Why skeptics doesnt show proof?

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Carl-NC said:
architecad said:
I'M SORRY IF I USED YOUR NAME AS REFERENCE BUT I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST TO YOU. I THINK YOU'RE A SMART GUY BUT SINCE YOU HAVE A WEB SITE ABOUT MFD AND LRL,YOU HAVE TO EXPECT, IN SOME WAY, SOME RESPOND FROM SOMEBODY.

If my reports were false in any way, who would be the most likely to respond? And why don't they?

You still didn't say what you are looking for. Ferinstance, if I make a video of me opening up a LectraSearch and showing the scrap circuit board inside, would you then believe the LectraSearch has a scrap circuit board inside?

Carl

What I said about your research is; You mostly concentrate in the interior of those board (which I think looks "scrap" in some of them) but you had no complete field research about how do those MFD and/or LRL works in the field?.
Arch
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

architecad said:
...but you had no complete field research about how do those MFD and/or LRL works in the field?.

How do you think a scrap circuit board will work in the field? What "complete field research" could I do to evaluate the efficacy of a scrap circuit board in locating gold?

Arch, lemme put it another way, which might make more sense. Let's say I buy a metal detector... I turn it on, and wave a Big Silver Coin right in front of the coil, and nothing happens. I play around with the controls, and no matter what I do, the durn thing doesn't make a peep. So I open 'er up, and inside the only thing I find is a piece of dried turd with a couple of wires stuck in it, connected to the battery.

Now, here's the question...

What kind of complete field research can I do to prove whether or not this metal detector will detect metal?
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

EE THr said:
Arch---

When someone posts nonsensical gibberish, and makes no attempt to relate his comments, in any logical way, to what was said in the post which he is replying to, I think it's fair to state the obvious.

Your remarks about what my opinion of LRLs are, is totally wrong, and it's obvious that you must know that. So what does that make you?

1. I have never contested that some people are finding what they are looking for with LRLs.

2. I have not even said that dowsing doesn't work for some people.


Here is a summation of what I have said, many times. I think the average person reading it fully understands exactly what it says, and what it doesn't say. Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud.

Since my opinions are not against the users of LRLs, I can only assume that your anger is because you are not merely a user, but associated with some manufacturer(s). You seem to be going to extreme measures to shut me up. Did my message strike a nerve, or your wallet?

:coffee2:

Did my message strike a nerve, or your wallet?

You're really funny at all. :laughing7: :laughing7: I'm not linked or associate to any manufacturer. Yes. I got my preference of what equipment to buy. Since 1990 to 2004 I used a MFD built by some Floridian manufacturer to find gold. I found gold rings, dust gold, tiny gold inside little rocks. Also I located in 1995 a Big Spanish gold chest buried since late 1800's in a sugar plantation. The owner never granted me permission to remove it. Years later in 2004, one friend of mine told me that a big chest was found in the same place where my MFD show me with the L-rod in 1995. Causality?

About the rest of the statement that you quote here: Re-define yourself of what is your point in this forum. :icon_scratch:
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Carl-NC said:
architecad said:
...but you had no complete field research about how do those MFD and/or LRL works in the field?.

How do you think a scrap circuit board will work in the field? What "complete field research" could I do to evaluate the efficacy of a scrap circuit board in locating gold?

Arch, lemme put it another way, which might make more sense. Let's say I buy a metal detector... I turn it on, and wave a Big Silver Coin right in front of the coil, and nothing happens. I play around with the controls, and no matter what I do, the durn thing doesn't make a peep. So I open 'er up, and inside the only thing I find is a piece of dried turd with a couple of wires stuck in it, connected to the battery.

Now, here's the question...

What kind of complete field research can I do to prove whether or not this metal detector will detect metal?

Carl

Before to answer that question you have to tell me the equipment that you tested, because one of those MFD that you have in your web site, I used for a while and found gold with it. I understand completely your though.

Arch
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

EE THr said:
Arch---

architecad said:
Re-define yourself of what is your point in this forum.

If you want to see jumping through hoops, buy yourself a dog and a pony.

EE thr= E.T. go home, no? :icon_scratch:
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Dear group;
How can a person prove that something doesn't work? It can only be proven that something does work, not that something does not work. Proving that something does not work becomes self-evident within the test's cycle.

For example, someone goes out into an empty field and stashes some gold coins. An hour later a person with an LRL arrives and tries to discern where the coins are cached at. He fails to do so, which means that the test was, for all intents and purposes, an utter failure. The LRL failed. For whatever reason, the LRL failed to match it's claims, which of course would be it's ability to locate gold.

And so, something needs to be altered at that stage. Either the test conditions need altering or the device does. One of the two (or both) needs to be altered in other to possibly achieve a different result from the previous one. The next statement is critical to the discussion, so please write it down everyone:

Insanity may be defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting to achieve a different result.

If something doesn't work, then it simply doesn't work and something must be altered, modified or re-designed until the desired results have been achieved. Using the scientific method, which seems to be a bit beyond the grasp of some forum members, we can only prove the validity of an experiment or statement and not the invalidity of one.

For example, if I were to state:
"You can't grow tomatoes on the surface of the Sun!"

and someone were to come along and yell "Prove it!" I would look at that person as if they were not all there, because the truth of the matter is that the person asking me to prove my statement would NOT be all there.
Your friend;
LAMAR
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

architecad said:
Before to answer that question you have to tell me the equipment that you tested, because one of those MFD that you have in your web site, I used for a while and found gold with it.

I've done various kinds of tests on all the devices I have. But let's consider the one you've used... you believe that it located gold... so the question becomes, "What would you accept as proof that it can't really locate gold?"
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Carl-NC said:
architecad said:
Before to answer that question you have to tell me the equipment that you tested, because one of those MFD that you have in your web site, I used for a while and found gold with it.

I've done various kinds of tests on all the devices I have. But let's consider the one you've used... you believe that it located gold... so the question becomes, "What would you accept as proof that it can't really locate gold?"

Carl
I located gold with one of them. If you didn't have the same result, something happen in your test.

Arch
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

lamar said:
Dear group;
How can a person prove that something doesn't work? It can only be proven that something does work, not that something does not work. Proving that something does not work becomes self-evident within the test's cycle.

For example, someone goes out into an empty field and stashes some gold coins. An hour later a person with an LRL arrives and tries to discern where the coins are cached at. He fails to do so, which means that the test was, for all intents and purposes, an utter failure. The LRL failed. For whatever reason, the LRL failed to match it's claims, which of course would be it's ability to locate gold.

And so, something needs to be altered at that stage. Either the test conditions need altering or the device does. One of the two (or both) needs to be altered in other to possibly achieve a different result from the previous one. The next statement is critical to the discussion, so please write it down everyone:

Insanity may be defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting to achieve a different result.

If something doesn't work, then it simply doesn't work and something must be altered, modified or re-designed until the desired results have been achieved. Using the scientific method, which seems to be a bit beyond the grasp of some forum members, we can only prove the validity of an experiment or statement and not the invalidity of one.

For example, if I were to state:
"You can't grow tomatoes on the surface of the Sun!"

and someone were to come along and yell "Prove it!" I would look at that person as if they were not all there, because the truth of the matter is that the person asking me to prove my statement would NOT be all there.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Lamar

When the question "Why Skeptic doesn't show proof" it's due they'd argued too much about the subject without a scientific and field proof. If the MFD or LRL (in theory) wouldn't work, I wouldn't be here and many of the users wouldn't be here neither.

Arch
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

architecad said:
I located gold with one of them. If you didn't have the same result, something happen in your test.

Could be. Or, could be that your results are an anomaly. Or due to other factors.

Arch, I've said before, on this forum, that proofs are for mathematicians and distillers. Science doesn't work with proofs, it works with evidence. Now, obviously, you have circumstantial evidence that you believe supports the notion that at least one LRL is capable of locating gold. And I have evidence, based on repeatable tests and scientific measurements, that the same device probably can't locate gold. Depending on the device, I also have circumstantial evidence, in that the manufacturer refuses (or failed) to demonstrate the device to me in a reasonable test, or that supposedly experienced users of the device flatly failed in their attempt to demonstrate it to me, or refused to do so.

Now, let's imagine that you and I got together to do further testing and compare evidences. Do you think you will be able to convince me, in a series of objective, scientific tests, that the device will locate gold?

Something else to think about: Does the manufacturer of the device even claim it will locate gold? If he doesn't, what does he claim it will do? (You may need to thoroughly re-read the advertisement!)
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Carl-NC said:
architecad said:
I located gold with one of them. If you didn't have the same result, something happen in your test.

Could be. Or, could be that your results are an anomaly. Or due to other factors.

Arch, I've said before, on this forum, that proofs are for mathematicians and distillers. Science doesn't work with proofs, it works with evidence. Now, obviously, you have circumstantial evidence that you believe supports the notion that at least one LRL is capable of locating gold. And I have evidence, based on repeatable tests and scientific measurements, that the same device probably can't locate gold. Depending on the device, I also have circumstantial evidence, in that the manufacturer refuses (or failed) to demonstrate the device to me in a reasonable test, or that supposedly experienced users of the device flatly failed in their attempt to demonstrate it to me, or refused to do so.

Now, let's imagine that you and I got together to do further testing and compare evidences. Do you think you will be able to convince me, in a series of objective, scientific tests, that the device will locate gold?

Something else to think about: Does the manufacturer of the device even claim it will locate gold? If he doesn't, what does he claim it will do? (You may need to thoroughly re-read the advertisement!)

Let me honest. Try again testing on air mode inside the house. I remind you, I'm not a dealer and I don't receive any award from them, therefore, to meet in some place, maybe, your state, I had to incur in some expenses that I can't right now because the economy.

So far I know, the manufacturer state in the Owner's manual that the MFD can locate gold and he or she show you how to do it.

Carl. you have to be very conscious when you outdoor for treasure hunting. Underground you can find anything that you can imagine. When I bought my first metal detector, I got frustrate because I used to find trash but the ID indicator shows "Quarter" or"Dime". After many hours of practice, I notice the detector wasn't wrong,it just need practice to familiarize with the terrain where I was detecting. The same happen with the MFD.

Try this: In air mode place a piece of gold in one place and the MFD in opposite side of the gold, wait 5 minutes and try to see what happen with the L-rod.

Arch
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

architecad said:
So far I know, the manufacturer state in the Owner's manual that the MFD can locate gold and he or she show you how to do it.

Can you quote for us exactly what the manual says?

Try this: In air mode place a piece of gold in one place and the MFD in opposite side of the gold, wait 5 minutes and try to see what happen with the L-rod.

Can I clamp the L-rods in a holder, or do I have to hold them in my hands?
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Hey Arch..typical skeptic logic…Carl is telling you not to follow the instructions that came with the device..tells you why he can not test any LRL’s or MFD’s that will work..Art
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Carl-NC said:
architecad said:
So far I know, the manufacturer state in the Owner's manual that the MFD can locate gold and he or she show you how to do it.

Can you quote for us exactly what the manual says?

Try this: In air mode place a piece of gold in one place and the MFD in opposite side of the gold, wait 5 minutes and try to see what happen with the L-rod.

Can I clamp the L-rods in a holder, or do I have to hold them in my hands?

Carl

To talk about manual you have to mention the manufacture's brand and here it is not allowed.

Did you never ever had tried a MFD with L-rods?

Arch
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

SHARK (all caps) brought that fate upon himself. Perhaps you could get another brand that you're free to talk about. Oops, that rules out H3Tec too, you're free to talk about it until you buy one, and then it's not Marc who muzzles ya, it's Chuckie. Funny industry, isn't it?

--Toto
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

architecad said:
To talk about manual you have to mention the manufacture's brand and here it is not allowed.

1. You can quote the manual without mentioning the brand.

2. Mentioning the brand is allowed. Didja notice that I recently mentioned Lectra Search, and didn't get kicked off?

Here, lemme demonstrate: Lectra Search; Dell Omni-tron (I had to add the hyphen); Electroscope; Ranger-Tell; Vernell; Vector Trek; Treasure Scope; Scanmaster; H3Tec.

See? Nobody cares.

Did you never ever had tried a MFD with L-rods?

Of course I have! So, in your test, can I clamp the L-rods in a holder*, or do I have to hold them in my hands?

_________________________________________________


*A funny thing about a metal detector is that it will actually work even if you aren't holding it. That is, I can place a metal detector in a holder, and wave a target in front of the coil, and it will beep. How about that, huh? I can go even further, and put the target on a mechanized swing arm, so that it sweeps by the coil on its own; it's 100% independent of human interaction, and will happily beep away even if I leave the room. This means that a metal detector would be useful in a completely automated environment such as robotics. It also means that different people can set up a bench test of a given metal detector in the same way, and get pretty much the same results, because the test doesn't rely on subjective human interactions.

Now for the uncomfortable part... you and I both know that if you put the L-rods in a holder, they ain't gonna do squat. Even with 100 pounds of pure gold 2 feet away. Everyone else here knows that, too; see how fast Art jumped on that one? So you absolutely definitely have to hold the L-rods in your hands, and walk around with them.

Now for the Big Question...

Do you consider this to be a objective test?
 

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Carl-NC said:
architecad said:
To talk about manual you have to mention the manufacture's brand and here it is not allowed.

1. You can quote the manual without mentioning the brand.

2. Mentioning the brand is allowed. Didja notice that I recently mentioned Lectra Search, and didn't get kicked off?

Here, lemme demonstrate: Lectra Search; Dell Omni-tron (I had to add the hyphen); Electroscope; Ranger-Tell; Vernell; Vector Trek; Treasure Scope; Scanmaster; H3Tec.

See? Nobody cares.

Did you never ever had tried a MFD with L-rods?

Of course I have! So, in your test, can I clamp the L-rods in a holder*, or do I have to hold them in my hands?

_________________________________________________


*A funny thing about a metal detector is that it will actually work even if you aren't holding it. That is, I can place a metal detector in a holder, and wave a target in front of the coil, and it will beep. How about that, huh? I can go even further, and put the target on a mechanized swing arm, so that it sweeps by the coil on its own; it's 100% independent of human interaction, and will happily beep away even if I leave the room. This means that a metal detector would be useful in a completely automated environment such as robotics. It also means that different people can set up a bench test of a given metal detector in the same way, and get pretty much the same results, because the test doesn't rely on subjective human interactions.

Now for the uncomfortable part... you and I both know that if you put the L-rods in a holder, they ain't gonna do squat. Even with 100 pounds of pure gold 2 feet away. Everyone else here knows that, too; see how fast Art jumped on that one? So you absolutely definitely have to hold the L-rods in your hands, and walk around with them.

Now for the Big Question...

Do you consider this to be a objective test?

All this thread looks like a fiction movie. Don't tell me that you don't know how to locate gold with a MFD? Follow the instruction. I told you how!!

Give me an example what is it for you an objective sample?

Arch
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top