Maybe We Can Agree?

[fenixdigger]

Here's what we can agree on---ANSWER the questions or keep quiet.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

It's simple.

Are LRLs supposed to be---

1.

Dowsers?..

No they are not

2. Dowsing enhancers?....

No they are not

3. All-electronic Locaters?

No..they require human assistance

4. Something else? And if so, what are they supposed to be then?

Long Range Metal Detectors

5. Or just fake devices, to cheat people out of money?..

No they Treasure finding devices for the hobby of Treasure Hunting..

They've got to be one of the above.

Do they?

So which one are they supposed to be?..

I don’t see no easy answer

This is not a trick question…

There is an answer

….I am sure you will tell us

What is it?...

What we are discussing here are Long Range Locators made for Treasure Hunting…they are made by over 100 manufactures all over the world. Each manufacturer uses his own design.. They all have different ways of working according to the theories that the inventor sees as important..Different ranges, Depth capabilities and functions. We have ask the “Skeptics” may times which devices are fraudulent and they give us no answer.
This information comes from my 13 years of using this type of devices. I have used 7 devices made by 6 different manufacturers and they all located gold. Some were just better than others but they all worked as advertised.
There are all your answers EE so can we move on to discussing these devices?..Art

 

[fenixdigger]

Hey Art, I'm sure the 1,000 s of hours we have in experience is overcome by the "eyeballing" of our x-spurts.

EE & SWR--- ANSWER the question.....////SHO-NUFF

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Maybe We Can Agree?

Reply To This Topic #279 Posted Today at 07:41:10 AM

Quote

Hey Art, I'm sure the 1,000 s of hours we have in experience is overcome by the "eyeballing" of our x-spurts.

yes that is all they have to talk about..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

It's simple.

Are LRLs supposed to be---

1.

Dowsers?..

No they are not

2. Dowsing enhancers?....

No they are not

3. All-electronic Locaters?

No..they require human assistance

You have stipulated before that the pointer on your LRLs can't move by itself.

You are now saying that it requires you to make it point.

Therefore, you are saying that the device can't point by itself, but a person must point the device.

All the ads that I have ever seen for these LRL devices fail to mention that they do not function, but require a human to tilt the handle in various directions in order to make them point. That's fraud.

Add to that, they have never been demonstrated scientifically to work, and that corroborates the fraud.



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?

 

[fenixdigger]

Are you saying I need to point you to The Questions Skeptics are Afraid to Answer before you swivel on some truth?


Man up or shut up---ANSWER the question. Keep in mind how many times you have posted something about Carl's test.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Maybe We Can Agree?

No we can not

 

[EE THr]

Maybe We Can Agree?

No we can not

Why not?










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?

 

[fenixdigger]

You get no more answers to any of your questions until you ANSWER the questions

(with real answers, not your little monkeyshine tricks)

 

[EE THr]

You get no more answers to any of your questions until you ANSWER the questions

(with real answers, not your little monkeyshine tricks)

fenis brothers---Andser: #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?

 

[fenixdigger]

--Andser: #32 in the bottom link.


Quston Not answered by a dodge to your list of things to do. Ie; look at other answers by other people.

Man up or shut up. ANDSER the question OMG Meds must be wearing off.

 

[EE THr]

--Andser: #32 in the bottom link.


Quston Not answered by a dodge to your list of things to do. Ie; look at other answers by other people.

Man up or shut up. ANDSER the question OMG Meds must be wearing off.

Sorry, fenix brothers, but I don't answer loaded questions. This isn't my first rodeo.

If you are unable to comprehend what an interrogative statement is, who's fault is that?

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?

 

[EE THr]

fenix brothers---

Let me help you with your education: Loaded Question.





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?

 

[fenixdigger]

Good dodge. You are getting better. But you are still being slippery, my little Eel. Your little dodge is only fooling you.

Man up or shut up. ANDSER the question SNICKER And you gave Art crap about a mistake. What a load.

 

[fenixdigger]

Looks like that's not the only thing loaded.


Man up or shut up Answer the questions (Real answers)

My god even Prong tried it. Says a lot for you. Of course that statement has been made a long time now. You just can't see it

 

[EE THr]

Good dodge. You are getting better. But you are still being slippery, my little Eel. Your little dodge is only fooling you.

Man up or shut up. ANDSER the question SNICKER And you gave Art crap about a mistake. What a load.

I don't play that game.

That you know your questions are loaded with false premises, and still demand answers, shows that those false statements are all that you have got to try and invalidate all the proofs that show that your LRLs don't work.

That amounts to your openly lying, which is the point of contention concerning LRLs, in the first place.

Therefore you are providing additional proof that your insistence that LRLs work, is false, and also that you are fully aware that it is false.




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?

 

[fenixdigger]

Another special dodge.


That you know your questions are loaded with false premises, and still demand answers, shows that those false statements are all that you have got to try and invalidate all the proofs that show that your LRLs don't work.

That amounts to your openly lying, which is the point of contention concerning LRLs, in the first place.


The 10,001 Post Prediction continues.

Still won't work, you got questions to ANDSER (snicker) Seems a lot of people agree that those are valid questions.

 

[EE THr]

Another special dodge.


That you know your questions are loaded with false premises, and still demand answers, shows that those false statements are all that you have got to try and invalidate all the proofs that show that your LRLs don't work.

That amounts to your openly lying, which is the point of contention concerning LRLs, in the first place.


The 10,001 Post Prediction continues.

Still won't work, you got questions to ANDSER (snicker) Seems a lot of people agree that those are valid questions.

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?

 

[fenixdigger]

Man, that truth thing is something else. Hard for you to deAL WITH

Man up or shut up ANSWER the questions

 

[aarthrj3811]

Wow..His record must have a scratch at #32..Art