Fraud on a vast scale (EP Times story)

[EE THr]

Looks like we have a whole new burdon of proof thing going here. Go.

Well, you supposedly have just one person whining about a single unit, and you don't even know what the "complaint" was.

Obviously, he should have contacted White's first. And if he did, what did they say? Was it a manufacturing defect? That can happen with anything, even when they test good. Sometimes bad solder joints don't have any effect right away. Or even defective parts can pass testing, then fail a couple weeks later.

Since you won't say what the problem was, however...I don't think there really was one.

But you are trying to say that since this guy had some mysterious problem with one unit, that all of those units couldn't meet specs.

That just doesn't make sense. It sounds fishy to me.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Kentucky Kache]

Looks like we have a whole new burdon of proof thing going here. Go.

Well, you supposedly have just one person whining about a single unit, and you don't even know what the "complaint" was.

Obviously, he should have contacted White's first. And if he did, what did they say? Was it a manufacturing defect? That can happen with anything, even when they test good. Sometimes bad solder joints don't have any effect right away. Or even defective parts can pass testing, then fail a couple weeks later.

Since you won't say what the problem was, however...I don't think there really was one.

But you are trying to say that since this guy had some mysterious problem with one unit, that all of those units couldn't meet specs.

That just doesn't make sense. It sounds fishy to me.

You know that one unit only couldn't be bad. All of them would have to be the same.

 

[EE THr]

You know that one unit only couldn't be bad. All of them would have to be the same.

Absolutely not so.

All of the components in an electronics device, such as resistors, capacitors, transistors, chips, and so forth, are manufacturered by different companies. And all of them have manufacturing defects from time-to-time.

When electronics devices are manufactured, every unit gets tested. Usually any bad component is detected and replaced at the test stations, and the unit is calibrated, tuned, or whatever needs to be done for optimum performance. If it can't be aligned to meet specs, it doesn't get sold.

Sometimes a component won't fail on the test bench. One common test method is to put the units inside a heat chamber, and another is to increase the power source voltage. These kinds of tests will usually make a weak component fail. Sometimes vibration tests are done. And cold environment tests.

But occasionally an individual factory defective component makes it past these tests, and fails in the field. That's what warranties are for.



So---what was the specific problem with your friend's unit?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

You know that one unit only couldn't be bad. All of them would have to be the same.

Absolutely not so.

All of the components in an electronics device, such as resistors, capacitors, transistors, chips, and so forth, are manufacturered by different companies. And all of them have manufacturing defects from time-to-time.

When electronics devices are manufactured, every unit gets tested. Usually any bad component is detected and replaced at the test stations, and the unit is calibrated, tuned, or whatever needs to be done for optimum performance. If it can't be aligned to meet specs, it doesn't get sold.

Sometimes a component won't fail on the test bench. One common test method is to put the units inside a heat chamber, and another is to increase the power source voltage. These kinds of tests will usually make a weak component fail. Sometimes vibration tests are done. And cold environment tests.

But occasionally an individual factory defective component makes it past these tests, and fails in the field. That's what warranties are for.



So---what was the specific problem with your friend's unit?

Surely you're not telling us that something could work fine in a test, but then fail in the field. I mean, a thing either works, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Ask "my friend." It was his machine, and his post. Would you like the link to the page where he posted it?

 

[EE THr]

Surely you're not telling us that something could work fine in a test, but then fail in the field. I mean, a thing either works, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Ask "my friend." It was his machine, and his post. Would you like the link to the page where he posted it?

I've been on both sides of the counter with electronics. I just explained it to you. If you think it's otherwise, then you just don't know what's what. That's your problem.

And your friend's problem is his problem. Anyone who doesn't specify what is wrong, is very suspect, in my opinion. If you don't know what his complaint was, then you yourself are saying that you don't know what you are talking about.

At this point, for the reasons I stated, I still think it's all made up. It just doesn't fly.

 

[EddieR]

KK, I just read the thread where you pulled the quote about the two-box. There was an interesting observation someone posted there....they were wondering why there were never any finds posted by users of two-box detectors. Hmmm....

 

[werleibr]

EE, I think you have missed the whole point KK was doing. She has a whole point to what she is asking and it really has nothing to do with the instrament that has a defect. It is about LRL's. She is going to eventually get to the point of (and sorry for stealing your thunder KK but i don't know how EE is missing this), stating that just because one defective unit does not work for one person that does not make all the units faulty. She is going to tie it into LRL testing. Just because one person cannot get their unit to work properly does not mean others cannot.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~
You are correct...All one has to do is read the rest of this web site and find that all the owners of conventional metal detectors are not happy..The metal detector I owned back in the 1980’s would find 100’s of pull tabs when I was using the gold only setting. That is still a big problem..Some complain that the learning curve is too long.
I own a two box that I have not been able to find anything with. It has been to the shop twice and I have been told that it works fine...that’s just the way the cookie crumbles..Art

 

[EE THr]

EE, I think you have missed the whole point KK was doing. She has a whole point to what she is asking and it really has nothing to do with the instrament that has a defect. It is about LRL's. She is going to eventually get to the point of (and sorry for stealing your thunder KK but i don't know how EE is missing this), stating that just because one defective unit does not work for one person that does not make all the units faulty. She is going to tie it into LRL testing. Just because one person cannot get their unit to work properly does not mean others cannot.

Yeah, it had that smell to it. And the added inference that if one model of one brand didn't work, that all two-boxes everywhere wouldn't work. I was just waiting for it.

The problem with the "Just because one person cannot get their unit to work properly does not mean others cannot," is the same as Art's "Testing can only prove that one person cannot use his LRL."

But those ideas are merely suggestions of backwards logic. The fact which they are trying to dispute is that nobody can get any LRL to work.

Their statement that the purpose of tests is to prove against a single person is false. Testing is open to all LRLers, and all LRL devices. None of the them will ever work. Big difference.

That their system of phony logic is flawed, is proven by their ridiculous statements about the alleged person's supposed problem with a single two-box detector. The more they try to promote that logic, the worse they look.

They are their own best debunkers.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Yeah, it had that smell to it. And the added inference that if one model of one brand didn't work, that all two-boxes everywhere wouldn't work. I was just waiting for it.

A lot like your claims that all LRL’s are fraudulent?

The problem with the "Just because one person cannot get their unit to work properly does not mean others cannot," is the same as Art's "Testing can only prove that one person cannot use his LRL."

Thank you...That is basically correct.

But those ideas are merely suggestions of backwards logic. The fact which they are trying to dispute is that nobody can get any LRL to work.

Why is it backwards logic.?...We have had 60 plus nobodies say that their LRL’s work.

Their statement that the purpose of tests is to prove against a single person is false. Testing is open to all LRLers, and all LRL devices. None of the them will ever work. Big difference.

Where can the test be found that tests LRL’s?

That their system of phony logic is flawed, is proven by their ridiculous statements about the alleged person's supposed problem with a single two-box detector. The more they try to promote that logic, the worse they look.

So every person who does not agree with you are alleged person's?

They are their own best debunkers.

Yes you are...Art

 

[EE THr]

​

 

[Ted Groves]

Thank you Ted and EE for again bringing up theories that have crashed and burned on this forum before. Repeating them will not make them a fact...What’s next Ted? Are you going to tell us we are murders again?...Art

No, I don't have to say anything like that.

As long as you openly support known fraudulent LRL contraptions, being sold for thousands of dollars as "bomb locating" devices; then you and your tiny group of protectors(*) already know what you are.

When you wash your hands, does the water turn red from all the innocents who have had limbs blown off or outright killed because they were depending on a gravity-seeking LRL contraption to locate a hidden bomb?

(*) protectors - those who know better, but have taken it upon themselves to stick-up for and protect the gullible and technically-challenged

 

[Kentucky Kache]

EE, you walked into that with your eyes open, and you know it. Stop trying to sound like you knew it all along. You have admitted that a device can work fine in tests, but then fail in the field. You were played like a cheap fiddle, so don't even bother.

Awaiting your long and glorious explanation.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Ted~

As long as you openly support known fraudulent LRL contraptions, being sold for thousands of dollars as "bomb locating" devices; then you and your tiny group of protectors(*) already know what you are.

We are here to discuss Long Range Locaters used for Treasure hunting..Some day you may get the idea that is why we are here..We know that the skeptics think that every device that is sold that they can call a LRL are all the same...If asking questions that you won’t answer makes us “protectors” bad we may be guilty.
The only questions that I have ask (that I can remember) were...How many tons of explosive and how many lives have been saved by using LRL’s made for locating bombs? ...Art

 

[EE THr]

EE, you walked into that with your eyes open, and you know it. Stop trying to sound like you knew it all along. You have admitted that a device can work fine in tests, but then fail in the field. You were played like a cheap fiddle, so don't even bother.

At one time or another, I think every LRL promoter on here has pretended to be just an innocent person "looking for the truth."

But they always show their real colors eventually.

They are also preoccupied with personal attacks, because they know they can't attack facts. And that is entirely your problem, not mine.

I'm satisfied that you always expose yourselves as promoters of fraud.







ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

EE, you walked into that with your eyes open, and you know it. Stop trying to sound like you knew it all along. You have admitted that a device can work fine in tests, but then fail in the field. You were played like a cheap fiddle, so don't even bother.

At one time or another, I think every LRL promoter on here has pretended to be just an innocent person "looking for the truth."

But they always show their real colors eventually.

They are also preoccupied with personal attacks, because they know they can't attack facts. And that is entirely your problem, not mine.

I'm satisfied that you always expose yourselves as promoters of fraud.







ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Hey, who are you calling innocent?

That was a nice little speech, but you still admitted to the possibility of any machine working in tests, and then failing in the field.

 

[EE THr]

EE, you walked into that with your eyes open, and you know it. Stop trying to sound like you knew it all along. You have admitted that a device can work fine in tests, but then fail in the field. You were played like a cheap fiddle, so don't even bother.

At one time or another, I think every LRL promoter on here has pretended to be just an innocent person "looking for the truth."

But they always show their real colors eventually.

They are also preoccupied with personal attacks, because they know they can't attack facts. And that is entirely your problem, not mine.

I'm satisfied that you always expose yourselves as promoters of fraud.







ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Hey, who are you calling innocent?

That was a nice little speech, but you still admitted to the possibility of any machine working in tests, and then failing in the field.

That's not an admission. It's public knowledge.

If you are wanting to use that as an excuse for not taking tests, then just bring a backup machine.

Problem solved.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

EE, you walked into that with your eyes open, and you know it. Stop trying to sound like you knew it all along. You have admitted that a device can work fine in tests, but then fail in the field. You were played like a cheap fiddle, so don't even bother.

At one time or another, I think every LRL promoter on here has pretended to be just an innocent person "looking for the truth."

But they always show their real colors eventually.

They are also preoccupied with personal attacks, because they know they can't attack facts. And that is entirely your problem, not mine.

I'm satisfied that you always expose yourselves as promoters of fraud.







ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Hey, who are you calling innocent?

That was a nice little speech, but you still admitted to the possibility of any machine working in tests, and then failing in the field.

That's not an admission. It's public knowledge.

If you are wanting to use that as an excuse for not taking tests, then just bring a backup machine.

Problem solved.

What? There's gonna be a test? But...but...but I haven't even studied.

Seriously now, what test do you want me to take? Don't even say Carl's test, because I don't even know how to use an LRL. But if I DID take Carl's test, and failed, then according to you, that would not necessarily mean LRL's don't work.

 

[EddieR]

EE, you walked into that with your eyes open, and you know it. Stop trying to sound like you knew it all along. You have admitted that a device can work fine in tests, but then fail in the field. You were played like a cheap fiddle, so don't even bother.

At one time or another, I think every LRL promoter on here has pretended to be just an innocent person "looking for the truth."

But they always show their real colors eventually.

They are also preoccupied with personal attacks, because they know they can't attack facts. And that is entirely your problem, not mine.

I'm satisfied that you always expose yourselves as promoters of fraud.







ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

The topic is about LRL devices, not people....remember?

That is what you always say, right?

 

[EddieR]

EE, you walked into that with your eyes open, and you know it. Stop trying to sound like you knew it all along. You have admitted that a device can work fine in tests, but then fail in the field. You were played like a cheap fiddle, so don't even bother.

At one time or another, I think every LRL promoter on here has pretended to be just an innocent person "looking for the truth."

But they always show their real colors eventually.

They are also preoccupied with personal attacks, because they know they can't attack facts. And that is entirely your problem, not mine.

I'm satisfied that you always expose yourselves as promoters of fraud.







ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Hey, who are you calling innocent?

That was a nice little speech, but you still admitted to the possibility of any machine working in tests, and then failing in the field.

That's not an admission. It's public knowledge.

If you are wanting to use that as an excuse for not taking tests, then just bring a backup machine.

Problem solved.

What? There's gonna be a test? But...but...but I haven't even studied.

Seriously now, what test do you want me to take? Don't even say Carl's test, because I don't even know how to use an LRL. But if I DID take Carl's test, and failed, then according to you, that would not necessarily mean LRL's don't work.