Why skeptics doesnt show proof?

[architecad]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

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?

Carl

Be honest with me. Don't you really know how to use a MFD? I can't believe all those question that you ask me. I didn't like to be rude with you, if I did, apologize, it wasn't my intention.

Arch

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Carl-NC]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Arch, I keep asking you questions, and you keep not answering them.

Of course I know how to "use" an MFD... you gotta dowse with it, otherwise it just won't do anything! Do you disagree?

Getting back to your suggested test... I've done this lots of times. 5 minutes? Heck, how about a gold target buried for 4 years. And still no response!

Now let's say I toss my 10-ounce gold bar on the ground and wait 5 minutes... I take the LRL and walk around, and get no response... Would a video of that prove to you that the LRL doesn't work?

Better yet, let's say the manufacturer does the exact same thing, but for him the rods cross... Would a video of that prove to you that the LRL does work?

Do you consider this to be a objective test?

I'll still betcha the manufacturer makes no claim that the LRL will locate gold. That's the kind of "truth in advertising" you can believe!

P.S. -- yeah, don't mention Colorado Gold Sticks, the Right Rev Martin might get upset!

 

[architecad]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Arch, I keep asking you questions, and you keep not answering them.

Of course I know how to "use" an MFD... you gotta dowse with it, otherwise it just won't do anything! Do you disagree?

Getting back to your suggested test... I've done this lots of times. 5 minutes? Heck, how about a gold target buried for 4 years. And still no response!

Now let's say I toss my 10-ounce gold bar on the ground and wait 5 minutes... I take the LRL and walk around, and get no response... Would a video of that prove to you that the LRL doesn't work?

Better yet, let's say the manufacturer does the exact same thing, but for him the rods cross... Would a video of that prove to you that the LRL does work?

Do you consider this to be a objective test?

I'll still betcha the manufacturer makes no claim that the LRL will locate gold. That's the kind of "truth in advertising" you can believe!

Tomorrow I will answer your question. Now I going to sleep. Have a good night!!

 

[woof!]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

I found a lots funnier claim than that, Carl ..... 'nuff said about that!

--Toto

 

[architecad]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Arch, I keep asking you questions, and you keep not answering them.

Of course I know how to "use" an MFD... you gotta dowse with it, otherwise it just won't do anything! Do you disagree?

Getting back to your suggested test... I've done this lots of times. 5 minutes? Heck, how about a gold target buried for 4 years. And still no response!

Now let's say I toss my 10-ounce gold bar on the ground and wait 5 minutes... I take the LRL and walk around, and get no response... Would a video of that prove to you that the LRL doesn't work?

Better yet, let's say the manufacturer does the exact same thing, but for him the rods cross... Would a video of that prove to you that the LRL does work?

Do you consider this to be a objective test?

I'll still betcha the manufacturer makes no claim that the LRL will locate gold. That's the kind of "truth in advertising" you can believe!

P.S. -- yeah, don't mention Colorado Gold Sticks, the Right Rev Martin might get upset!

Carl

P.S. -- yeah, don't mention Colorado Gold Sticks, the Right Rev Martin might get upset!

Aleluya!!!

According with your example that the L-rod get cross with some guy but not for another, then I could say it isn't the MFD but the user. If that MFD only works with the manufacturer but not for anybody else, then it's a scam. I used Dell system for a while and it always worked with Dell, with me and many others users, therefore, I could say in your case you need more practice and you don't need to bury a target to make a test.

There is some fact around the L-rod that you have to consider;

1. Keep proper balance

2. When the MFD locate a target, the L-rod begin to get cross when it's getting close to the line between MFD and target and you should feel that force trying to cross the L-rod. Also depend the weight of the target, it's how would you feel that force. When I locate a Spanish gold coin chest in a Sugar plantation, I felt an extreme force trying to get cross the L-rod that never felt before. However when I'd detected simple 10k gold rings, that force was very weak. You need hours of practice to identify that force because it is the language of the L-rod.

3. Do not confuse the force that get produce when you get close to line MFD-target with 'unbalance'. Maybe this is the most common error made for newbies.

Tips 1: "YOUR SPEED WHEN YOU WALK WITH L-ROD SHOULD BE SLOWER THAN THE SPEED OF THE L-ROD WHEN IT TRYING TO LOSS BALANCE. IF A TARGET IS NEARBY, YOU WILL FELL A FORCE OR ATTRACTION SECONDS BEFORE THE L-ROD GET ROSS.THEN WHEN YOU FEEL THE L-ROD LIKES TO CROSS, LET THEM GOES, DON'T CONFUSE WITH UNBALANCE.

Tips 2: WHEN YOU FEEL YOU LOCATE A TARGET AND THE L-ROD GET CROSS, STOP AND WALK 3 STEP BACKWARD VERY SLOW. IF YOU SEE THE L-ROD RETURN TO PRIOR BALANCE, YOU FOUND A TARGET. DO THIS EXERCISE GOING BACK AND FORTH IN TERM OF 12" APART OF THE LINE MFD-TARGET VERY SLOW

4. Your speed when you walk can disturb the L-rod when it trying to cross in front a target. If you feel the L-rod is trying to cross but it can't, start to walk slower.

5. Get control over your "ideo-motor" reaction. Sometime you feel that you're locating a balance but it's not true because you're not keeping proper balance and/or walking to fast and you tent to incline the L-rods.



I hope this help

Arch

 

[Carl-NC]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Arch, you did a Good Job of providing a saleman's pitch for LRLs. But still failed to address any of the questions that are piling up.

According with your example that the L-rod get cross with some guy but not for another, then I could say it isn't the MFD but the user.

Could be. But that's not the only possibility. For those who get a reaction, it could be an illusion. A mind trick. In fact, that's what objective testing shows.

Back to the suggested test of a known target laying on the ground in full view...

Obviously, if I made a video of such a test, and the LRL failed to respond, you would not accept that as proof the LRL does not work; after all, you "could say it isn't the MFD but the user." And I agree, which is why I haven't made such a video; it would be silly of me to present this as any kind of serious evidence. Just as silly as if an LRL proponent presented as serious evidence a video of him walking around a target and having the rods cross. We would all laugh at that, wouldn't we? It would be simple to fake either way. Which is why I asked, Do you consider this test to be objective? This is not a trick question.

But in the very first post of this thread, you said, "I would like to see some video produced by Carl in the field to proof why LRL doesn't works." So now the question becomes, "What would you accept as proof that the LRL does not work?" I'll bet there is nothing you would accept as proof. Your mind is completely closed to such possibilities.

If you and I got together, I could lay that gold target on the ground, and I'm sure you could walk around it and the rods would cross. Lots of people can do that, I've seen it happen, many times. But I've also seen that when even minor randomized blind controls are added to that test, success suddenly vanishes, and no one has ever been able to make an LRL work better than guessing. Do you think you could succeed in such a test? I don't, and I bet you don't either. All the other True Believers hanging out on this forum don't believe in you, either. Every last one of them are absolutely convinced that you cannot demonstrate any kind of working LRL in a scientific test. It's nothing personal against you, they don't believe anyone can do it.

Finally, I'll still betcha the manufacturer makes no claim that the LRL will locate gold. Are you gonna quote the manual on this, or not?

 

[architecad]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Arch, you did a Good Job of providing a saleman's pitch for LRLs. But still failed to address any of the questions that are piling up.

According with your example that the L-rod get cross with some guy but not for another, then I could say it isn't the MFD but the user.

Could be. But that's not the only possibility. For those who get a reaction, it could be an illusion. A mind trick. In fact, that's what objective testing shows.

Back to the suggested test of a known target laying on the ground in full view...

Obviously, if I made a video of such a test, and the LRL failed to respond, you would not accept that as proof the LRL does not work; after all, you "could say it isn't the MFD but the user." And I agree, which is why I haven't made such a video; it would be silly of me to present this as any kind of serious evidence. Just as silly as if an LRL proponent presented as serious evidence a video of him walking around a target and having the rods cross. We would all laugh at that, wouldn't we? It would be simple to fake either way. Which is why I asked, Do you consider this test to be objective? This is not a trick question.

But in the very first post of this thread, you said, "I would like to see some video produced by Carl in the field to proof why LRL doesn't works." So now the question becomes, "What would you accept as proof that the LRL does not work?" I'll bet there is nothing you would accept as proof. Your mind is completely closed to such possibilities.

If you and I got together, I could lay that gold target on the ground, and I'm sure you could walk around it and the rods would cross. Lots of people can do that, I've seen it happen, many times. But I've also seen that when even minor randomized blind controls are added to that test, success suddenly vanishes, and no one has ever been able to make an LRL work better than guessing. Do you think you could succeed in such a test? I don't, and I bet you don't either. All the other True Believers hanging out on this forum don't believe in you, either. Every last one of them are absolutely convinced that you cannot demonstrate any kind of working LRL in a scientific test. It's nothing personal against you, they don't believe anyone can do it.

Finally, I'll still betcha the manufacturer makes no claim that the LRL will locate gold. Are you gonna quote the manual on this, or not?

For those who get a reaction, it could be an illusion.

It's not true. I don't get stuff in this life just to have an illusion of having stuff. If I found gold using a LRL is due there was some physic involved in the process. That's Newton's law, "For some action there is a re-action"

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html

If I don't understand those laws, that it doesn't exclude that law by itself. Physic law will keep acting.

We would all laugh at that, wouldn't we? It would be simple to fake either way. Which is why I asked, Do you consider this test to be objective?

Either way, if I pretend to fake, I would do in front a video or in front of people.

But in the very first post of this thread, you said, "I would like to see some video produced by Carl in the field to proof why LRL doesn't works." So now the question becomes, "What would you accept as proof that the LRL does not work?" I'll bet there is nothing you would accept as proof. Your mind is completely closed to such possibilities.

What you trying to do? challenge me? I wouldn't trust in your "Blind-test"

All the other True Believers hanging out on this forum don't believe in you, either. Every last one of them are absolutely convinced that you cannot demonstrate any kind of working LRL in a scientific test. It's nothing personal against you, they don't believe anyone can do it.

True believer don't believe in me, do I need they do? Absolutely no. Just ask yourself if everybody here believe in you?

Finally, I'll still betcha the manufacturer makes no claim that the LRL will locate gold. Are you gonna quote the manual on this, or not?

Carl, you trying to "playing games with me" and you won't. You have a list of many MFD that I can't mention of any manual. If the manufacturer don't claim that LRL will locate gold, that is their problem. I just share my experience with me.

Arch

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Just ask yourself if everybody here believe in you?

I believe in Carl! I believe in Carl!







But I also see no reason to doubt that Archie, or anyone else, is really finding what he is looking for with his LRL. It's just that I think he could do just as well with some coathangers or a willow branch.

 

[architecad]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Warning to some guys here

I'm not responding and/or able to see theirs post because I press the "Ignore user" under theirs profile box, so, if you feel you're one of them, don't waste your time posting.

Sincerely and truly

Arch

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Archie---

You should have the decency to inform people when you put them on or off Ignore. That way they are not wasting their time replying.

C'mon an' man-up, dude!

 

[Carl-NC]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

If I found gold using a LRL is due there was some physic involved in the process.

Of course there was some physics involved... you tilted your wrists, and gravity caused the rods to turn. We can all agree on that one. The presence of gold was irrelevant, which we might disagree on. But that's one of those "easy to show" things.

Either way, if I pretend to fake, I would do in front a video or in front of people.

My comment, "It would be simple to fake either way," wasn't the question to be addressed, but was a prelude to the Real Question, "Do you consider this test to be objective?" I've now asked that same question several times, and you've deftly avoided answering it*.

What you trying to do? challenge me? I wouldn't trust in your "Blind-test"

Again, you answered a question that wasn't asked... I've said nothing about a challenge! I merely asked, "What would you accept as proof that the LRL does not work?" That is, is there anything I can present to you that would cause you to say, "Yup, that proves this thing don't work!" I say there isn't; even if we got together and you completely and utterly failed to demonstrate the LRL, you would still believe it works... am I right?

Just ask yourself if everybody here believe in you?

Absolutely they do! Every one of them agree with me that LRLs will never ever ever succeed in a scientific test! They believe in that, just as strongly as I do, and just as strongly as you do. Funny that we can all agree on that, eh?

If the manufacturer don't claim that LRL will locate gold, that is their problem.

See? We can agree on that, too! Now, do you think it was an oversight that the manufacturer doesn't claim his product can be used to locate gold? And here's something else to ponder... if the manufacturer never claimed the thing would locate gold, what in the world convinced you to buy it for the purpose of locating gold? When you know the answer to that question, you'll understand how LRLs actually "work," and why you can never ever ever successfully demonstrate the durn thing in any kind of test that has even the most basic scientific rigor. 'Cause the manufacturer sure understands!

_________________________________________________

*I ask a lot of questions both for the direct answers I hope to get, and also because of the insight I get in what questions are avoided. Your avoidance of that simple question tells me that even you don't believe such a test to be objective, but it's the only test that will demonstrate what it is you want to believe in, so you're stuck with it!

 

[Saturna]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

That is, is there anything I can present to you that would cause you to say, "Yup, that proves this thing don't work!" I say there isn't; even if we got together and you completely and utterly failed to demonstrate the LRL, you would still believe it works... am I right?

You are right.

The Big Book of Dowsing Excuses (LRL Edition) has every eventuality covered.



... and every dowser/LRLer has a copy.

 

[hung]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Every one of them agree with me that LRLs will never ever ever succeed in a scientific test!

Hey Arch, are you really going to remain beating a dead horse here or what?
If you are, bear in mind that you help them keep the fire of the 'non sequitur' alive.

Regards.

 

[Carl-NC]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

See? Even Hung agrees with me!

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Did we just witness a quick emergency sales meeting?

 

[architecad]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

If I found gold using a LRL is due there was some physic involved in the process.

Of course there was some physics involved... you tilted your wrists, and gravity caused the rods to turn. We can all agree on that one. The presence of gold was irrelevant, which we might disagree on. But that's one of those "easy to show" things.

Either way, if I pretend to fake, I would do in front a video or in front of people.

My comment, "It would be simple to fake either way," wasn't the question to be addressed, but was a prelude to the Real Question, "Do you consider this test to be objective?" I've now asked that same question several times, and you've deftly avoided answering it*.

What you trying to do? challenge me? I wouldn't trust in your "Blind-test"

Again, you answered a question that wasn't asked... I've said nothing about a challenge! I merely asked, "What would you accept as proof that the LRL does not work?" That is, is there anything I can present to you that would cause you to say, "Yup, that proves this thing don't work!" I say there isn't; even if we got together and you completely and utterly failed to demonstrate the LRL, you would still believe it works... am I right?

Just ask yourself if everybody here believe in you?

Absolutely they do! Every one of them agree with me that LRLs will never ever ever succeed in a scientific test! They believe in that, just as strongly as I do, and just as strongly as you do. Funny that we can all agree on that, eh?

If the manufacturer don't claim that LRL will locate gold, that is their problem.

See? We can agree on that, too! Now, do you think it was an oversight that the manufacturer doesn't claim his product can be used to locate gold? And here's something else to ponder... if the manufacturer never claimed the thing would locate gold, what in the world convinced you to buy it for the purpose of locating gold? When you know the answer to that question, you'll understand how LRLs actually "work," and why you can never ever ever successfully demonstrate the durn thing in any kind of test that has even the most basic scientific rigor. 'Cause the manufacturer sure understands!

_________________________________________________

*I ask a lot of questions both for the direct answers I hope to get, and also because of the insight I get in what questions are avoided. Your avoidance of that simple question tells me that even you don't believe such a test to be objective, but it's the only test that will demonstrate what it is you want to believe in, so you're stuck with it!

Do you consider this test to be objective?

What does means for you a test objective? answer that question first, with details!! just get the point, no long essay!!


Arch

 

[architecad]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Every one of them agree with me that LRLs will never ever ever succeed in a scientific test!

Hey Arch, are you really going to remain beating a dead horse here or what?
If you are, bear in mind that you help them keep the fire of the 'non sequitur' alive.

Regards.

Don't worry,

 

[Carl-NC]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

What does means for you a test objective? answer that question first, with details!! just get the point, no long essay!!

Simply, does the test demonstrate what you intend it to demonstrate, with no influence from prejudice, bias, or even outright fakery? In other words, if the LRL doesn't really work, are you assured of a negative outcome?

I've done quite a lot of testing of both LRLs and LRL users. In open tests (like you suggest) anyone can get positive results. But when a little bit of scientific rigor is applied to the test, those same people can't do it. They consistently fail, every single one of them. All the True Believers on this forum understand this (including yourself, based on your non-responses to certain questions), and therefore many of them do everything they can to belittle and even ridicule science, scientific testing, and anyone (such as A.R.) who promotes rationality in these matters. It's funny to watch them actually denounce science, using a computer connected to the Internet!

So whaddya think, Arch... is scientific testing appropriate for LRLs, or something to be utterly avoided?

 

[architecad]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

What does means for you a test objective? answer that question first, with details!! just get the point, no long essay!!

Simply, does the test demonstrate what you intend it to demonstrate, with no influence from prejudice, bias, or even outright fakery? In other words, if the LRL doesn't really work, are you assured of a negative outcome?

I've done quite a lot of testing of both LRLs and LRL users. In open tests (like you suggest) anyone can get positive results. But when a little bit of scientific rigor is applied to the test, those same people can't do it. They consistently fail, every single one of them. All the True Believers on this forum understand this (including yourself, based on your non-responses to certain questions), and therefore many of them do everything they can to belittle and even ridicule science, scientific testing, and anyone (such as A.R.) who promotes rationality in these matters. It's funny to watch them actually denounce science, using a computer connected to the Internet!

So whaddya think, Arch... is scientific testing appropriate for LRLs, or something to be utterly avoided?

Who plant the target and why? I need more details. Remember Carl, the same condition in the field when you outdoor to hunt has to be under the same scenario in the test. You can't be hiding a target or shifting from side to side because that it could disturb the natural condition surrounding the target. The LRL/MFD doesn't locate metal but surrounding field around the metal. YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING ELSE AND I'M NOT THE GUY

Arch

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

~Saturna~

The Big Book of Dowsing Excuses (LRL Edition) has every eventuality covered.

I looked real hard for that book…The only thing I found was a chapter in the Skeptics dictionary…It is amazing how many excuses are in that book….Art

~Carl~
With LRLs and dowsing, "random chance" applies to randomized blind tests, not to field use. A randomized blind test does 2 things that a field test cannot do. First, it eliminates outside influences that might alter performance results, such as observable clues. Second, it provides a baseline from which to compare results, namely guessing.

Despite intentional attempts to mislead people, random chance doesn't apply to field use. You can't ask, "What are the odds of digging 10 holes in a park and recovering a gold coin?" There is no way to calculate that, because there is not enough information*. But in a randomized blind test, it is quite easy to calculate the odds. Depending on the design of the test those odds can vary, so it is not a fixed number that applies to every test, but it's not a "moving target" either.

Re: Finally an Answer
Reply To This Topic #44 Posted Jan 27, 2010, 05:39:37 PM Quote

If you choose to ignore the results of the tests, or choose not to do the tests at all, then yes, there is no proof.

Nothing else to explain…Art