When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

But a few do pertain to treasure hunting and prospecting, and the most obvious in this category pertain to dredging rivers.

May be you should go to the Prospecting forum...I am sure that they need a good laugh

How come you skeptics don’t post in the Psychics/Mediums/Paranormal forum?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Jeckel,

I would be surprised if you even have any feathers left,considering how much wing-flapping,and squawking you've been doing over my break-throughs. If you only knew how many laughs you and Heckel have provided for me,and the readers of this thread. I always wanted to be a "professional rassler"--but,at only 6'2",I knew that my dream could never be fully realized--So,immersed myself in "Science" and "Philosophy"--And for the likes of you,"Psychology". It's been a great challenge,and great fun.

LongRanger

If you really had any "breakthroughs" in technology, you wouldn't bother trying to convince others that you have some "secret" super machine. You would either patent it and put it on the market, or be completely silent about it and just use it yourself. You are doing neither of those options. Your behavior about your claims shows only that they are fantasies. And you are your own best skeptic.

As for psychology, I guess you never viewed the video I posted, which exposes the true nature of it, complete with verifiable documentation. So here is a link to it. Be sure to click through to the other 9 parts.

Possibly you will still like psychology after viewing it. Right now, I give you a 50-50 chance on that.

My skepticism has served me well...! Conversely,your cynicism,has done you great dis-service...!

Hmmm. First you agree with me, then you disagree with me.

Are there more than one person using your account? That's what gave it away for the Fenix Brothers.

Or maybe you have a split personality?

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

But a few do pertain to treasure hunting and prospecting, and the most obvious in this category pertain to dredging rivers.

May be you should go to the Prospecting forum...I am sure that they need a good laugh

How come you skeptics don’t post in the Psychics/Mediums/Paranormal forum?

Prospectors and dredgers aren't laughing about it. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that.

No, I don't need to be posting in the paranormal section, but you should be in the abnormal section.

 

[EE THr]

I'll make it easy for you: Me skeptic--You cynic...! You agreed with me on "psychology" and "theoretical physics". Not on the rest...viz...LRLs.

So, just because I pointed out that no LRL has ever been proven to the World to work, that makes me a "cynic"? How do you figure?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Prospectors and dredgers aren't laughing about it. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that.

Please tell the membership why they would not laugh at you?

So, just because I pointed out that no LRL has ever been proven to the World to work, that makes me a "cynic"? How do you figure?\

I figure that 99% of the people in the world do not know what a LRL is. The only ones I hear saying that LRL’s have not been proven to work are small minority..So...When are you going to back up your claim?...Art

 

[werleibr]

There is another meaning to the word "theory." It is common for military equipment, at least electronics stuff, to come with two manuals, one being and Operating Manual, and the other titled "Theory of Operation."

The word is used in that title, even though the piece of equipment is known and proven to work.

In this sense, it means "how something works." The Theory of Operation manual describes each component in a circuit, and tells what it does, and how it does it, and it's relationship to other components in it's circuit. This is explained for every circuit in that piece of equipment. This manual is usually combined with a Troubleshooting Section.

So far, none of the LRL promoters have been able to describe a complete Theory of Operation for any LRL. The only time the word "theory" has been used by them, is to describe some general, disjointed, and irrelevant ideas, based both on other unrelated theories, and on science fiction.

Like I stated earlier, in order for a concept to rate being called a real scientific "theory" it must meet certain strict requirements established by the Scientific Community.

However, many ideas have come out the the modern Scientific Community lately, and passed off as facts, when they don't even come close to rating as theories. Since most of these are "hot topics," and are not related to LRLs, I won't list some of them. But a few do pertain to treasure hunting and prospecting, and the most obvious in this category pertain to dredging rivers.

We don't know why,or how gravity works--but we sure are glad that it does. LRLs(the ones that work)have a great deal in common with gravity. But a closer example,or paralel,is the magnetic compass.
All matter possesses magnetic properties. Thus the need,for the "Swingy Thingy".
That's all for now children.

LongRanger

All matter also possesses gravity.

~EE~

But a few do pertain to treasure hunting and prospecting, and the most obvious in this category pertain to dredging rivers.

May be you should go to the Prospecting forum...I am sure that they need a good laugh

How come you skeptics don’t post in the Psychics/Mediums/Paranormal forum?

I do.

~EE~

Prospectors and dredgers aren't laughing about it. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that.

Please tell the membership why they would not laugh at you?

So, just because I pointed out that no LRL has ever been proven to the World to work, that makes me a "cynic"? How do you figure?\

I figure that 99% of the people in the world do not know what a LRL is. The only ones I hear saying that LRL’s have not been proven to work are small minority..So...When are you going to back up your claim?...Art

It is funny. How Circular all these arguments are.. ..."Show me your proof", "No, You show me your's first". Sounds school houseish. (I think i just made up a word, time to register it ) Neither side has full out scientific proof. Yes there were a couple studies done on this in reference to people in a box or using water in pipes like they tested dowsing. Yes there has been a test proposed out there by a guy, and yes no one has taken it. Now other than people stating they will take it then no one shows up ither from one party or another, still remains that it is not done.

Now here is a question that for some reason I cannot find on my sleepy monday. Has there been electrical drawings posted on any of the LRL's? Besides the things in the patents that only show how it looks and the flow chart has anyone posted the actual wiring diagrams showing resistances? Puff if you make your own are you able to draw your renditions?

 

[werleibr]

What I was asking for was a diagram like one below. Is there one for any LRL out there?

 

[EE THr]

werleibr---

So far, only the LRL promoters have failed to show up for tests. The only sure way to avoid any disagreements on the results of tests, or on how the tests were conducted, a complete statement of agreement to the test protocols should be signed beforehand. Scientific protocol has been offered, and even the opportunity to modify it by the LRLer as long as it remains Scientific and both parties are in agreement about it.

But, even after agreeing to an exact test procedure, no LRLer has ever signed the final agreement.

Yet the LRLers who refused to sign an agreement, have still accused the tester of "failing to show up for the test," even though he agreed to go far beyond is original offer, and travel to where the LRLer was. Why should the tester go the trouble and expense, and take the time, to travel out of state, if the LRLer won't even sign a simple test protocol agreement?

This type of thing seems to be just a set-up, to be able to say that he "didn't show up." That, in innumerable other cheap tricks, have been pulled by LRL promoters, resulting in zero credibility for them.



And yes, there have been schematics posted on here for at least two popular LRLs, and nobody has ever been able to give a step-by-step rundown of how any of the circuits work. In fact, a couple of knowledgeable electronics people have shown how they could never work---with "circuits to nowhere," and several other impossibilities.

And it's not just some kind of "new science," as some of the LRL promoters claim, because it has been shown that even their Science Fiction explanations of how various LRLs work, have always proven out to be impossible.

The only way that the LRLers could possibly convince anybody, at this point, would be to do a Scientifically Controlled Random Double Blind test. This is something that any functioning piece of equipment could easily pass. Just for example, a common metal detector could easily pass a test very similar to the one set up for LRLs, every time, no problem.

The only possible conclusion is that LRLs simply don't work.

And, since anyone passing Carl's Challenge, would win $25,000.00, and still nobody is even willing to take his normal, standard, fair, Scientific test; drives the last nail into the LRL coffin.

R.I.P.

 

[EE THr]

werleibr---

There are a couple schematics, and several good photographs of the innards, of some LRLs, on this page, in another topic in this section.

 

[EE THr]

The inherent problem of proving "my" principles of Long Range Detection is:That,within ten years,ninety percent of all readily available caches,will have been recovered,by a mob of LRLers--Many of them,recovering synics. Why,even the cynics,wouldn't want to see that happen.

For my part,I know that I gave the power of flight,to the Eagles,and Turkeys alike. And,for those who wish only to squabble and squawk,have only themselves to blame,for squatting in their soiled nests.

LongRanger

No, on your part you have made some claims, without one iota of real proof.

If you want to state that you are the only one in the World with an actual working LRL, that's fine. And you have so stated. We got it.

But when you start insisting that people just take your word for it, and calling people names, when they don't "believe" you, that's a sign that you have made it all up.

If you did have an invention, and it actually worked, and you wanted to keep it a secret, that's fine, too. But since you are not keeping it a secret, you can't use that as an excuse for not proving your claims.

It's just another case of, "It's true, but I don't want to prove it. But anyone who doesn't believe me is bad." Which is the standard nonsense of the typical LRL promoters.

Thus, your story is self-contradicting, and you are your own best skeptic.

Like I said before, if you really had a secret super LRL, and you wanted to keep it secret, you wouldn't be blabbing about it on a public forum. That's just common sense.

Apparently you think that you have developed some kind of new "Catch 22," with which you can make a stand, but everyone has seen it all before. It's old, it's worn out, and it doesn't work any better now than it did years ago.

So obvious....

 

[EE THr]

Cynics deserve their self-imposed sentences.

Well, let's see who deserves what, here.

Your claim is that you don't believe others, yet others must believe you.

You also claim that you have a device which is super top secret, yet you are blabbing about it all over this forum.

You call me a cynic, yet you don't even know the definition of the word.

And, as is typical of all LRL promoters on here, you resort to name-calling, because you have no real data to back up your claims and accusations.

Yes, I have it all straight now.

Thanks.

Keep up the good work.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

So far, only the LRL promoters have failed to show up for tests.

That’s a new excuse that I have not heard before..Can you give us the details?

The only sure way to avoid any disagreements on the results of tests, or on how the tests were conducted, a complete statement of agreement to the test protocols should be signed beforehand. Scientific protocol has been offered, and even the opportunity to modify it by the LRLer as long as it remains Scientific and both parties are in agreement about it.

Are you saying that the LRL owners can not agree to a protocol instead of they do not agree with Carls demands?

But, even after agreeing to an exact test procedure, no LRLer has ever signed the final agreement.

Are you sure that happened

Yet the LRLers who refused to sign an agreement, have still accused the tester of "failing to show up for the test," even though he agreed to go far beyond is original offer, and travel to where the LRLer was. Why should the tester go the trouble and expense, and take the time, to travel out of state, if the LRLer won't even sign a simple test protocol agreement?

Darn...Carl invited me to the last one to observe the test...Then he was a no show....Anymore excuses?

 

[EE THr]

C'mon Heckel,flap them flabby wings! Stand-up on them teetering chicken-legs. Your nest is almost full,anyhow. Do not be frightened of what you do not know. Leap out of that stinky nest!

PuffDaddy will catch you!(Hope I don't get squished).

I see that you are following Art down that long lonesome trail to nowhere.

 

[EE THr]

Keep on begging--but,no matter how much you Heckel me to divulge my "super-top-secret system",you're not going to get me to blab.

I knew you would never divulge any details---because it doesn't exist!

If you want to grow up to be a con artist, you are going to need to learn to do much better than that.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

So far, only the LRL promoters have failed to show up for tests.

That’s a new excuse that I have not heard before..Can you give us the details?

The only sure way to avoid any disagreements on the results of tests, or on how the tests were conducted, a complete statement of agreement to the test protocols should be signed beforehand. Scientific protocol has been offered, and even the opportunity to modify it by the LRLer as long as it remains Scientific and both parties are in agreement about it.

Are you saying that the LRL owners can not agree to a protocol instead of they do not agree with Carls demands?

But, even after agreeing to an exact test procedure, no LRLer has ever signed the final agreement.

Are you sure that happened

Yet the LRLers who refused to sign an agreement, have still accused the tester of "failing to show up for the test," even though he agreed to go far beyond is original offer, and travel to where the LRLer was. Why should the tester go the trouble and expense, and take the time, to travel out of state, if the LRLer won't even sign a simple test protocol agreement?

Darn...Carl invited me to the last one to observe the test...Then he was a no show....Anymore excuses?

That's a great example of all the points I made above.

It's all been hashed out before, and you were proven wrong. Why do you keep re-stating your invented BS?

Oh that's right, here's why---

Boy...I thought I may have been in trouble for leading you around for the past few months

Leading people around in circles only proves that you can't back up your own claims with proper proof.

​

Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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]

Publicans and sinners included...Step on up--Don't keep the Snake Oilers waiting...!

See #22 in the link below.


ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?


P.S. If you see Artie wandering around down there, say hello for all of us.

P.S.S. Be sure to write when you find the Lost Dutchman!

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HIO, sigh, what seems to have been forgotten entirely is that ANY deviation from the 50 % margin / base 'is' significent.

As far as tossing coins goes, specify how is it tossed. We had a joker in the military who made a considerable amount of money by his learned ability to toss a coin for either heads or tails, no trickery, just learned ability. He could throw what he wanted just about every time.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

That's why you call it in the air.




P.S. Is "significant" enough reason to go past the target, and dig a bunch of empty holes five or six feet deep?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

P.S. Is "significant" enough reason to go past the target, and dig a bunch of empty holes five or six feet deep?

Gee EE..You must feel bad about all the Empty holes that you skeptics keep digging..So we know you are not using a good LRL...Please tell us which tool keeps telling you to dig them holes?...Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Heck oil men drill holes on those odds many times, why not? Look at the potential pay off if you concentrate on the better ones snicker.

Sides, I have prob dug many a dry hole with a metal dector, ony to find that the metalic object has reverted back to nature leaving only a conductive debris behind.

Wanna talk about the detectors that we had in the early 50's , how accurate they were? sigh. L rods and fires probably had a better rate of success.

Don Jose de La Mancha