and 100. Because anything less would mean that the locating device is doing nothing better than someone just guessing.

Since the whole LRL question revolves around the claim that LRLs are better than just dowsing, then it should stand to reason that, if dowsing and LRLs do work, the LRLs would have a significantly better average percentage of success than mere dowsing, right?

Now we have something to work with. Just the data, and no need for insults, right? Straight math. Good.

Furthermore, it has been claimed that a couple coat hangers (thank you SWR) will work as well as anything for standard dowsing rods. Now we can do the math, comparing the retail price of coat hangers to the retail price of an LRL device.

Since most metal coat hangers are free, let's assign them a hidden cost of 50 cents, since whoever gives them out with their laundry does have to pay for them, and that cost is passed on to the consumer. And since most people use two, that's a total cost of $1.00 to dowse.

Now we can compare the cost ratio of any particular LRL-to-coat hangers, with ratio of success percentage of the same LRL-to-coat hangers, right?

But remember, the success percentage of both dowsing, and LRLs, begins at 50% equals zero success above random guessing chance. So tests resulting in 50% success or less, must be calculated into the over all average success rate, but do not by themselves indicate any success at all.

Now we can express the value of, for example, a RangerTell LRL, by comparing it's cost ratio to it's success ratio.

No insults, no opinions, no bias. Just pure, simple math. Just the data, folks!

Fair enough?

 

[EE THr]

But..It says nothing about “testing”..You have not compared the devices to other equipment or any of the other thing you state..Just a bunch of bogus math.

It says nothing about testing?

It's based on the math of test results. that is, the percentage of successful target finds.

And why the need to compare with other devices? What would you compare it with, metal detectors?

This isn't math about comparing LRLs with other detecting devices. It's about whether your LRL can pick the correct location or not. Either it will or it won't. That's what it is about.

I don't know what kind of mystical situation that you seem to require for your LRL to "work," but the advertisements for these things don't mention anything about that. They just say it finds treasure and coins and things like that. No mention of any special conditions in the ads. So if they can't do what is advertised, they are fraudulent, phony, fakes.

You are telling us that you perform double-blind tests, and score successfully every time. So, if you are telling the truth, you should have no problem performing your same test in front of unbiased witnesses, in public.

So why don't you do so, and prove your claims, and get it over with?

I have strong reason to suspect that it is because you are lying. What else cound anyone think?



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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's based on the math of test results. that is, the percentage of successful target finds.

Wrong..It is based on the odds of Random Chance which is based on Coin Flips..Random chance can not be used when LRL’s are performing what they are designed to do.
Please show us where any double blind test results for Treasure Hunting devices can be found? Thats a question EE..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

It's based on the math of test results. that is, the percentage of successful target finds.

Wrong..It is based on the odds of Random Chance which is based on Coin Flips..Random chance can not be used when LRL’s are performing what they are designed to do.
Please show us where any double blind test results for Treasure Hunting devices can be found? Thats a question EE..Art

Your whining is all merely attempts at a big Straw Man Fallacy, so you think you won't have to face the facts.

Either post on-topic, or don't post in this thread.

 

[fenixdigger]

So why don't you do so, and prove your claims, and get it over with?

I have strong reason to suspect that it is because you are lying. What else cound anyone think?


Anyone else would think you are being demanding and insulting. P.S. The red line means something---O-TAY