Fraud on a vast scale (EP Times story)

[jimmygoat]

I don't consider myself a space alien, EE. I consider you to be a few things I can't say on T-net. Eddie I never said i don't believe. I just have no experience with lrls' or mfds.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[EE THr]

I don't consider myself a space alien, EE. I consider you to be a few things I can't say on T-net. Eddie I never said i don't believe. I just have no experience with lrls' or mfds.

Very good, jimmy. Would you like to state any particular reasons why you feel that way? Or are you on the payroll, too?

 

[woof!]

One of the most powerful proofs against LRL's is that their proponents insist that the people who ain't buying it are all cut from one piece of cloth and are working behind the scenes to pull a fast one on y'all.

If you believe what you want to believe, instead of what you already know from reading this forum, then the best fix for that problem is to buy an LRL. I don't say don't buy it, I say punish yourself and go for it! If you can afford it, you're probably in the middle class, and once you've paid for it, you may have changed your economic class status and it wasn't "upward mobility" after all.

SWR contributed a heckuvalot to this forum, but he's gone now. When I started posting here a while back, within days I was calling him out on his bad behavior and he went into denial. I figure EE is next, and Judy who used to be pretty cool even though I disagreed with her most of the time seems headed down the same path. In the end it may come down to Artie, who makes LRL's look so bad that he may be all that's necessary.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

One of the most powerful proofs against LRL's is that their proponents insist that the people who ain't buying it are all cut from one piece of cloth and are working behind the scenes to pull a fast one on y'all.

If you believe what you want to believe, instead of what you already know from reading this forum, then the best fix for that problem is to buy an LRL. I don't say don't buy it, I say punish yourself and go for it! If you can afford it, you're probably in the middle class, and once you've paid for it, you may have changed your economic class status and it wasn't "upward mobility" after all.

SWR contributed a heckuvalot to this forum, but he's gone now. When I started posting here a while back, within days I was calling him out on his bad behavior and he went into denial. I figure EE is next, and Judy who used to be pretty cool even though I disagreed with her most of the time seems headed down the same path. In the end it may come down to Artie, who makes LRL's look so bad that he may be all that's necessary.

--Toto

You are probably right about me, Toto. There just isn't much more to say about LRLs. The promoters aren't even talking about LRLs anymore, it's become total personal attacks---which gets really boring, and like you said, that's probably all that is necessary for anyone, with any common sense, to get the point.




"The level of sanity or insanity of the subject matter, determines the level of sanity or insanity of the two-way communication attainable in any discussion."

 

[werleibr]

~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

Now Art you are trying to be like me Trying to get the correct wording into things. Your are right Proof is in mathamatics and logic, but those are not the only places. You get it in Alcohol, from artists, from coins, and it is a type of baking technique. But wait their is more. Proof also means sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition. Now you are right in stating there is really no such thing as scientific proof, but it is called scientific evidence.

Also remember scientific theory will always be a theory, while scientific law will always be a law.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~
Al

so remember scientific theory will always be a theory, while scientific law will always be a law.

That is partially correct...Theories are used for testing someone’s idea in a Scientific manner. Theories are proven wrong regularity..
Scientific Laws can only be changed by proving to a 7 person board that the old law is flawed...Art
~EE~

You are probably right about me, Toto. There just isn't much more to say about LRLs.

No there is not in your case...You have proved that you lack the knowledge of LRL’s to discuss them.

The promoters aren't even talking about LRLs anymore, it's become total personal attacks---

Let see now..You come to a treasure hunting web site and start posting on a board that discusses LRL. You make statements and we try to discuss them but are insulted and called names. You make claim after claim and provide no proof of your claims and keep telling us it is our job to prove your claims.

Then you tell the LRL users that we do not have the right to post here and the only people that should be on here are professionals in electronics.

We then ask what your qualifications are as a professionals in electronics and learn that you have no experience in LRL’s...

which gets really boring, and like you said, that's probably all that is necessary for anyone, with any common sense, to get the point.

Yes you are boring.....You should go get some experience in the use of LRL’s, see a LRL, open the LRL and do the testing of the LRL..then just may be you would have enough information to discuss LRL’s...Art

 

[werleibr]

~werleibr~

so remember scientific theory will always be a theory, while scientific law will always be a law.

That is partially correct...Theories are used for testing someone’s idea in a Scientific manner. Theories are proven wrong regularity..
Scientific Laws can only be changed by proving to a 7 person board that the old law is flawed...Art

Once again ART you are FAILING to COMPREHEND anything scientific.

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.


Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse. Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.


So ART theorys are not being proven wrong everyday. The Hypothesis within the theory may be tweaked. YOU ARE USING THEORY WRONG AGAIN from how it was asked to be utilized.

There are not THEORYS or LAWS on how LRL's work, only HYPOTHESIS'.

So please try to refer to your guesses on how these things work as HYPOTHESIS'. If there was a THEORY OR LAW on how LRLS worked we would not be debating because they would be proven to work.

Also Art, where the h3!! did you read that a panel of 7 people decide if a law is no longer a law?!?

 

[EddieR]

I don't consider myself a space alien, EE. I consider you to be a few things I can't say on T-net. Eddie I never said i don't believe. I just have no experience with lrls' or mfds.

JimmyGoat.... I wasn't referring to your PM. I got several more yesterday along with yours....I was referring to one of them. 8)

 

[EddieR]

~werleibr~

so remember scientific theory will always be a theory, while scientific law will always be a law.

That is partially correct...Theories are used for testing someone’s idea in a Scientific manner. Theories are proven wrong regularity..
Scientific Laws can only be changed by proving to a 7 person board that the old law is flawed...Art

Once again ART you are FAILING to COMPREHEND anything scientific.

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.


Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse. Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.


So ART theorys are not being proven wrong everyday. The Hypothesis within the theory may be tweaked. YOU ARE USING THEORY WRONG AGAIN from how it was asked to be utilized.

There are not THEORYS or LAWS on how LRL's work, only HYPOTHESIS'.

So please try to refer to your guesses on how these things work as HYPOTHESIS'. If there was a THEORY OR LAW on how LRLS worked we would not be debating because they would be proven to work.

Also Art, where the h3!! did you read that a panel of 7 people decide if a law is no longer a law?!?

Good post!

 

[EE THr]

I don't consider myself a space alien, EE. I consider you to be a few things I can't say on T-net. Eddie I never said i don't believe. I just have no experience with lrls' or mfds.

JimmyGoat.... I wasn't referring to your PM. I got several more yesterday along with yours....I was referring to one of them. 8)

It's funny that I'm not getting any....

If someone has a problem with me, then they should take it up with me. If your fantasy supporters don't have the guts to speak publically about their contentions, then that's their little problem. It's probably because they are merely feeling emotions, with no logical reasoning to support their negativity. Because they know this, they slink around in the shadows of personal PMs and emails, in the LRL fantasy "belief" world.

Here on the fourm is where I ask my questions, and make my statements. So here on the forum is where a rational person would voice their rebuttals in a sane discussion, and are welcome to do so. But have some facts ready to back up what you claim.






"The level of sanity or insanity of the subject matter, determines the level of sanity or insanity of the two-way communication attainable in any discussion."

 

[EE THr]

You make statements and we try to discuss them but are insulted and called names.

When I first started posting on this board, I clearly stated, several times, that I had no reason to doubt that some people could find stuff with dowsing rods and LRLs. But I also pointed out that LRLs were phony "electronics" devices, and were only dowsing rods with a higher price tag, to rip people off.

Since then, with your posting of fake photos and videos, and other self-contradicting evidence you posted about your views of, and experiences with, LRLs---I have come to the conclusion that you are not successful with them at all. And, so far, I haven't seen any convincing evidence that anyone posting here has ever been able to find anything with an LRL or dowsing rods. If someone ever proves otherwise, I will gladly admit that I'm wrong in that instance.


I came on this board and politely asked a few simple questions, and that is when you first insulted me. You replied with an insult, rather than answer the simple question. That's when I first realized that you were not here "to help people," as you have claimed many times, but were a fake. And you have proved that over and over again, ever since.

So who's fault is that?







"The level of sanity or insanity of the subject matter, determines the level of sanity or insanity of the two-way communication attainable in any discussion."

 

[Ted Groves]

I can have a more intelligent conversation with my 8 year old.

No surprise there. At least your mental capacities are fairly close, though I rather imagine your 8 year-old has a better logical understanding about the inner workings of an LRL than you do.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

So who's fault is that?

Could it be in the last few weeks that 3 skeptics have told the truth about you? Could it be that the skeptics do not want the “LRL salesman of the year” for two straight years? Many things to consider EE..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

So who's fault is that?

Could it be in the last few weeks that 3 skeptics have told the truth about you? Could it be that the skeptics do not want the “LRL salesman of the year” for two straight years? Many things to consider EE..Art

I don't know what you are talking about, concerning the "3 skeptics," unless it's people slinking around in the shadows of PMs and emails, rather than posting facts on the forum. Please explain.

Are you saying that you are the "LRL salesman of the year"? You need to be more specific.






NOTE: You sure changed the subject fast!

Don't you have any response to the fact that you threw the first insult?



"The level of sanity or insanity of the subject matter, determines the level of sanity or insanity of the two-way communication attainable in any discussion."

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

I don't know what you are talking about, concerning the "3 skeptics," unless it's people slinking around in the shadows of PMs and emails, rather than posting facts on the forum. Please explain.

Gee EE...I would guess it is your lack of reading comprehension again.

Are you saying that you are the "LRL salesman of the year"? You need to be more specific.

No...It looks like you will take that honor this year..After all..Who has made as many claims as you have and provided no proof?..

NOTE: You sure changed the subject fast!

Don't you have any response to the fact that you threw the first insult?

If you cant take the fact that you are wrong all the time then yes..I have insulted you..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

I don't know what you are talking about, concerning the "3 skeptics," unless it's people slinking around in the shadows of PMs and emails, rather than posting facts on the forum. Please explain.

Gee EE...I would guess it is your lack of reading comprehension again.

Are you saying that you are the "LRL salesman of the year"? You need to be more specific.

No...It looks like you will take that honor this year..After all..Who has made as many claims as you have and provided no proof?..

NOTE: You sure changed the subject fast!

Don't you have any response to the fact that you threw the first insult?

If you cant take the fact that you are wrong all the time then yes..I have insulted you..Art

#22 in Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EddieR]

I can have a more intelligent conversation with my 8 year old.

No surprise there. At least your mental capacities are fairly close, though I rather imagine your 8 year-old has a better logical understanding about the inner workings of an LRL than you do.

LOL! Good one!!.....coming from a guy that has less inner workings than any LectraSearch.

(notice that I mentioned the brand name. I had one, so I am qualified to comment on it. You however....LOL. Just....LOL).

Maybe when you grow up a little mentally and quit hitching rides on the short bus he'll talk to you too.

<toot> <toot>

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

When I first started posting on this board, I clearly stated, several times, that I had no reason to doubt that some people could find stuff with dowsing rods and LRLs. But I also pointed out that LRLs were phony "electronics" devices, and were only dowsing rods with a higher price tag, to rip people off.

Yes..That was one of your first Claims and one of the things that you have refused to discuss

Si

nce then, with your posting of fake photos and videos, and other self-contradicting evidence you posted about your views of, and experiences with, LRLs---I have come to the conclusion that you are not successful with them at all. And, so far, I haven't seen any convincing evidence that anyone posting here has ever been able to find anything with an LRL or dowsing rods. If someone ever proves otherwise, I will gladly admit that I'm wrong in that instance.

Sorry that you think that the photo’s, videos and testimonials are all fake...When was the last time had your eye’s checked or do you believe that the eye doctors are all fake?

I came on this board and politely asked a few simple questions, and that is when you first insulted me. You replied with an insult, rather than answer the simple question. That's when I first realized that you were not here "to help people," as you have claimed many times, but were a fake. And you have proved that over and over again, ever since.

Thank you again..We have tried to tell you about your problems but it seems that you hate the very people that could help you. We have tried to help you understand LRL’s but we are sorry that refuse to learn...Art
It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you

 

[EE THr]

​

"The level of sanity or insanity of the subject matter, determines the level of sanity or insanity of the two-way communication attainable in any discussion."

 

[EddieR]

I don't consider myself a space alien, EE. I consider you to be a few things I can't say on T-net. Eddie I never said i don't believe. I just have no experience with lrls' or mfds.

JimmyGoat.... I wasn't referring to your PM. I got several more yesterday along with yours....I was referring to one of them. 8)

It's funny that I'm not getting any....

If someone has a problem with me, then they should take it up with me. If your fantasy supporters don't have the guts to speak publically about their contentions, then that's their little problem. It's probably because they are merely feeling emotions, with no logical reasoning to support their negativity. Because they know this, they slink around in the shadows of personal PMs and emails, in the LRL fantasy "belief" world.

Here on the fourm is where I ask my questions, and make my statements. So here on the forum is where a rational person would voice their rebuttals in a sane discussion, and are welcome to do so. But have some facts ready to back up what you claim.






"The level of sanity or insanity of the subject matter, determines the level of sanity or insanity of the two-way communication attainable in any discussion."

Perhaps people want to carry on conversations without being put down, mocked, or laughed at. Get a clue...people are tired of the way you treat others.