Maybe We Can Agree?

[EE THr]

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

Man up or shut up ANSWER the 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?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Now that we've all had our little traipse off into Never-Never Land, and even more of the LRL promoters' nonsensical gibberish, insults, and off-topic diversions, maybe we can all get back to confronting the original topic questions---


Maybe We Can Agree

It can be confusing to try to talk about two or three different things in one thread. I mean, sometimes you say something about one thing, and someone replies to your post, but somehow swings it over to something else, and gives an answer regarding that other thing. How are you supposed to respond to that?

So, people can be talking about two different things, and not even realize it! The next thing you know, it doesn't make any sense, and everyone gets ticked off simply because nobody's making sense anymore.

But maybe we can sort out some things, and maybe that will let us stay on track, and eliminate some of the confusion.

The matter does arise, of mixing dowsing with LRLs. There are different way that problems in communication can start with these two getting mixed up, or being used interchangeably. I don't think that they need to be combined in concept, in order to discuss either one.

There is a problem in talking about LRLs, when people want to use dowsing terminology.

Yet there are some who insist that they do go together.

And others who insist that they don't.

Most of these kinds of problems come up when talking about the tests. Both from people who think LRL is dowsing, and from people who say it's not.

So, look at it this way. According to Carl's test, it doesn't matter if it's considered dowsing or not, because either it passes his test, or it doesn't. The theory of how it works doesn't come into play, in his test. So there is no need to talk dowsing, when discussing Carl's test. It simply doesn't matter.

But, if there are people who find fault with Carl's test, and state dowsing reasons as being part of the problem, then they are also stating that LRLs are somehow using dowsing. The people who are stating this, apparently consider that LRLs somehow enhance the dowsing success, though.

As far as the LRL advocates go, this doesn't seem to matter, as long as they find stuff.

But it does make a difference when considering whether LRLs are fraudulently advertised, because they infer that anyone can use them, and don't state that dowsing ability is required. This concept can go around and around with problems, because of this lack of understanding and agreement.

So, can it be agreed that the free-swinging pointer type of LRLs are supposed to be dowsing enhancers?

Or can we agree that they are totally electronic devices, and not dowsing based?

Or, is there a better definition of the free-swinging pointer types of LRLs?





I predict that the answers from the LRLers will be either nonsensical gibberish, outright insults, or off-topic diversions.



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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

So, can it be agreed that the free-swinging pointer type of LRLs are supposed to be dowsing enhancers?

No

Or can we agree that they are totally electronic devices, and not dowsing based?

No…The 7 units that I have used require a human for them to work and are not Dowsing

Or, is there a better definition of the free-swinging pointer types of LRLs?

Not to my knowledge

I predict that the answers from the LRLers will be either nonsensical gibberish, outright insults, or off-topic diversions.

Wrong

 

[EE THr]

So, can it be agreed that the free-swinging pointer type of LRLs are supposed to be dowsing enhancers?

No

Or can we agree that they are totally electronic devices, and not dowsing based?

No…The 7 units that I have used require a human for them to work and are not Dowsing

Or, is there a better definition of the free-swinging pointer types of LRLs?

Not to my knowledge

I predict that the answers from the LRLers will be either nonsensical gibberish, outright insults, or off-topic diversions.

Wrong

Thanks for admitting that a person must hold the LRL.

The only reason that would be necessary is if the so-called "electronics" in the device are useless.

And therefore you must tip the device in order to make it "point" somewhere.

Which confirms the following, very nicely---

The Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a double blind test.
4. The proponent's only rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-3. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. This makes their reports of finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list.



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Tha

nks for admitting that a person must hold the LRL.

Could you tell us any other ways for the device to move from point A to point B..May be some day they will have wheels and move on their own

The only reason that would be necessary is if the so-called "electronics" in the device are useless.

Answered above

And therefore you must tip the device in order to make it "point" somewhere.

Yes ..They work better when tipped in a downward angle

Which confirms the following, very nicely---

No it does not

 

[EE THr]

Could you tell us any other ways for the device to move from point A to point B..May be some day they will have wheels and move on their own

Like I have said, many times before, clamp the handle in a vise, and move a target in front of the device, and see if the pointer follows it.

It's a very simple and obvious procedure.

You keep saying that you "feel" the pointer tugging at you. That would require some mechanical force to be impinged onto the pointer. Any force on the pointer, that you would be able to feel, would be enough to move it.

But nothing happens in the above test.

Why?

And please don't try to pawn off that "nano bio-energy" stuff on me. If you think it needs that, then simply hold the handle while it's in the vise. It still won't follow the moving target.

All of your fantasies can't come up with a reason for this not working.

But, the following can--

The Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a double blind test.
4. The proponent's only rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-3. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. This makes their reports of finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list.



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

I wonder who has posted this nonsense before?..Art

 

[EE THr]

I wonder who has posted this nonsense before?..Art

Another insult with no supporting facts.

#12 in the link below.



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

I wonder who has posted this nonsense before?..Art


Another insult with no supporting facts.

I guess that any one who answers one of your posts is insulting to..you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult
An insult (also called a putdown) is an expression, statement (or sometimes behavior) which is considered degrading and offensive. Insults may be intentional or accidental. An example of the latter is a well-intended simple explanation, which in fact is superfluous, but is given due to underestimating the intelligence or knowledge of the other.

 

[fenixdigger]

I told you so. That's the one psychosis that SWR doesn't have. Paranoia is a sneaky little devil. Seems this one is a rare type, not the usual, gov. trying to get me thing. Has to do with self image,,, idiots, liars and insulting people everywhere around me type.

 

[EE THr]

I told you so. That's the one psychosis that SWR doesn't have. Paranoia is a sneaky little devil. Seems this one is a rare type, not the usual, gov. trying to get me thing. Has to do with self image,,, idiots, liars and insulting people everywhere around me type.

fenix brothers and artie---

Neither of your posts are on topic.

You keep wanting to focus attention on me, thus diverting attention away from the facts.

The more you do that, the more you lose credibility with everyone. People are smarter than you think.

If you don't have any suggestions for a public, random double-blind test, then you shouldn't be posting on this thread.



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

No…We do not agree with you..Do you have a mental block as the word “NO” is widely under stood..

You keep wanting to focus attention on me, thus diverting attention away from the facts.

I can not speak for fenixdigger..I respond to the quality and the truthfulness of the posts…Art

 

[EE THr]

No…We do not agree with you..Do you have a mental block as the word “NO” is widely under stood..

You keep wanting to focus attention on me, thus diverting attention away from the facts.

I can not speak for fenixdigger..I respond to the quality and the truthfulness of the posts…Art

More nonsense insults, more Trolling.

The Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a double blind test.
4. The proponent's only rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-3. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. This makes their reports of finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list.



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

More nonsense insults, more Trolling.

That’s two

 

[EE THr]

More nonsense insults, more Trolling.

That’s two

If you don't have any suggestions about setting up a fair test that everyone can agree on, then you shouldn't be posting on this thread.

Start a thread of your own if you just want to Troll and post nonsense.



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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

If you don't have any suggestions about setting up a fair test that everyone can agree on, then you shouldn't be posting on this thread.

Start a thread of your own if you just want to Troll and post nonsense.

We have already made some suggestion that were rejected by you..Art

 

[EE THr]

If you don't have any suggestions about setting up a fair test that everyone can agree on, then you shouldn't be posting on this thread.

Start a thread of your own if you just want to Troll and post nonsense.

We have already made some suggestion that were rejected by you..Art

Yeah. Your version of proof is that you tell a fairy tale, and we should believe it.

Nobody has ever proved that their LRL actually works.

What is required for proof is a random double-blind test, with unbiased witnesses.

How do you propose to acconplish that?







Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

What is required for proof is a random double-blind test, with unbiased witness..

So photo’s and movies of finds and testimonials are not acceptable..We have done a double blind test ..What’s your next excuse?

 

[EE THr]

What is required for proof is a random double-blind test, with unbiased witness..

So photo’s and movies of finds and testimonials are not acceptable..We have done a double blind test ..What’s your next excuse?

Fake photos, fake movies, fake testimonials, and tests with your friends and family, are not formal proof.

I don't need an excuse for anything. LRLs have never been proven to work. If they are so good, people would be proving it every day, just like they do with regular metal detectors. And Carl wouldn't be offering a reward for anyone proving that they do work. To think otherwise is pure nonsense.



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Fake photos, fake movies, fake testimonials, and tests with your friends and family, are not formal proof.

Real photo’s, Real movies, Real testimonials ,and test with your friends and family are real tests.

If they are so good, people would be proving it every day, just like they do with regular metal detectors.

We do that all the time.. Because we do not have a non treasure hunting Skeptic with us does not make them false. The 63 owner/operators of these devices have given their reports on this thread. The 1000’s of testimonials and photos on the internet you consider as false.

And Carl wouldn't be offering a reward for anyone proving that they do work

So you are saying that a fake double blind test that no one has ever taken is iron clad proof that LRL’s do not work?