When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain

[EE THr]

~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

That quote which you keep using, actually refers to insults and accusations.

When someone points out the truth, that's not an insult, it's an exposure of someone who is not being truthful.

It doesn't apply to everything someone says. It only applies if it is not true.

So, when someone makes a joke about you, after you have insulted them first, that's just a return of your initial insult. Your quote doesn't apply in those situations, except to the insult which you gave first.

Nobody has come here for the sole purpose of insulting you. Those who challenge your claims, are not just trying to insult you, they are just pointing out the truth, and can't be faulted for that. There is nothing evil or insane about the truth.

Besides, you should be dedicated to proving your claims, if you seriously believe they are true, and you insist that others believe you about that.

If you don't want to prove your claims, then quit insisting that others believe you. But the only reason you wouldn't want to prove your claims, is if it is too difficult. The only reason it would be very difficult, is if they actually aren't true.

All this is so obvious that I really doubt that you are convincing anyone of your credibility, or of what your are saying about LRLs.






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?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

swr you posted --> I think what Sig was referring to is the lame usage of his name by someone
who has all the classic symptoms of a Sociopath (read: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html )

***************
You are relatively safe because we don't normally use self entrapment, but it is startlingly close to a description of your self.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

swr you posted --> I think what Sig was referring to is the lame usage of his name by someone
who has all the classic symptoms of a Sociopath (read: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html )

***************
You are relatively safe because we don't normally use self entrapment, but it is startlingly close to a description of your self.

Don Jose de La Mancha

RDT---

Just looking at the first three,

Glibness and Superficial Charm
Who spouts off about a having a high degree of electronics knowledge, yet doesn't (Glibness)?
Who is charming one minute, then turns on friends the next (Superficial Charm)?

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Who tries continuously to push a person into astrology readings?

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
I won't even expound on this one!


Of course, with a list like this, it's how many on the list a person is doing, that counts, not just one or two. But....

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI EE my friend never mistake or equivicate a counter discussion or debate as an attack upon
friendship, that we have, but your stand with the others tends to bring out my name sake
----- sides the minor mental fun is diverting.

Err about a) Who spouts off about a having a high degree of electronics knowledge, yet
doesn't (Glibness)?

******************
Where have I made that claim ?? Just military training, and a bit of servicing later of radios
and tv's. I would grant that to Carl. swr ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Manipulative and Conning, Who tries continuously to push a person into astrology readings?
*************
You want to learn the truth no?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grandiose Sense of Self -- Geeze when you have shout it. A HOOOO

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

HI EE my friend never mistake or equivicate a counter discussion or debate as an attack upon
friendship, that we have, but your stand with the others tends to bring out my name sake
----- sides the minor mental fun is diverting.

Err about a) Who spouts off about a having a high degree of electronics knowledge, yet
doesn't (Glibness)?

******************
Where have I made that claim ?? Just military training, and a bit of servicing later of radios
and tv's. I would grant that to Carl. swr ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Manipulative and Conning, Who tries continuously to push a person into astrology readings?
*************
You want to learn the truth no?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grandiose Sense of Self -- Geeze when you have shout it. A HOOOO

Don Jose de La Mancha

Surely you wouldn't think I was referring to you, amigo?

 

[fenixdigger]

Usually the test to confirm certain diagnosis is to present the truth. When this is immediately met with a certain response: ie; Anger,

Transference, Change of subject, Insults, Denial, etc, the individual psychosis is clearly identified. Our puppies do a bang up job of

proving the truth in this almost every post. Not likely to stop unless a trusted family member intercedes.

The truth b d truth. And dat's d truth.


SHO-NUFF

 

[EE THr]

Usually the test to confirm certain diagnosis is to present the truth. When this is immediately met with a certain response: ie; Anger,

Transference, Change of subject, Insults, Denial, etc, the individual psychosis is clearly identified. Our puppies do a bang up job of

proving the truth in this almost every post. Not likely to stop unless a trusted family member intercedes.

The truth b d truth. And dat's d truth.


SHO-NUFF

What Sick-iatry is Really All About---
video


Your sick-o-analysis is merely a baiting diversion, away from the fact that LRLs can't pass Carl's test.



1. Stay on topic.

2. Either take Carl's test, and win the #25,000.00, or quit your whining.


Any 5th grader can figure that out!




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]

fenixes---

You want an analysis?

I'll give you a "Reality Analysis"---

Anybody who "knows" that their LRL works, is nuts for not collecting the $25,000.00!

How do you like that one?



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?

 

[hung]

My questions and my claim are open for answers and rebuttal to any of the 4 or 5 skeptics here. Nevertheless only Dr. Rudy pretended to sketch a rebuttal but nothing so far. The others not even a single answer for the questions and much less a rebuttal. All of them slipped away.

Right now, there's a thread started by Fenixdigger that called my attention as it's very ilustrative to show how the skepheads act.

Fenix proposed a test to be performed by the skeptics that would demonstrate how a swivel LRL behaves. And at the same time he stated he will conduct the same test with 5 different people and will post the results.
Here's one very relevant coment he made when it's clear the skeptics are terribly reluctant in performing it:

All you can do is try. When someone describes something that I can reproduce, I get on it.
I guess that's the difference between doers and talkers.
The people that I communicate with, all try the experiments we each come up with. This has lead
to the changes I sent you.
I guess it's impossible for them to grasp, that we were once of the same opinion they are now.
They want to make it out that there are 2 opposing sides to this topic, when there is only 1 side.
We are just out in front. We worked our way up. They are too lazy to even spend 10 minutes.
That says a lot.

Yes, that says a lot.
Now is it too hard to understand why they would fear to answer my questions, to objectively produce a scientific refutal to my claims and to not take Fenixdigger's test?
We might wonder fear of what? That's the point. This answer is so critical that might hit their agenda with a magnitude even greater than that of the quake in Fukushima.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Yes, that says a lot.
Now is it too hard to understand why they would fear to answer my questions, to objectively produce a scientific refutal to my claims and to not take Fenixdigger's test?
We might wonder fear of what? That's the point. This answer is so critical that might hit their agenda with a magnitude even greater than that of the quake in Fukushima.

It is real simple hung..they can’t find the answers to our questions on the Skeptics Forum so they can copy them here…Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good morning mi buddy EE, yer i ready

you posted -->Surely you wouldn't think I was referring to you, amigo?
****************

As a matter of fact, yes, since no-one else has posted anything about Astrological data. You posted --> Manipulative and Conning, Who tries continuously to push a person into astrology readings

As for the Astrology, why do you insist in a 'reading', which 'hints' of fortune telling. It is a report on the basic psychological make up / profile of an individual.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Rudy(CA)]

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?

As you said, you made the claim and claim to be able to back it up. So, back it up.

That's the way it works Dr Hung. You made the claim and have offered no proof.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~hung~

I encourage you people to watch this amazing ability that trully proves the marvelous powers inherent to us human beings.

~Rudy(CA)~

As you said, you made the claim and claim to be able to back it up. So, back it up.
That's the way it works Dr Hung. You made the claim and have offered no proof.

The movie is the proof of the powers inherent to human beings if you can not disprove the movies..Your turn to duck and dodge..Art

 

[EE THr]

Good morning mi buddy EE, yer i ready

you posted -->Surely you wouldn't think I was referring to you, amigo?
****************

As a matter of fact, yes, since no-one else has posted anything about Astrological data. You posted --> Manipulative and Conning, Who tries continuously to push a person into astrology readings

As for the Astrology, why do you insist in a 'reading', which 'hints' of fortune telling. It is a report on the basic psychological make up / profile of an individual.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Ok, I'll rephrase that to say, "astrological analysis."





But don't worry, it was only the top 3 that matched.













Then, again, I don't know you well enough to know if the others exist or not!

 

[EE THr]

My questions and my claim are open for answers and rebuttal to any of the 4 or 5 skeptics here. Nevertheless only Dr. Rudy pretended to sketch a rebuttal but nothing so far. The others not even a single answer for the questions and much less a rebuttal. All of them slipped away.

hung-up---

First of all, I did challenge your claim.

But it works like this---
1. Person makes a claim.
2. Another may challenge it.
3. If another challenges it, the claimant must prove his claim.

As I mentioned earlier, you are sneakily trying to skip a step in the logic of it.

Skipping steps is not the Scientific way to do things.

But then, seeing as you are Mr. Pseudoscience, it seems natural for you to try.

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

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

...And no response from you....

Actually, hung-up, you are the one who has slipped away!




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]

Here you go, hung-up.

I claim that the magnetic field produced by a human being and capable of deflect a compass needle also affects a magnetometer and can be measured by it.
I have enough evidence and proof to back up my claim.

WHO is going to refute this claim?

OK, I'll challenge your claim.

So, now that it's been contested, it's your turn.

Show the real Scientific proof.






Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

Hung-up, here's another.

Do you remember?

Hung specifically stated "Who is going to Refute my claim". Your challenge is worthless here.

That's an old trick. Just a sneaky way of trying to get someone to end up having to prove a negative.

Obviously, your the type who just loves that kind of attempted manipulation, or else you wouldn't be an amateur sick-iatrist.

I challenged his statement. Since you are stepping in for hung-up, why don't you prove his statement to be true? Poor baby can't do it? I guess that's why you are what you are.





Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

hung-up---

And here's another which relates to your non-logical question.

It's from #29 on the Predictable Pattern of Con Artists list, linked below.

"29. [*d.]"You prove they don't work," is merely a baiting tactic, as the CA knows full well that it is technically impossible to prove a negative. They will try to use your own questions against you, in this non-logical situation. And if anyone does show proof they don't work, the CA simply says, "That doesn't mean anything!"---Yep, a totally non-scientific, illogical, childish reply. Because that's all they've got."


Do you get it yet?

If not, I'm sure you will like this, from the same page as above---

"Comment about the above list: Even though this list has been up for awhile, the LRL promoters continue to perform according to these Predictions! Apparently they don't care about being exposed by the scientifically accepted Proof of Prediction standard. They just can't stop themselves! Very interesting. But also very sad."



Hello?...hello?...Is anybody home inside your head? News Flash! You've been busted.

Of course, you will probably just keep kicking the your own dead horse, just like I predicted in the comment above.







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]

That's not true..........Fenix proposed a DOWSING test with coat hangers. Are you now claiming coat hangers are in the same class as swivel LRL's....such as the RangerTell gimmick?

Is he ?

 

[EE THr]

That's not true..........Fenix proposed a DOWSING test with coat hangers. Are you now claiming coat hangers are in the same class as swivel LRL's....such as the RangerTell gimmick?

Is he ?

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh....Yup!






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?