Fraud on a vast scale (EP Times story)

[EddieR]

Obviously YOU aren't too far along in this at all. I simply (?) pointed out what YOU have stated in the past...that the forum is about LRL's, not people. Of course, if YOU want to talk about people instead of LRL's it's okay, right? But heaven forbid somebody else do it.

(Of course, anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that the subject matter MUST include people, since a person is required to be present at some point to use a LRL)

You remind me of a spoiled little kid. Gotta have it your way every time.

Why does nothing coming from the Randi-ites surprise ME anymore?

Ah...Let's just see how this works, OK?

Someone starts with a post which is factual data about LRLs.

Then the LRL promoters try to refute it.

The LRL promoters fail to refute it, as usual.

The LRL promoters then stop talking about LRLs, and change the subject to the people posting, and throw in a jab about Randi or Carl, from time-to-time.

What's to say, whey you guys aren't talking about LRLs anymore? Not much, except to point out that you have tried to change the subject, again!

Then you start whining about what you, yourselves, caused in the first place. Poor babies. Then the trolls, who know nothing whatever about LRLs, pop their ugly heads in, with a few insults, plus some nonsensical posts. It always plays out this way. Same old same old.

Then you come along and stick your two cents worth in, as though you've never seen this pattern before. What a joke!

I just looked at your posts in this thread. No data about LRLs at all. Just wise cracks, attempted nit-picking, and personal insults, as usual.

Boring!

You present only hearsay as far as LRL's go. You bring NO personal experience, deduced by your reluctance to admit you haven't even tested ANY LRL's yourself. And when I call you out for doing something that YOU YOURSELF whined about earlier, you start blubbering and calling people trolls.

The bridge YOU live under is much bigger than any other troll bridge, as you troll more than anyone I have ever seen. I'm sure your Big Daddy Randi is proud!

You Randi-ites are all the same...typical pseudo-skeptics.

BTW, evidently your reading skills need improvement, as I read over my posts on this thread. Wise cracks? Nitpicking? Insults? Not until you called me a "poor baby". I had a smiley face or two in response to other peoples posts, and I pointed out something YOU did that you have called out others on. So it seems that you feel you should be allowed to do whatever you want, but others must not do the same as you because they turn into trolls...does that sum it up?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[werleibr]

~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

None

 

[Ted Groves]

~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

None

You got that right. I'm surprised he asked such a simple question, to which we all know the answer.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Art~

How many tons of explosive and how many lives have been saved by using LRL’s made for locating bombs?

werleibr

None

~Ted~

You got that right. I'm surprised he asked such a simple question, to which we all know the answer.

We have all read about the finds made with the LRL’s...So are you calling the stories published in print form like the El Paso Times are bogus?

 

[werleibr]

~Art~

How many tons of explosive and how many lives have been saved by using LRL’s made for locating bombs?

werleibr

None

~Ted~

You got that right. I'm surprised he asked such a simple question, to which we all know the answer.

We have all read about the finds made with the LRL’s...So are you calling the stories published in print form like the El Paso Times are bogus?

Yes. Art least you forget I work in the military?? I deal with Top secret, secret, classified, and unclassified machines. All machines are used to detect for use of chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological bombs, and attacks. We do not use any such device as an LRL.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~pronghorn~

None with cojones enough to take a test to prove
that LRL's work huh

We see no need to test if they work as we know they work...The 100 or so manufacturers have done all the necessary testing and have complied with all the Rules. Regulations and Laws of the different Countries just like any of the Electronics Manufactures...Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~

Yes. Art least you forget I work in the military?? I deal with Top secret, secret, classified, and unclassified machines. All machines are used to detect for use of chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological bombs, and attacks. We do not use any such device as an LRL.

Thank You for admitting that we are not talking about devices alleged to be used by our Military. We have all saw photo’s of devices that look like LRL’s being used at check points by men in uniforms. ...Art

 

[werleibr]

~Art~

How many tons of explosive and how many lives have been saved by using LRL’s made for locating bombs?

werleibr

None

~Ted~

You got that right. I'm surprised he asked such a simple question, to which we all know the answer.

We have all read about the finds made with the LRL’s...So are you calling the stories published in print form like the El Paso Times are bogus?

Just refering to your question again about the bombs.

And yes I can talk some on the TS because there is unclassified things that go with them The unclassified portion of one of the tools used is a Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) that is used fordetection and analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), toxic industrial chemicals (TICs), and chemical warfare agents (CWAs) in air, water, and soil. What is TS about it is the actual unit itself.

 

[EE THr]

You present only hearsay as far as LRL's go. You bring NO personal experience, deduced by your reluctance to admit you haven't even tested ANY LRL's yourself. And when I call you out for doing something that YOU YOURSELF whined about earlier, you start blubbering and calling people trolls.

The bridge YOU live under is much bigger than any other troll bridge, as you troll more than anyone I have ever seen. I'm sure your Big Daddy Randi is proud!

You Randi-ites are all the same...typical pseudo-skeptics.

BTW, evidently your reading skills need improvement, as I read over my posts on this thread. Wise cracks? Nitpicking? Insults? Not until you called me a "poor baby". I had a smiley face or two in response to other peoples posts, and I pointed out something YOU did that you have called out others on. So it seems that you feel you should be allowed to do whatever you want, but others must not do the same as you because they turn into trolls...does that sum it up?

All this is answered in the other thread.

You seem to be much more interested in me, than in LRLs. Forget me, Edith, I would only break your heart....

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

You seem to be much more interested in me, than in LRLs. Forget me, Edith, I would only break your heart....

No..It’s about the guy that has made a 1000 claims and as of now not tried to prove any of them....Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

You seem to be much more interested in me, than in LRLs. Forget me, Edith, I would only break your heart....

No..It’s about the guy that has made a 1000 claims and as of now not tried to prove any of them....Art

As I have said before, I have made no claims. I have only questioned your claim about LRLs. And have received no answers which provided valid scientific support of your claims.

All you have ever offered is illogical word games, and no scientific proof whatsoever.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

As I have said before, I have made no claims. I have only questioned your claim about LRLs. And have received no answers which provided valid scientific support of your claims.

All you have ever offered is illogical word games, and no scientific proof whatsoever.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

If you say so..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

As I have said before, I have made no claims. I have only questioned your claim about LRLs. And have received no answers which provided valid scientific support of your claims.

All you have ever offered is illogical word games, and no scientific proof whatsoever.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

If you say so..Art

Too bad you chose a eugenics blog as your source of information. What a sicko!






ref: video

 

[aarthrj3811]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

The Scientific Fundamentalist
~EE~

Too bad you chose a eugenics blog as your source of information. What a sicko!

What’s wrong EE?...I put Scientific Proof into Google and now you call me a “sicko” for doing like you said...I did not see anything about eugenics in the article about Scientific Proof...Your the one that keeps making claims about Scientific Proof so I thought you may want to know what it is..Art

 

[EddieR]

You present only hearsay as far as LRL's go. You bring NO personal experience, deduced by your reluctance to admit you haven't even tested ANY LRL's yourself. And when I call you out for doing something that YOU YOURSELF whined about earlier, you start blubbering and calling people trolls.

The bridge YOU live under is much bigger than any other troll bridge, as you troll more than anyone I have ever seen. I'm sure your Big Daddy Randi is proud!

You Randi-ites are all the same...typical pseudo-skeptics.

BTW, evidently your reading skills need improvement, as I read over my posts on this thread. Wise cracks? Nitpicking? Insults? Not until you called me a "poor baby". I had a smiley face or two in response to other peoples posts, and I pointed out something YOU did that you have called out others on. So it seems that you feel you should be allowed to do whatever you want, but others must not do the same as you because they turn into trolls...does that sum it up?

All this is answered in the other thread.

You seem to be much more interested in me, than in LRLs. Forget me, Edith, I would only break your heart....

Interested in YOU? Nope. The lies you tell? Yep. The way your kind performs the "scientific method". Yep. It's your type of pseudo-skepticism that degrades true skepticism and science, giving them both a bad name.

But, that's what Randi trains his minions to do.

 

[EE THr]

Interested in YOU? Nope. The lies you tell? Yep. The way your kind performs the "scientific method". Yep. It's your type of pseudo-skepticism that degrades true skepticism and science, giving them both a bad name.

But, that's what Randi trains his minions to do.

Again---you post no supporting data about LRLs (because there isn't any ), only childish insults.


That would be my prediction #27, made seven months ago, and which you have since proven true many times.

Thanks for your help!

You continue to be your own best debunker!



ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

RE-run # 27..
I think I will just let Eddie contend with you...Just like a kid...You send them to school and what do they do?...Eat the book covers...art

 

[EddieR]

RE-run # 27..
I think I will just let Eddie contend with you...Just like a kid...You send them to school and what do they do?...Eat the book covers...art

Art, I aint gonna bother with it right now. He is making a total fool of himself. I got a PM today from a guy that doesn't believe in LRL's, but said he was tired of the pseudo-skeptic mindset that is prevalent on here.

Geez...you ask a question and get everything but an answer from them. I can have a more intelligent conversation with my 8 year old.

 

[EE THr]

RE-run # 27..
I think I will just let Eddie contend with you...Just like a kid...You send them to school and what do they do?...Eat the book covers...art

Art, I aint gonna bother with it right now. He is making a total fool of himself. I got a PM today from a guy that doesn't believe in LRL's, but said he was tired of the pseudo-skeptic mindset that is prevalent on here.

Geez...you ask a question and get everything but an answer from them. I can have a more intelligent conversation with my 8 year old.

Right. And in your world, you probably get emails from space aliens too.

...You can't depend on your credibility, when you no longer have any. And you lost all of yours by claiming to be an innocent bystander, just looking for the truth. That didn't work very long, and now nothing will work for you at all. And of course your LRL never did, anyway.

ref: Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

Nope!

​

 

[EddieR]

RE-run # 27..
I think I will just let Eddie contend with you...Just like a kid...You send them to school and what do they do?...Eat the book covers...art

Art, I aint gonna bother with it right now. He is making a total fool of himself. I got a PM today from a guy that doesn't believe in LRL's, but said he was tired of the pseudo-skeptic mindset that is prevalent on here.

Geez...you ask a question and get everything but an answer from them. I can have a more intelligent conversation with my 8 year old.

Right. And in your world, you probably get emails from space aliens too.

...You can't depend on your credibility, when you no longer have any. And you lost all of yours by claiming to be an innocent bystander, just looking for the truth. That didn't work very long, and now nothing will work for you at all. And of course your LRL never did, anyway.

ref: Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

Nope!

​

Where did I claim to be an innocent bystander? Pony up the quote or just go ahead and admit you are making up MORE tall tales. You've told so many on here I'm sure you can't keep your stories straight. If you are referring to my credibility with you, geez....I consider that a complement coming from a Randinian Pseudo-skeptic such as yourself.

Why do you feel it necessary to lie so much? Was it your upbringing? I suppose you could be excused if you weren't taught any better.

Oh well.