When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain

[EE THr]

However, indirect steps ARE being made by EE's favorites -->

Jose de la HooDoo---

Sickologists are not my favorites.

And there is no power in the human stare. Unless, of course, you "believe" there is. That's why belief without knowledge or reason is one result of your favorite: hypnosis. It's only good to enslave people, which happens any time that a person is not using his own, real, self determined control of himself. That's the only time that another person's "stare" would have any "control" over him.

Sometimes merely persistant, adamant, speech, in an authoritative manner, is enough to convince someone to "believe." Thus the Mystery Religions---and LRL buyers.

Interestingly enough, you are a promoter of both hypnosis and LRLs....

Do you practice staring at people, too?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Have you ever noticed that a planet is a Swingy-Thingy?!

Wrong again.

Planets are technically round-and-roundy thingies.

Sheesh.

 

[EE THr]

Here's a scientific definition of an electronic field: "An electrononic field,is comparable to the gravitational field around a planet--except,it can also repell."

And where you have an electronic field--magnetism will be present.

David

What does that have to do with the price of politicians in China?

 

[EE THr]

~EE~
All your lines of BS are only lame attempts at excuses for the ever-obvious lack of real proof.

~Art~
Sorry that you feel that way as that is all the proof you have is..You have been told how to prove they work to yourself..

"Feelings" are an emotional concept.

Your lack of real proof that LRLs work, is factual data.

Big difference.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

"Feelings" are an emotional concept.
Your lack of real proof that LRLs work, is factual data.
Big difference.

Yes there is a big difference..You feel that LRL's do not work..We know they do...Your claim that they are all fraudulent has only been backed up with one person who’s only claim was that it interfered with his TV remote...You could not find one case where a jury convicted any one of fraud...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

"Feelings" are an emotional concept.
Your lack of real proof that LRLs work, is factual data.
Big difference.

Yes there is a big difference..You feel that LRL's do not work..We know they do...Your claim that they are all fraudulent has only been backed up with one person who’s only claim was that it interfered with his TV remote...You could not find one case where a jury convicted any one of fraud...Art

They can't be convicted because they don't actually claim LRLs can find anything, just that they can be used to "hunt" for stuff. You can also use an old piece of chewing gum to "hunt" for stuff!

So they have to use people like you, to promote them on forums, and claim that you found stuff, instead. That's why you post your fake testimonials, fake photos, and fake videos. And your fake "reasons" why they should work.

No, my claim that they are fraudulent is because nobody has ever proven to the World that they work.

Very simple.

If they worked, you would be happy to really prove it. But, since they don't actually work, all you can do is talk, talk, talk, instead. But the more you talk, the less convincing you are, because of the ridiculous "reasons" that you need to come up with, after your other silly reasons are shot down with common sense.

You are your own best "skeptic."

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

They can't be convicted because they don't actually claim LRLs can find anything, just that they can be used to "hunt" for stuff. You can also use an old piece of chewing gum to "hunt" for stuff!

An estimated 4000 people use Rangertell
Thousands of valuable finds are made daily throughout archaeology, geology and general metal and gemstone detecting. All you need to do with the Examiner is enter a number provided with the unit and tune to a sample for more accuracy. You don't even need samples though with the auto-tune Examiner T-G. The Examiner is finely tuned and generally needs no further adjustment during the locating session. Immediately you can detect gold, silver and other precious metals with the same ten-second process. You can tell how far away and deep by utilizing two easy keys. Shape and weight are just as easy using the keys and dial. The main metal/gems/substance frequencies (25 with the TG or 120 Deluxe & 220 Deluxe 909 II) come with the units. Other frequencies are available within a few hours of request.

Looks like you are wrong

So they have to use people like you, to promote them on forums, and claim that you found stuff, instead. That's why you post your fake testimonials, fake photos, and fake videos. And your fake "reasons" why they should work.

Gee...Thank you ..again..of course you can prove none of the above

No, my claim that they are fraudulent is because nobody has ever proven to the World that they work.

I see no need to prove it to the world

If they worked, you would be happy to really prove it. But, since they don't actually work, all you can do is talk, talk, talk, instead. But the more you talk, the less convincing you are, because of the ridiculous "reasons" that you need to come up with, after your other silly reasons are shot down with common sense.

I have proved my abilities to ever one that counts...Art

 

[EE THr]

I map-dowsed the largest treasure,ever stolen during the Old West era--and I have no intention of proving it to the World...Nor any portion of Foolery. The gov't is way too corrupt for that.

Fame/notoriety,is a two edged sword. Only fools seek it. If you have a goose that lays golden eggs--you would be wise to tell no one. You wouldn't sell that goose--even for a million dollars...especially if you had to go through the indignities entailed.

The failures or fraud of others,is no excuse to not have proven for yourself,that Long Range Detection is viable. You should have long since built your own LRL,and put it to good use--Instead of begging others to take you by the hand,and prove everything to you.

The burden of proof,is on the person with empty pockets--not the person with full pockets. He isn't going to show a pack of yapping,scrapping,coyotes anything.

David

Puffster---

If you don't want to prove it, then why are you trying so hard to convince people that they work?

You are self-contradicting, and thus your own best skeptic.

 

[EddieR]

I map-dowsed the largest treasure,ever stolen during the Old West era--and I have no intention of proving it to the World...Nor any portion of Foolery.

Found it... but, didn't dig it up applies.

Typical dowsing scenario.

Where does he say he didn't dig it up? You are just assuming it, I suppose?

 

[EE THr]

I map-dowsed the largest treasure,ever stolen during the Old West era--and I have no intention of proving it to the World...Nor any portion of Foolery.

Found it... but, didn't dig it up applies.

Typical dowsing scenario.

Where does he say he didn't dig it up? You are just assuming it, I suppose?

It appears that he is speaking to the concept, not what occurred.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

If you don't want to prove it, then why are you trying so hard to convince people that they work?

What prove do you want that we have not already discussed?

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

If you don't want to prove it, then why are you trying so hard to convince people that they work?

What prove do you want that we have not already discussed?

"Discussing" something, and proving it, are entirely different things.

 

[hung]

Art's favorite LRL test revisited by a H3tec user.
http://forum.h3tec.com/post?Practice-Practice-5509597

Now what is the probability of finding the target 10 times shuffling 6 containers? What about 10 containers?
Humm... Probabilities class again for skeptics?
Oh boy, I had a hard time teaching this here. Last time I tried Doc Rudy skipped classes and Carl escaped through the window in the interval.

Now bury the containers 3 feet deep. What is the probability that a 'mighty' ordinary MD gets it just once out of 100 times?
Humm... maybe that damn neutrino might help.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

If you don't want to prove it, then why are you trying so hard to convince people that they work?

What prove do you want that we have not already discussed?

"Discussing" something, and proving it, are entirely different things.

I have been known to throw scraps to Yappy Coyote...And you've received your ration,of rationale.

Rationalizations are never a substitute for proof.


They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but a thousand words falls far short of proof.


If anyone could prove it to the World, that LRLs worked, they would have by now.

 

[EE THr]

Yappy Coyote,

Please google the word "rationale". Then give me your "rationale" for wanting/begging me to make the World/Goonery/Foolery,a free gift of my Long Range Technology.

David

FluffPuppy---

I'm not wanting or begging you, or anyone else, for anything---that is your very own misstatement.

You are the one who is begging people to "believe" you, because you hope that if someone believes you, then you won't need to show proof.

You don't want to entertain the concept of "proof," because you don't have any. The reason you don't have any is because your LRLs don't work.

The more you try to convince people with your nonsensical "rationale," while at the same time whining that you don't want to prove your ridiculous claims, makes you totally self-contradicting.

Thus, you are your own best skeptic.

 

[EE THr]

Yappy Coyote,

Please google the word "rationale". Then give me your "rationale" for wanting/begging me to make the World/Goonery/Foolery,a free gift of my Long Range Technology.

David

FluffPuppy---

I'm not wanting or begging you, or anyone else, for anything---that is your very own misstatement.

You are the one who is begging people to "believe" you, because you hope that if someone believes you, then you won't need to show proof.

You don't want to entertain the concept of "proof," because you don't have any. The reason you don't have any is because your LRLs don't work.

The more you try to convince people with your nonsensical "rationale," while at the same time whining that you don't want to prove your ridiculous claims, makes you totally self-contradicting.

Thus, you are your own best skeptic.

Yappy Coyote,

The proof of my success,would have been reflected in the economy by now,were it not for the Saboteur In Chief--that you no doubt voted for. Now,you want me to throw you some more scraps.

David

Nope. Now you want to spew more BS.


You are your own best skeptic.

 

[werleibr]

Ok time out..Lets save the school house name calling for the comedy forum. Please get back on topic.

 

[EE THr]

werleibr---

Good idea.

Here is what's up. This whole topic tries to use the premise that since there are some things which Science can't explain, that it means that LRLs work.

It's total non-logic, first of all.

Secondly, if LRLs really worked, someone would have demonstrated it to the World by now.

And the rest is just nonsensical attempts to rationalize why nobody can actually prove that they work, with endless repetition of fake claims, fake testimonials, fake tests, fake photos, and fake videos---all offered as lame substitutes for real proof.

Probably the worst rationale is that they don't want to prove LRLs work, because they don't want anybody to know that they work, because it's a big secret; but then they spend endless time on posts trying to otherwise convince people that they do work! Huh?

So what they are saying is that, as far as wanting to prove that LRLs work, they do, but they don't. So, either way, they are calling themselves liars! And so they are their own best skeptics.

What else is there to say?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

So what they are saying is that, as far as wanting to prove that LRLs work, they do, but they don't. So, either way, they are calling themselves liars! And so they are their own best skeptics.

Running around in circles again..That is what happens when the only proof you have is your personal opinions...Art

 

[werleibr]

Thanks for getting back to the topic.