The Questions LRLers Refuse to Answer

[fenixdigger]

What a laugh riot you guys are. Every time I see that " So what you are saying" thing, I think of Wise guys and Joe Pesci and the skit he did on SNL.

Why not just say, "let me twist this around a little". Thanks guys. Always good for a laugh.

****What you are saying now is*****, that you have no data to logically support****** what you claimed, so***** you want to change the subject and start talking about people, instead.

You guys are, once again, your own best "skeptics."

No proof other than this needed. Sparkling example guys. Hey, Try;;; Are you talking to me? Are you talking to me?

Once again you guys are the best comedians. Whatcha gonna do now, Pilgrim

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[EE THr]

fenix---

Whatcha gonna do now, Pilgrim

What I don't have is a response to the original question, obviously!

AGAIN,,, I am saying, Things have evolved in the last year. True, True. Several people are at a very high %. True, True To get to this point I have worked with almost a dozen people to do this. I was only a small part of it.

If you want to make that claim in public, that's fine with me. Although that's not a very good way to keep it all top secret!

The problem is that you were using your "top secret" device/procedure as an (another) excuse for not doing Carl's test and collecting that $25K---remember?

So now you are saying that all the "normal" LRLs, and their "normal" procedures can pass Carl's test, but it's just that your "top secret" stuff is even better.

OK, then you can simply use a "normal" LRL, and use "normal" procedures, and get that $25,000.00 without revealing your "top secret" stuff.

So when would you like to schedule your test?

 

[fenixdigger]

Uhhh, That's not all that's obvious.

 

[fenixdigger]

Are you still pushing the scheme to STEAL from LRL users? Betcha you are. I'll let you know if anyone needs a good accomplice.


Stop your beef,,,Don't be a thief!!!!

This post not intended to insult anyone, even the unethical ones.

 

[EE THr]

Are you still pushing the scheme to STEAL from LRL users? Betcha you are. I'll let you know if anyone needs a good accomplice.


Stop your beef,,,Don't be a thief!!!!

This post not intended to insult anyone, even the unethical ones.

fleanix---

No response to the questions. That proves the topic title is true. Thanks a bunch.

You are so predictable.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

hi room swr couldn't have described the sceptic section any better, " a bank thief whining/complaining about somebody shoplifting)". thanks

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[pronghorn]

hi room swr couldn't have described the sceptic section any better, " a bank thief whining/complaining about somebody shoplifting)". thanks

Don Jose de La Mancha

Your little " I know you are but what am I?"
child's game is accomplishing what?

 

[EE THr]

hi room swr couldn't have described the sceptic section any better, " a bank thief whining/complaining about somebody shoplifting)". thanks

Don Jose de La Mancha

Your little " I know you are but what am I?"
child's game is accomplishing what?

Exactly.

I know that I'm not impressed.

Maybe he is just trying to get into good with the LRL promoters, so he can encourage them to keep their speil going.

But actually that would just be getting them to dig themselves into a deeper hole.

 

[fenixdigger]

Mighty fine discussions from guys promoting the "Steal your stuff" scheme. We are all impressed. Very good for 2 electricians and a,,,

I don't remember, Prong , did you say you owned some port-o- lets? Oh, whatever. Good job.

Wow, That would make you a laboratory retriever. Cool

 

[EE THr]

Mighty fine discussions from guys promoting the "Steal your stuff" scheme. We are all impressed. Very good for 2 electricians and a,,,

I don't remember, Prong , did you say you owned some port-o- lets? Oh, whatever. Good job.

Wow, That would make you a laboratory retriever. Cool

fenix---

Just to be sure I understand this correctly; you are confirming your new story that you have the only working LRL in the World, and that none of the LRLs which are now, or ever have been, on the market, really don't work?

And that the tests and rewards designed by Carl and Randi are really plots to steal your super top secret new LRL design, even though the tests were designed and made public many years ago?

And that your plan to keep it super top secret, is by blabbing about it all over the LRL forums?

...Just want to make sure I'm totally clear on this....

 

[EE THr]

Another unanswered question has been added to the list, so here is the new list---

Only one LRL user, Eddie, has given rational answers to the questions (admitting that Carl's test is fair, and that he probably could not pass it).



The Questions LRLers Refuse to Answer


1. Why don't you take Carl's test?

2. What do you feel is wrong with Carl's double-blind test?

3. What do you think is a fair test?

4. What average percentage of success do LRLs consistently and reliably have, under optimum conditions?

5. Art's idea of a fair test is for 30 people, "like the drug companies." But he won't answer the following question: All 30 people searching for the same target at once, 10 at a time, 1 at a time; or all 30 searching for 30 targets all at once, or what?

6. Why are there no treasures documented to be found with LRLs? Especially in the U.K., where they are paid for their finds by the government? We see found treasures in the news, but none were found with LRLs! If LRLs are so much better than standard metal detectors, there should be even more than with detectors, but there is none. Why is that?

7. Why don't you want any LRL to be tested by a University of your choice?

8. Why won't your LRL follow a moving target when the handle is clamped to a rigid object?

9. Why won't you give a demonstration of your LRL in a random double-blind test, at your local metal detector club or high school science class?


Number one leads to number two, and two leads to three.

Number four should be common knowledge, because the LRL promoters brag continuously.

Number five is just con-artie's way of not answering.

Number six is so obvious, they won't even try to give a phony answer!

Number seven---so far they have just pretended that seven doesn't even exist!

Number eight results in various nonsense excuses and insults, because there is no answer that won't admit that their LRLs are fake.

Nine has resulted in a simple "no," so far. Previously, travel to Carl's test, and distrust of Carl, has been their only excuses. So this solves both of those problems, but still no takers!

The LRL promoters won't, under any circumstances, rationally answer number three; because then they would have to take that test which they described! Because if it were their idea, they can't disagree with it! And when they took their own test, they would fail!

When asked #3, they immediately turn to insults or purely nonsensical posts about anything besides the subject at hand. So obvious!

But, this is their big chance (again), nonetheless....





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?

However, I predict that the LRL promoters will simply spam the thread even more, merely to divert attention away from these logical issues.

Or they will claim that, "Carl's test is foo-foo," is a rational answer.

Or they will whine about electronics professionals supposedly being mean to them.

Or they will simply ignore this, and fail to reply.

So, let's see if they will snap back to reality, or remain in their fantasy world, shall we?