My Movie

[hung]

A scammer is a person who intentionally misleads a mark for financial gain, someone who attempts to swindle or mislead another for financial benefit.

Thanks, a perfect definition if I ever saw one.

That fits at least one of the regulars here, and did fit another (but after having an entire thread of his deleted, he decided to bow out for a little respite).

Now the question is; what do we call a person who defends and validates the contraption a "scammer" sells to swindle or mislead another for financial gain?

Junior scammer?
Accomplice to the act of scamming?
Scammer think alike?
Wannabe scammer?

Like Fox News, I report, you decide.

What regular here are you irresponsibly referring to as a Scammer? It's easy to make false accusations when you are afraid to stand accountable for your own actions.

What is your real name, your complete physical address, and personal telephone number, so you can be held accountable for your fraudulent accusations?

Honesty and integrity dictates that I stand accountable for my own actions, and my own products.

My real name is Dell Winders, Jr.
I reside at 1153 E Shady Cove Road
Haines City, Florida 33844
My home phone number for the past 24 years is 863 422 5454. Only the area code has been changed.

If you have any proof of your accusations, this is the place I am at for you to file any legitimate charges.

Now, post your real name, address, and phone number, to show the viewers here that that you are credible, and accountable for your actions, with proof that backs up your accusations. Dell

Dell , now let's see if ted-theseus-sam will BE BRAVE ENOUGH to release his address as proof he is not a coward who stays behind aliases hidden and afraid of something. Actually what would he be afraid of? Meeting one of us?
I want to see how brave and honest he is. I want to see his address here.
Go on brave man.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[EddieR]

scammer is a person who intentionally misleads a mark for financial gain, someone who attempts to swindle or mislead another for financial benefit.

Thanks, a perfect definition if I ever saw one.

That fits at least one of the regulars here, and did fit another (but after having an entire thread of his deleted, he decided to bow out for a little respite).

Now the question is; what do we call a person who defends and validates the contraption a "scammer" sells to swindle or mislead another for financial gain?

Junior scammer?
Accomplice to the act of scamming?
Scammer think alike?
Wannabe scammer?

Like Fox News, I report, you decide.

You are not getting the whole picture Ted
The scam is being perpetrated by people who claim they are here to save the world. When in fact the only thing they are doing is trying to stop the flow of information on this board…Art

What possible scam could the skeptics here be attempting when we stand to profit in no way whatsoever?

That one won't wash with your buddies, af. That was my reasoning when I was called a scammer but it got twisted around.

 

[aarthrj3811]

That one won't wash with your buddies, af. That was my reasoning when I was called a scammer but it got twisted around.

Got it..If he is dreaming or his imaginations as taken over I can’t tell the difference. He thinks he is the King of Twist and spin and it is real to him….Poor guy has nothing else to do so I guess we are the ones that has to put up with his handicap…Art

 

[EddieR]

A scammer is a person who intentionally misleads a mark for financial gain, someone who attempts to swindle or mislead another for financial benefit.

Thanks, a perfect definition if I ever saw one.

That fits at least one of the regulars here, and did fit another (but after having an entire thread of his deleted, he decided to bow out for a little respite).

Now the question is; what do we call a person who defends and validates the contraption a "scammer" sells to swindle or mislead another for financial gain?

Junior scammer?
Accomplice to the act of scamming?
Scammer think alike?
Wannabe scammer?

Like Fox News, I report, you decide.

I don't know....but if someone is speaking specifically about ME in those terms (i.e. saying that I'm in cahoots with someone attempting to swindle someone), then I would call them...... the defendant.

Catch my drift?

 

[EddieR]

Interesting. So you are calling me a scammer because I have successfully used a LRL in the past and told my story? Are you even aware of the definition of a scammer? A scammer is a person who intentionally misleads a mark for financial gain, someone who attempts to swindle or mislead another for financial benefit. Where do you see me trying to reap a financial reward here? I do not sell LRL's. I do not make LRL's. I have simply told my story. I'm not out to force my beliefs on another. Read my past posts and you will see that.

On a side note, I'm sorry about your friend.

Oh, by the way, there are lots of metal detectors in peoples closets because they didn't find any silver dollars either.

Finding a known object (your ring) in a known location (hay field you were working in) qualifies as successfully using a LRL? The same LRL that is no longer made...for obvious reasons? Nope. That don't fly.

Maybe not a scammmer...but certainly an instigator

Instigator of what, pray tell?

And once again you use the dorky reasoning of "a machine no longer made". We went through that before and as I said before, there are a lot of great metal detectors that are no longer made.

 

[Ted Groves]

You two are really funny when you get cornered. Not as funny as Laurel and Hardy, but they had better script writers.

Maybe you could find your old Johnny Weissmuller look-alike swim suit, back when you did the alligator wrestling, and you and your buddy Hung could become the next tag team match sensation.

 

[EddieR]

Interesting. So you are calling me a scammer because I have successfully used a LRL in the past and told my story? Are you even aware of the definition of a scammer? A scammer is a person who intentionally misleads a mark for financial gain, someone who attempts to swindle or mislead another for financial benefit. Where do you see me trying to reap a financial reward here? I do not sell LRL's. I do not make LRL's. I have simply told my story. I'm not out to force my beliefs on another. Read my past posts and you will see that.

On a side note, I'm sorry about your friend.

Oh, by the way, there are lots of metal detectors in peoples closets because they didn't find any silver dollars either.

Finding a known object (your ring) in a known location (hay field you were working in) qualifies as successfully using a LRL? The same LRL that is no longer made...for obvious reasons? Nope. That don't fly.

Maybe not a scammmer...but certainly an instigator

Instigator of what, pray tell?

And once again you use the dorky reasoning of "a machine no longer made". We went through that before and as I said before, there are a lot of great metal detectors that are no longer made.

Dorky...LOL.....you were the jobber standing in the hay field with an empty plastic box with an antenna sticking out of it. You successfully used an LRL by finding a known target in a known location.

But....I still found it. Results is what counts.

Now let me ask you a question....what would the chances have been of finding the ring with a metal detector as quickly as I did? What would the chances have been of finding it at all? Remember, the area was several acres in size, close to 10-12 acres (I think), and I found the ring by triangulation with a LRL. Let's stage a scenario, shall we? Let's say that a person called your recovery business and told you that they had lost a ring in a 10-12 acre field while mowing/baling hay. They had been over the field several times over the last couple of days and weren't sure when or what part of the field they were in when the ring slipped off, or to be honest, weren't even sure that they lost it there. Can you say for certain, if the ring was there in the field, that you would definitely recover it?

 

[EddieR]

You two are really funny when you get cornered. Not as funny as Laurel and Hardy, but they had better script writers.

Maybe you could find your old Johnny Weissmuller look-alike swim suit, back when you did the alligator wrestling, and you and your buddy Hung could become the next tag team match sensation.

 

[EddieR]

But....I still found it. Results is what counts.

Now let me ask you a question....what would the chances have been of finding the ring with a metal detector as quickly as I did? What would the chances have been of finding it at all? Remember, the area was several acres in size, close to 10-12 acres (I think), and I found the ring by triangulation with a LRL. Let's stage a scenario, shall we? Let's say that a person called your recovery business and told you that they had lost a ring in a 10-12 acre field while mowing/baling hay. They had been over the field several times over the last couple of days and weren't sure when or what part of the field they were in when the ring slipped off, or to be honest, weren't even sure that they lost it there. Can you say for certain, if the ring was there in the field, that you would definitely recover it?

I'll have to get back to you later on this. I'm still laughing hysterically about some guy out in the middle of a hay field with any empty plastic case, with an antenna sticking out of the side of it.

I thought so....

 

[EddieR]

But....I still found it. Results is what counts.

Now let me ask you a question....what would the chances have been of finding the ring with a metal detector as quickly as I did? What would the chances have been of finding it at all? Remember, the area was several acres in size, close to 10-12 acres (I think), and I found the ring by triangulation with a LRL. Let's stage a scenario, shall we? Let's say that a person called your recovery business and told you that they had lost a ring in a 10-12 acre field while mowing/baling hay. They had been over the field several times over the last couple of days and weren't sure when or what part of the field they were in when the ring slipped off, or to be honest, weren't even sure that they lost it there. Can you say for certain, if the ring was there in the field, that you would definitely recover it?

I'll have to get back to you later on this. I'm still laughing hysterically about some guy out in the middle of a hay field with any empty plastic case, with an antenna sticking out of the side of it.

I thought so....

Ok...small amount of spritz cleaned off the monitor. All better now.

Eddie...first off, my "recovery business" is simply a hobby thing. It is not a business thing, but it might be one day. Read possible retirement plans.

I'd rather not play your staged scenario game, that's just the way I roll. Not much of a gamer. I am, however, all giddy that you found the ring you lost, in the field you were working in. Just giddy, mind you...not really impressed. However, if your empty plastic case w/ antenna had found a bar of Spanish gold...I would be ecstatic.

Yes, a gold bar would have been nice.

And I'm sure you saw where I was going with the scenario, since you backed down. That's okay, I'll play out the probable results.

The truth is, using a metal detector in an area that size to find a small target....well, the odds are stacked against you as far as finding it. Not impossible, no. But it would be a long shot.

Imagine that....a known target in a known location.....and the odds being that high.

Get it? Got it? Good!

 

[EddieR]

But....I still found it. Results is what counts.

Now let me ask you a question....what would the chances have been of finding the ring with a metal detector as quickly as I did? What would the chances have been of finding it at all? Remember, the area was several acres in size, close to 10-12 acres (I think), and I found the ring by triangulation with a LRL. Let's stage a scenario, shall we? Let's say that a person called your recovery business and told you that they had lost a ring in a 10-12 acre field while mowing/baling hay. They had been over the field several times over the last couple of days and weren't sure when or what part of the field they were in when the ring slipped off, or to be honest, weren't even sure that they lost it there. Can you say for certain, if the ring was there in the field, that you would definitely recover it?

I'll have to get back to you later on this. I'm still laughing hysterically about some guy out in the middle of a hay field with any empty plastic case, with an antenna sticking out of the side of it.

I thought so....

Ok...small amount of spritz cleaned off the monitor. All better now.

Eddie...first off, my "recovery business" is simply a hobby thing. It is not a business thing, but it might be one day. Read possible retirement plans.

I'd rather not play your staged scenario game, that's just the way I roll. Not much of a gamer. I am, however, all giddy that you found the ring you lost, in the field you were working in. Just giddy, mind you...not really impressed. However, if your empty plastic case w/ antenna had found a bar of Spanish gold...I would be ecstatic.

Yes, a gold bar would have been nice.

And I'm sure you saw where I was going with the scenario, since you backed down. That's okay, I'll play out the probable results.

The truth is, using a metal detector in an area that size to find a small target....well, the odds are stacked against you as far as finding it. Not impossible, no. But it would be a long shot.

Imagine that....a known target in a known location.....and the odds being that high.

Get it? Got it? Good!

Good deal, you get to play with yourself. Er....the game, that is. That way you can control the truth, odds and anything else needed to "prove" the point to yourself.

Naw...I don't control the truth, just point out the obvious every now and then.

You can't deny the outcome of the scenario. Avoidance would never change it. It would be extremely difficult or (extremely lucky) to find said target in one day, much less just a few minutes.

So, using logic, intuition, and skill....how long do you think it would take to find the ring in a field that size with a metal detector? Realistically.

Perhaps your buddies might like to take a shot at this.

 

[Ted Groves]

...what would the chances have been of finding the ring with a metal detector as quickly as I did? What would the chances have been of finding it at all? Remember, the area was several acres in size, close to 10-12 acres (I think), and I found the ring by triangulation with a LRL.

Perhaps your buddies might like to take a shot at this.

Well, sure.

If I accept your entire scenario as truth, which for this comment I will, then assuming you would have been using a medium to upper grade metal detector, I would say the chances of finding your ring would be exactly the same as with the LRL you did use.

Here is why:

• 1) the ring was lost quite recently therefore, not buried.
• 2) I know how an LRL works, even if you don't
• 3) the same attributes you employed to locate the ring with the LRL could have just as easily been employed using a metal detector (I've done it many times)
• 4) prior knowledge and natural intuition were employed by you regardless if you were holding an LRL or a metal detector. Both of these properties control not only how the LRL responds, but also where you search with the metal detector, as well. Again, I know how and LRL works, even if you don't

Now, I cannot say the time to recovery would have been exactly the same, it might have been a little longer, or it could have been shorter; but the chances of recovery would have been the same, and that is what you asked.

Incidentally, these chances only apply to you, the one with the prior knowledge (And BTW, whether you think you had prior knowledge or not, I can assure you subconsciously you did, else you would not have found it.) Obviously, if a person who did not have the same prior knowledge walked into a 10 acre field, sight unseen, they would not have the same chances of locating it as you did. Though that does not say they could never locate it.

 

[EddieR]

...what would the chances have been of finding the ring with a metal detector as quickly as I did? What would the chances have been of finding it at all? Remember, the area was several acres in size, close to 10-12 acres (I think), and I found the ring by triangulation with a LRL.

Perhaps your buddies might like to take a shot at this.

Well, sure.

If I accept your entire scenario as truth, which for this comment I will, then assuming you would have been using a medium to upper grade metal detector, I would say the chances of finding your ring would be exactly the same as with the LRL you did use.

Here is why:

• 1) the ring was lost quite recently therefore, not buried.
• 2) I know how an LRL works, even if you don't
• 3) the same attributes you employed to locate the ring with the LRL could have just as easily been employed using a metal detector (I've done it many times)
• 4) prior knowledge and natural intuition were employed by you regardless if you were holding an LRL or a metal detector. Both of these properties control not only how the LRL responds, but also where you search with the metal detector, as well. Again, I know how and LRL works, even if you don't

Now, I cannot say the time to recovery would have been exactly the same, it might have been a little longer, or it could have been shorter; but the chances of recovery would have been the same, and that is what you asked.

Incidentally, these chances only apply to you, the one with the prior knowledge (And BTW, whether you think you had prior knowledge or not, I can assure you subconsciously you did, else you would not have found it.) Obviously, if a person who did not have the same prior knowledge walked into a 10 acre field, sight unseen, they would not have the same chances of locating it as you did. Though that does not say they could never locate it.

How can you triangulate a signal out in the middle of a field with a metal detector?

You may know how a LRL works, but triangulation with a metal detector from a distance is impossible.

As for the subconscious thing....ahem...drum roll please....extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Could you prove that I used my subconscious to locate the ring?

 

[Ted Groves]

How can you triangulate a signal out in the middle of a field with a metal detector?

YOU COULD NOT! I didn't say you could, you just said that. What I said, was an answer to your question; please reread the question in MY post that I answered in my post.

You may know how a LRL works, but triangulation with a metal detector from a distance is impossible.

PLEASE SEE THE ABOVE!

As for the subconscious thing....ahem...drum roll please....extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Could you prove that I used my subconscious to locate the ring?

Not to your satisfaction, obviously. But since I do know how LRLs work (and you don't), it has certainly been proven to my satisfaction.

Don't feel bad Eddie, you are not the first lawyer to be completely fooled by LRLs and the mechanism that causes them to appear to work. I could give you examples of Patent Attorneys who have also succumbed to the LRL illusion.

As Carl has already iterated to you... you just need to look a little closer. As long as you put off doing that; you will stay confounded - many stay that way their entire life. Still, I have personally witnessed some who learn the truth.... in this life. It's strictly your choice.

Ever hear about leading a horse to water..... I'm sure you have.

 

[EddieR]

How can you triangulate a signal out in the middle of a field with a metal detector?

YOU COULD NOT! I didn't say you could, you just said that. What I said, was an answer to your question; please reread the question in MY post that I answered in my post.

You may know how a LRL works, but triangulation with a metal detector from a distance is impossible.

PLEASE SEE THE ABOVE!

As for the subconscious thing....ahem...drum roll please....extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Could you prove that I used my subconscious to locate the ring?

Not to your satisfaction, obviously. But since I do know how LRLs work (and you don't), it has certainly been proven to my satisfaction.

Don't feel bad Eddie, you are not the first lawyer to be completely fooled by LRLs and the mechanism that causes them to appear to work. I could give you examples of Patent Attorneys who have also succumbed to the LRL illusion.

As Carl has already iterated to you... you just need to look a little closer. As long as you put off doing that; you will stay confounded - many stay that way their entire life. Still, I have personally witnessed some who learn the truth.... in this life. It's strictly your choice.

Ever hear about leading a horse to water..... I'm sure you have.

In your "explanation" of how I located the ring, did you not state "the same attributes you employed to locate the ring with the LRL could have just as easily been employed using a metal detector"? And did you not state that you had done this many times yourself? A yes or no answer for each question will suffice.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Just to throw in my 2 cents here, when this was written; "the same attributes you employed to locate the ring with the LRL could have just as easily been employed using a metal detector," Ted was clearly (to me at least) referring to the ideomotor response you utilized to lead you to the location you remembered losing your ring. You might have convinced yourself that the LRL did the leading, but in fact you were the only thing guiding yourself to that location. If you could turn off your skepticism towards the skeptics for a moment or two, it doesn't take much critical thinking to understand that even though you don't understand LRLs, it would be wise to listen to those that understand electronics and engineering when trying to figure out how an LRL is supposed to work.

This is the thing that always confounds me. Seemingly normal, mostly intelligent people, putting all their logic on the back-burner when someone presents them with a magical machine they promise will make them find hidden treasures easily.

Whether you want to believe it or not, you were not looking for a hidden object when you went hunting for your ring. Even if you refuse to remember it, there were events that took place up to you losing your ring that you remember. Those clues lead you to the right spot.

Remember, you can stump for these devices all you want, but you still haven't "found" anything you didn't already know was there.... It's kinda like swearing your car can take you to a win on the Indy 500 because you passed a Porsche on the highway last week. One event does not qualify the other.

 

[Ted Groves]

In your "explanation" of how I located the ring, did you not state "the same attributes you employed to locate the ring with the LRL could have just as easily been employed using a metal detector"? And did you not state that you had done this many times yourself? A yes or no answer for each question will suffice.

Yes. and Yes.

Now if I may, Your Honor, I'd like to clarify my usage of the word attribute. As a long-time user of a metal detector it would be (in my mind at least) absolutely ludicrous to even consider "triangulation" methods with a metal detector. Thus, I mistakenly thought you were also a user of metal detectors, my error. The "attribute" I was thinking of, was of course not iterated as "triangulation", but in my mind I was thinking "prior knowledge".

However, now that you bring up triangulation with a metal detector, I would have to say that YES, a metal detector COULD be used to triangulate as long as it was used as a dowsing tool and not as a metal detecting tool. I once owned a Compass detector, that if held in a certain way could be utilized as a dowsing tool, so in that regard, I suppose one could triangulate with it and eventually zero in on a target the same as you claim to have done with your dowsing contraption.

 

[Ted Groves]

This is the thing that always confounds me. Seemingly normal, mostly intelligent people, putting all their logic on the back-burner when someone presents them with a magical machine they promise will make them find hidden treasures easily.

I know. This has always been something I've had a hard time understanding also. I can certainly understand that individuals who have never been exposed to a 7th grade science text, could become enamored with and fooled entirely by pseudo-enhanced dowsing contraptions; but it has always been a mystery to me why or how otherwise logical thinking individuals can not only be fooled, but in Eddie's case, REMAIN undaunted by overwhelming evidence presented by others who obviously have more knowledge and expertise about the subject, than he does.

Perhaps, in Eddie's case (and in his defense), he just likes a good argumentative debate, and secretly wishes he was back in practice.

It would not surprise me at all to learn that he "really" does know the truth about these commercial LRL devices, but is taking the "other side" because he believes some of us were (are) a little too hard on Art and Mike and similar "gullibles".

If that is the case, I would have to remind you Eddie, that you are lacking a lot of historical background surrounding some of these interchanges, and although they may have seemed a little too harsh to you; I can assure you most all of these folks have brought it on themselves, and our reactions are only in response to and at the only "level" of debate they have a chance of understanding.

 

[aarthrj3811]

If I accept your entire scenario as truth, which for this comment I will, then assuming you would have been using a medium to upper grade metal detector, I would say the chances of finding your ring would be exactly the same as with the LRL you did use.
3) the same attributes you employed to locate the ring with the LRL could have just as easily been employed using a metal detector (I've done it many times)
Now, I cannot say the time to recovery would have been exactly the same, it might have been a little longer, or it could have been shorter; but the chances of recovery would have been the same, and that is what you asked.

Great thinking Ted…Are you going to the Metal Detectors sites and telling this garbage to them….Splash Splash….I think I just heard you jump off the deep end…Art

 

[EddieR]

Just to throw in my 2 cents here, when this was written; "the same attributes you employed to locate the ring with the LRL could have just as easily been employed using a metal detector," Ted was clearly (to me at least) referring to the ideomotor response you utilized to lead you to the location you remembered losing your ring. You might have convinced yourself that the LRL did the leading, but in fact you were the only thing guiding yourself to that location. If you could turn off your skepticism towards the skeptics for a moment or two, it doesn't take much critical thinking to understand that even though you don't understand LRLs, it would be wise to listen to those that understand electronics and engineering when trying to figure out how an LRL is supposed to work.

This is the thing that always confounds me. Seemingly normal, mostly intelligent people, putting all their logic on the back-burner when someone presents them with a magical machine they promise will make them find hidden treasures easily.

Whether you want to believe it or not, you were not looking for a hidden object when you went hunting for your ring. Even if you refuse to remember it, there were events that took place up to you losing your ring that you remember. Those clues lead you to the right spot.

Remember, you can stump for these devices all you want, but you still haven't "found" anything you didn't already know was there.... It's kinda like swearing your car can take you to a win on the Indy 500 because you passed a Porsche on the highway last week. One event does not qualify the other.

So nobody ever "loses" anything in the sense that most people use the term. We all know unconsciously where things were lost?

Cool...I'm gonna sell all my detectors and just tap into the "collective consciousness" and go get rich!

I do hope that you understand that all your post is based on is theory....