"read the advertisement" then you know, the LRL proponents provide the proof
aarthrj3811 said:
~EE~
If LRLs worked, somebody would have stepped forward and proven it to the World by now.
We have people from all over the world here on T-Net..
You are correct David...there is so much stuff that we still do not understand that LRL’s are not a high priority to the Scientific community..Art
Now, that's funny, Art!
We have people from all over the world here on the Big T, and
not one is willing to go through the following steps:
1. make a claim regarding an LRL which is both interesting, and something that can't be done with coat hangers;
2. demonstrate it in public under conditions which preclude the possibility of fraud or dumb luck, to a degree that the result is afforded credibility without the need for gullibility.
Two simple steps that not one LRL proponent is willing to do, even though the opportunity for vindication and wealth awaits....... which means that the LRL Doodlebuggers and the Dreaded Skeptics are in solid agreement about the crux of the matter-- that the things don't do what the proponents say they will.
To Deekle Incorporated's credit, they at least sent a guy to Sandia Labs to try to perform according to criteria of that same sort. Their performance sucked, but at least they took a shot at it in an attempt to save face. The rest of the LRL industry has no face to save. It was for good reason that I named the Gravitator (the Deekle's alter ego) in my previous post: the print media ads tell the truth about it, and therefore the claims in the print media ads require no "demo" for vindication. I myself have been praising the Gravitator print media advertisement for nearly a decade.
Read the advertisement!
* * * * *
Artie, the scientific community hasn't taken a whole lot of interest in LRL's, for a rather obvious reason: LRL proponents haven't demonstrated anything more interesting than gullibility, delusion, and/or fraud. No new scientific principles have been revealed, not even in the patents (!) which afford great case studies in how patent fraud is committed. If Buddy Hung wants to be taken seriously, all he has to do is to get off the flashbulb eyeballs kick and demo an apparatus that does something that's more interesting from a scientific perspective than from a fraud perspective.
And here's how afraid I am of
that happening: I understand how LRL's work, I have the engineering capability to design a very good LRL (as I have repeatedly demonstrated on this forum), I work for a company which has the capability of marketing an LRL, and....... not once have I ever told the boss that we should work on an LRL. There's a very good reason for that-- the damn things are frauds.
I
have suggested to the boss that we get into the dowsing rod business (I could design a darn good dowsing rod, and it wouldn't even have to be fraudulent), but dowsers themselves have given dowsing such a bad rep that he's not interested, besides which you can get a fairly good (if not Toto quality) commercial dowsing rod for a lot less than $100. Try that with an LRL!
A dowsing rod is a swingy thingy. An LRL is a swingy thingy with bogus electronic stuff attached, or worse yet with claims of bogus electronic stuff attached that either does nothing electronic or is not even there!
--Toto
