When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain

[EE THr]

HIO EE, you mean peer reviewed data, or The bell you mentioned is that the one allegely found near the Sonoran border in 1896? That had Tayopa Guaynopa Guaynopita Sonora. Tres Minerales Del Mundo written on it?
?

Don Jose de la Mancha?

I don't know anything about your bell, but the word "peer" can't be used with them, because they will claim it means their fellow LRL promoters.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Here's the question (again)---

Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

Gee EE...I have put most everthing that I know how on this board..As far as I know there is no Scientifically Prove either way in the world...Just like you I don’t know of any Scientifically way to prove it.
After all..In the treasure hunting business LRL Manufacturing are very small business..What benefits do you think that a Scientist would get from his work on this subject?
I am just a Treasure Hunter who enjoys his hobby...Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI Ee sorry, but part was a carry over. How about a peer reviewed group of scientists qualified to do their thingie?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

HI Ee sorry, but part was a carry over. How about a peer reviewed group of scientists qualified to do their thingie?

Don Jose de La Mancha

A group of peers need to be reviewed? Why? To prove they exist? What do you mean?

How about a random double-blind test, like with everything else?

If the LRLers claims were true, there is no reason that an LRL wouldn't be able to easily pass one.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Here's the question (again)---

Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

Gee EE...I have put most everthing that I know how on this board..As far as I know there is no Scientifically Prove either way in the world...Just like you I don’t know of any Scientifically way to prove it.
After all..In the treasure hunting business LRL Manufacturing are very small business..What benefits do you think that a Scientist would get from his work on this subject?
I am just a Treasure Hunter who enjoys his hobby...Art

All of that is irrelevant.

Nobody has any problems with metal detectors or GPR, and so forth. The always work the same way under repeatable optimum conditions. Why should LRLs be "special."? They are, after all, electronic devices, right?

You need to do a random double-blind test, as I told RDT, above.

Ultimately, it's up to you to prove your claims. It's your claim, so it's your problem to prove it.

ref: Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HIO Ee --"a peer reviewed group of scientists " can't get much better than that no?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

HIO Ee --"a peer reviewed group of scientists " can't get much better than that no?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Can you just say whatever it is you want to say, in plain English?

 

[Ted Groves]

HIO Ee --"a peer reviewed group of scientists " can't get much better than that no?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Can you just say whatever it is you want to say, in plain English?

No. He can't. Like a 4-rotor German Enigma machine, he spits out nothing but cryptograms. That's why I have him on ignore.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

A group of peers need to be reviewed? Why? To prove they exist? What do you mean?

No peers needed..they exist.. http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,416343.0.html... http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,341521.0.html
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,316149.0.html
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,299344.0.html
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,337820.0.html

How about a random double-blind test, like with everything else?

Everything else..Please tell where the test for everything else can be found?

If the LRLers claims were true, there is no reason that an LRL wouldn't be able to easily pass one.

Please tell us where a Real Double blind test can be found?

Nobody has any problems with metal detectors or GPR, and so forth. The always work the same way under repeatable optimum conditions. Why should LRLs be "special."? They are, after all, electronic devices, right?

Right here on t-net you will find 1000’s of postwhere operators have questions about their operation. By the way..Can you tell us where the results from the Double Blind test of Conventional Metal Detectors can be found?

You need to do a random double-blind test, as I told RDT, above.

I seems that the owner/operators do not need a double blind test ...The begging skeptics tactic is not working

Ultimately, it's up to you to prove your claims. It's your claim, so it's your problem to prove it.

We have..
Here is the place to go to read all of EE’s personal opinions..We call it the dead thread files.
ref: Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

 

[EE THr]

Please tell us where a Real Double blind test can be found?

Just use your magic LRL to find them!


Here is an example---

Definitions of Double-Blind Testing

But it's not up to me to hold your hand, and school you...proving your silly claims is entirely your problem. And until you do, you are just all talk, as usual.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Sometimes these tests must, by their nature, involve groups of people, but if only a piece of equipment is being tested for performance, only the equipment and the operator are required to participate.

In LRL testing, the "random" part means that the objective is changed at random, so the operator, if failing one part of the test, cannot eliminate that objective location and thus have fewer to choose from in the next test.

I did not see this wording at the World English Dictionary web site.

Now we have discussed this before in your dead thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment
A blind or blinded experiment is a scientific experiment where some of the persons involved are prevented from knowing certain information that might lead to conscious or unconscious bias on their part, invalidating the results.
For example, when asking consumers to compare the tastes of different brands of a product, the identities of the latter should be concealed — otherwise consumers will generally tend to prefer the brand they are familiar with. Similarly, when evaluating the effectiveness of a medical drug, both the patients and the doctors who administer the drug may be kept in the dark about the dosage being applied in each case — to forestall any chance of a placebo effect, observer bias, or conscious deception.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-double-blind-test.htm
A double blind test is a scientific test in which neither test subjects nor administrators know who is in the control group and who is in the experimental group. The intent is to create an unbiased test environment, ensuring that the results of the testing are accurate and will stand up to analysis by other members of the scientific community. The concept of a double blind test is an excellent example of the scientific method, since it aims to be entirely objective and potentially repeatable.
And the best of all
http://skepdic.com/control.html....
A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls. A randomized test is one that randomly assigns items to the control and the experimental groups.
The purpose of controls, double-blind, and randomized testing is to reduce error, self-deception and bias. An example should clarify the necessity of these safeguards.

It sure seems that you do not know what a Double Blind Test is..
Persons... subjects…control group… consumers..
More than one person...Art

 

[EE THr]

It sure seems that you do not know what a Double Blind Test is..
Persons... subjects…control group… consumers..
More than one person...Art

Rather it seems that you do not know the difference between food and drug testing, and equipment testing.

It also seems that you do not know the difference between a "group" and an "LRL."

Actually, I think you do know the difference very well, but you would rather try to confuse the issue, rather than submit to a real test of your fake devices.

Even in your "version" of tests, you do not use "groups." It's just more of your BS.

For people to believe your claims, you must prove them to the World. Accomplishing that is your problem, not mine.

And the fact remains that you never have, and never will.







ref: Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

 

[aarthrj3811]

I feel for you...Even some of the skeptics have said that Carl’s test will not be accepted by the Scientific Community.
Just keep treading water and in case you do not know, keep your head above water...It will be a long time before you are recued..
~EE~

Rather it seems that you do not know the difference between food and drug testing, and equipment testing.

Yes I know the difference..The food and drug industry perform real double blind testing..Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

G'afternoon Ted, EE, it was originally posted --> How about a peer reviewed group of scientists, qualified to do their thingie?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It was answered -->No. He can't. Like a 4-rotor German Enigma machine, he spits out nothing but cryptograms. That's why I have him on ignore.
**********

Interesting, since you can't outguess my 'Enigma' machine, no wonder you cannot grasp the basics of Lrl theories.

What I suggested in the original post was "would a group of peer reviewed scientists revising the LRL theories be acceptable"? Simple enough.

However, I feel that this an impossible goal since even peer accepted scientists are guilty of multiple frauds causting untold no.s of deaths.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Example --> Fraud is an ongoing problem

Research fraud has been occurring for decades. One popular example from the past is that of Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute researcher Dr. William Summerlin, who, in 1974, colored patches of fur on white mice with a black marker in an attempt to prove that his new skin graft treatment was working. Methods of cheating and misleading the public have certainly evolved in complicacy since then, but the same basic idea still applies: Fraud is fraud, and medical fraud is acceptable under no circumstances.
The fact that the number of complaints of misconduct by researchers is on the rise is disturbing, especially when you consider how many instances of falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and other scientific misconduct likely go unreported. This trend points to a colossal problem for the system of modern medicine.

David Wright, a Michigan State University professor who has done his own research on why scientists cheat, told the Associated Press in July 2005 that there are usually four basic reasons for cheating: Some sort of mental disorder; foreign nationals who learned somewhat different scientific standards; inadequate mentoring; or powerful and increasing professional pressure to publish studies. The final reason is also the most common, according to Wright. However, any scientist who caves under the pressure by falsifying data certainly has low scientific, as well as ethical, standards.

When it comes to fraud in medicine, unethical researchers stand to gain money and prestige while misleading and

'possibly endangering the lives of untold numbers of people.'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Second--> I found an article in the Wall Street Journal that shows that the rate of retractions of scientific studies in scientific journals has proliferated over the last decade. Data compiled for the WSJ by Thompson-Reuters shows that the number of research articles published since 2001 increased by 44%, while during the same period the number of articles retracted increased 15 times.

This has an effect on all scientific research, even cancer research and treatment. In one instance, research at the Mayo Clinic was set back about a decade. They found that some experiments that were related to the use of the body’s own immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated. This incidence of fraud ended up leading to the retraction of 17 research papers that were published in nine scientific journals.
Another analysis published by the Journal of Medical Ethics found that article retractions due to fraud had increase over 17 times between 2004 and 2009. This is much more than the twofold increase in article retractions related to researcher error. The analyst, Grant Steen, said that 73.5% of the articles were retracted for error, and 26.6% were retracted for fraud.

I can understand how researchers can make errors. It’s a human thing. Nobody’s perfect, not even scientists. It would be unfair to attempt to hold scientists to an impossible standard. Honest, trailblazing, original research is not easy. It’s never easy to be a pioneer.

But by the same token, we must realize that there are incredible pressures on researchers to publish papers in scientific journals. One scientific paper published in a prestigious journal like the Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine can launch a researcher’s career. There is a lot of money and prestige at stake. This creates a powerful tendency to motivate researchers into getting their articles published ‘by any means’. Financial and career elements can have more influence on a researcher if being honest will kill opportunity to make money and get tenure.

This isn’t to say that all researchers and physicians are less than ethical. But it would be naive of us to blindly believe all scientific papers that are published in research journals. It may sound ‘unscientific’ to suggest this, but we need to learn to use our powers of discernment when receiving information. As I have discussed before, mainstream scientists have been used to falsify experiments on orthodox cancer treatments to make it appear that they are more effective than they really are. And they have also ran experiments on alternative cancer treatments that appear to suggest that they aren’t effective by failing to follow the treatment protocol that makes it work. I have seen a lot of scientists and scientific minded people who have been lulled into believing false information with reference to cancer treatments that work, and those that do not work. It is very important for people interested in the results of scientific research to make sure they understand the conflicts of interest and financial ties and incentives that researchers and physicians may have before accepting the validity of their articles and recommendations.





This is something that must stop. It is profoundly frightening to live in a world where even the most reputable of medical publications are so easily fooled by false research.



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/019353.html#ixzz1azOEzixq
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s. so who has scammed or killed the most people ?

 

[EE THr]

I feel for you...Even some of the skeptics have said that Carl’s test will not be accepted by the Scientific Community.
Just keep treading water and in case you do not know, keep your head above water...It will be a long time before you are recued..
~EE~

Rather it seems that you do not know the difference between food and drug testing, and equipment testing.

Yes I know the difference..The food and drug industry perform real double blind testing..Art

The only people who find fault with Carl's test is LRL promoters---because they can't make their fake devices work.

It doesn't matter that you think a group of people is part of the definition of double-blind, because it's up to you to provide the proof, not anyone else. So it's your problem. Until then, all your stories are merely talk, and nothing more.

So you can argue with yourself about groups. You have never been able to prove that your LRLs work, and never will be. And that's what counts.

 

[EE THr]

p.s. so who has scammed or killed the most people ?

Politicians.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE

The only people who find fault with Carl's test is LRL promoters---because they can't make their fake devices work.

No...There are also skeptics who have said that Carl’s test will not be accepted by Scientist...The 60 plus people who have posted on this board and the 100’s of people on the internet say they work

It doesn't matter that you think a group of people is part of the definition of double-blind, because it's up to you to provide the proof, not anyone else. So it's your problem. Until then, all your stories are merely talk, and nothing more.

I have said I will not take Carl’s fake double blind test...I have also said that if someone comes up with a real double blind test I would consider participating in it.

So you can argue with yourself about groups. You have never been able to prove that your LRLs work, and never will be. And that's what counts.

There is nothing to prove...The owners of these devices will continue to locate and recover treasure and enjoy the hobby. And yes..the manufacuers will continue to sell them
~REAL DEAL

p.s. so who has scammed or killed the most people ?

~EE~

Politicians.

Sorry I have to dis-agree with you again..If not for Politicians and our brave military we may not be able to sit here and discuss LRL’s. If we were still able to be on this board it would be in Japanese, German or Russian ...

My vote goes to the Drug Companies..By law they have to do Double Blind Testing for each Drug..So much for how accurate Double Blind Testing is as they have killed millions..Art

 

[EE THr]

Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

Don't be a doof---show the proof!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?

A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.​

 

[werleibr]

~werleibr~

Convienenlty passed up by art. Art you wanna prove it to all of us. FILM IT. FILM YOUR TEST.

Already done that...why should I put another one on here? Keep on begging.. http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,305970.0.html
You still have not explained .. When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain...Art

No you have not Art. You have not posted a video in which you start off with just your wife in the back yard hiding the coin under the eggs, knocking on the door, and you go find what egg it is under, all uninterupted. You have only provided video on you knowing where a target is. And Had my dang computer not crashed I found some good evidence to show you that you move your hand to make the Rangertell point. For those that want to go watch his video. The antenna drops a good 3 degrees from perpendicular to the ground when it moves. also the shadow on your fingers change.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~

No you have not Art. You have not posted a video in which you start off with just your wife in the back yard hiding the coin under the eggs, knocking on the door, and you go find what egg it is under, all uninterupted. You have only provided video on you knowing where a target is. And Had my dang computer not crashed I found some good evidence to show you that you move your hand to make the Rangertell point. For those that want to go watch his video. The antenna drops a good 3 degrees from perpendicular to the ground when it moves. also the shadow on your fingers change.

Gee werleibr...the movies is there for every one to view....There is a place where you can clearly see that my hand did not move...There is also places where you can see the angle of the antenna but no swing...at the end of the movie the antenna swung but I had already found and recovered the silver dollar.
And no there will be no movie of me and my wife as she is not available..
Don’t trip on your dogs leash when you are out today...Art