What do LRL Promoters Fear the Most?

[EE THr]

What do LRL Promoters Fear the Most?

They fear taking Carl's double-blind test.

They fear the Big Four Proofs of LRL Fraud and the Predictable Pattern of LRL Con Artists.

They fear suggesting or agreeing upon a protocol for a fair and unbiased random double-blind test.

They fear committing to a statement of what their LRLs are: dowsers, dowsing enhancers, or all electronically operated devices.

They fear stating the average percentage of success, under optimal conditions, that LRLs have.

They fear their LRL devices being analysed by electronics professionals at a college of their choice.

They fear the schematics of LRL devices being evaluated by electronics professionals at a college of their choice.

They fear anyone challenging their claims.

They fear Science.

They fear truth.



And they fear this---



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 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

hio EE mi friend, you posted -->

They fear their LRL devices being analysed by electronics professionals at a college of their choice.

They fear the schematics of LRL devices being evaluated by electronics professionals at a college
of their choice
******************

It would be just as pertinent to present it to a Cardiologist, different fields, different rules even
though at first they appear to be similar.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp~

They fear their LRL devices being analysed by electronics professionals at a college of their choice.
They fear the schematics of LRL devices being evaluated by electronics professionals at a college
of their choice

I think that the “electronics professionals” would need to know how and what the purpose of the device was. If you tell them that it is an electronic dowsing rods that is what they will test for. If you tell them it is to be “bench tested” that is what they will test for....Clueless makes a bad point when he states that we are in fear..We have saw the reports made by the skeptics “professional electronics people” so just bring it on..

 

[EE THr]

hio EE mi friend, you posted -->

They fear their LRL devices being analysed by electronics professionals at a college of their choice.

They fear the schematics of LRL devices being evaluated by electronics professionals at a college
of their choice
******************

It would be just as pertinent to present it to a Cardiologist, different fields, different rules even
though at first they appear to be similar.

Don Jose de La Mancha

RDT---

You stated that, and I answered it, in another thread, but I'll say it again here. Since the LRL makers and promoters claim they are electronic, they are thus subject to electronic scrutiny.

If they claim something else, as long as it's based on some solid foundation, then that will be another story. But they can't try to "prove" their devices work, by basing a mere explanation on Science Fiction.

On the other hand, if they can actually prove that they work as advertised, then it doesn't matter what they base their "theories" on, does it? But so far, neither the makers or promoters are willing to prove that they work (other than merely saying so ).

 

[EE THr]

~Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp~

They fear their LRL devices being analysed by electronics professionals at a college of their choice.
They fear the schematics of LRL devices being evaluated by electronics professionals at a college
of their choice

I think that the “electronics professionals” would need to know how and what the purpose of the device was. If you tell them that it is an electronic dowsing rods that is what they will test for. If you tell them it is to be “bench tested” that is what they will test for....Clueless makes a bad point when he states that we are in fear..We have saw the reports made by the skeptics “professional electronics people” so just bring it on..

artie---

Use some common sense, will you?

You can send it to them, so you can tell them whatever you want, as long as you publish it in full.

The LRLs and schematics should be tested for whatever they are advertised to do by the makers, and for whatever the promoters claim they do. Doesn't that make sense?

I know you don't want just the word of those electronics people here on the forum, so you choose the college you want, then post a scan of the paperwork they return to you.

Is that good enough for you?






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]

~Art~

I think that the “electronics professionals” would need to know how and what the purpose of the device was. If you tell them that it is an electronic dowsing rods that is what they will test for. If you tell them it is to be “bench tested” that is what they will test for....Clueless makes a bad point when he states that we are in fear..We have saw the reports made by the skeptics “professional electronics people” so just bring it on..

~EE~

You stated that, and I answered it, in another thread, but I'll say it again here. Since the LRL makers and promoters claim they are electronic, they are thus subject to electronic scrutiny.

If they claim something else, as long as it's based on some solid foundation, then that will be another story. But they can't try to "prove" their devices work, by basing a mere explanation on Science Fiction.

On the other hand, if they can actually prove that they work as advertised, then it doesn't matter what they base their "theories" on, does it? But so far, neither the makers or promoters are willing to prove that they work (other than merely saying so

~EE~

Use some common sense, will you?

You can send it to them, so you can tell them whatever you want, as long as you publish it in full.

The LRLs and schematics should be tested for whatever they are advertised to do by the makers, and for whatever the promoters claim they do. Doesn't that make sense?

I know you don't want just the word of those electronics people here on the forum, so you choose the college you want, then post a scan of the paperwork they return to you.

Is that good enough for you?

No answer..Art

 

[EddieR]

What do LRL Promoters Fear the Most?

They fear taking Carl's double-blind test.

They fear the Big Four Proofs of LRL Fraud and the Predictable Pattern of LRL Con Artists.

They fear agreeing upon a protocol for a fair and unbiased random double-blind test.

They fear committing to a statement of what their LRLs are: dowsers, dowsing enhancers, or all electronically operated devices.

They fear their LRL devices being analysed by electronics professionals at a college of their choice.

They fear the schematics of LRL devices being evaluated by electronics professionals at a college of their choice.

They fear anyone challenging their claims.

They fear Science.

They fear truth.



And they fear this---



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?

Interesting claim. Now PROVE that I'm afraid of the truth. I'm talking undeniable proof (like you pseudo-skeptics whine about all the time).

 

[EE THr]

ER---

Although you have actually agreed to a fair testing protocol, I haven't seen you approving of any of the other things on the list. Do you?



P.S. Are you admitting to being an LRL promoter?

 

[EE THr]

hio EE mi friend, you posted -->

They fear their LRL devices being analysed by electronics professionals at a college of their choice.

They fear the schematics of LRL devices being evaluated by electronics professionals at a college
of their choice
******************

It would be just as pertinent to present it to a Cardiologist, different fields, different rules even
though at first they appear to be similar.

Don Jose de La Mancha

RDT---

As an after thought, I would like to ask you: Who should they be sent to for evaluation?













Miss. Cleo?

 

[EE THr]

ER---

...P.S. Are you admitting to being an LRL promoter?

No answer....


Evidently you are.






Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Hi EE you posted --> As an after thought, I would like to ask you:
Who should they be sent to for evaluation?
**************
A combined panel of theoretical Physicists / Bio fields, advanced experimental psychologists,
and nano - bio experimenters.

They possibly can come to a conclusion on the principals, if not the efficiency of an lrl.
but radio electronic engr., no way.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EddieR]

ER---

...P.S. Are you admitting to being an LRL promoter?

No answer....


Evidently you are.






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?

Kinda hard to answer when I wasn't on here.

What do you consider to be a "promoter"? It's a shame I even have to ask that....but the pseudo-skeptic version of the English language is just bizarre.

Oh, by the way....you forgot to show that proof I asked you for. Kindly show it now, or your silence is an admission of " I can't. You caught me in another one."

 

[EddieR]

ER---

...P.S. Are you admitting to being an LRL promoter?

No answer....


Evidently you are.






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?

Kinda hard to answer when I wasn't on here.

What do you consider to be a "promoter"? It's a shame I even have to ask that....but the pseudo-skeptic version of the English language is just bizarre.

Oh, by the way....you forgot to show that proof I asked you for. Kindly show it now, or your silence is an admission of " I can't. You caught me in another one."

No answer? Well, there ya go. Caught in another one.



What's good for the goose....is good for the gander. Remember that.

 

[EE THr]

ER---

What do LRL Promoters Fear the Most?

What do you consider to be a "promoter"?

What did you agree that it means, in order to feel that I was speaking of you?





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]

What's good for the goose....is good for the gander. Remember that.

Still caught up in that goose and gander thing, Edith?





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]

ER---

Although you have actually agreed to a fair testing protocol, I haven't seen you approving of any of the other things on the list. Do you?



P.S. Are you admitting to being an LRL promoter?

Well...?

 

[EddieR]

What's good for the goose....is good for the gander. Remember that.

Still caught up in that goose and gander thing, Edith?





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?

Nope. YOU ARE. Smack dab in the middle of it....

 

[EddieR]

ER---

What do LRL Promoters Fear the Most?

What do you consider to be a "promoter"?

What did you agree that it means, in order to feel that I was speaking of you?





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?

I know that your memory is pretty much shot, going by your past postings....but you have referred to me as a promoter in several past posts directed to me. So...what definition are you currently going by when you use the word "promoter"?

 

[EE THr]

ER---

What do LRL Promoters Fear the Most?

They fear taking Carl's double-blind test.

They fear the Big Four Proofs of LRL Fraud and the Predictable Pattern of LRL Con Artists.

They fear agreeing upon a protocol for a fair and unbiased random double-blind test.

They fear committing to a statement of what their LRLs are: dowsers, dowsing enhancers, or all electronically operated devices.

They fear their LRL devices being analysed by electronics professionals at a college of their choice.

They fear the schematics of LRL devices being evaluated by electronics professionals at a college of their choice.

They fear anyone challenging their claims.

They fear Science.

They fear truth.



And they fear this---



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?

Interesting claim. Now PROVE that I'm afraid of the truth. I'm talking undeniable proof (like you pseudo-skeptics whine about all the time).

I know that your memory is pretty much shot, going by your past postings....but you have referred to me as a promoter in several past posts directed to me. So...what definition are you currently going by when you use the word "promoter"?

It's too late for that ER---you've already called yourself a promoter, when you asked me to prove it. Duh. So it seems that it's your memory that's shot. By the way, isn't that what you amateur sick-ologists like to call "transference" But I thought the sick-ologists called it "projecting"? I guess they just can't make up their corrupt minds, huh? Or maybe sick-ology itself is suffering from what the like to call multiple personality disorder? Then that would be another case of.... Oh well, you get the idea. (Or maybe not! )






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]

I know that your memory is pretty much shot, going by your past postings....but you have referred to me as a promoter in several past posts directed to me. So...what definition are you currently going by when you use the word "promoter"?

Alternatively...you seem to glump all opponents as skeptics. Several of us have posted we are not skeptical about these devices, and have supported our stance with reliable references, sources, photographic evidence and schematics.

You yourself appear to have memory issues. Maybe you should try cleaning your own house before whining about what other folks are doing