When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain

[EE THr]

~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

I'm not running in circles, I'm going straight to the point---you cannot prove to the World that LRLs work.

What proof do you thing that I should have?---Proof that you have no proof?

LRLs don't exist. Your devices aren't Long Range, because they can't Locate anything. You have no way of proving to the World that your devices work, because of the fact that they don't work.

I don't need to prove anything at all. You are merely trying to shift the focus off of yourself, and the fact that you can't prove to the World that your imaginary devices actually work.

And the more you LRL promoters keep trying to shift the responsibility of proof away from yourselves, and onto someone else, the more obvious it is that you can't possibly make them work.

You are your own best skeptics!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[EE THr]

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.

Oh yeah, I forgot one: Fake excuses why it supposedly is someone else's responsibility to provide proof about their ridiculous claims.

Thanks for reminding me of that one.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

LRLs don't exist. Your devices aren't Long Range, because they can't Locate anything. You have no way of proving to the World that your devices work, because of the fact that they don't work.

Thank You for the claims.

I don't need to prove anything at all. You are merely trying to shift the focus off of yourself, and the fact that you can't prove to the World that your imaginary devices actually work.

Thank You for the Proof of your claims..Now the circle is complete..

And the more you LRL promoters keep trying to shift the responsibility of proof away from yourselves, and onto someone else, the more obvious it is that you can't possibly make them work.

Thank You again...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

LRLs don't exist. Your devices aren't Long Range, because they can't Locate anything. You have no way of proving to the World that your devices work, because of the fact that they don't work.

Thank You for the claims.

That is not a claim, it is an observation. No LRL has ever been proven to the World to work.

A claim, on the other hand, is an assertion of something which has not been proven. Your assertion that your LRLs work, is a claim. A claim which you will never be able to prove.

Use a dictionary, huh?

 

[EE THr]

One skeptic hid a silver dollar out in a plowed field--and concocted a story about it having been a camp-ground,in the old days. I should have been alerted,when he asked me to use the silver frequency.
In any case,I did easily locate,it,and he was so impressed,that he gave it to me.

BuffPappy---

Maybe that really happened....in your dream!

It's just another attempt to convince without proof.

But you said before that you didn't want to prove your claims. But you are trying desperately to do exactly that, with your contrived anecdote. You are contradicting your own statements.

You are your own best skeptic.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

LRLs don't exist. Your devices aren't Long Range, because they can't Locate anything. You have no way of proving to the World that your devices work, because of the fact that they don't work.

~EE~

That is not a claim, it is an observation. No LRL has ever been proven to the World to work.

A claim, on the other hand, is an assertion of something which has not been proven. Your assertion that your LRLs work, is a claim. A claim which you will never be able to prove.

Thank you EE...where is your proof of those claims?...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

LRLs don't exist. Your devices aren't Long Range, because they can't Locate anything. You have no way of proving to the World that your devices work, because of the fact that they don't work.

~EE~

That is not a claim, it is an observation. No LRL has ever been proven to the World to work.

A claim, on the other hand, is an assertion of something which has not been proven. Your assertion that your LRLs work, is a claim. A claim which you will never be able to prove.

Thank you EE...where is your proof of those claims?...Art

You want proof that you have claimed that your LRLs work

 

[EE THr]

One skeptic hid a silver dollar out in a plowed field--and concocted a story about it having been a camp-ground,in the old days. I should have been alerted,when he asked me to use the silver frequency.
In any case,I did easily locate,it,and he was so impressed,that he gave it to me.

BuffPappy---

Maybe that really happened....in your dream!

It's just another attempt to convince without proof.

But you said before that you didn't want to prove your claims. But you are trying desperately to do exactly that, with your contrived anecdote. You are contradicting your own statements.

You are your own best skeptic.

Heckel and Jeckel,

All I'm asking,is that you set up a true/legitimate treasure lead,that you honestly believe in--and we'll see what I can do. After-all,that is the true test of any technology. It has to be a bonifide treasure/cache lead--not an insincere "setup",calculated to prove,or disprove. And,if I can accomplish the task,where conventional means have proven insufficient,then we can split the booty. And,you'll have to promise to quit shredding my pant-cuffs. And,the secret of the technology,must remain integral.

LongRanger

OK. Go find the Lost Dutchman Mine. It's somewhere in the Superstition Mountians, Arizona.

That is a perfect area for long range detection.

Good luck.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good morning EE: Interesting your neg. post on the eye being used to 'direct' mental waves, or is actually emitting them itself?. It shows that you apparently did not either understand or listen to him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted -->Interestingly enough, you are a promoter of both hypnosis and LRLs....
*************
Remember, as I have stated many times, I am not here to defend the present generations of LRL"S, but the theories behind them, which are quite valid, but in the still formative stages yet..

Incidentally, your irrational fear of Hypnosis has a base in your subconscious, what are YOU afraid of ? Why?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You also posted ->And there is no power in the human stare.
******
Upon which scientific basis / proof are you stating that ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

you posted - > Sickologists are not my favorites.
********
I can't really argue against that, as it is practiced today, but it's basics are correct to a large extent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another mistake , hypnosis does not need eye contact, or any other physical fixation to accomplish.. So no, I do not go around staring at people unless the subject is filling out a skimpy Bikini as it should be filled out. sigh, where is Judy ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You posted -->Sometimes merely persistant, adamant, speech, in an authoritative manner, is enough to convince someone to "believe."
************
So I have noticed from your posts, and if that fails, into personalities. In fact this is why I do not come here daily, I can leave for a week and when I return it is bk to personalities after a normal post or two, so I miss nothing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted --> 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.
***********
Hmmm Why? Can't explain the universe either, yet it works
~~~~~~~~~~~~
snicker he he he
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi swr

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

You want proof that you have claimed that your LRLs work

All my claims have been proven on this board..After proving them they are no longer a claim but a fact.

That is not a claim, it is an observation. No LRL has ever been proven to the World to work.

A claim, on the other hand, is an assertion of something which has not been proven. Your assertion that your LRLs work, is a claim. A claim which you will never be able to prove.

LRLs don't exist. Your devices aren't Long Range, because they can't Locate anything. You have no way of proving to the World that your devices work, because of the fact that they don't work.

I don't need to prove anything at all. You are merely trying to shift the focus off of yourself, and the fact that you can't prove to the World that your imaginary devices actually work.

Your turn to prove your claims...No more chasing tail like my dog..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

You want proof that you have claimed that your LRLs work

All my claims have been proven on this board..After proving them they are no longer a claim but a fact.

That is not a claim, it is an observation. No LRL has ever been proven to the World to work.

A claim, on the other hand, is an assertion of something which has not been proven. Your assertion that your LRLs work, is a claim. A claim which you will never be able to prove.

LRLs don't exist. Your devices aren't Long Range, because they can't Locate anything. You have no way of proving to the World that your devices work, because of the fact that they don't work.

I don't need to prove anything at all. You are merely trying to shift the focus off of yourself, and the fact that you can't prove to the World that your imaginary devices actually work.

Your turn to prove your claims...No more chasing tail like my dog..Art

None of your claims have ever been proven to the World. One of your claims is that you have proven your claims to yourself and a few others. That's just another claim.

You always refuse to actually prove any of your claims, and have, in a few instances, actually proven yourself wrong---such as the fake photos, and so forth.

I have made no claims at all. Just observations of facts.

If you could possibly prove any of your claims in a real, scientific test, you would have by now.

Like I said before: Get a dictionary. And use it.

You are your own best skeptic.

 

[EE THr]

good morning EE: Interesting your neg. post on the eye being used to 'direct' mental waves, or is actually emitting them itself?. It shows that you apparently did not either understand or listen to him.

You're right. I didn't bother to watch that video. But even if the eye can direct or emit mental waves, it wouldn't have any "control" over anyone, unless the person agreed to it (or "believed" in it).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted -->Interestingly enough, you are a promoter of both hypnosis and LRLs....
*************
Remember, as I have stated many times, I am not here to defend the present generations of LRL"S, but the theories behind them, which are quite valid, but in the still formative stages yet..

Some day there might be long range detection, or there might be unpublished devices right now. But as for current "theories," there aren't any---just the nonsense gobbldygook snake oil blather of con artists.

Incidentally, your irrational fear of Hypnosis has a base in your subconscious, what are YOU afraid of ? Why?

You are trying to introduce a non-factual premise in order to attempt to prove a false conclusion. Terrible. Two false assumption premises, actually. Those being irrational and fear.

People have suffered from the effects of hypnosis, even when well intentioned, for the reasons which I have already mentioned. Facts are not irrational.

If a person concludes that it is not optimum to walk out in front of a moving truck, does that mean that he has a "fear of trucks"? No, it's just logical.

Your false logic is merely a challenge for me to "believe" what you are claiming. Tisk-tisk. Try sticking to facts. Knowledge is far superior to "beliefs."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You also posted ->And there is no power in the human stare.
******
Upon which scientific basis / proof are you stating that ?

Upon the Scientific Method. Maybe a few people can be affected by staring at them, but it is not 100% repeatable. Therefore, it is flawed. Which means that something other than what you claim, is occurring, and for reasons other that what you have proposed.

Since you have observed the effects of hypnosis, then you can see that "believing" is a form of that effect, in that with both, the subject is guided by something other than his own personal knowledge or choice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

you posted - > Sickologists are not my favorites.
********
I can't really argue against that, as it is practiced today, but it's basics are correct to a large extent.

If by "basics," you mean the original definition of "psyche," then yes. But psychology has denounced the existence of the soul, and especially that a person is a soul rather than merely possesses a soul. Modern Psychology is based on eugenics, and has been from it's beginning, which is thoroughly explained and fully documented in the video I posted some time back (which I'm sure you watched, right?)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another mistake , hypnosis does not need eye contact, or any other physical fixation to accomplish.. So no, I do not go around staring at people unless the subject is filling out a skimpy Bikini as it should be filled out.

I don't recall stating that it was based on eye contact.

sigh, where is Judy?

Probably smoking his stogy somewhere. (You haven't figured that one out yet?)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You posted -->Sometimes merely persistant, adamant, speech, in an authoritative manner, is enough to convince someone to "believe."
************
So I have noticed from your posts, and if that fails, into personalities.

No, I only state either facts or my opinions, and I make that clear.

...And in the same sentence, you accuse me of attacking personalities? Wow!

In fact this is why I do not come here daily, I can leave for a week and when I return it is bk to personalities after a normal post or two, so I miss nothing.

I won't claim that I've never called Art a nut case, but I will say that I have refrained from doing so for a long time now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted --> 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.
***********
Hmmm Why? Can't explain the universe either, yet it works

Same concept, so my response to it is the same.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
snicker he he he
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi swr

Don Jose de La Mancha

In conclusion, I'll say that it is better for a person to have the ability to make his own choice of actions, and to realize his full abilities, such as you have alluded to previously, than to be programmed with a limited scope of abilities, and with predetermined responses which may or may not apply to situations he encounters in an optimum way.

This concept is similar to computer programs, in that while the programming seems to make them do many wonderful and amazing things, it, at the same time, also limits them to a very narrow range of performance.

 

[EE THr]

Heckel and Jeckel,

Sending me out all by myself,without you two to witness me finding The Lost Dutchman's Gold,is hardly sporting. Do younses expect me to pack all of that gold out of them there mountains,all by myself? What a preposterous proposition! You must think I'm Hercules! You and Jeckel have got to do a whole lot better than that.

LongRanger

All it will take is one ore sample which matches those in existence, which are known to come have from it, to prove that you have found it.

And I don't even need to be there to witness it.

Plus---you can keep all the loot for yourself.

Write when you have found it.

Good luck.

 

[EE THr]

You are still dodging my invitation for you and Jeckel,to set us up with a real,bonafide hunt,with both of you witnessing the results.

Did it ever occur to you that the only way to know for sure if a treasure is buried in a certain area is to have already dug it up?

So, there is no such thing as hunting a "bonafide" treasure.

The closest thing to that would be the Lost Dutchman.

Just bring back a chunck of that pink quarts ore, with the same mineral proportions "signature" as the existing ore sample from it, and you win.

The mine is within a circle extending five miles or so, from Weaver's Needle, which is a well known and easy to find landmark in the Superstitions.

Couldn't be easier.

Write when you find it.

Good luck.

 

[EE THr]

Heckel and Jeckel,

As I have stated--I have already done the equal of the Lost Dutchman twice--But,you,Jeckel,and the World,were not there to certify it. So,now you want me to perform a third "miracle",without proper witnesses/certification.
Surely you must have some pretty good leads,that you feel are still un-recovered. You don't even have to be there--you can find a trustworthy person to represent your interests.
This is really the only way that cynics can be silenced...The visual recovery of a stash of some size,or sort. Parlor tests do not count,in the Real World.

LongRanger

LongRinger---

What you have previously done is irrelevant to the treasure target. Do you think the Lost Dutchman knows what you have done before, and will therefore hide from you?

Are you saying that it would be a miracle if you found it? I can't disagree with that!

Like I already explained to you twice, I don't need to be there for you to prove your find, because the ore is unique, and will be proof enough.

Look---you asked for a site, and I gave you a good one. Now you are trying to bring up other subjects and making silly complaints. Stop whining about it, and go get it.

The Superstitions are exactly what your alleged devices are supposedly made for.

Looking forward to seeing those pictures of the Dutchman's ore.

Have fun, and watch out for snakes.

Good Luck.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

None of your claims have ever been proven to the World.

I have done the best I can..I have put my information on may web sites and U-Tube..Just here on T-net it is available to 59,000 people from all over the world

One of your claims is that you have proven your claims to yourself and a few others. That's just another claim.

Those are the people who count

You always refuse to actually prove any of your claims, and have, in a few instances, actually proven yourself wrong---such as the fake photos, and so forth.

You keep saying that but provide no way to prove my claims...Sorry that your eyeballs can’t see the proof

I have made no claims at all. Just observations of facts.

Is observation now the buzz word for I have no proof?

If you could possibly prove any of your claims in a real, scientific test, you would have by now.

I have not heard of any real Scientific test or of any Scientist that is interested in testing LRL’s

Like I said before: Get a dictionary. And use it.

I have many dictionaries available right here on the intenet

Looks to me like you have screwed up yet another thread...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

None of your claims have ever been proven to the World.

I have done the best I can..I have put my information on may web sites and U-Tube..Just here on T-net it is available to 59,000 people from all over the world

I know that's the best you can do, because there is no way you can make your LRLs acutally work, with the several scientific tests offered to you. Your home movies of finding a planted silver dollar obviously don't count.

One of your claims is that you have proven your claims to yourself and a few others. That's just another claim.

Those are the people who count

Then why are you trying so hard to convince everyone else?

If you are happy with allegedly proving it to your friends, why go to all the effort that you do, to try and convice other people? All you have to do is participate in a real, scientific, test (where you don't know ahead of time where the targets are). That would convince people, but right now you're batting zero!

You always refuse to actually prove any of your claims, and have, in a few instances, actually proven yourself wrong---such as the fake photos, and so forth.

You keep saying that but provide no way to prove my claims...Sorry that your eyeballs can’t see the proof

It's not up to me to prove your claims for you. My eyes see proof of faked photos and videos.

I have made no claims at all. Just observations of facts.

Is observation now the buzz word for I have no proof?

My observation is that you refuse to participate in scientific tests when offered to you. How is that a bussword? It's just plain facts.

If you could possibly prove any of your claims in a real, scientific test, you would have by now.

I have not heard of any real Scientific test or of any Scientist that is interested in testing LRL’s

You have been offered two official scientifically controlled tests, and have refused both. You have also been offered several alternatives to those, to be controlled by professional scientists, and you have refused those. It seems you enjoy being truth-flexable.

Like I said before: Get a dictionary. And use it.

I have many dictionaries available right here on the intenet

Then you aren't using them. Too bad.

Looks to me like you have screwed up yet another thread...Art

Nope. I'm right on topic. See my first post in this series, above.

The whole point is that LRLs don't work, and you can't prove that they do.

If they did work, it would be very easy to pass a simple scientifically controlled test.

But they don't, so you have to come up with all your nonsensical rhetoric, to promote them.

Have you found any suckers lately?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

If you are happy with allegedly proving it to your friends, why go to all the effort that you do, to try and convice other people? All you have to do is participate in a real, scientific, test (where you don't know ahead of time where the targets are). That would convince people, but right now you're batting zero!

Are you trying to discuss those two fake Double Blind tests again..They will only prove that one person can or can not use his LRL..since they are not double Blind tests they are not acceptable to the Scientest..

It's not up to me to prove your claims for you. My eyes see proof of faked photos and videos.

Is that the new age Scientific Method?

My observation is that you refuse to participate in scientific tests when offered to you. How is that a bussword? It's just plain facts.

When you present a Scientific Test I said I would consider it.

Nope. I'm right on topic. See my first post in this series, above.

Re: When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain
Reply To This Topic #11 Posted Mar 20, 2011, 10:42:58 AM
Quote

I watched the videos.
I thought I was going to see something that I would have to try to figure out.
Puleeeeeez!
Magicians have been doing that for eons!
And so have little kids. Because it looks funny.

OK..Now every one has read it

The whole point is that LRLs don't work, and you can't prove that they do.
If they did work, it would be very easy to pass a simple scientifically controlled test.
But they don't, so you have to come up with all your nonsensical rhetoric, to promote them.
Have you found any suckers lately?

This seems to fit your posts perfectly.

It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you

 

[EE THr]

Art---

I don't know whose post, if anyone's, you typed out up there, but here is my first post in this series---

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?

And then you go full circle, back to your amateur Eugenics-ology gibberish.

​

You can't prove your claims, so you go in circles, posting nonsense, instead.


You are still your own best skeptic.

 

[EE THr]

Art---

P.S. And all of the professional Scientists at your local schools and colleges that you refuse to be tested by---Do you claim that they are all fake, too?