Those that have been scammed..

[EddieR]

3 questions for you:

(1) Why are still ranting that I "forgot" to mention a LRL in my post? I gave the simple explanation that I was talking about a metal detector in that post, not a LRL.

Now, for the next two questions.

(2) Where have I ever made a negative comment about metal detectors? As many detectors as I have, even you should realize that I love metal detecting. (I've picked up 2 more that I haven't listed on my profile yet)

(3) Where have I ever implied that I wantedto prove a metal detector is inferior to LRL's?

Please enlighten us all ....show where I made these comments. If you can, I'll happily retract them. If you can't....well....then I guess you just made them up, right?

The post you commented on was a comparison between the functionality of metal detectors versus LRLs in exactly the same conditions. Your comment was a negative comment about the metal detector in the comparison. You chose to pick pretty much the only way a detector would fail to detect a piece of gold waved under it's coil. But you didn't say a word about how the LRL would function.

The point I'm trying to make here is that you immediately attempted to point out a flaw in the metal detector, but instead you pointed out a flaw in the potential user of this metal detector. Since the user wasn't mentioned in the post you were commenting on, your response and thinking were flawed. I was merely showing you the error of your post.

Not to mention that you somehow managed to forget about the many flaws about the LRL.

So, my reason for responding to your post is the same reason I respond to any of the "believers" posts. One-sided, opinionated, off-balanced posts can't be left unremarked less some individual read it and make the assumption that "because Eddie said metal detectors might mess up with gold, I'd better go out and buy an LRL!"

No, I wasn't pointing out a flaw. I was pointing out a fact. If you set the discrimination too high, the detector won't detect gold. If you will read the posts pertaining to that subject, you will see that I was referring to a post where the poster said a detector would detect gold, while a LRL wouldn't. Since he didn't say hoe the discrimination had to be set, I was simply pointing it out.

I had to point out that the user had to set the detector right. Metal detectors do not program themselves (I know they track the ground, but still must be set initially).

Now, how about the answers to those questions I asked earlier.....

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[aarthrj3811]

The reason you can't ( I believe) is that you'd prefer that any negative comments about LRL's die off, just like every other "believer" in here. The funny thing is that, no matter how many negative comments you make about metal detectors, they'll never surpass the negative features of LRLs.

Yes we would. But in the mean time we post real prove that they work.

Isn't that sad to know that you'll never be able to prove that a metal detector is inferior to an LRL?? I mean, the "pros" here can't even make a simple video of themselves finding an unknown target! They can run around all day claiming they do find unknown targets, and do it frequently, but when it comes to providing simple proof, they fail each time.....

Sorry that your Belief System will not allow you to even believe you eyes.

The point I'm trying to make here is that you immediately attempted to point out a flaw in the metal detector, but instead you pointed out a flaw in the potential user of this metal detector. Since the user wasn't mentioned in the post you were commenting on, your response and thinking were flawed. I was merely showing you the error of your post.

Are you say that the user has nothing to do with Treasure Hunting..

So, my reason for responding to your post is the same reason I respond to any of the "believers" posts. One-sided, opinionated, off-balanced posts can't be left unremarked less some individual read it and make the assumption that "because Eddie said metal detectors might mess up with gold, I'd better go out and buy an LRL!"

No…We do not want some one like you out here. We only want people who understand our hobby….Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

3 questions for you:

(1) Why are still ranting that I "forgot" to mention a LRL in my post? I gave the simple explanation that I was talking about a metal detector in that post, not a LRL.

Now, for the next two questions.

(2) Where have I ever made a negative comment about metal detectors? As many detectors as I have, even you should realize that I love metal detecting. (I've picked up 2 more that I haven't listed on my profile yet)

(3) Where have I ever implied that I wantedto prove a metal detector is inferior to LRL's?

Please enlighten us all ....show where I made these comments. If you can, I'll happily retract them. If you can't....well....then I guess you just made them up, right?

The post you commented on was a comparison between the functionality of metal detectors versus LRLs in exactly the same conditions. Your comment was a negative comment about the metal detector in the comparison. You chose to pick pretty much the only way a detector would fail to detect a piece of gold waved under it's coil. But you didn't say a word about how the LRL would function.

The point I'm trying to make here is that you immediately attempted to point out a flaw in the metal detector, but instead you pointed out a flaw in the potential user of this metal detector. Since the user wasn't mentioned in the post you were commenting on, your response and thinking were flawed. I was merely showing you the error of your post.

Not to mention that you somehow managed to forget about the many flaws about the LRL.

So, my reason for responding to your post is the same reason I respond to any of the "believers" posts. One-sided, opinionated, off-balanced posts can't be left unremarked less some individual read it and make the assumption that "because Eddie said metal detectors might mess up with gold, I'd better go out and buy an LRL!"

No, I wasn't pointing out a flaw. I was pointing out a fact. If you set the discrimination too high, the detector won't detect gold. If you will read the posts pertaining to that subject, you will see that I was referring to a post where the poster said a detector would detect gold, while a LRL wouldn't. Since he didn't say hoe the discrimination had to be set, I was simply pointing it out.

I had to point out that the user had to set the detector right. Metal detectors do not program themselves (I know they track the ground, but still must be set initially).

Now, how about the answers to those questions I asked earlier.....

LOL! Suddenly you're all interested in someone responding to everything in a post, huh?

Not going to give you the satisfaction, sorry. Let's see how you handle the frusturation of asking questions that you never see an answer to....

By the way, a detector will still signal when gold is waved under the coil (with the correct settings,) whereas an LRL will still do absolutely nothing when you wave a piece of gold near it. No amount of your useless posts will change this fact.

 

[EddieR]

3 questions for you:

(1) Why are still ranting that I "forgot" to mention a LRL in my post? I gave the simple explanation that I was talking about a metal detector in that post, not a LRL.

Now, for the next two questions.

(2) Where have I ever made a negative comment about metal detectors? As many detectors as I have, even you should realize that I love metal detecting. (I've picked up 2 more that I haven't listed on my profile yet)

(3) Where have I ever implied that I wantedto prove a metal detector is inferior to LRL's?

Please enlighten us all ....show where I made these comments. If you can, I'll happily retract them. If you can't....well....then I guess you just made them up, right?

The post you commented on was a comparison between the functionality of metal detectors versus LRLs in exactly the same conditions. Your comment was a negative comment about the metal detector in the comparison. You chose to pick pretty much the only way a detector would fail to detect a piece of gold waved under it's coil. But you didn't say a word about how the LRL would function.

The point I'm trying to make here is that you immediately attempted to point out a flaw in the metal detector, but instead you pointed out a flaw in the potential user of this metal detector. Since the user wasn't mentioned in the post you were commenting on, your response and thinking were flawed. I was merely showing you the error of your post.

Not to mention that you somehow managed to forget about the many flaws about the LRL.

So, my reason for responding to your post is the same reason I respond to any of the "believers" posts. One-sided, opinionated, off-balanced posts can't be left unremarked less some individual read it and make the assumption that "because Eddie said metal detectors might mess up with gold, I'd better go out and buy an LRL!"

No, I wasn't pointing out a flaw. I was pointing out a fact. If you set the discrimination too high, the detector won't detect gold. If you will read the posts pertaining to that subject, you will see that I was referring to a post where the poster said a detector would detect gold, while a LRL wouldn't. Since he didn't say hoe the discrimination had to be set, I was simply pointing it out.

I had to point out that the user had to set the detector right. Metal detectors do not program themselves (I know they track the ground, but still must be set initially).

Now, how about the answers to those questions I asked earlier.....

LOL! Suddenly you're all interested in someone responding to everything in a post, huh?

Not going to give you the satisfaction, sorry. Let's see how you handle the frusturation of asking questions that you never see an answer to....

By the way, a detector will still signal when gold is waved under the coil (with the correct settings,) whereas an LRL will still do absolutely nothing when you wave a piece of gold near it. No amount of your useless posts will change this fact.

LOL. Duhhh.....like I didn't know that. Read the post that you whining about and you'll see that I said that.

I didn't think you could answer the questions...I was just seeing if you would attempt it so I could laugh a little.

 

[aarthrj3811]

By the way, a detector will still signal when gold is waved under the coil (with the correct settings,) whereas an LRL will still do absolutely nothing when you wave a piece of gold near it. No amount of your useless posts will change this fact.

Well la de dah….Any intelligent person knows that. That’s the way your source of information test them. I wonder why that is why you say that….Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

By the way, a detector will still signal when gold is waved under the coil (with the correct settings,) whereas an LRL will still do absolutely nothing when you wave a piece of gold near it. No amount of your useless posts will change this fact.

LOL. Duhhh.....like I didn't know that. Read the post that you whining about and you'll see that I said that.

I didn't think you could answer the questions...I was just seeing if you would attempt it so I could laugh a little.
[/quote]
Yet you seem unaware that an LRL cannot...

 

[aarthrj3811]

LOL. Duhhh.....like I didn't know that. Read the post that you whining about and you'll see that I said that.

I didn't think you could answer the questions...I was just seeing if you would attempt it so I could laugh a little.

Yet you seem unaware that an LRL cannot...[/quote]
And again you show that you have no knowledge of how LRL’s and MFD’s work. You read some stupid web site and think you know all the facts. You read that if you wave a gold bar in front of these tools they will do nothing. That’s correct. They are not designed to function that way and will not respond. If the web site has false information it makes people think that you are a gullible and uninformed person….Art

 

[EddieR]

By the way, a detector will still signal when gold is waved under the coil (with the correct settings,) whereas an LRL will still do absolutely nothing when you wave a piece of gold near it. No amount of your useless posts will change this fact.

LOL. Duhhh.....like I didn't know that. Read the post that you whining about and you'll see that I said that.

I didn't think you could answer the questions...I was just seeing if you would attempt it so I could laugh a little.

Yet you seem unaware that an LRL cannot...
[/quote]

I seem unaware that a LRL cannot......read the post you are whining about or answer the questions I asked? LOL

 

[Tommy Torquemada]

LOL. Duhhh.....like I didn't know that. Read the post that you whining about and you'll see that I said that.

I didn't think you could answer the questions...I was just seeing if you would attempt it so I could laugh a little.

Yet you seem unaware that an LRL cannot...

And again you show that you have no knowledge of how LRL’s and MFD’s work. You read some stupid web site and think you know all the facts. You read that if you wave a gold bar in front of these tools they will do nothing. That’s correct. They are not designed to function that way and will not respond. If the web site has false information it makes people think that you are a gullible and uninformed person….Art

[/quote]

An instrument designed to locate gold, yet does nothing when a gold bar is placed in front of it? That sounds useful.

 

[aarthrj3811]

It is obvious that some of you just fell off the Turnip Truck and have no knowledge or experience with these types of equipment. Looking at pictures does no qualify as experience and does no help you learn. Be real careful now. We would not like to see you guys get hurt. When you keep spinning and twisting the faster you go the dizzier you get…Art

 

[davebien]

ART, please don't take this the wrong way, but just reading your last post makes me feel like I've been HIT by a turnip truck.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Those that have been scammed..
Reply To This Topic #316 Posted Today at 06:39:12 PM Quote
ART, please don't take this the wrong way, but just reading your last post makes me feel like I've been HIT by a turnip truck.

Well Dave....If the shoe fits...wear it

 

[pedler]

Just for the record and the skeptics, I own an have used for years Dells and Tim Williams units and have been very satified with them and have made some recoveries with both units, they do work if used correctly. I have owned a number of MFD's and LRL'S and most of them worked for me. They are a lot more complicated than a metal detector, which some of them don't work to good for me, but thats probley because I didn't spend the time required to learn how to use them the right way, I suspect that is also the case with people who claim mfd's and lrl's don't work.

 

[jimmygoat]

Welcome to treasurenet Pedler. We'll see how long it takes the skeptics to attack you. Good luck to you. Jimmygoat

 

[Tommy Torquemada]

Thanks guys. I've learned something tonight, to wit: That a LRL gold finder does nothing when you put a lump of gold, say 10 lbs, in front of it, under it, beside it, or where ever. That clinches it for me. I'm not about to buy one of those stupid things.

However, I do have a number of devices for sale that will do exactly the same thing and save you a lot of money: can openers, wrenches, electric carving knives, power saws, clocks, etc. The list is almost endless.

 

[Ted Groves]

Just for the record and the skeptics, I own an have used for years Dells and Tim Williams units and have been very satified with them and have made some recoveries with both units, they do work if used correctly. I have owned a number of MFD's and LRL'S and most of them worked for me. They are a lot more complicated than a metal detector, which some of them don't work to good for me, but thats probley because I didn't spend the time required to learn how to use them the right way, I suspect that is also the case with people who claim mfd's and lrl's don't work.

Welcome aboard.

People who claim MFDs and LRLs do not work as advertised (or as the advertising infers) are those people who have actually tested them in a controlled non-anecdotal environment and have come to understand the "motor" responsible for their basic method of indication.

People who claim they do work... well, they simply have not done the same work as those in the first group.

Incidentally, many of those in the second group do not want to learn the truth. It would simply be too painful to their belief systems, ultimately their ego.

Not to mention the fact that if you've spent that kind of money on a commercial LRL/MFD, there ain't no way you would say anything but; "yup it works great for me...".

Stick around... you might learn something.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Those that have been scammed..
Reply To This Topic #96 Posted Dec 29, 2009, 10:46:12 PM Quote

Here is a true story a friend of mine buried a small jar of silver dimes several years ago and forgot just exactly where they were he wanted to see if me and my friend could find them so we went over there with our mfd and rods he said they were somewhere in the back yard so we set up mfd got signal line with the rods and follered the line until the rods open then backed up until they crossed again then we pin pointed the spot marked it with an x the jar was 18 inches deep but our x was off about 6 inches. now did the mfd and rods work or not we were off 6 inches some would say they worked some would say they did not because we were off a little . WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? Bildon

I would say a known target was found, in a known location. Logic and reasoning probably would have had the same results

We know that there was an Atomic Bomb dropped off the coast into the Atlantic Ocean. They have been looking for about 50 years for that KNOWN TARGET…Your answer is just more made up bologna.
A Unknown TARGET is one that you placed there or SAW someone place there….On the surface or buried. Your twisted logic is just that…..The friend did not remember exactly where it was. It was definitely an UNKNOWN TARGET….Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Re: Those that have been scammed..
Reply To This Topic #96 Posted Dec 29, 2009, 10:46:12 PM Quote

Here is a true story a friend of mine buried a small jar of silver dimes several years ago and forgot just exactly where they were he wanted to see if me and my friend could find them so we went over there with our mfd and rods he said they were somewhere in the back yard so we set up mfd got signal line with the rods and follered the line until the rods open then backed up until they crossed again then we pin pointed the spot marked it with an x the jar was 18 inches deep but our x was off about 6 inches. now did the mfd and rods work or not we were off 6 inches some would say they worked some would say they did not because we were off a little . WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? Bildon

I would say a known target was found, in a known location. Logic and reasoning probably would have had the same results

We know that there was an Atomic Bomb dropped off the coast into the Atlantic Ocean. They have been looking for about 50 years for that KNOWN TARGET…Your answer is just more made up bologna.
A Unknown TARGET is one that you placed there or SAW someone place there….On the surface or buried. Your twisted logic is just that…..The friend did not remember exactly where it was. It was definitely an UNKNOWN TARGET….Art

Then why hasn't some map-dowser or LRLer found the bomb, Art? You're fond of saying that the US Government employs this type of person; if the government found that these people could do as they claim, wouldn't they have put them to work to find this bomb? For that matter, why hasn't Bin Laden been found yet? Your LRL will find humans, didn't you say?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Then why hasn't some map-dowser or LRLer found the bomb, Art? You're fond of saying that the US Government employs this type of person; if the government found that these people could do as they claim, wouldn't they have put them to work to find this bomb? For that matter, why hasn't Bin Laden been found yet? Your LRL will find humans, didn't you say?

More excuses AF. You know that the location of the bomb is in the hands of the Air Force. How do you know what has been submitted to the proper authorities. We know you are all in the panic mode and trying your hardest to keep people from read the Scientific evidence by using the Skeptics’ Dictionary plans for misdirecting of the conversation. It will not work this time…Art

 

[davebien]

ART, do you have ANY experience with nuclear (atomic) weapons ?? ANY ?? I spent FOUR YEARS (to the day) working on nuclear weapons in the USAF when I was active duty. I graduated from the USAF Special (Nuclear) Weapons school. Besides, it is NOT a KNOWN target other than we know its a nuclear bomb. Its the location that is UNKNOWN. That area is thousands of square miles. So now you can tell me what we missed in looking for the bomb. Was it you and your special ability, the then not invented cell phone, nor enough coat hangers, or maybe an empty length of PVC? Save me from your ridiculous example. Thousands and thousands of manhours and dollars were spent looking for it. You have NO idea what happens when one of those things even appears to be missing. Even a miscount. Stick with the funny videos.

Thanks