Why skeptics doesnt show proof?

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

fenixdigger said:
Let's go back to the start of this winding thread. SWR's picture is showing a unit in the off position. Since I have had one in my hand, I can speak from ,,, what do they call that?? Oh yes, experience.
Click to expand...

Experience should tell you that the on/off switch ain't even in the pic, but the little red 'on' LED is. Even in a greyscale photo, you can see that it is lit up. That is, if experience tells you where to look, which I'm guessing it didn't.

Now, I spoze that a skeptic could have opened up the H3, connected the LED directly to the battery, and then closed it up for the photo, making it look like it's on, when it's really off. But you, as well as everyone else here, knows that's a huge waste of calories, cause the durn thing's gonna sit there like a dead fish unless you go a-dowsing with it.
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

HI PBSRW#1 : What hasn't been brought out is the human ability to self police and cure itself, this can be triggered by the Placebo factor. by the same token, the placebo effect can be used to destroy the body.
This is where I finally received my Phd, Haitian voodoo ! Watch it L s snicker

The ultimate limits of the human body / mind have yet to be explored adequately, if ever.

Don Jose de La Mancha
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Let's just pretend that when Curtis and I went out, his machine when turned off had the pointer in that position.

Would that seem to indicate that one was off or not programed?

It would to me. I'm not endorsing the H-3 and do not own one, but I have been out in the field with one and checked it against what I was using just as I did with Frank and the 01.
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

fenixdigger said:
Let's just pretend that when Curtis and I went out, his machine when turned off had the pointer in that position.

Would that seem to indicate that one was off or not programed?
Click to expand...

It might, except that we're just pretending that it happened. If we weren't pretending, then we might say the little dowsing rod thingy just flops around freely when the power switch is off. But... when you turn the power switch ON, then the little dowsing rod thingy just...flops...around...freely. Ouch. Denying that'll cost ya $10,000. More, if you choose to pay the annual insult renewal fee.
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Klondike, do customers find out about the annual fee before they fork over the ten grand, or afterwards?

Better yet, do they find out afterwards (and not before) that Chuckie isn't even selling them an H3?

Is there any and I do mean any aspect of the whole thing from one end to the other that doesn't look and smell like fraud?

I'm willing to concede for the moment that customers who have been forewarned, deserve what they get.

How about customers who haven't been forewarned?


--Toto
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

pronghorn said:
You mean like this?
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO!

Did he seriously post that?
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

I don't know about any unit other than the one Curtis had. His did not look like the other ones on the outside, may have been painted.

Until he programed the device, the pointer was "loose" but returned to almost center. Could be the only one in the world that does that as far as I know.

Carl is right about the annual fee thing. IF I made a device that worked on a consistent basis, and I could not go out and recover targets myself, IF put up for sale, would be on a % of the first good recovery. That would be fair to everybody. In that action, it would not make much difference what you considered the "selling price".

[mod] IF ANYONE ELSE MAKES ANY RUDE COMMENTS OR PERSONAL ATTACKS OF ANOTHER MEMBER THEY WILL SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!!! STOP WITH THE INSULTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/mod]
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

SWR said:
I did not force them to insult the owner of TreasureNet (again) that resulted in them being blocked from posting (read: blocked from posting, not banned).

I have no problem with you, or any other LRL proponent placing me on their ignore list. I simply suggest not insulting the moderators or Admin (Marc) because you are upset and the field is not in your favor.
Click to expand...

SWR

Keep you in shallow water rescue and let us alone with our business of LRL and MFD, we're happy on the way we're and what we're doing.
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

bliss.jpg
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Generally they don't speak much English, so I don't do alot of talking. :D
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

HI Sattie: you posted -->Generally they don't speak much English, so I don't do alot of talking
*************

Hmm can't compete with the English speaking and understanding ones eh? figures.

Gonna report you to the first nations.

Don Jose de La Mancha
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Prong you posted --> By the way, I see you still spend the majority of your time her arguing with the lesser's when you could be curing the
world of cancer
*************
True, but like you, they don't want to believe any thing but conventional treatments, however 7 did, and now happily free of any sign of cancer. soooo what is next?
You posted --> lofty are your goals
**************
Yep, what are your's?

Don Jose de La Mancha
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

I'm the Architect of this topic and still, nobody had wrote a simple essay about the "Why" skeptic doesn't show a simple proof of his or her skepticism about the use of LRL or MFD. This let me thing that everything posted here in this Forum by Skeptics are pure "crap", nothing legitimate or with validate.

If you're an skeptic and you think you're shown proof here in previous topics, I encourage you re-post it here, to see what is your argument, otherwise,......

Arch
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Y'know, Archie, suppose we narrow the "proof" issue down to swivelling electronic LRL's. That's what the vast majority of the discussion here is about.

I can't prove swivelling LRL's don't swivel. In fact myself and others have pointed out repeatedly that whatever else they do, that they do. Hand-held swivelling "locating apparatus" has a long history that predates electronics and even coat-hangers, it's not like we don't know what the things are. They really do point at stuff. The debate is not whether they do, it's over why they do and why people get the idea that's a useful feature. That debate does not depend on electronics.

Add electronics (even electronics that aren't even bogus, they're literally pretend) to a swiveller which is recognizeable of the dowsing variety, and now it gets called an "LRL", often "molecular frequency discriminator" or some such.

Now we've got fraud. What makes it fraud is that the claims the manufacturer makes about the electronics are fraudulent. If you don't know anything about electronics, then you can imagine electronics to be whatever you want it to be, and the manufacturer knows what you want it to be.

If you do know electronics, then you recognize the thing as fraud.

In most cases, even if you don't know electronics, you can recognize the character of the salespitch and indeed the whole business operation as being indistinguishable from fraud, which ought to make you a bit skeptical!

But when it comes to proof, nothing will suffice for you. Nobody can either make you understand electronics against your will, nor trust what people who are knowledgeable in that subject matter tell you.

And if a business operation that is indistinguishable from fraud no matter where you look doesn't give you cause for a bit of skepticism, then you can actually blow your life savings on the gizmo and even after having it in your hands, you'll be a happy camper. It'll point at stuff as long as you're holding it in your hands, and whether or not the electronics have anything to do with that won't make any difference.

So proof that you're being defrauded cannot avail you. You can always find a way to pretend the proof isn't there since nobody can make you understand it and nobody can make you acknowledge the proof even if you do understand it (since it's not what you want).

The major manufacturers understand all this quite well. The people you regard as "skeptics" are actually in agreement with the manufacturers as to what they're selling. We just happen to not like consumer fraud, even that committed against gullibillies.

So, if it's "proof" you want, stop whining about "skeptics" and go straight to the source -- the manufacturers-- and "read the advertisement". If having done that you do not have your proof, save up your money and buy the thing! If you don't know which make and model to be saving up for, I recommend the Thomas "Gravitator" -- it's worth its weight in gold-- Thomas says so and I say so. And oddly enough, it's not a "molecular frequency discriminator", it is a "gravitator". Thomas says so and I say so. Truth in advertising! don't you just love it?!

--Toto
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Thank You woof for the honest proof you just typed..It is a perfect example of how the Skeptics believe system Works…You actually believe what you type…Art


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?

aarthrj3811 said:
Thank You woof for the honest proof you just typed..It is a perfect example of how the Skeptics believe system Works…You actually believe what you type…Art


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
Click to expand...

Art

Be more specific to "whom" are you addressing with your comment.

Thanks

Arch
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

woof! said:
Y'know, Archie, suppose we narrow the "proof" issue down to swivelling electronic LRL's. That's what the vast majority of the discussion here is about.

I can't prove swivelling LRL's don't swivel. In fact myself and others have pointed out repeatedly that whatever else they do, that they do. Hand-held swivelling "locating apparatus" has a long history that predates electronics and even coat-hangers, it's not like we don't know what the things are. They really do point at stuff. The debate is not whether they do, it's over why they do and why people get the idea that's a useful feature. That debate does not depend on electronics.

Add electronics (even electronics that aren't even bogus, they're literally pretend) to a swiveller which is recognizeable of the dowsing variety, and now it gets called an "LRL", often "molecular frequency discriminator" or some such.

Now we've got fraud. What makes it fraud is that the claims the manufacturer makes about the electronics are fraudulent. If you don't know anything about electronics, then you can imagine electronics to be whatever you want it to be, and the manufacturer knows what you want it to be.

If you do know electronics, then you recognize the thing as fraud.

In most cases, even if you don't know electronics, you can recognize the character of the salespitch and indeed the whole business operation as being indistinguishable from fraud, which ought to make you a bit skeptical!

But when it comes to proof, nothing will suffice for you. Nobody can either make you understand electronics against your will, nor trust what people who are knowledgeable in that subject matter tell you.

And if a business operation that is indistinguishable from fraud no matter where you look doesn't give you cause for a bit of skepticism, then you can actually blow your life savings on the gizmo and even after having it in your hands, you'll be a happy camper. It'll point at stuff as long as you're holding it in your hands, and whether or not the electronics have anything to do with that won't make any difference.

So proof that you're being defrauded cannot avail you. You can always find a way to pretend the proof isn't there since nobody can make you understand it and nobody can make you acknowledge the proof even if you do understand it (since it's not what you want).

The major manufacturers understand all this quite well. The people you regard as "skeptics" are actually in agreement with the manufacturers as to what they're selling. We just happen to not like consumer fraud, even that committed against gullibillies.

So, if it's "proof" you want, stop whining about "skeptics" and go straight to the source -- the manufacturers-- and "read the advertisement". If having done that you do not have your proof, save up your money and buy the thing! If you don't know which make and model to be saving up for, I recommend the Thomas "Gravitator" -- it's worth its weight in gold-- Thomas says so and I say so. And oddly enough, it's not a "molecular frequency discriminator", it is a "gravitator". Thomas says so and I say so. Truth in advertising! don't you just love it?!

--Toto
Click to expand...

Woof or "Toto"

I don't care about LRL manufacturer. I understand your point in all your essay but here I asking about the theory behind the LRL, not the possible fraud from the manufacturer related with LRL and/or MFD. Remember, many LRL's user here build theirs own MFD and it works at all, so I wouldn't stop to whining(like you said) because my argument is about the theory of MFD that Skeptic attack constantly, no "who" build MFD.



I understand there is scam artist in everywhere and I wouldn't spend $2K in a L-rod when I can build it for less than $8.00 with a local hardware materials,so, you're the only one responsible in how to invest your money.

Arch
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Arch---

Are you changing the topic title in midstream?

OK, here goes: The theory of LRLs is that it is dowsing. That's it.

The electronics stuff has no coherent scientific theory.

So, that covers it.

Want to start another new topic now?







Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Is Earth NMR and dowsing related?

⬅️ Previous Thread

Securities & Exchange Comission employs "fake locators" to teach lesson

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Latest Discussions

Back
Top