aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Yes..There has been a lot of trained people have come to this board. People who have not used these devices are not trained..
Yes ...by designing and using them
You know that because you have saw them work...Art
Is there a Long Range Locator capable of this?
- Thread starter Marc
- Start date
- Status
yes art scientists designed computers and rockets not some shyster out in his garage and I have seen them work. And your right about another thing, I would have to see an LRL work with my own eyes to believe it. God knows none of you users or LRL hawkers are willing to submit to scientific testing of them. There is always a reason why you can't, don't or won't. The world should Just accept your claims they work with no scientific proof to back them up.
Last edited:
Treasure finder
Sr. Member
- Apr 4, 2006
- 464
- 62
- Detector(s) used
- Garrett Infinium, Compass Gold Scanner, Maxi Pulse, Gardner with a 3 foot loop, PDF1000, & Dowsing rods,
Marc (and everyone else)
Most of you probably believe that water dowsing works for some people. Why then so much skepticism that using an electronic LRL
can work for other targets?
If you have never tried to water dowse, try over a garden hose that has water running through it. Use a couple of wire coat hangers
with a 90 degree bend in them and see if they respond while walking over the hose. If that works for you or anyone else you know
I would think you would try some LRLs.
Yes, there are some issues that take practice to overcome and that is where this forum is a big help to LRL users. If you don't believe
it go to one of the other forums, but don't bash people over there either.
This is a hobby, let us have our fun and you have yours.
Rich
Most of you probably believe that water dowsing works for some people. Why then so much skepticism that using an electronic LRL
can work for other targets?
If you have never tried to water dowse, try over a garden hose that has water running through it. Use a couple of wire coat hangers
with a 90 degree bend in them and see if they respond while walking over the hose. If that works for you or anyone else you know
I would think you would try some LRLs.
Yes, there are some issues that take practice to overcome and that is where this forum is a big help to LRL users. If you don't believe
it go to one of the other forums, but don't bash people over there either.
This is a hobby, let us have our fun and you have yours.
Rich
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
~2screwed~
Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. I have dispelled some of them (misconceptions, not scientists) in earlier posts (for example, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, beauty is only skin-deep, and you can’t judge a book by its cover). Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a 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.
Then I guess you have never been to a shop where LRL’s are made.
I have been to 3 manufacturers shops and had a hands on demonstration so what’s stopping you.
Could you please tell us where this scientific testing can be found and what the cost may be?
Common misconceptions about science I: ?Scientific proof? | Psychology Today
Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. I have dispelled some of them (misconceptions, not scientists) in earlier posts (for example, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, beauty is only skin-deep, and you can’t judge a book by its cover). Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a 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.
LOL aarthr. Ok, change the word "proof" to "evidence" in my statement and the result is still the same. Can you show me one test using scientific method conducted by a recognized scientific body not run by people who use or manufacture LRL's that will show the world irrefutable evidence that they work? Never mind, I already know you can't. We will just have to agree to disagree.
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
The only scientific method that would be excepted by the Scientific community would be a Double Blind Study....If you have the $350 thousand that the double blind study would cost I am sure someone will do it
Like Rich said.. This is a hobby, let us have our fun and you have yours...Art
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Down the road about 45 minutes in Minden..Art
Carl-NC
Bronze Member
- Mar 19, 2003
- 1,891
- 1,418
- Detector(s) used
- Custom Designs and Prototypes
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
No, I don't. Show Me.
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
~Carl~
Most of you probably believe that water dowsing works for some people.
Sorry Charlie...No need to show you....to many know about water dowsing...Art
Treasure finder
Sr. Member
- Apr 4, 2006
- 464
- 62
- Detector(s) used
- Garrett Infinium, Compass Gold Scanner, Maxi Pulse, Gardner with a 3 foot loop, PDF1000, & Dowsing rods,
Carl, try it yourself as I suggested. If I lived closer I would show you. No disrespect intended.
Rich
Carl-NC
Bronze Member
- Mar 19, 2003
- 1,891
- 1,418
- Detector(s) used
- Custom Designs and Prototypes
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Rich, here the Top 5 Answers I get when I ask a dowser to Show Me:
1. I have nothing to prove to you.
2. You won't believe it works no matter what I do.
3. You have to prove it to yourself.
4. Pay me $10,000 and I'll show you.
5. I don't know why it didn't work, it's always worked before.
1. I have nothing to prove to you.
2. You won't believe it works no matter what I do.
3. You have to prove it to yourself.
4. Pay me $10,000 and I'll show you.
5. I don't know why it didn't work, it's always worked before.
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Treasure finder
Sr. Member
- Apr 4, 2006
- 464
- 62
- Detector(s) used
- Garrett Infinium, Compass Gold Scanner, Maxi Pulse, Gardner with a 3 foot loop, PDF1000, & Dowsing rods,
Well Carl,
I haven't said any of those things to you. However I have seen metal detector users fail to find treasure and ask dowsers for
help. I kind of think they are complementary tools and use both. Have you tried water dowsing over a hose with water
running through it? Give it a try.
Rich
I haven't said any of those things to you. However I have seen metal detector users fail to find treasure and ask dowsers for
help. I kind of think they are complementary tools and use both. Have you tried water dowsing over a hose with water
running through it? Give it a try.
Rich
woof!
Bronze Member
- Dec 12, 2010
- 1,185
- 413
- Detector(s) used
- BS detector
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Done a bit of dowsing myself, including "water dowsing over a hose with water running through it". I've had successes that seem to greatly exceed anything that should have been expected by chance. And, the more blinded (literally) the better, I am not interested in unblinded dowsing since there's no mystery in that from a scientific perspective and I can do that better with a recently emptied 24 ounce can of Steel Reserve than with an L-rod anyhow.
So, let's go through Carl's "Dowser Alabi list" (my term, not his).
1. I don't have anything to prove to anyone. At least not about dowsing. The Migra does like me to prove I'm a US citizen when I return from Juarez.
2. Carl won't believe it no matter what I do..... because chances of my demoing an interesting dowse in front of Carl are pretty slim. I parsed arf a few folks a few years ago on the old Tnet forum by reminding them that when it comes to proving stuff, A.R. already warned 'em what happens to "claimants".
3. Carl doesn't have to prove anything to himself one way or the other.
4. The "pay me ten grand and I'll show you" guys..... the way I read their words, they condemn themselves as con men, nobody is more certain they ain't got squat as they are themselves.
5. "I don't know why it didn't work this time, it's always worked before". Anyone who thinks they can dowse and make claims about it, who can't explain why they can't do it if Carl's watching, doesn't understand what the hell they're doing, and that's why they got caught by surprise.
***************
Meanwhile, check out the title of this thread and start out at the beginning. Marc posits a hypothetical treasure hunting situation and asks "is there a Long Range Locator capable of this?" It's been a long thread. And, it's not even about plain vanilla dowsing (different forum, are LRL'ers illiterate?)
Many posts back, Carl offer informed comment on the challenge and so did I, because we both work in an industry where people are really trying to find buried stuff, merely faking it doesn't count. The LRL fans have done their best to pretend that no such scenario should be taken seriously, except Art who offered that he could probably walk the perimeter and triangulate the locations with his LRL. At least he understood the question! Now frankly his response sounds like wishful thinking, especially since this is the same guy who posted the photoshopped gold pan, zero credibility but at least good entertainment.
My point is that if Art's flippant claim is as good as it gets from the LRL crowd, anyone who wants to know if LRL's are a fraud has all the evidence they need in this very thread.
But if anyone desires even more solid evidence, about a specific LRL, y'know my advice, go to the manufacturer and "Read the Advertisement!" If having read the advertisement you feel the need to buy it despite the warnings you've received here, the logical next step is to hand over your credit card and receive your punishment. Enjoy! On this, the manufacturers thereof and I am are in agreement, and with that much agreement, how could you possibly go wrong?
--Dave J.
So, let's go through Carl's "Dowser Alabi list" (my term, not his).
1. I don't have anything to prove to anyone. At least not about dowsing. The Migra does like me to prove I'm a US citizen when I return from Juarez.
2. Carl won't believe it no matter what I do..... because chances of my demoing an interesting dowse in front of Carl are pretty slim. I parsed arf a few folks a few years ago on the old Tnet forum by reminding them that when it comes to proving stuff, A.R. already warned 'em what happens to "claimants".
3. Carl doesn't have to prove anything to himself one way or the other.
4. The "pay me ten grand and I'll show you" guys..... the way I read their words, they condemn themselves as con men, nobody is more certain they ain't got squat as they are themselves.
5. "I don't know why it didn't work this time, it's always worked before". Anyone who thinks they can dowse and make claims about it, who can't explain why they can't do it if Carl's watching, doesn't understand what the hell they're doing, and that's why they got caught by surprise.
***************
Meanwhile, check out the title of this thread and start out at the beginning. Marc posits a hypothetical treasure hunting situation and asks "is there a Long Range Locator capable of this?" It's been a long thread. And, it's not even about plain vanilla dowsing (different forum, are LRL'ers illiterate?)
Many posts back, Carl offer informed comment on the challenge and so did I, because we both work in an industry where people are really trying to find buried stuff, merely faking it doesn't count. The LRL fans have done their best to pretend that no such scenario should be taken seriously, except Art who offered that he could probably walk the perimeter and triangulate the locations with his LRL. At least he understood the question! Now frankly his response sounds like wishful thinking, especially since this is the same guy who posted the photoshopped gold pan, zero credibility but at least good entertainment.
My point is that if Art's flippant claim is as good as it gets from the LRL crowd, anyone who wants to know if LRL's are a fraud has all the evidence they need in this very thread.
But if anyone desires even more solid evidence, about a specific LRL, y'know my advice, go to the manufacturer and "Read the Advertisement!" If having read the advertisement you feel the need to buy it despite the warnings you've received here, the logical next step is to hand over your credit card and receive your punishment. Enjoy! On this, the manufacturers thereof and I am are in agreement, and with that much agreement, how could you possibly go wrong?
--Dave J.
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
No Dave..they should read the ads and research the device at home..If you feel that the device is the one which fits your needs you contact the manufacture and ask any questions that you have..Try to find someone who has one of these devices and go on a hunt with them....If that can not be done then you go to the manufacture and do a hands on test of the device
You are right..It is their decision and their money ...Art
olfacere
Full Member
- Feb 22, 2013
- 154
- 61
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro MicroMax Silver
Garrett Pro Pinpointer
- Primary Interest:
- Metal Detecting
olfacere said:
Because there are some other words for that, like "nonproductive nay-sayer." Strong opinions without strong reasons are senseless.Carl-NC said:
"The first 50 Apple 1s were built in Jobs' parents' spare bedroom (at 11161 Crist Drive in Los Altos, the house number changed to 2066 when the land was annexed from the county to the city in late 1983). That consignment of Apple 1s were sold to Paul Jay Terrell's Byte Shop for $500 each. The partners had to take out loans in order to meet the Byte Shop order. Just a few months later Apple moved upscale – in to Jobs' parents' garage."2screwed said:
Steve's Job Garage
You guys seriously need a reality check. Research and development is real work that really works. Neither a scientist's degrees nor his white coat make him anything more or less than the man he was before. There is reality and then there is opinion. Any claimed "reality" that isn't supported by reasons is just opinion. Thank you and good night.
"The first 50 Apple 1s were built in Jobs' parents' spare bedroom (at 11161 Crist Drive in Los Altos, the house number changed to 2066 when the land was annexed from the county to the city in late 1983). That consignment of Apple 1s were sold to Paul Jay Terrell's Byte Shop for $500 each. The partners had to take out loans in order to meet the Byte Shop order. Just a few months later Apple moved upscale – in to Jobs' parents' garage."
Steve's Job Garage
You guys seriously need a reality check. Research and development is real work that really works. Neither a scientist's degrees nor his white coat make him anything more or less than the man he was before. There is reality and then there is opinion. Any claimed "reality" that isn't supported by reasons is just opinion. Thank you and good night.
Time for you to have a reality check. Steve jobs didn't invent the computer. He simply took known technology, the computer, and improved on it. Hell, I can build one out in my shop, the technology already exists.
News Blog: Who built the first computer?
Actually a scientists degree does make him more than he was before he got it. It shows he studied, learned, worked hard and graduated in his particular area of study.
You are right about on thing. Your claimed "reality" (LRL's) isn't supported by reasons ie scientific evidence, just opinions. And just so you know, i.e. stands for id est. That is Latin for "that is"
olfacere
Full Member
- Feb 22, 2013
- 154
- 61
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro MicroMax Silver
Garrett Pro Pinpointer
- Primary Interest:
- Metal Detecting
Sorry, bud. I've had enough fallacies. Conversation over. If you want to learn some more Latin, try argumentum ad hominem.
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
~olfacere~
List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies.
You are correct again..Even with fallacies the skeptic still have nothing...Art
List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies.
- Status
Top Member Reactions
-
3262 -
2039 -
1881 -
1117 -
1108 -
902 -
877 -
857 -
853 -
745 -
719 -
555 -
543 -
469 -
459 -
428 -
422 -
410 -
408 -
404
