EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
artie---
"Why Skeptics Don't Show Proof?"
What kind of proof would you like?
artie---
"Why Skeptics Don't Show Proof?"
What kind of proof would you like?
Why skeptics doesnt show proof?
- Thread starter architecad
- Start date
Saturna
Bronze Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Art, himself, is probably the best 'proof' that LRL/dowsing doesn't work.
Art, himself, is probably the best 'proof' that LRL/dowsing doesn't work.
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Saturna---
I won't comment on that,
, but since this is his topic, and the topic title asks for proof, I would like to be as accommodating as possible, and find out exactly what kind of proof he would like.
Saturna---
I won't comment on that,
, but since this is his topic, and the topic title asks for proof, I would like to be as accommodating as possible, and find out exactly what kind of proof he would like.Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Sure enough I come back to Art throwing out erroneous and misleading non-arguments left and right as if speech was going out of style tonight...
So somehow in his mind a company committing mail fraud, among other charges, must be legitimate if they were being tried for a couple other things yet the jury didn't rule for the other charges against them.... Something doesn't add up there no matter how you can try to cut it.
And all that ignoring other charges in said case, I'm not even going to bother wasting more time on that.
But yes you have a good point. Also, hes proving how him and his
friends act like a cult. Ever gone on a message board and debated with scientologists?
The reporter has made the following comment:
This poster is making derogatory comments about a religion which has been judged to be bona fide by U.S. Courts, and is not a part of either the main topic or previous posts.
really? fail to see why calling a religion a cult could be considered defamatory unless you're taking their side of the argument.
Saturna said:
Sure enough I come back to Art throwing out erroneous and misleading non-arguments left and right as if speech was going out of style tonight...
So somehow in his mind a company committing mail fraud, among other charges, must be legitimate if they were being tried for a couple other things yet the jury didn't rule for the other charges against them.... Something doesn't add up there no matter how you can try to cut it.
And all that ignoring other charges in said case, I'm not even going to bother wasting more time on that.
But yes you have a good point. Also, hes proving how him and his
friends act like a cult. Ever gone on a message board and debated with scientologists? The reporter has made the following comment:
This poster is making derogatory comments about a religion which has been judged to be bona fide by U.S. Courts, and is not a part of either the main topic or previous posts.
really? fail to see why calling a religion a cult could be considered defamatory unless you're taking their side of the argument.
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Thank You GuyinWH…I think the Treasure Hunters understand what is a valid argument and what is just drivel…and no I would not go to a scientologists web site to debate.
de•bate (d -b t )
v. de•bat•ed, de•bat•ing, de•bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.
Note the word formally
[mod]The reporter has made the following comment:
This post contains a derogatory quote about a bona fide religion, which is not part of the topic.Note to Reporter: This post is not in violation of the forum rules. [/mod]
Thank You GuyinWH…I think the Treasure Hunters understand what is a valid argument and what is just drivel…and no I would not go to a scientologists web site to debate.
de•bate (d -b t )
v. de•bat•ed, de•bat•ing, de•bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.
Note the word formally
[mod]The reporter has made the following comment:
This post contains a derogatory quote about a bona fide religion, which is not part of the topic.Note to Reporter: This post is not in violation of the forum rules. [/mod]
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Good evening guywh: you posted --> You choose to ignore those and pick on one where you, for some reason or another, think you actually have an argument.
************
Hmm, er, ah, excuse me, but isn't that exactly what you are doing?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You also posted --> various definitions of YOUR version of a sceptic.
********************
Under them, I am a sceptic also. What is your basis to flatly declare that you are actually qualified to pass judgement on lrl's, their theory, etc. ?? So far I have seen nothing except repostings of supposed 'third hand failed tests by others', and extremely vague references to qualifications ?? Heck any grammar school kiddie with access to a computer can do the same, but actual technical data, zero !
Loosen up and supply some technical data, help evolve us out of our retarded thinking.
Don Jose de La Mancha
Good evening guywh: you posted --> You choose to ignore those and pick on one where you, for some reason or another, think you actually have an argument.
************
Hmm, er, ah, excuse me, but isn't that exactly what you are doing?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You also posted --> various definitions of YOUR version of a sceptic.
********************
Under them, I am a sceptic also. What is your basis to flatly declare that you are actually qualified to pass judgement on lrl's, their theory, etc. ?? So far I have seen nothing except repostings of supposed 'third hand failed tests by others', and extremely vague references to qualifications ?? Heck any grammar school kiddie with access to a computer can do the same, but actual technical data, zero !
Loosen up and supply some technical data, help evolve us out of our retarded thinking.
Don Jose de La Mancha
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
OK, if artie can't answer this, can anybody?
EE THr said:
OK, if artie can't answer this, can anybody?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Real simple EE THr..the question is Why skeptics doesn't show proof? I am a LRL owner/user.
Real simple EE THr..the question is Why skeptics doesn't show proof? I am a LRL owner/user.
this is just a childish game you are playing …378 posts and still no proof…Art
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
You're doing exactly what Art does on here now it seems.
Thank's for pointing out what kiddies can do but you should reevaluate what you posted yourself, because we have, on numerous times posted technical data besides the fact that it is limited because the devices themselves are of limited use/function and legitimacy. What do you expect? Tech schematics with capacitor ohm ratings on the calculators? we have that too, and I think someone posted that already (or at least something with that depth of technicality).
What qualifies me to flatly declare these LRLs are all a fraud? The facts, the science. the TECHNICALS, the fact I have used them myself a multitude of times (at first, as a totally ill-informed believer for that matter), the fact I can take one apart myself and reproduce one with spare parts, the fact that with the full backing of science I guarantee I can take this to court and without a shadow of a doubt win 100% of the times. As opposed to the kooks on these forums making bogus claims I am not making the bogus claims, you try to put us in the stand as if we have to answer for something. You are gravely mistaken. We have pushed for you to provide proof, you have given no legitimate and verifiable proof only blatant lies that EVEN a kiddie could see through. WE have provided proof to the contrary (when in fact it is not needed, we're not making bogus claims) and they are totally ignored by you all because you fear the repercussions of acknowledging them, as Art has done so well already. So right now you are doing the same thing Art and the merry band of LRL kooks on here does, I guess you are one now too? (Or have you been one the whole time?)
Because it seems you are also choosing to ignore what has been posted various times, exactly what you are asking for, and giving off some baloney excuse that even a kiddie, as you said, could see right through as well.
You know I've actually been thinking, judging from some peoples education levels on here at least, that posting technical data such as schematics and engineering diagrams, maybe like the diagrams from Orcad for an electrical engineer to put one of these LRL/MFDs together with, would be a complete waste. How are you all going to handle looking at a drawing done through Orcad (PCB wise maybe, but just for example) when you have extreme trouble looking at a simple electronics wiring diagram/schematic and (and this has ALREADY happened on here various times) someone who has no clue tries to actually argue the facts of whats on the screen with someone that has been dealing with electronics for decades? Really... some of us shouldn't even be on here it's ridiculous beyond belief. And for some reason you claim we have no legitimacy when all this has happened already? Sorry to inform you, a few people on here will tell YOU what is legitimate, you don't have a say. BUT ... Since you don't take our word for it thats what the posts with links are for, but you don't care so please tell me what do you need? God to come down, open the skies, and with a booming voice of legitimacy and all the engineering and geophysical knowledge in the world tell you LRLs are a fraud? Because I'm almost certain that wouldn't work either, you have proven that to us.
And thanks for proving my point from beforehand, you fell for it rather hard, you completely pushed the information posted aside to personally attack me and I'm pretty sure you didn't even look at it because we're talking about kiddies now....
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp said:
You're doing exactly what Art does on here now it seems.
Thank's for pointing out what kiddies can do but you should reevaluate what you posted yourself, because we have, on numerous times posted technical data besides the fact that it is limited because the devices themselves are of limited use/function and legitimacy. What do you expect? Tech schematics with capacitor ohm ratings on the calculators? we have that too, and I think someone posted that already (or at least something with that depth of technicality).
What qualifies me to flatly declare these LRLs are all a fraud? The facts, the science. the TECHNICALS, the fact I have used them myself a multitude of times (at first, as a totally ill-informed believer for that matter), the fact I can take one apart myself and reproduce one with spare parts, the fact that with the full backing of science I guarantee I can take this to court and without a shadow of a doubt win 100% of the times. As opposed to the kooks on these forums making bogus claims I am not making the bogus claims, you try to put us in the stand as if we have to answer for something. You are gravely mistaken. We have pushed for you to provide proof, you have given no legitimate and verifiable proof only blatant lies that EVEN a kiddie could see through. WE have provided proof to the contrary (when in fact it is not needed, we're not making bogus claims) and they are totally ignored by you all because you fear the repercussions of acknowledging them, as Art has done so well already. So right now you are doing the same thing Art and the merry band of LRL kooks on here does, I guess you are one now too? (Or have you been one the whole time?)
Because it seems you are also choosing to ignore what has been posted various times, exactly what you are asking for, and giving off some baloney excuse that even a kiddie, as you said, could see right through as well.
You know I've actually been thinking, judging from some peoples education levels on here at least, that posting technical data such as schematics and engineering diagrams, maybe like the diagrams from Orcad for an electrical engineer to put one of these LRL/MFDs together with, would be a complete waste. How are you all going to handle looking at a drawing done through Orcad (PCB wise maybe, but just for example) when you have extreme trouble looking at a simple electronics wiring diagram/schematic and (and this has ALREADY happened on here various times) someone who has no clue tries to actually argue the facts of whats on the screen with someone that has been dealing with electronics for decades? Really... some of us shouldn't even be on here it's ridiculous beyond belief. And for some reason you claim we have no legitimacy when all this has happened already? Sorry to inform you, a few people on here will tell YOU what is legitimate, you don't have a say. BUT ... Since you don't take our word for it thats what the posts with links are for, but you don't care so please tell me what do you need? God to come down, open the skies, and with a booming voice of legitimacy and all the engineering and geophysical knowledge in the world tell you LRLs are a fraud? Because I'm almost certain that wouldn't work either, you have proven that to us.
And thanks for proving my point from beforehand, you fell for it rather hard, you completely pushed the information posted aside to personally attack me and I'm pretty sure you didn't even look at it because we're talking about kiddies now....
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
No, this threads about them actually asking us to disprove LRLs/MFDs. You won't ever find proof FOR LRLs/MFDs on here though, try making another thread about that so you can see them rush through it like a greased up weasel on speed. You will however get to share in on the depravity of the human mental condition when someones completely delusional about something. Take Art for instance, hes already made a post celebrating the fact he skipped all my links (and everyone elses) that do well in this thread.... Bet he's hugging himself somewhere in some corner of his little trailer home just jumping with joy because he thinks he won the internet... what can you do?
EE THr said:EE THr said:
OK, if artie can't answer this, can anybody?
No, this threads about them actually asking us to disprove LRLs/MFDs. You won't ever find proof FOR LRLs/MFDs on here though, try making another thread about that so you can see them rush through it like a greased up weasel on speed. You will however get to share in on the depravity of the human mental condition when someones completely delusional about something. Take Art for instance, hes already made a post celebrating the fact he skipped all my links (and everyone elses) that do well in this thread.... Bet he's hugging himself somewhere in some corner of his little trailer home just jumping with joy because he thinks he won the internet... what can you do?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
~GuyinWH~
Thank you again for using your judgment..
Do I upset you ?
It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you
~GuyinWH~
Thank you again for using your judgment..
Do I upset you ?
It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Nah not at all. I could give less of a hoot about you or any of the other kooks on here. I'm definitely not here for you thats for sure.
You just have an obsessive tendency to show up everytime.....and totally skirt whatever is the issue on hand. But since you're here, why don't you scroll up or go back a page or two and read through some of the links.
aarthrj3811 said:
Nah not at all. I could give less of a hoot about you or any of the other kooks on here. I'm definitely not here for you thats for sure.
You just have an obsessive tendency to show up everytime.....and totally skirt whatever is the issue on hand. But since you're here, why don't you scroll up or go back a page or two and read through some of the links.
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
artie---
Well, you've been asked before, and still no answer, but I'll try again.
What kind of proof would be acceptable to you?
At least Carl has stated what would be acceptable proof that LRLs work.
But you refuse to even say what you feel would be acceptable proof that they don't.
If you ask for proof, you must say what it is that you would consider to be adequate proof. If you don't provide that, then you really aren't asking for proof, and you really aren't asking why skeptics aren't providing it. So you have asked a non-question.
So, what is your point in doing that?
Actually, your point can be seen, right in your question, itself. You are asking for someone to prove a negative. This can be seen in #20 on the Predictable Pattern of Con Artists list, on the Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing? page. You have used many other items on that list, also. You are predictable. That's scientific proof.
Oops! Your pattern is showing!
Which number will you do next? If you are wondering what to say next, don't worry, just consult the Pattern list. It should be a great help to you. No, no, don't thank me; it was my pleasure!
artie---
Well, you've been asked before, and still no answer, but I'll try again.
What kind of proof would be acceptable to you?
At least Carl has stated what would be acceptable proof that LRLs work.
But you refuse to even say what you feel would be acceptable proof that they don't.
If you ask for proof, you must say what it is that you would consider to be adequate proof. If you don't provide that, then you really aren't asking for proof, and you really aren't asking why skeptics aren't providing it. So you have asked a non-question.
So, what is your point in doing that?
Actually, your point can be seen, right in your question, itself. You are asking for someone to prove a negative. This can be seen in #20 on the Predictable Pattern of Con Artists list, on the Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing? page. You have used many other items on that list, also. You are predictable. That's scientific proof.
Oops! Your pattern is showing!
Which number will you do next? If you are wondering what to say next, don't worry, just consult the Pattern list. It should be a great help to you. No, no, don't thank me; it was my pleasure!
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Yeah thats what I want to know; bottom of my big post above for that matter.
Yes Art, please answer this.
EDIT: Oh.... wait a sec ....
Remember what Art said in another post....
EE THr said:artie---
Well, you've been asked before, and still no answer, but I'll try again.
What kind of proof would be acceptable to you?
At least Carl has stated what would be acceptable proof that LRLs work.
But you refuse to even say what you feel would be acceptable proof that they don't.
If you ask for proof, you must say what it is that you would consider to be adequate proof. If you don't provide that, then you really aren't asking for proof, and you really aren't asking why skeptics aren't providing it. So you have asked a non-question.
So, what is your point in doing that?
Yeah thats what I want to know; bottom of my big post above for that matter.
Yes Art, please answer this.
EDIT: Oh.... wait a sec ....
Remember what Art said in another post....
aarthrj3811 said:
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
What kind of proof would be acceptable to you?
A conviction for scamming someone would be a start...Art
What kind of proof would be acceptable to you?
A conviction for scamming someone would be a start...Art
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
No that wouldn't work, because that's been done already and for the fact of the matter ..... it doesn't matter if someones convicted or not. What matters is the device.
After all its PROOF THAT LRL's DON'T WORK that this is all about, not proof that the sniffex guys got charged with wire fraud, mail fraud, and securities fraud (for this argument, ignore their device is a fraud). And don't ask me for those links either those you can Google or wikipedia or merely scroll up.
aarthrj3811 said:
No that wouldn't work, because that's been done already and for the fact of the matter ..... it doesn't matter if someones convicted or not. What matters is the device.
After all its PROOF THAT LRL's DON'T WORK that this is all about, not proof that the sniffex guys got charged with wire fraud, mail fraud, and securities fraud (for this argument, ignore their device is a fraud). And don't ask me for those links either those you can Google or wikipedia or merely scroll up.
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
I thought you guys were here to protect the innocent people from being scammed..I guess that the thousands of satisfied owners are not the ones that you are protecting or care about…Just the people who may purchase one of these devices and learn the real truth are your targets. Wow..good theory…Art
.
I thought you guys were here to protect the innocent people from being scammed..I guess that the thousands of satisfied owners are not the ones that you are protecting or care about…Just the people who may purchase one of these devices and learn the real truth are your targets. Wow..good theory…Art
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
What the heck does protecting innocent people from being scammed have anything to do with LRLs/MFDs being proven or not?
Yes, the convictions are great, and people not getting scam is great also and I hope people learn from all this; but that's not what this threads about. Quit derailing the subject of the thread at hand.
I'll repeat.... AGAIN
What would be construed as sufficient proof that these devices are a fraud to you, besides the convictions like I said?
aarthrj3811 said:
What the heck does protecting innocent people from being scammed have anything to do with LRLs/MFDs being proven or not?
Yes, the convictions are great, and people not getting scam is great also and I hope people learn from all this; but that's not what this threads about. Quit derailing the subject of the thread at hand.
I'll repeat.... AGAIN
What would be construed as sufficient proof that these devices are a fraud to you, besides the convictions like I said?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Well lets see…If I went out in the field and received a signal.. If I checked the depth of the signal and the distance to it. After doing the weight check and the target identification I followed the signal..After digging the gold it would make me wonder if any of the readings were wrong..I believe in the performance of the device and not what some self proclaimed expert tell me…Art
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
artie---
But you are the one who asked for proof that LRLs don't work!
Most of the court proceedings so far aren't directed at that, because the makers, being very tricky, don't actually say in their ads that the device will find anything, by specific wording.
You asked for proof that the devices, themselves, don't work. So stick to the devices, and not to legal proceedings, which can't address that, since no direct claims were made by the makers.
You tried to drag the discussion off-topic again. That's another #22. Good going.
artie---
But you are the one who asked for proof that LRLs don't work!
Most of the court proceedings so far aren't directed at that, because the makers, being very tricky, don't actually say in their ads that the device will find anything, by specific wording.
You asked for proof that the devices, themselves, don't work. So stick to the devices, and not to legal proceedings, which can't address that, since no direct claims were made by the makers.
EE THr said:artie---
Actually, your point can be seen, right in your question, itself. You are asking for someone to prove a negative. This can be seen in #20 on the Predictable Pattern of Con Artists list, on the Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing? page. You have used many other items on that list, also. You are predictable. That's scientific proof.
Oops! Your pattern is showing!
Which number will you do next? If you are wondering what to say next, don't worry, just consult the Pattern list. It should be a great help to you. No, no, don't thank me; it was my pleasure!
You tried to drag the discussion off-topic again. That's another #22. Good going.
Top Member Reactions
-
3359 -
1898 -
1854 -
1149 -
1095 -
867 -
852 -
841 -
832 -
751 -
742 -
549 -
536 -
498 -
443 -
428 -
E
415
-
402 -
393 -
392
