Maybe We Can Agree?

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI aa, EE posted -->You're Fired!
*************
No problem, yer hired with twice the measly salary that EE was paying , and with benifits, such as -->-
when you wish, and a paid vacation of 6 months a year. OK?? Might even talk Judy and Unicorn into being your dectector bearers as well as excavators.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[EE THr]

RDT---

Do you realize that if you continue to encourage a person to insist that fantasy is reality, and reality is fantasy, they can end up perpetually curled up in the pre-natal position, sucking their thumb, in a funny farm somewhere?

At this stage, it's all about tough love, my friend.

It just depends on what type of person you really are.

 

[fenixdigger]

*Sigh* This is the Big Problem in all these discussions. Both sides keep demanding PROOF. Sorry, proof is for mathematicians and distillers. Neither I nor any skeptic can't offer indisputable proof that LRLs don't work. Likewise, proponents can't offer indisputable proof that LRLs do work. In science, we deal with evidence, so both sides can only offer evidence. We judge the strengths of the evidences and draw a conclusion. So let's get over this demand for "proof". In fact, let's agree to not even use the word.


Here's a little quote from Carl. Maybe someone should read and heed this I can agree with this.

 

[EE THr]

Update!

Somebody has made an offer to get into agreement about something!

It was one of the eight people using the nick, "fenixdigger," now referred to as the fenix brothers. Unfortunately, the only thing this person, or 1/8 of a person, or whatever, wants to agree to is to outlaw the term, "proof." I doubt that this offer is going to be very agreeable.


The rest of the list, however, remains the same, as follows---

It's time to say that, in reference to the topic question, there is nothing that the LRL promoters on here want to agree with.

Not a definition of what their LRL devices actually are, as in the Original Post.

Not an outline of what a fair test of LRLs, to back up their braggings, would be.

Not an average reliability rate of their LRLs, by way of an average percentage of success.

In short, not anything which would show, one way or another, the validity of all of their fantastic claims about these supposed and mysterious "Long Range Locators." All of their LRLs are just plastic boxes with nothing inside that actually do anything to find a target of any kind.

They don't want any college to test their LRL devices.

They don't want any college to evaluate the schematics of their LRL devices.

They won't choose any college to check these things, because they know that they are frauds!


It doesn't get any plainer than that!

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Ok, I will lay it on the line.

A ) no-ne knows how the lrl's actually work.

B) Even those that use them, frankly aren't sure just how they work either, so resort to standard electronics in an attempt to explain them. Unfortunately electronics cannot do this either, since it is beyond that.

C) Most tests will fail because of the lack of uderstanding how the present Lrl's could concievably work or
apparently do not understand just how important the human interface is at this point.

Yes, there wil come a time when you will be able to simply turn on a machine and learn where any desired object will be located, but, not yet.

We still have to rely upon normal dowsing


Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

Ok, I will lay it on the line.

A ) no-ne knows how the lrl's actually work.

B) Even those that use them, frankly aren't sure just how they work either, so resort to standard electronics in an attempt to explain them. Unfortunately electronics cannot do this either, since it is beyond that.

C) Most tests will fail because of the lack of uderstanding how the present Lrl's could concievably work or
apparently do not understand just how important the human interface is at this point.

Yes, there wil come a time when you will be able to simply turn on a machine and learn where any desired object will be located, but, not yet.

We still have to rely upon normal dowsing


Don Jose de La Mancha

To say "no one knows how LRLs work," is inserting a false premise, because it has not been established that they do work. Even the term "work," for LRLs, has not been agreeably defined, which would be necessary, before it could ever be discussed.

Is it necessary for another person to understand something for it to "work"? That is, for example, does a person need to understand how a car works, for him to observe one successfully driving down the street?

Does an observer really need to understand, or even agree with the possibility of, the "human interface" theory, in order to see an LRL "work"?

Please explain....

 

[aarthrj3811]

To say "no one knows how LRLs work," is inserting a false premise, because it has not been established that they do work. Even the term "work," for LRLs, has not been agreeably defined, which would be necessary, before it could ever be discussed.

The problem you are having is your complete lack of knowledge about LRL’s and how they are designed. Each and every unit is designed to suit the manufactures understanding of what he is trying to accomplish. He will use any and all Electronics that he sees fit to use.

Is it necessary for another person to understand something for it to "work"? That is, for example, does a person need to understand how a car works, for him to observe one successfully driving down the street?

Bingo. There is no need to understand all the technology of each unit to be able to use it. We, the LRL users, have told the smart consumers how to determine if a unit will do what they want to accomplish. The skeptics keep saying that they are all frauds because they can not understand them.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Does an observer really need to understand, or even agree with the possibility of, the "human interface" theory, in order to see an LRL "work"?

Let see now..You skeptics are always comparing LRL’s to the conventional Metal detectors..Will a conventional Metal detector find and locate Treasure without a human interface ?..Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

jeeze...why even try? no one actually knows how the LRL works?

Except for the people who can find treasure with them..Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Well then. I guess that excuses you. Evidently, you cannot find treasure as you are not really a "Treasure Hunter".

I have heard that rumor before from you.

 

[EE THr]

Does an observer really need to understand, or even agree with the possibility of, the "human interface" theory, in order to see an LRL "work"?

Let see now..You skeptics are always comparing LRL’s to the conventional Metal detectors..Will a conventional Metal detector find and locate Treasure without a human interface ?..Art

Absolutely!

If you turn it on, set it down, and wave metal in front of it, it will indicate the detection of that metal.

Can an LRL do that? Noooooooooooo!

But the LRL advertisements all make it sound like they would. And that's my point.

Plus, with your attitude and nonsensical posts, I strongly suspect that you've never found anything with yours. I know that if I were successful with something like that, I wouldn't spend my time arguing with people about it! What's to be gained from that, unless you're on commission or something like that?

And if they work so good, then why would your operation of it by a "non-believer" cause it to suddenly malfunction? That's not how electronics work, con-artie.




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]

To say "no one knows how LRLs work," is inserting a false premise, because it has not been established that they do work. Even the term "work," for LRLs, has not been agreeably defined, which would be necessary, before it could ever be discussed.

The problem you are having is your complete lack of knowledge about LRL’s and how they are designed. Each and every unit is designed to suit the manufactures understanding of what he is trying to accomplish. He will use any and all Electronics that he sees fit to use.

That's not the point I made, con-artie. My point there, as can be seen in the quote, is that you don't even know what the average reliable percentage of success is for any LRL. That's because there is no reliability, beyond guessing where the target is.

You constantly refuse to define what is meant by "working," regarding LRLs. You won't state what they are supposed to do. And when you do tell stories of success, you readily admit that not everyone can make them "work." That's not "electronics," it's dowsing.

Is it necessary for another person to understand something for it to "work"? That is, for example, does a person need to understand how a car works, for him to observe one successfully driving down the street?

Bingo. There is no need to understand all the technology of each unit to be able to use it. We, the LRL users, have told the smart consumers how to determine if a unit will do what they want to accomplish. The skeptics keep saying that they are all frauds because they can not understand them.

Wrong point again, con-artie! This seems to be a habit with you!

What I'm talking about here is the excuse you constantly use for not taking tests to prove your claims about LRL. You always say that it's because the observers in the test are biased, and your devices won't function correctly under those circumstances. Sorry, that's not how electronics work!

Do you see anyone selling TVs that will only work if the user gives it "good vibes"?

Please cut the nonsense, huh? You are only making your credibility worse and worse, if it's possible for it to be any worse than zero!





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]

Wrong point again, con-artie! This seems to be a habit with you!
What I'm talking about here is the excuse you constantly use for not taking tests to prove your claims about LRL.

No excuses..Just facts that you are having trouble handling..One last time…The test that you propose will not prove that LRL’s work..I hope you can understand the facts this time.

You always say that it's because the observers in the test are biased, and your devices won't function correctly under those circumstances. Sorry, that's not how electronics work!

What I said was that the Definition of a Double Blind Test is clear on the subject of bias

Please cut the nonsense, huh? You are only making your credibility worse and worse, if it's possible for it to be any worse than zero!

Zero Credibility with you is OK with me. Put on one of your opinion lists if you want…Art

 

[EE THr]

Wrong point again, con-artie! This seems to be a habit with you!
What I'm talking about here is the excuse you constantly use for not taking tests to prove your claims about LRL.

No excuses..Just facts that you are having trouble handling..One last time…The test that you propose will not prove that LRL’s work..I hope you can understand the facts this time.

You always say that it's because the observers in the test are biased, and your devices won't function correctly under those circumstances. Sorry, that's not how electronics work!

What I said was that the Definition of a Double Blind Test is clear on the subject of bias

Please cut the nonsense, huh? You are only making your credibility worse and worse, if it's possible for it to be any worse than zero!

Zero Credibility with you is OK with me. Put on one of your opinion lists if you want…Art

Of course the test won't prove that LRLs work, any more that a test will prove that a cow can fly.

-----

How can an independent proctor admisistering the test be biased? He needn't even know what an LRL is. Or are you saying that the test must be administered by a "believer"? For me, that would be OK, as long as observers are allowed to be sure he didn't alter the test procedure.

Besides, you would be there to make sure that the test wasn't altered against you.

And, any decent metal detector could pass the test, no matter how biased the admininstator of it was, as long as it was administered correctly.

It's plain for anyone to see---your excuses are all invalid, con-artie.




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]

~ART~

The test that you propose will not prove that LRL’s work..I hope you can understand the facts this time.

~EE~

Of course the test won't prove that LRLs work, any more that a test will prove that a cow can fly.
-----
How can an independent proctor admisistering the test be biased? He needn't even know what an LRL is. Or are you saying that the test must be administered by a "believer"? For me, that would be OK, as long as observers are allowed to be sure he didn't alter the test procedure.
Besides, you would be there to make sure that the test wasn't altered against you.

I do not see a proposal..
A double blind test is a scientific test in which neither test subjects nor administrators know who is in the control group and who is in the experimental group. The intent is to create an unbiased test environment, ensuring that the results of the testing are accurate and will stand up to analysis by other members of the scientific community. The concept of a double blind test is an excellent example of the scientific method, since it aims to be entirely objective and potentially repeatable.

Is your present proposal written according to the definition.. scientific test.. subjects nor administrators.. control group.. experimental group.. will stand up to analysis by other members of the scientific community.

 

[EE THr]

con-artie;

Are you saying that the administrator should be someone who doesn't know you? That would be the unbiased proctor.

Or are you saying that you should wear a disguise, no matter who the administrator of the test is?


With a metal detector, none of that is necessary. So why should it be needed with an LRL?


Do you wear a disguise when treasure hunting? Just in case a "non-believer" accidently sees you and makes your LRL malfunction?


Just what the heck are you saying?


It just keeps getting funnier and funnier!





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]

~EE~

With a metal detector, none of that is necessary. So why should it be needed with an LRL?

Pretty Please, show us where we can find the results of a double Blind Test of Conventional Metal Detectors ?

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

With a metal detector, none of that is necessary. So why should it be needed with an LRL?

Pretty Please, show us where we can find the results of a double Blind Test of Conventional Metal Detectors ?

I didn't say there was one. There isn't one, because it's not necessary. They work the same for everyone, unlike your so-called LRLs.


However, if you sponser one for $25,000.00, I'll be there!

How about it?






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]

I didn't say there was one. There isn't one, because it's not necessary. They work the same for everyone, unlike your so-called LRLs.

So you are saying that it is not necessary because you say so ?...So millions of tools have not preformed a double blind test ?...So please tell us just why LRL’s should have to submit to a double blind test just because a few Skeptics believe that they do not work?..Art

 

[EE THr]

I didn't say there was one. There isn't one, because it's not necessary. They work the same for everyone, unlike your so-called LRLs.

So you are saying that it is not necessary because you say so ?...So millions of tools have not preformed a double blind test ?...So please tell us just why LRL’s should have to submit to a double blind test just because a few Skeptics believe that they do not work?..Art

con-artie;

I can't believe that someone would ask that, when the answer is right there in my text which they quoted!

But I'll make it super easy for you, below.

Metal Detectors don't need a double-blind test to determine if they work as advertised, because---
1. Nobody has any doubts that they do.
2. Every treasure hunter has at least one, and it works.
3. Thousands of people use them, and many report some kind of success right here on this forum, every day.
4. For the major brands, there has never been an accusation of fraud, like there has been for LRLs.
5. Anyone would take a double-blind test with a metal detector of their choice, for $25K.
6. Metal Detectors work basically the same for anyone, if they follow the enclosed instructions.

Do you get the simple point of what I actually said now?

That's why metal detectors don't need a double-blind test to see if they actually "work." Because they do.


That's a major #22, con-artie. Again. For the gazillionth time.





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?