When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain

[Saturna]

I do know that Arthur can't do what he says he can (the LRL stuff). I'm betting that deep down inside, you don't believe he can either.

Or am I wrong ? Do you think Arthur can find gold from miles away with a calculator ? Yes or no.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Rudy(CA)]

I claim that a human being making use of no metal or magnetic apparatus of any kind but his own bare hands and away from a compass CAN emit a magnetic field to affect and deflect the compass needle. I have enough evidence and proof to back up my claim.

WHO is going to refute this claim?

Claim duly recorded. Now prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

No dancing around mambo boy.
Do you refute the claim or not? Yes or No?

Yes sure.

Humm...We are getting a lot slower than I thought...

Dr. Rudy, would please care to support your refutal by posting your scientific explanation on the contrary? Or is it just a guess?
Thanks.

You made the claim Dr. Hung. Put up or shut up.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI rudy I also made the claim of having done it, (once) you want proof? come on down !

Don Jose de La mancha

 

[hung]

You made the claim Dr. Hung. Put up or shut up.

I will at the right time.

However you clearly stated that you refute my claim.

Do you refute the claim or not? Yes or No?
Yes sure.

So, for this you should produce solid scientific elements to support what you have stated above.
In simple words, provide scientific evidence that corroborates that I am wrong.
If you will not, you are just acting like the other skeptics here, who claim everything they want against LRLs without any substantial scientific basis to stand a leg on. Just hot air.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

EE, you posted -->

1. A person makes a claim.
2. The claim is challenged.
3. The claimant must then show the proof.

there are others, but scientifically "the claimant then challenges the basis of why the claim is challenged" such proof is to be in mathematical and associated materiel data, but since many new theories are as yet 'physically' unprovable, if ever, they cannot simply say "turn it on". snicker. since the lrl apparently does require a human interface, it fits squarely into the latter sector.

Ya want proof of the theory, come on down.

 

[Rudy(CA)]

You made the claim Dr. Hung. Put up or shut up.

I will at the right time.

However you clearly stated that you refute my claim.

Do you refute the claim or not? Yes or No?
Yes sure.

So, for this you should produce solid scientific elements to support what you have stated above.
In simple words, provide scientific evidence that corroborates that I am wrong.
If you will not, you are just acting like the other skeptics here, who claim everything they want against LRLs without any substantial scientific basis to stand a leg on. Just hot air.

Nice attempt at table turning Dr. Hung. It won't work.

You made the outlandish claim, not me.

DJ, I challenged Dr Hung's claim, not yours. However, feel free to give your evidence to Dr. Hung
who I am afraid is now stuck and trying to extricate himself from his outlandish assertion, probably made
while under the digestive influence of one of those south american mushrooms.

 

[hung]

You made the outlandish claim, not me.

Then tell me why it's an outlandish claim.
A simple answer.
Quit exercising the autism at once.

 

[EE THr]

You made the claim Dr. Hung. Put up or shut up.

I will at the right time.

However you clearly stated that you refute my claim.

Do you refute the claim or not? Yes or No?
Yes sure.

So, for this you should produce solid scientific elements to support what you have stated above.
In simple words, provide scientific evidence that corroborates that I am wrong.
If you will not, you are just acting like the other skeptics here, who claim everything they want against LRLs without any substantial scientific basis to stand a leg on. Just hot air.

Just like I said hung would do, in post #147!

Totally predictable!


hung-up, so you have expanded from Science Fiction, into trickery now?






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?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[Rudy(CA)]

You made the outlandish claim, not me.

Then tell me why it's an outlandish claim.
A simple answer.
Quit exercising the autism at once.

They are outlandish simply because they are outside of common everyday experience.

Now put up or shut up.

 

[aarthrj3811]

They are outlandish simply because they are outside of common everyday experience.

Thank You Rudy..have you been taking lessons from EE ?

 

[EE THr]

They are outlandish simply because they are outside of common everyday experience.

Thank You Rudy..have you been taking lessons from EE ?

artie---

It's no surprise that a homo sapiens like you would make a snide remark like that.

 

[aarthrj3811]

It's no surprise that a homo sapiens like you would make a snide remark like that.

Very good of you to recognize that I am a little older and wiser than most of you youngness’..After being a Treasure hunter for over 30 years I have a lot more experience at locating and recovering Treasure..So tell us with all your experiences just how this scientific experiment was preformed?..Art

 

[EE THr]

It's no surprise that a homo sapiens like you would make a snide remark like that.

Very good of you to recognize that I am a little older and wiser than most of you youngness’..After being a Treasure hunter for over 30 years I have a lot more experience at locating and recovering Treasure..So tell us with all your experiences just how this scientific experiment was preformed?..Art

As usual, you are lacking reference to what you are talking about, artie.

Which Scientific experiment are you referring to?






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?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

Speaking of things that Science fails to explain---

Why don't you tell us, artie, why you don't jet over to Carl's and collect that 25K?

Like I said, even if it cost you 5K in travel, food, and lodging; you would still arrive home with a cool $20,000.00 to donate to your grand kids' college funds.

Would you deny them a handy 20 Gs, just because you have a grudge against Carl?

You're not just a crouchy old man, are you?

If they already have a college fund, then buy the oldest one a car or something! Hey, according to all your bragging about how well your LRLs work, it's just like free money! So go for it!

Science would indicate that if your devices work as well as you say they do, then it should be no problem for you at all!

Of course, if they don't work, even up to the 70% reliability (barely above random chance) required by the test, then that would mean that they are not what the makers are advertising, wouldn't it. And the manufacturers are important to you, aren't they? A job is a job, for your way of thinking, right?






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?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[fenixdigger]

How could ordinary science explain denial of an opportunity to conduct a test and make it as "scientific" as you wanted to solidify your opinion into "fact"

It can't, takes Freudian and Gestalt theory. And boy do they nail it. Classic And it even seems like a little Pavlov got into it with
some conditioned responses. (At least they are not salivating) (As far as we know)

If they want to argue about something, it should be how many times they get the voltage. I'll go with the dozen.


SHO-NUFF

 

[hung]

They are outlandish simply because they are outside of common everyday experience.

Is this the best a skeptic with supposed scientific knowledge can produce?
Am I dealing with a teenager here? Why don't you stop your silly games?

I made a claim that I can back up with evidence and asked who could refute it. You stated that you could.
So if you can, it will be very easy for you to provide a scientific explanation for a rebuttal since my claim is 'outlandish' as you said it, Dr. Rudy.
Don't play the stupid and do not turn the members here who happen to be watching this thread into stupids.

Don't dodge anymore. Either post here your refutal to my claim or just say you have not enough evidence for a rebuttal and you lied.

Which one is gonna be?

 

[EE THr]

How could ordinary science explain denial of an opportunity to conduct a test and make it as "scientific" as you wanted to solidify your opinion into "fact"

It can't, takes Freudian and Gestalt theory. And boy do they nail it. Classic And it even seems like a little Pavlov got into it with
some conditioned responses. (At least they are not salivating) (As far as we know)

If they want to argue about something, it should be how many times they get the voltage. I'll go with the dozen.


SHO-NUFF

You should push your push your idolatry of sick-ology on a eugenics forum.




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?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

They are outlandish simply because they are outside of common everyday experience.

I made a claim that I can back up with evidence....

OK, so either back it up, or quit whining about it.




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?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~SWR~

Sigmund Freud called, and left a message for you. Evidently, you have mentioned his name sixteen (16) times during your short time here.

The message Sig left was: "If you can't do it, give up!"

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

 

[EE THr]

The message Sig left was: "If you can't do it, give up!"