Testimony:MFD/LRL is truly working

[biglizer]

Hi folks
I would like to put my personal testimony and success with mfd/lrl,i have little experience of about 1 year of intense practices almost everyday,am a geologist by proffessional working in goldfield filled with multiples of gold veins,first of all mfd has nothing to do with brain/mental dowsing at all,i hav been trying to survey using my brain ,it didnt work thats make me not a mental dowser..,secondly mfd real emit frequency ,am using my phone as frequency generator ,thirdly about biocapacitor its true,you have to practice frequently in order to match with your mfd,i have done some experiment with 3 non mfd user,i gave them my device and l-rods ,they didnt work for them perfectly as they work for me..
My success with mfd
I achieved to find gold veins from 13m,17m(exact depth)
Correctly found a major vein along the shear zone ,firstlt was taken by aeromagnetic survey(geophysical survey)
Found exact depth of mine shafts ,found mine drift beneat
NB..signal deviation(drift) is true,
My request to all lrl/mfd enthusiasts,this technology can be modified rather than using l-rods ,some manufacturer can build a digital l_rods which can scan and digitize a field survey,i would like to see a device like this one day

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[biglizer]

Hi folks
I would like to put my personal testimony and success with mfd/lrl,i have little experience of about 1 year of intense practices almost everyday,am a geologist by proffessional working in goldfield filled with multiples of gold veins,first of all mfd has nothing to do with brain/mental dowsing at all,i hav been trying to survey using my brain ,it didnt work thats make me not a mental dowser..,secondly mfd real emit frequency ,am using my phone as frequency generator ,thirdly about biocapacitor its true,you have to practice frequently in order to match with your mfd,i have done some experiment with 3 non mfd user,i gave them my device and l-rods ,they didnt work for them perfectly as they work for me..
My success with mfd
I achieved to find gold veins from 13m,17m(exact depth)
Correctly found a major vein along the shear zone ,firstlt was taken by aeromagnetic survey(geophysical survey)
Found exact depth of mine shafts ,found mine drift beneat
NB..signal deviation(drift) is true,
My request to all lrl/mfd enthusiasts,this technology can be modified rather than using l-rods ,some manufacturer can build a digital l_rods which can scan and digitize a field survey,i would like to see a device like this one day

My special thanks to dell winders& art

 

[Dave Rishar]

If that's not a glowing endorsement, then I don't know what is.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hey there biglizer. If it's "truly working", you ought to subject it to a double blind staged test. Not only to see if your perceptions are true, but also to see if there's "more plausible explanations" at play.

 

[signal_line]

Well, about all i can say on this thread is Duh!!! Of course frequency generators work but remember if it uses L-rods it's 80% operator skill and knowledge not to mention emotional state, etc. And nobody wants to talk about trying to walk on rough ground or in the wind or through brush, or even how one buzzing insect (or a million other things) can distract. The other day I was out I said myself i would never have hit this spot with L-rods. i watched a video on the dowsing page--it was painful to see the guy trying to walk over rough ground. I have thousands of hours on L-rods and little to show for it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... walk on rough ground or in the wind or through brush, or even how one buzzing insect (or a million other things) can distract. ....

This is the wonderful way to explain the non-performance of L-rods, dowsing, frequency generators, MFD/LRL, in-so-far as they pertain to treasure:

It's NEVER that they simply don't work. No no no. It will always be "durned that buzzing insect", or "durned that uneven ground", or "durned that breeze", or "durned those sun-spots anyhow", etc.... But then, when you FINALLY stumble on to a goodie: "Wow, it worked !".

I propose, in the above scenario, that it's random chance. And that the methods never worked from the start.

As for the goodie you finally find, well go figure: You're out and about, FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of finding a goodie, right ? You've researched a lead. You're at likely looking spot to begin with (ruins, cellar hole, ghost town, etc....) and snooping around digging holes, right ? And perhaps even using a detector to "pinpoint" (that's the ticket). Well duh, of course a person doing all that will eventually find something. But as for all the wands he was waving around to begin with ? Those "million reasons" had nothing to do with it. They simply didn't work in the first place.

 

[biglizer]

Hey there biglizer. If it's "truly working", you ought to subject it to a double blind staged test. Not only to see if your perceptions are true, but also to see if there's "more plausible explanations" at play.

I have done a double blind test with some mine workers and hit correctly to the vein ,they started to dig for a mine shaft and thought they can find a vein within 21m and i told them they will find in 13m,and they find it(i can call it double BT) ,i have done a lot of single blind test and they worked fine,a signal drift which cause ghost signal is a common problem,and it happens very often,and there is no way i can eliminate it...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I have done a double blind test with some mine workers and hit correctly to the vein ,they started to dig for a mine shaft and thought they can find a vein within 21m and i told them they will find in 13m,and they find it(i can call it double BT) ,i have done a lot of single blind test and they worked fine,a signal drift which cause ghost signal is a common problem,and it happens very often,and there is no way i can eliminate it...

Does it only work for veins and prospecting ? Or can it work for metals ? (coins, treasure, etc... ?) . If it's just for prospecting, I must tell you of a possible "more plausible explanation" : It's no secret that some prospectors are SO skilled at "reading the landscape", that they know right where to go . (or, in your case, where to subconsciously point the rod). Here's what I mean:

A buddy of mine was amongst the first guys to get into detecting for nuggets. As you know, up till the end of the 1970s, and start of the 1980s, it was just assumed that detectors were just not sensitive enough to pick up nuggets. Because, as you know, most all nuggets found in nature are pinhead size. Grain of rice at largest. And the places in nature gold is formed tends to be nasty minerals. Hence all early detectors (BFO & TR) never worked. But VLF changed all that in the mid 1970s. By the early 1980s many people in the gold regions (like sierra nevada foothills) were experimenting with using coin machines, putting them into their all-metal mode, and ... could find nuggets (albeit quite painstakingly).

Pretty soon specialty nugget machines came along, and so forth. My buddy was in that first wave of people who were getting into this venue of detecting. Back in the days when they took 6000d's , in their all-metal mode to do it. He "rode the crest" of the wave of popularity, and became Whites poster boy for their advertisements of nugget machines.

Here's the point: This fellow, by now, is SO good, that if you take him out to any landscape where they're about to go for gold, he can look at the canyon, the river, the cave, or whatever, and tell you the most likely spot. Simply based on his decades of being able to read the land.

So too could yours simply be subconscious wise guessing. And ... if you guessing didn't work, well then its as you say "signal drift ghost signal".

Thus I propose your device does not work at all. And that it's all psychosomatic. JMHO.

And if you say your devise works for refined metals (jars of coins, etc....), then for a double blind test for that, I would want to see an impartial 3rd party involved. Not self-done tests like burying the jar, backing up 50 ft., and seeing if the rod points. Because that too could just be subconscious tilting at "likely spots".

 

[Dell Winders]

This is the wonderful way to explain the non-performance of L-rods, dowsing, frequency generators, MFD/LRL, in-so-far as they pertain to treasure:

It's NEVER that they simply don't work. No no no. It will always be "durned that buzzing insect", or "durned that uneven ground", or "durned that breeze", or "durned those sun-spots anyhow", etc.... But then, when you FINALLY stumble on to a goodie: "Wow, it worked !".

I propose, in the above scenario, that it's random chance. And that the methods never worked from the start.

As for the goodie you finally find, well go figure: You're out and about, FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of finding a goodie, right ? You've researched a lead. You're at likely looking spot to begin with (ruins, cellar hole, ghost town, etc....) and snooping around digging holes, right ? And perhaps even using a detector to "pinpoint" (that's the ticket). Well duh, of course a person doing all that will eventually find something. But as for all the wands he was waving around to begin with ? Those "million reasons" had nothing to do with it. They simply didn't work in the first place.

Jan 2012

Haines City, FL

355

193 times

All Types Of Treasure Hunting

Tom in Ca, every time you post your imagination based opinion about, Dowsing, LRL, MFD, and the people who successfully use these tools, you infer that Dell Winders, is a liar. I have been studying, experimenting and successfully using these methods professionally since 1980. Hundreds of DB tests have been conducted in the field, witnessed and documented. I have used and compared most expensive Geophysical tools on the market including Metal Detectors. I was a Whites metal detector dealer. I was a Ground Penetrating Radar distributer for the US & Canada. I have extensive experience with the field use of these tools across the US and Caribbean, in all types of terrain both land, and underwater. 37 years using LRL, MFD, and Dowsing. Do you think I am some sort of a fool for using these tools for so many years? Show me a better, less expensive way and I will listen.

It is not your place to publicly psychoanalyze me, or any one else on this public forum. I respectfully ask that you cease your liar inferences of me and others that would like to post on this forum without being criticized by someone who is obviously inexperienced in the use of these methods. Tell us your personal experience in the use of these methods and maybe there will be some common ground for discussion. Dell​

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...successfully use these tools,...

I believe that any "success" is attributable to the means & functions I described in post # 8

..... you infer that Dell Winders, is a liar. ...

Nope. Dell Winders is 100% sincere and not lying. He truly believes everything he says. I do not doubt your sincerity for a minute. Mistaken ? Yes. Lying ? No.

....

inferences of me....
​

Strike 2: Read again Dell : My post was made to biglizer. Not you. Sure, you subscribe to the same tools, but stop & think: We are grown men talking about TOOLS, not each-other. So even to the extent that I was skeptical of tools, and see more-plausible-explanations, that is in NO WAY at attack on you or biglizer . It is a discussion of TOOLS. You are a great guy, not a liar, etc... Same for biglizer. We are merely discussing tech, not each-other's personalities or morals or whatever.

 

[biglizer]

Sir Tom
I dont want people to believe that mfd works,but i would like to see for themselves by doing more practices,it is not an overnight job,there are many things to observe when doing survey with mfd....

 

[signal_line]

Like I've said, "Seeing isn't necessarily believing when it comes to the e-receiver." After two years of working with it I am starting to convince myself that what I am seeing is real. I think the winning argument for me was when I saw how it would sound off when pointing to a piece of gold two inches away from some silver from twenty feet away. Move the piece of gold to the other side of the silver and again it sounds off when pointing to it. That's why i say within two inches

 

[Dell Winders]

I believe that any "success" is attributable to the means & functions I described in post # 8



Nope. Dell Winders is 100% sincere and not lying. He truly believes everything he says. I do not doubt your sincerity for a minute. Mistaken ? Yes. Lying ? No.



Strike 2: Read again Dell : My post was made to biglizer. Not you. Sure, you subscribe to the same tools, but stop & think: We are grown men talking about TOOLS, not each-other. So even to the extent that I was skeptical of tools, and see more-plausible-explanations, that is in NO WAY at attack on you or biglizer . It is a discussion of TOOLS. You are a great guy, not a liar, etc... Same for biglizer. We are merely discussing tech, not each-other's personalities or morals or whatever.

You may wish to reread your own post. No specific mention of the brand, or type of LRL, or Dowsing method you are referring to. There are many, and not all are the same, or used the same way as you infer without explaining any of your own personal experience that could lead to an erroneous conclusion?

Your post is more about the character and lame excuses you claim LRL users and Dowsers, use because they didn't make a recovery every time they used their method, and you further infer that those who do make successful recoveries using these methods are somehow mis-guided fools, or lie about how their recoveries were made. As a Professional Treasure finder/Salvor for over 45 years I am greatly offended by your inferences that the methods I, and my clients, use, Do Not Work. From years of field experience, I know better.

Tell us your own personal experience using these methods and there can be discussions. OPINION: Until then, I see your posts as intentionally intended to agitate and discourage LRL users from using this forum in which you have a right to voice your opinion based on a lack of knowledge of the subjects. Most have left this forum because of the overwhelming prejudice here against LRL/MFD/HID users. SAD!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You may wish to reread your own post. ...

I Just re-read post # 6. And it was addressed to signal-line (you'll see I quoted him, prior to my answer). Thus yes, it was not in reply to biglizer. I stand corrected. However, it was not in reply to you. So in that sense, my stance remains that no one was talking about Dell. Nor was it a comment on anyone's character (to "call someone a liar", blah blah). It was strictly a talk of technology. And "could a more plausible explanation exist ?"

.... Your post is more about the character and lame excuses...

Again, talking tech, not "character". And as for "lame excuses", well, to say "lame" is a character description (again, as if someone is "lying" or "lazy", etc....). I say "incorrect" or "mistaken". But those descriptions can fit someone who is TOTALLY A COOL GUY. Totally sincere. Totally trying hard. etc.... It has no impact whatsoever on their value as a person, their honesty, their sincerity, etc.... "Lame" & "mis-guided fools" is loaded words. I'm just asking persons to look at more plausible explanations. If that leaves the lesser-plausible explanations by-the-wayside, you can call it whatever you want. We're just having a discussion of "is their more plausible explanations" to the results the advocates think they are getting.

.... I am greatly offended by your inferences that the methods I, and my clients, use, Do Not Work.. ...

Dell dell dell, how can any two persons compare the pros & cons of ANYTHING, without such rhetorical force stuff be used ? If we were talking the merits of 2 metal detectors, and someone didn't agree with my notions, I could say : A) you "offended me greatly". B) How can you say I didn't find these 2 gold coins? C) You hate my clients, etc..... These are all just conversation stoppers that don't get to the root of the matter. Is what I'm saying a possibility, or isn't it ?

THERE IS NO CHARACTER ASSAULT. Dell is a wonderful guy, sincere, nice, pays his taxes, believes what he's saying, has found stuff, etc.....

 

[signal_line]

I'm not claiming to be some scientist. "Tinkerer" might be more accurate. No question most geophysical equipment and methods are more complex than I care to delve into. Yeah, I'm lazy by nature. The K.I.S.S. principle is more like K.I.P.S. -- keep it primitive stupid. LOL Maybe "Neanderthal Gold Locator" is starting to get close. I take that back--that's what dowsing is. Shouldn't criticize too much because probably have some of those genes. LOL

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....-that's what dowsing is. Shouldn't criticize too much because probably have some of those genes. LOL

A "gene" for dowsing ability ?

The ability to dowse successfully is something carried in the "genes" ? That's a good one. I'm going to have to remember that. So that in the future: When some test shows dowsing tests to-be unsuccessful: That doesn't mean the "test was failed". It merely means the tester "doesn't have the gene . Another "out".

There are tests that can do DNA down to determining heritage and lineage back 100 generations (or whatever). Mapping entire chromosomes, genes, etc..... Thus I wonder if this "gene" you speak of, can be detected on those tests ?

A good question for a genetic scientist. "Is there a gene for that?" Oh ... wait, would that fall under "undiscovered science", if the scientists balk at such a thing ?

 

[Dell Winders]

A "gene" for dowsing ability ?

The ability to dowse successfully is something carried in the "genes" ? That's a good one. I'm going to have to remember that. So that in the future: When some test shows dowsing tests to-be unsuccessful: That doesn't mean the "test was failed". It merely means the tester "doesn't have the gene . Another "out".

There are tests that can do DNA down to determining heritage and lineage back 100 generations (or whatever). Mapping entire chromosomes, genes, etc..... Thus I wonder if this "gene" you speak of, can be detected on those tests ?

A good question for a genetic scientist. "Is there a gene for that?" Oh ... wait, would that fall under "undiscovered science", if the scientists balk at such a thing ?

CONFUSED? A REMINDER; This is a LRL forum, NOT a Dowsing forum. There is a big difference. Dell

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... This is a LRL forum, NOT a Dowsing forum. ...

Was just going by what signal-line said in #15. He mentioned dowsing in-the-context-of the "gene for it". At least that's the way it sounded. And I acknowledge that maybe he was saying it "tongue in cheek"

 

[signal_line]

Pretty sad state of affairs this zinc penny hunter forum. So much negative energy and propaganda really a sign of failure I call the Cain and Abel scenario.

Maybe change the name of the forum and state who controls the content. It ain't treasure hunting. You know, follow the money trail.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... So much negative energy and propaganda ...

I lost ya bro. Do you mean that anyone who disagrees with another, is ... by definition: "negative energy" and "propaganda" ? Seems to me that's just name-calling . Eg.: "your mother wears army boots", and "you're mean", etc..... Without addressing the data they're putting forth.

Example : If someone says they think a stick with a string and magnet at the end, makes for a great way to metal detect. Someone else comes on board and tries to point out that this won't work. Because coins are not magnetic. The proponent of the stick/magnet method can say : "That's negative", & "That's propaganda" & "That's not treasure hunting", etc... But none of that is answering an intellectual critical review. It's just name-calling.