When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain

[werleibr]

Maybe they have and it wasn't documented. Do you have proof otherwise?

I know, I know....if it were real the world would know, right? Not necessarily. Only if it were made public, and only if the person searching for it knew where to look.

I'll use Randi as an example. I've been involved in the paranormal field since the early 90's, and I had never heard of him until I got on this forum. Then I did the research.

Let me tell you what Randi is: He is a sick old doddering fool that has found the "hot button" of supposedly learned people and is fleecing them left and right. He begs for donations, and even has his own credit card that benefits his organization of "sheep". He has been accused of having some horrible interests (pedo----ia). He tells everyone to use common sense, then wants them to send him a donation for telling them!!! And people do it!!!!!

Now based on all that, guess what I think of people who support his "cause"?

No I don't have proof otherwise, but you don't have proof ither so that is an awful statement. It has not been done, because if it had, the job I have in the air force would use it.

 

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]

EddieR---

Well, I just Googled "Amazing Randi Pedophelia."

It turns out that he has said that he is gay.

And there are claims that organizations to which he belongs are pedophelia related.

So you may be right about that.

But if were are going to talk about LRLs, and testing LRLs, then getting into one skeptic's possibly ugly background has no bearing on the LRLs hoax, does it? I mean, why bother to go there on the LRL forum. Hopefully, we are trying to stick to proven facts about the topic, LRLs.

Proof about the truth of LRLs should stand by itself, not rely on other criminal things.

My point has always been that either they work or they don't. With a metal detector, for example, you can take any popular brand, and test it against it's stated specifications, under ideal conditions, and it will pass every time. If LRLs were real, then the same would go for them.

I've heard a lot a gobbledygook excuses, why LRLs can't pass a test, but it they were all true, the things would never work in the field, either!

And that's what is in question about LRLs: Do they really work, or not?

Right?

 

[EddieR]

Maybe they have and it wasn't documented. Do you have proof otherwise?

I know, I know....if it were real the world would know, right? Not necessarily. Only if it were made public, and only if the person searching for it knew where to look.

I'll use Randi as an example. I've been involved in the paranormal field since the early 90's, and I had never heard of him until I got on this forum. Then I did the research.

Let me tell you what Randi is: He is a sick old doddering fool that has found the "hot button" of supposedly learned people and is fleecing them left and right. He begs for donations, and even has his own credit card that benefits his organization of "sheep". He has been accused of having some horrible interests (pedo----ia). He tells everyone to use common sense, then wants them to send him a donation for telling them!!! And people do it!!!!!

Now based on all that, guess what I think of people who support his "cause"?

I've never researched any of that, so I can't speak on it one way or the other.

However, in the way that Randi's offer to people claiming paranormal powers, pertains to the topics of this forum, what would matter is whether or not his offer is real, and if it is conducted fairly.

I haven't participated in his paranormal testing offer, but all the printed material seems to me to indicate that it's fair. furthermore, I don't know of anyone who has complained of being cheated.

Rather than speculating about "the messenger," how about sticking to the facts?

If you have some real evidence that Randi's test is bogus, I would certainly like to know about it, and I think others on the forum would too.

So, do you?

Did I say anything about his test...AT ALL?

Refer back to my post, where I said "know where to look". I meant that even though I am involved in the paranormal field, I had never heard of Randi.
A question was asked earlier, wondering who Randi was, and I elaborated on it in my post. I was simply pointing out that it is possible for things to exist or occur without every person in the world knowing about it.

On a side note and off the subject: I got to borrow back the same LRL that I used in the past to find my ring (the story is posted on the forum).

Anyway, I only got to use it for a little while before I had to give it back (the friend that I gave it to was just passing through) but I got to run a couple of quick informal tests with it. I'll post the results in a little while.

 

[EddieR]

EddieR---

Well, I just Googled "Amazing Randi Pedophelia."

It turns out that he has said that he is gay.

And there are claims that organizations to which he belongs are pedophelia related.

So you may be right about that.

But if were are going to talk about LRLs, and testing LRLs, then getting into one skeptic's possibly ugly background has no bearing on the LRLs hoax, does it? I mean, why bother to go there on the LRL forum. Hopefully, we are trying to stick to proven facts about the topic, LRLs.

Proof about the truth of LRLs should stand by itself, not rely on other criminal things.

My point has always been that either they work or they don't. With a metal detector, for example, you can take any popular brand, and test it against it's stated specifications, under ideal conditions, and it will pass every time. If LRLs were real, then the same would go for them.

I've heard a lot a gobbledygook excuses, why LRLs can't pass a test, but it they were all true, the things would never work in the field, either!

And that's what is in question about LRLs: Do they really work, or not?

Right?

Yep, I agree....this is the LRL forum and they should be the topic, not the people. So....there shouldn't be any thinly veiled comments on peoples living conditions (trailers), correct? There should be no remarks made (from either side) about peoples education, right? I stated long ago that the big reason I jumped in here was because of people belittling others.

And I hear it myself....about pizza and paranormal research. What does that have to do with LRL's?

Of course, I'm guilty of it too, I'll admit.

 

[EE THr]

Yep, I agree....this is the LRL forum and they should be the topic, not the people. So....there shouldn't be any thinly veiled comments on peoples living conditions (trailers), correct? There should be no remarks made (from either side) about peoples education, right? I stated long ago that the big reason I jumped in here was because of people belittling others.

And I hear it myself....about pizza and paranormal research. What does that have to do with LRL's?

Of course, I'm guilty of it too, I'll admit.

Wow, that was way back in post #612 that werleibr ask who Randi was. And #618 where I answered him, concerning his test.

I sure didn't connect the two. I figured you were merely trying to discredit his test, by attacking him personally, which didn't make much sense to me.

My observation, and personal experience, is that the belittling starts when someone asks an LRL promoter a question, the answer to which would show a contradiction in their story. That was what happened to me. After a few times of that, the gloves came off, so to speak. But I am polite to anyone who is polite to me.

 

[EE THr]

One would think, with all the multiple personalities running rampant in this section of the forum, that schizophrenia is caused by any conversation regarding LRL's.

Not at all, actually. You're just using that as a segue into pronouncing yourself to supposedly be knowledgeable in sickology.

When, in fact, it is simply One Individual's response to a lack of recognition by others. When no one else will validate Their opinions....why, they create a new identity that will. Pro or Con. It makes no difference, just as long as they get the recognition they crave. Even if it's only in appearance. Ordinary everyday survival requires it.

Can you site actual clinical proof of that statement?

Examine the post count on this thread, for instance. By reviewing just the past 48 hours you will be able to verify this fact for yourself.

How do you figure that post count would verify, or even remotely relate, your supposition?

One IS the loneliest number.

As long as you're applying your amateur sickology to analysing people's activities to determine their state of mental health, go ahead and tell us what this means---

A person joins in a group discussion, never to discuss the actual topic, but only claims to have more knowledge about mental health than others in the group, and proceeds to explain how others there have sanity shortcomings. And that's the only thing that person ever talks about, is mental illness in others.

It seems to me that the person would be attempting to develop the idea of being the sanest person in the group, at the expense of those others, with unsubstantiated derogatory remarks about them. Some folks would call this a "lofty" attitude. I think the person would be compulsively trying to prove to themselves, by convincing others, that they are not nuts.

What do you think?

 

[EE THr]

You said you wanted a real treasure---I gave you one.

You said you wanted a real test---you've got one.

Better make the next one good, because three strikes and your out!

Puffy-Rocky-Fenix---

By the way, since you are bragging about all the major treasure you have found, how about backing up those statements with some photos?

I can haredly wait!

P.S. This is your last chance for a hit.

I'll be signing off for now--

The Long Ranger

Steeeeeeeeeerrrrricke three!

 

[rockhound]

I don't have a picture, but I have found plenty with a metal detector and I have not posted it either. I just don't post my finds, no matter which instrument I use. From the looks of it, neither do any of you. No where in the finds section do I see any treasure found by those of you who claim to possess and use metal detectors. I use several types and have for a long time. I will not be posting finds or showing pictures of what I have found, period. rockhound

 

[EddieR]

Yep, I agree....this is the LRL forum and they should be the topic, not the people. So....there shouldn't be any thinly veiled comments on peoples living conditions (trailers), correct? There should be no remarks made (from either side) about peoples education, right? I stated long ago that the big reason I jumped in here was because of people belittling others.

And I hear it myself....about pizza and paranormal research. What does that have to do with LRL's?

Of course, I'm guilty of it too, I'll admit.

That would make you the perfect hypocrite.

Well... maybe not perfect. Simply a hypocrite.

Maybe you should review some of these posts/threads. You will find many of them where LRL proponents "fired the first shot", simply because the data posted proved LRL's to be fraudulent. I guess you chose to "over look" those threads/posts. You seem to be selective about how people should post in these threads... as long as it/they support your agenda.

Very hypocritical.

Here we go...already off the topic of LRL's. I knew it wouldn't take long. Ah, what the heck, it's fun.

I have no agenda....unlike you. You have been called out by more than one person on your "belittling posts".

You call me a hypocrite... even though I posted (very plainly) that I was guilty of the same. But, by you calling me a hypocrite, that makes you one too.

You say I'm selective as long as long as the posts fit my "agenda". Ummm....what about your agreeing with posts that fit YOURS? Very hypocritical, indeed.

 

[EE THr]

EddieR---

I really don't think I've ever heard of the truth, or stating facts, or being against fraud, being referred to as an "agenda."

Although the word has more than one meaning, the way it was used by SWR is obvious. I don't think that SWR has an agenda, in that sense. But in your posts, you do seem to favor the LRL promoters, don't you?

 

[EddieR]

EddieR---

I really don't think I've ever heard of the truth, or stating facts, or being against fraud, being referred to as an "agenda."

Although the word has more than one meaning, the way it was used by SWR is obvious. I don't think that SWR has an agenda, in that sense. But in your posts, you do seem to favor the LRL promoters, don't you?

Facts? Come on, EE. You guys are dogging PuffDaddy saying that his LRL is fake, but you haven't even seen it. What kind of "scientific method" is that?

 

[EddieR]

Yep, I agree....this is the LRL forum and they should be the topic, not the people. So....there shouldn't be any thinly veiled comments on peoples living conditions (trailers), correct? There should be no remarks made (from either side) about peoples education, right? I stated long ago that the big reason I jumped in here was because of people belittling others.

And I hear it myself....about pizza and paranormal research. What does that have to do with LRL's?

Of course, I'm guilty of it too, I'll admit.

That would make you the perfect hypocrite.

Well... maybe not perfect. Simply a hypocrite.

Maybe you should review some of these posts/threads. You will find many of them where LRL proponents "fired the first shot", simply because the data posted proved LRL's to be fraudulent. I guess you chose to "over look" those threads/posts. You seem to be selective about how people should post in these threads... as long as it/they support your agenda.

Very hypocritical.

Here we go...already off the topic of LRL's. I knew it wouldn't take long. Ah, what the heck, it's fun.

I have no agenda....unlike you. You have been called out by more than one person on your "belittling posts".

You call me a hypocrite... even though I posted (very plainly) that I was guilty of the same. But, by you calling me a hypocrite, that makes you one too.

You say I'm selective as long as long as the posts fit my "agenda". Ummm....what about your agreeing with posts that fit YOURS? Very hypocritical, indeed.

Odd... reading the quote I posted, there was no discussion about LRL's.

There was Eddie.... gossiping about others.

Typical hypocrite

Yes, I suppose I'm typical. Typical being that I along with others have called you on your agenda.

Meanwhile, YOU were gossiping about ME in YOUR post. Still can't grasp the whole goose/gander concept, eh?

 

[EE THr]

EddieR---

I really don't think I've ever heard of the truth, or stating facts, or being against fraud, being referred to as an "agenda."

Although the word has more than one meaning, the way it was used by SWR is obvious. I don't think that SWR has an agenda, in that sense. But in your posts, you do seem to favor the LRL promoters, don't you?

Facts? Come on, EE. You guys are dogging PuffDaddy saying that his LRL is fake, but you haven't even seen it. What kind of "scientific method" is that?

It's called logical deduction.

He presents neither scientific, logical, nor tangible evidence for any of his claims.

He tries to back up his claims with only insults to those who question them.

It's the usual pattern for con artists.

Elementary, my dear Watson!

 

[EE THr]

I don't have a picture, but I have found plenty with a metal detector and I have not posted it either. I just don't post my finds, no matter which instrument I use. From the looks of it, neither do any of you. No where in the finds section do I see any treasure found by those of you who claim to possess and use metal detectors. I use several types and have for a long time. I will not be posting finds or showing pictures of what I have found, period. rockhound

That's the standard, nopnsense boiler plate answer for all LRL promoters, except for those who are willing to forfeit all chances of ever having any credibility, by posting very obviously faked photos and videos.

Now why don't you post a silly excuse for not taking Carl's double-blind test, and collecting the $25,000.00?

 

[Ted Groves]

One would think, with all the multiple personalities running rampant in this section of the forum, that schizophrenia is caused by any conversation regarding LRL's.

Well, coming from the expert of multiple personalities, I guess you would certainly know best; and certainly more qualified to expound on the subject than anyone else on the forum.

Oh and by the way; Perhaps you should consider taking that cigar "out" every once in awhile... and let it dry out, or maybe get a fresh one.

Just a thought....

 

[EE THr]

Oh and by the way; Perhaps you should consider taking that cigar "out" every once in awhile... and let it dry out, or maybe get a fresh one.

Just a thought....

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI Ted Just what 'IS' this fascination that you have in 'that' cigar? ??

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

HI Ted Just what 'IS' this fascination that you have in 'that' cigar? ??

Don Jose de La Mancha

The question should be: Just what fascination does the smoker of that cigar have for man-cave furniture combined with nylons and dresses (and calling guys "darling")?

Another good question could be: Just what is your fascination with that smoker?

 

[Ted Groves]

The question should be: Just what fascination does the smoker of that cigar have for man-cave furniture combined with nylons and dresses (and calling guys "darling")?

Another good question could be: Just what is your fascination with that smoker?

Could not have said it better....

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI EE, what is -- is?

The only ones that I have seen smoking cigars is Carl, whom I have great respect for.

Don Jose de La Mancha