Maybe We Can Agree?

[EE THr]

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

Because the advertised claims are extraordinary, and the theory is unsound and not replicable.

Just a small correction....there are more than just a "few Skeptics" that have contributed evidence they (Long Range Locators) do not work. Alternatively...there is only a small group of people that believe they do work

con-artie;

Individual, ordinary, people have said that LRLs are obviously fradulent.
Electronics professionals have also said so.
Large corporations have also said so.
Courts have said so.

Who, besides the manufacturers themselves, and their shills, has said that LRLs work?

Jeez, con-artie, you won't even say they work, because you refuse to state an average successful hit rate! With all of your supposed experience, as you have boasted, you should be able to at least give an estimate, but you won't, will you? And neither will the makers.

Anybody can say that something "works great," but that means nothing, and they know it. It's called a generalization, and generalizations don't count in court, so the makers think they are safe. You can pile up some "treasure" on a table, wave an LRL at it, and say "it found it." But because you can do that, it means nothing in regards to proof, and the makers know that, too. And that's the only reason they say it, because it could be thought of in that context. But their ads make people think it will work successfully in treasure hunting, when the makers know it won't.

So, con-artie, answer the question in bold, above.






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 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

Individual, ordinary, people have said that LRLs are obviously fradulent.

And all but one have been Skeptics

Electronics professionals have also said so

Yes..a lot of people who claim to be EE’s have said that...Yes they are mostly skeptics

Large corporations have also said so.

I would like to know who these corporations are..

Courts have said so.

Only one Judge has ruled that LRL’s used for Treasure Hunting are fraudulent..It was for Mail Fraud..When the Officers of the Company were tried in front of a Jury they were found Not Gultiy.

Who, besides the manufacturers themselves, and their shills, has said that LRLs work?

1000’s of Owner Operators …Art

 

[EE THr]

Individual, ordinary, people have said that LRLs are obviously fradulent.

And all but one have been Skeptics

Electronics professionals have also said so

Yes..a lot of people who claim to be EE’s have said that...Yes they are mostly skeptics

Large corporations have also said so.

I would like to know who these corporations are..

Courts have said so.

Only one Judge has ruled that LRL’s used for Treasure Hunting are fraudulent..It was for Mail Fraud..When the Officers of the Company were tried in front of a Jury they were found Not Gultiy.

Who, besides the manufacturers themselves, and their shills, has said that LRLs work?

1000’s of Owner Operators …Art

Name one "skeptic," con-artie. And don't name me, because I don't have doubts, so I'm not a skeptic. And don't name SWR. I don't know if the rest have stated the same, but they don't sound like they merely have "doubts." Besides, you can't label skeptics as a bad thing, simply because they point out that something doesn't work. And we know it doesn't, becuase of your silly excuses for not taking the test. Set the table, con-artie, because that dinner is all done.

You know the big scientific corporations. SWR named them. Don't play naive.

You also know the courts who have stopped sales of them. Ditto above.

You just admitted that you don't have proof of your 2000 or more, and can't get that proof, on the "Different Ways of Testing LRLs" thread.

So there are four more direct lies of yours. Once you start lying, it seems you just can't stop. One leads to another, huh? Then it becomes a compulsion. Then you're done. Like now.

Like I told you before, you just keep burying yourself deeper and deeper.

#11 x 4.

"Comment about the above list: Even though this list has been up for awhile, the LRL promoters continue to perform according to these Predictions! Apparently they don't care about being exposed by the scientifically accepted Proof of Prediction standard. They just can't stop themselves! Very interesting. But also very sad."




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~

Name one "skeptic," con-artie. And don't name me, because I don't have doubts, so I'm not a skeptic. And don't name SWR. I don't know if the rest have stated the same, but they don't sound like they merely have "doubts." Besides, you can't label skeptics as a bad thing, simply because they point out that something doesn't work. And we know it doesn't, becuase of your silly excuses for not taking the test. Set the table, con-artie, because that dinner is all done.

If it acts like a Duck, Posts like a Duck then it is a Duck.

You know the big scientific corporations. SWR named them. Don't play naive.

Please name these Corporations who have been stopped from selling Fraudulent Treasure Hunting Devices?

You also know the courts who have stopped sales of them. Ditto above.

I know of only one that was in 1996 and it has been discussed..

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Name one "skeptic," con-artie. And don't name me, because I don't have doubts, so I'm not a skeptic. And don't name SWR. I don't know if the rest have stated the same, but they don't sound like they merely have "doubts." Besides, you can't label skeptics as a bad thing, simply because they point out that something doesn't work. And we know it doesn't, becuase of your silly excuses for not taking the test. Set the table, con-artie, because that dinner is all done.

If it acts like a Duck, Posts like a Duck then it is a Duck.

You know the big scientific corporations. SWR named them. Don't play naive.

Please name these Corporations who have been stopped from selling Fraudulent Treasure Hunting Devices?

You also know the courts who have stopped sales of them. Ditto above.

I know of only one that was in 1996 and it has been discussed..

Sorry, con-artie, we don't meet the definition of "skeptic." So take your duck and shove it.

"I know of only one." Bingo!






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]

Do you even remember what the topid here is, con-artie?

Let me remind you, and then maybe you can post on-topic.




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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

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?

The three questions have been answered many times..So tell us why you need any more answers ?..If you do not understand the answers by now you are a lost pupply…Art

 

[EE THr]

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?

The three questions have been answered many times..So tell us why you need any more answers ?..If you do not understand the answers by now you are a lost pupply…Art

Wrong again, con-artie. Another lie.

Answer the questions.






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?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

guten morgen Herr EE: you posted -->Answer the questions.
**********
K, you answer why the theory behind these can't work or tend to explain lrl's. Conventional electrical or electronic formulae accepted where applicable..


--> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-quick-magnetic-needles.html

-->http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-soft-motor-resembles-real-muscles.html

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

guten morgen Herr EE: you posted -->Answer the questions.
**********
K, you answer why the theory behind these can't work or tend to explain lrl's. Conventional electrical or electronic formulae accepted where applicable..


--> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-quick-magnetic-needles.html

-->http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-soft-motor-resembles-real-muscles.html

Don Jose de La Mancha

Those motors work on standard, agreed upon characteristics of electricity and certain types of matter.

It's like if you have a box of leggos, and make different stuff with them. The basic building blocks are already in existence (in agreement). Somebody just put them together in a different form.

I don't see how it would have anything to do with LRLs.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

It's like if you have a box of leggos, and make different stuff with them. The basic building blocks are already in existence (in agreement). Somebody just put them together in a different form.

Thank you for a good example of what the LRL Manufactures are doing..These independent thinking Treasure Hunters are using their knowledge of Treasure to produce an Electronic Device that meets their theories of how Electronics should find Treasure..Just 100’s of theories put together in a different form…Art

 

[EddieR]

Just wonderin'....since there have been many posts mentioning "shills" that work for the manufacturers of LRL's......

If someone claims that there are "shills" posting here, can they provide proof of that? Can they provide proof OF THEIR CLAIM that there are manufacturers shills on this forum?

I'm not talking about "in my opinion there are shills here". I want to see proof of the claim.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

It's like if you have a box of leggos, and make different stuff with them. The basic building blocks are already in existence (in agreement). Somebody just put them together in a different form.

Thank you for a good example of what the LRL Manufactures are doing..These independent thinking Treasure Hunters are using their knowledge of Treasure to produce an Electronic Device that meets their theories of how Electronics should find Treasure..Just 100’s of theories put together in a different form…Art

A bunch of "theories" put together do not necessarily make a fact. They only make one big theory.

And, in the case of LRLs, it's one big theory that doesn't work.





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]

Just wonderin'....since there have been many posts mentioning "shills" that work for the manufacturers of LRL's......

If someone claims that there are "shills" posting here, can they provide proof of that? Can they provide proof OF THEIR CLAIM that there are manufacturers shills on this forum?

I'm not talking about "in my opinion there are shills here". I want to see proof of the claim.

You need to understand what a shill is.

I have posted the evidence.

Here is some more---



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?

 

[EddieR]

Just wonderin'....since there have been many posts mentioning "shills" that work for the manufacturers of LRL's......

If someone claims that there are "shills" posting here, can they provide proof of that? Can they provide proof OF THEIR CLAIM that there are manufacturers shills on this forum?

I'm not talking about "in my opinion there are shills here". I want to see proof of the claim.

You need to understand what a shill is.

I have posted the evidence.

Here is some more---



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?

So which definition are you referring to?



Hmmmm..........




Knock knock. Anybody home?

 

[aarthrj3811]

A bunch of "theories" put together do not necessarily make a fact. They only make one big theory.

And, in the case of LRLs, it's one big theory that doesn't work.

You may just want to read about the “Theory of Electricity”

 

[EE THr]

A bunch of "theories" put together do not necessarily make a fact. They only make one big theory.

And, in the case of LRLs, it's one big theory that doesn't work.

You may just want to read about the “Theory of Electricity”

Been there, done that.

LRLs still don't work.

If they did, you would collect Carl's $25K. (Duh!)

You are just making yourself look dumber and dumber, shill.



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?

 

[EddieR]

Just wonderin'....since there have been many posts mentioning "shills" that work for the manufacturers of LRL's......

If someone claims that there are "shills" posting here, can they provide proof of that? Can they provide proof OF THEIR CLAIM that there are manufacturers shills on this forum?

I'm not talking about "in my opinion there are shills here". I want to see proof of the claim.

You need to understand what a shill is.

I have posted the evidence.

Here is some more---



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?

So which definition are you referring to?



Hmmmm..........




Knock knock. Anybody home?

Shall I ask it again? Which definition of "shill" are you referring to when you use it here?

 

[EddieR]

Just wonderin'....since there have been many posts mentioning "shills" that work for the manufacturers of LRL's......

If someone claims that there are "shills" posting here, can they provide proof of that? Can they provide proof OF THEIR CLAIM that there are manufacturers shills on this forum?

I'm not talking about "in my opinion there are shills here". I want to see proof of the claim.

Why? You refuse to validate your claims...yet you want others to jump through hoops?

Other than the shills who work for H3 Tec, 'hung' who claims he was friends with the owner/creator of Mineoro and the various screen names Dell Winders used to post incognito....what "proof" would you require to satisfy your quest?

A claim was made. Proof is required. Opinions don't cut it. And just because someone is friends with someone doesn't mean they are working for them.

Claims (actually insinuations) have been made that there are people on this forum that are on the payroll of LRL manufacturers. How about some proof of that.



To paraphrase.....with minor changes...




"Show the proof or be a doof"

 

[EddieR]

Just wonderin'....since there have been many posts mentioning "shills" that work for the manufacturers of LRL's......

If someone claims that there are "shills" posting here, can they provide proof of that? Can they provide proof OF THEIR CLAIM that there are manufacturers shills on this forum?

I'm not talking about "in my opinion there are shills here". I want to see proof of the claim.

Why? You refuse to validate your claims...yet you want others to jump through hoops?

Other than the shills who work for H3 Tec, 'hung' who claims he was friends with the owner/creator of Mineoro and the various screen names Dell Winders used to post incognito....what "proof" would you require to satisfy your quest?

A claim was made. Proof is required. Opinions don't cut it. And just because someone is friends with someone doesn't mean they are working for them.

Claims (actually insinuations) have been made that there are people on this forum that are on the payroll of LRL manufacturers. How about some proof of that.



To paraphrase.....with minor changes...




"Show the proof or be a doof"

The "proof" you require is clearly posted on/in the LRL forums. Are you now saying you don't know how to read?

Of course I can read. But it seems when hard questions are posted to your side, the LRL opponents y forget how to read.
Obviously our versions of proof are vastly different. Since no other anti-LRL'ers seem to be able to provide FACTS of any LRL user being shills (on payroll as has been insinuated), perhaps you could provide that proof? Payroll statements, etc?

Or perhaps the "shill" term was being used as "someone who shows loyalty to a product"?

In that case, anyone who promotes their metal detector brand is a "shill", correct?

By the way, what claims have I not validated, as you stated above?