The Questions LRLers Refuse to Answer

[EE THr]

Edith---

I am certain, without even looking it up, that you said, en essence, that you couldn't pass Carl's test.

If you don't care enough to make your point, then I will just let that stand, as above.

Unless you now think you can pass Carl's test. And if so, when will you be taking that test?

The fact remains that LRLs don't work, the makers are guilty of false advertising, and their products are nothing but junk.

Want to dispute that? Then show us some proof. We have already show several valid forms of evidence that they don't work, so you need to prove your silly claims, or quit whining.

And, while you're at it, take a look at the topic of this thread, and answer all of the questions, if you've got the guts to.


In the mean 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?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[EddieR]

So now you accuse me of lying every day. You care to back that up with proof, short-stuff? Or admit you just told another one.

The answer to that is right there in the very post which you quoted, you dork!



And again you avoid actually answering my questions, by posting nonsense. So thanks for proving my point.





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 where is the proof, powder puff? Afraid to admit you got caught in another lie?

There is no answer to my question in the quote. All I see are the ramblings of an old guy that has forgotten how to think.

 

[EE THr]

So where is the proof, powder puff? Afraid to admit you got caught in another lie?

LRLs have been totally proven to absolutely not work.

Every time you post, you promote that LRLs do work.

Every day you lie.

Any 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?

 

[EE THr]

con-bobblehead;

And every day you post silly attempts to nit-pick some stupid point, merely in order to draw attention away from the questions of this topic title, which you can't answer.











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]

So where is the proof, powder puff? Afraid to admit you got caught in another lie?

LRLs have been totally proven to absolutely not work.

Every time you post, you promote that LRLs do work.

Every day you lie.

Any 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?

Actually, yes. One question. Why do you continually lie in your postings?

And before you go squealing that I'm changing the topic....you asked me a question. I answered it.

You say that I lie every day. That's your opinion, I suppose. But I will tell you this: You have not demonstrated one iota of proof backing up your statement that you are educated in electronics. I don't think you are. I think you are just an old fool who doesn't have any friends, so you frequent these boards looking for marks.

 

[EE THr]

You have not demonstrated one iota of proof backing up your statement that you are educated in electronics. I don't think you are. I think you are just an old fool who doesn't have any friends, so you frequent these boards looking for marks.

Like I told you when you said that before: Nice try to divert the topic, but attempts to get personal won't work. Just like it says in the bottom link. You should read that, then you won't be so obvious, bobblehead.

News Flash: The topic is not me.

You still haven't answered the remaining questions. What's the matter? There are four more, you know, and not a peep out of you. Yet you are demanding answers from me! That's just another con artist's typical avoidance by diversion.

It's there on my list, too. Jeeze.



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]

You have not demonstrated one iota of proof backing up your statement that you are educated in electronics. I don't think you are. I think you are just an old fool who doesn't have any friends, so you frequent these boards looking for marks.

Like I told you when you said that before: Nice try to divert the topic, but attempts to get personal won't work. Just like it says in the bottom link. You should read that, then you won't be so obvious, bobblehead.

News Flash: The topic is not me.

You still haven't answered the remaining questions. What's the matter? There are four more, you know, and not a peep out of you. Yet you are demanding answers from me! That's just another con artist's typical avoidance by diversion.

It's there on my list, too. Jeeze.



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?

Hey ....you left out the part of my post that explained why I even posted.

 

[EE THr]

Hey ....you left out the part of my post that explained why I even posted.

You were off-topic.

You still haven't answered the remaining questions. What's the matter? There are four more, you know, and not a peep out of you. Yet you are demanding answers from me! That's just another con artist's typical avoidance by diversion.

It's there on my list, too. Jeeze.




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]

Since the LRL promoters on here continually try to pull opposing topics off into childish arguments with their insults, it becomes necessary to point out the original subject.

It's time to Get back on topic, again!

Only one LRL user, Eddie, has given rational answers to the first three questions (admitting that Carl's test is fair, and that he could never pass it).

Update: Now there is an additional question!



The Questions LRLers Refuse to Answer


1. Why don't you take Carl's test?

2. What do you feel is wrong with Carl's double-blind test?

3. What do you think is a fair test?

4. What average percentage of success do LRLs consistently and reliably have, under optimum conditions?

5. Art's idea of a fair test is for 30 people, "like the drug companies." But he won't answer the following question: All 30 people searching for the same target at once, 10 at a time, 1 at a time; or all 30 searching for 30 targets all at once, or what?

6. Why are there no treasures documented to be found with LRLs? Especially in the U.K., where they are paid for their finds by the government? We see found treasures in the news, but none were found with LRLs! If LRLs are so much better than standard metal detectors, there should be even more than with detectors, but there is none. Why is that?

7. Why don't you want any LRL to be tested by a University of your choice?

8. Why won't your LRL follow a moving target when the handle is clamped to a rigid object?


Number one leads to number two, and two leads to three.

Number four should be common knowledge, because the LRL promoters brag continuously.

Number five is just con-artie's way of not answering.

Number six is so obvious, they won't even try to give a phony answer!

Number seven---so far they have just pretended that seven doesn't even exist!

Number eight results in various nonsense excuses and insults, because there is no answer that won't admit that their LRLs are fake.

The LRL promoters won't, under any circumstances, rationally answer number three; because then they would have to take that test which they described! Because if it were their idea, they can't disagree with it! And when they took their own test, they would fail!

When asked #3, they immediately turn to insults or purely nonsensical posts about anything besides the subject at hand. So obvious!

But, this is their big chance [again], nonetheless....





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?

However, I predict that the LRL promoters will simply spam the thread even more, merely to divert attention away from these logical issues.

 

[EddieR]

Okay.

I've answered the first three (although I didn't claim I could never pass the test, I said I would PROBABLY not be able to pass because my results were not consistent.

#4. I have no idea. Just as the success rate varies from hunt to hunt with metal detectorists, this question would be nearly impossible to reliably answer due to many factors....ranging from the skill of the operator to the outright lies (the fisherman's "ya shoulda seen the one that got away").

#5. Art's question.

#6. Here is the problem with this one. Just because there are no documented finds made doesn't mean there are none. BUT....that statement should not be taken as "proof" that there may be a lot of finds made out there and not reported. That is not what I am saying. I simply cannot answer truthfully this question because there are too many unknowns involved.

#7. I believe this topic was brought up last year. I'm not sure if a university was mentioned, but I believe it was a test by an independent tester, or something to that effect. I said then that I would be interested in seeing the results of that test. But, as for the question, I would have no problem at all with a university or anyone else testing LRL's. I would like to see it happen.

#8. I think this has been discussed at some length. I'm not sure if anyone knows the answer for sure. I passed on my LRL a while back (gave it away, as it was given to me by a friend, I didn't sell it)....I might try to borrow it back and do some testing as time permits. I never tried the clamp thing, it might be interesting.

 

[EE THr]

Okay.

I've answered the first three (although I didn't claim I could never pass the test, I said I would PROBABLY not be able to pass because my results were not consistent.

....

Thanks for the answers.

Number four would be a set up test. That is the easiest to succeed at. Like Carl's test, you can make sure there is nothing that would interfere in the area, and the possible target locations would be visible, with only one containing the agreed upon target. It is easier also because the exact target is known. This testing is possible for every LRL user to do.

Number six is a circumstantial evidence question. But it is very rational in this context, because, according to the supposed theory and use of LRLs, it should be much easier to locate targets with them than with a metal detector, by several orders of magnitude. With a metal detector, you must be directly over the target, to get an indication, and they have only a limited depth. But LRL theory states that they are long range, and can generally go deeper than metal detectors. The advertised superior performance of LRLs would not only provide many more targets located, but many more recoveries on private properties because the target would be known to exist before asking the property owner's permission to dig, rather than merely asking if the property can be searched, as is the problem with metal detectors. This major advantage, supposedly held by LRLs, logically should produce many, many, more "treasure found" articles in the news, than there actually are with metal detectors, and people stumbling across treasures without any detectors at all. So this is a common sense question, and is actually valid, simply because it makes so much sense. The "anything is possible" explanation, while technically true, just doesn't make sense, in this case.

On seven, nobody wants to name a college which they would accept the results from. This indicates that the results are already known, and would not be favorable to the LRL promoters. This is again circumstantial, but the logic here is very strong.

Eight has actually been admitted to by a couple of people here on this board. The LRL pointer will not follow the target. There is no driving means, either electromechanically or magnetically, to make the pointer move. Which, of course, means that at best, these types of LRLs are merely dowsing devices, which is omitted from any advertising, and is one more piece of evidence of fraud by the makers. However, if the makers paid people under the table to go onto forums and say that LRLs work, you just need to improve your dowsing skills to be able to find stuff, then that would let the manufacturers off the hook by having people claim they work, but not requiring the makers to admit that they are only expensive dowsing devices. And once they are thought of as dowsing devices, all manner of excuses can be dreamed up, to explain them away, and insist that it's the user's fault that they don't work, in hopes that most people will just give up and throw them away, rather than demanding their money back. So, talking about this opens a real can of worms for the LRL promoters.

Some of the promoters have accused the LRL opponents of just being skeptical of everything, or of being pseudoskeptics, who only want to attack everything, regardless of whether something works or not. But every LRL on the commercial market, that I have seen so far, has shown several major reasons why they are totally nonfunctional and fraudulent. And that's only saying that it is, what it is. And that's what they have proven out to be so far. After all, it's not our fault that they don't work!

Thanks again for being rational.

 

[fenixdigger]

Let me help you with this.


1. Why don't you take Carl's test?

I don't think it's on the up and up, and I would not reveal my techniques anyway.

2. What do you feel is wrong with Carl's double-blind test?

I never gave it any thought one way or the other.

3. What do you think is a fair test?

The Sho-Nuff experiment

4. What average percentage of success do LRLs consistently and reliably have, under optimum conditions?

The way this question is worded it cannot be answered. My LRL is about 95% in the yard on new targets and 35% in the field.

5. Art's idea of a fair test is for 30 people, "like the drug companies." But he won't answer the following question: All 30 people searching for the same target at once, 10 at a time, 1 at a time; or all 30 searching for 30 targets all at once, or what?

Cannot speak for Art, but I guess he means 30 to try the test one at a time and average the results.

6. Why are there no treasures documented to be found with LRLs? Especially in the U.K., where they are paid for their finds by the government? We see found treasures in the news, but none were found with LRLs! If LRLs are so much better than standard metal detectors, there should be even more than with detectors, but there is none. Why is that?

I can only speak for myself. No matter what I find, you and the world will only hear of 1 or 2 coins being found if that. AND they will be found with a detector. I'm not telling what put me on them, are you serious?

7. Why don't you want any LRL to be tested by a University of your choice?

Not my job, I don't care.

8. Why won't your LRL follow a moving target when the handle is clamped to a rigid object?

Don't know, never tried that. Don't care.

9. Why won't you give a demonstration of your LRL in a random double-blind test, at your local metal detector club or high school science class?

I have done demonstrations but not at those. Your BBFL had a chance to have a personal demo of a Tec-3 but he refused

in lieu of waiting on reports. Makes sense I give a demo every time I train someone.

I have answered your questions, so here's one for you. Why are you afraid to try the Sho-Nuff test? If you are handicapped,

that's a different story.

 

[EE THr]

1. Why don't you take Carl's test?

I don't think it's on the up and up, and I would not reveal my techniques anyway.

2. What do you feel is wrong with Carl's double-blind test?

I never gave it any thought one way or the other.

How can you think Carl's test is faulty, if you have never given it any thought?


I won't even bother rebutting the rest of your answers, because they are all just as lame or irrelevant.


Do you really think that you are convincing anyone of anything, except that you are a fraud?







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]

Gee LT Again we answered all his questions..

How can you think Carl's test is faulty, if you have never given it any thought?
I won't even bother rebutting the rest of your answers, because they are all just as lame or irrelevant.
Do you really think that you are convincing anyone of anything, except that you are a fraud?

Sounds like your record has a scratch..Art

 

[fenixdigger]

Art, you see what effect straight answers have. Notice he couldn't answer 1 simple question. AND I didn't say the test was faulty,

I said I don't think it's on the up and up. That is my opinion. Of course I'm sure you will tell me what my opinion should be.

How can you even consider rebutting answers to your own questions? Reminds me of an attorney that asked a question and then

objected to the answer. guess how bad he lost the case, just like you. Be a small man and answer the question, no dodging, no

cute little insults, no changing the subject, no silly little excuses, just a truthful answer just like I did. Try it, you might like it.

The journey to becoming a real person begins with 1 small step, come on, take it.

 

[EE THr]

Art, you see what effect straight answers have. Notice he couldn't answer 1 simple question. AND I didn't say the test was faulty,

I said I don't think it's on the up and up. That is my opinion. Of course I'm sure you will tell me what my opinion should be.

How can you even consider rebutting answers to your own questions? Reminds me of an attorney that asked a question and then

objected to the answer. guess how bad he lost the case, just like you. Be a small man and answer the question, no dodging, no

cute little insults, no changing the subject, no silly little excuses, just a truthful answer just like I did. Try it, you might like it.

The journey to becoming a real person begins with 1 small step, come on, take it.

First, you take your own test, in public, with an unbiased administrator.



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]

First, you take your own test, in public, with an unbiased administrator.

Nothing to stop you..Art

 

[EE THr]

First, you take your own test, in public, with an unbiased administrator.

Nothing to stop you..Art

Blatant #22, in the bottom link---



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?

 

[fenixdigger]

Your questions have been answered.

Let me help you with this.


1. Why don't you take Carl's test?

I don't think it's on the up and up, and I would not reveal my techniques anyway.

2. What do you feel is wrong with Carl's double-blind test?

I never gave it any thought one way or the other.

3. What do you think is a fair test?

The Sho-Nuff experiment

4. What average percentage of success do LRLs consistently and reliably have, under optimum conditions?

The way this question is worded it cannot be answered. My LRL is about 95% in the yard on new targets and 35% in the field.

5. Art's idea of a fair test is for 30 people, "like the drug companies." But he won't answer the following question: All 30 people searching for the same target at once, 10 at a time, 1 at a time; or all 30 searching for 30 targets all at once, or what?

Cannot speak for Art, but I guess he means 30 to try the test one at a time and average the results.

6. Why are there no treasures documented to be found with LRLs? Especially in the U.K., where they are paid for their finds by the government? We see found treasures in the news, but none were found with LRLs! If LRLs are so much better than standard metal detectors, there should be even more than with detectors, but there is none. Why is that?

I can only speak for myself. No matter what I find, you and the world will only hear of 1 or 2 coins being found if that. AND they will be found with a detector. I'm not telling what put me on them, are you serious?

7. Why don't you want any LRL to be tested by a University of your choice?

Not my job, I don't care.

8. Why won't your LRL follow a moving target when the handle is clamped to a rigid object?

Don't know, never tried that. Don't care.

9. Why won't you give a demonstration of your LRL in a random double-blind test, at your local metal detector club or high school science class?

I have done demonstrations but not at those. Your BBFL had a chance to have a personal demo of a Tec-3 but he refused

in lieu of waiting on reports. Makes sense I give a demo every time I train someone.

I have answered your questions, so here's one for you. Why are you afraid to try the Sho-Nuff test? If you are handicapped,

that's a different story.

NOW you ANSWER the questions.

 

[EE THr]

fenix brothers---

Already asked and answered.



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?