The Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud #5

[aarthrj3811]

The Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud #5

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a random double blind test.
4. The proponent's only rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-3. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. This makes their reports of allegedly finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list. Besides, just saying you found something, is not "proof." The random double-blind test, fully documented by an unbiased observer, would be proof.

EE has posted this may times. I have started to ask him for proof of the statements just to get him to commit to an answer ...So I will list his answers here so you do not have to read all the insults.

Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #67 Posted Jun 30, 2011, 05:12:40 PM
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
Show your proof....Art

Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #68 Posted Jun 30, 2011, 05:23:24 PM
There is no electromechanical or electromagnetic or electrostatic drive mechanism in the device, so no force is applied to the pointer portion to turn it..EE

Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #69 Posted Jun 30, 2011, 05:40:33 PM
We know that..How do you explain the fact that the devices do turn?...Art

Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #70 Posted Jun 30, 2011, 06:19:15 PM
They are free-swinging---the pointer turns when you tilt your hand...EE

Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #71 Posted Jun 30, 2011, 06:32:28 PM
So the hand turns the device when it finds gold...So..What’s wrong with that?...Art

Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #72 Posted Jun 30, 2011, 06:41:37 PM
First of all, that makes it a dowsing rod. So thanks for admitting that.
Secondly, your claim to have found gold is not proof that you have found gold. You cannot use a claim as a premise to a logical conclusion.
And thanks for admitting that you need to tilt your hand to move the pointer, thus confirming point number two in my Original Post in this thread...EE

Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #75 Posted Jun 30, 2011, 07:09:57 PM
What did I admit? I ask a question. What’s wrong with that?
Your answer was .. that makes it a dowsing rod
How does hand movement make it a Dowsing Rod?...Art

Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #76 Posted Jun 30, 2011, 08:00:23 PM
Because the "electronics" don't move it---you do.
So, no electronic influence, you tilt your hand to move it---viola, it's a dowsing device...EE

Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #87 Posted Yesterday at 05:09:40 AM
When the electronics make contact with the object that it is programmed to locate the tool will swing ... Every Dowser knows that hand movement is not a requirement to locate treasure...
How does hand movement make it a Dowsing Rod?...Art

Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #95 Posted Yesterday at 01:38:34 PM
Also, the swivel pointer or rods, are not powered by anything at all, except, as Carl points out, gravity....EE

Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #98 Posted Yesterday at 04:03:44 PM
What's to talk about. The LRL devices don't move the pointer, you do.
Same as with a coat hanger. You can call it whatever you want, but it still does nothing....Art

Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #108 Posted Today at 10:35:25 AM
OK, so you admit that the LRL devices don't power their pointers.
That's what number two in the list says.
What else is there to discuss about number two?

Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #116 Posted Yesterday at 03:55:44 PM
The Big Four Proofs of LRL Fraud has been revised and updated.
Another proof has been added, and since the previous number four point was not actually a direct proof, it has been separated from the four proofs, but included below them as an explanatory paragraph, giving an example of a common false rebuttal, and further defining the topic of the four proofs....EE
Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #121 Posted Yesterday at 07:38:40 PM
The following is an excerpt from The Predictable Pattern of LRL Con Artists---

"26. [*a.]There is logical reason to strongly suspect that the repetitive, aggressive "user" CA is actually working for the product makers. The reasoning is that because the LRL makers can't directly state in their advertisements that their devices actually find anything (for legal reasons), they must rely on fake "users" to make those statements for them, thus trying to distance themselves legally from those statements. Circumstantial evidence is valid in court, and common sense will show that evidence. Who else would spend great quantities of their time promoting LRLs, when they have never been proven to actually work as advertised, or as claimed by these people?"

One LRL promoter on here even admitted to receiving gratuities from an LRL manufacturer....EE

I apologize to EE for trying to con him into giving an answer..
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
Show your proof....Art

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #126 Posted Today at 08:25:58 AM
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
This was our exchange of information.
~EE~
Quote
Quote
Because the "electronics" don't move it---you do.
When the electronics make contact with the object that it is programmed to locate the tool will swing ...
Quote
So, no electronic influence, you tilt your hand to move it---viola, it's a dowsing device.

~Art
Quote
The electronics and the sought after material makes the device swing.

That was my statement on how the device will move..Since you have not responded I assume that you agree with me.

When using a device with a swing handle it is best to do so with the hand relaxed. I think about any thing else but Treasure hunting so as not to influence the devices..When the device finds the a target the device will swing to it. To explain what this swing feels like I have stated that it is similar to a fish striking your line..Sometimes it is a hard strike and sometimes a very weak strike..The hand may move a little but that is just part of being relaxed..I would enjoy reading what it feels like from other LRL users..Art

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #128 Posted Today at 10:56:15 AM
I think now is the time to talk about the new #4

4. LRL promoters refuse to have their devices or schematics evaluated by a credentialed professional organization.

Why is it the job of the LRL owner/operators to have the schematics of our devices evaluated by a credentialed professional organization?..
We know they work. I know that they seldom break down..In 12 years I have only had to look inside the box one time and that was because the connector for the antenna wire had loosed up...I do not have the schematics for any of the 4 devices I own..Why should I..If it were to break down I would just send it back to the manufacture to get it repaired.

So..Send the schematics to have them evaluated by a credentialed professional organization if you want. We will not try to stop you because we are a little tired of seeing reports being evaluated by a credentialed professional EE’s..Art
Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #129 Posted Today at 11:48:56 AM
Quote from: aarthrj3811 on Today at 08:25:58 AM

The electronics and the sought after material makes the device swing.


Like I told you before, if that were true you could clamp the handle of your LRL into a vise and it would follow a moving targer.

But it doesn't, so your statement is impossible.
Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #130 Posted Today at 11:52:53 AM
Quote from: aarthrj3811 on Today at 10:56:15 AM
I think now is the time to talk about the new #4

4. LRL promoters refuse to have their devices or schematics evaluated by a credentialed professional organization.

So..Send the schematics to have them evaluated by a credentialed professional organization if you want. We will not try to stop you because we are a little tired of seeing reports being evaluated by a credentialed professional EE’s..Art



Well, I want to be sure that whatever organization they are sent to, has your approval. I wouldn't want to send them someplace that you end up saying isn't trustworthy.

How about the FBI Lab? Do you trust them?
Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #131 Posted Today at 12:12:24 PM
~EE~
Quote
Like I told you before, if that were true you could clamp the handle of your LRL into a vise and it would follow a moving targer.
But it doesn't, so your statement is impossible.

That’s theory 4..Were the devices designed to operate that way? Were they designed to operate in a clamp? Were they designed to be held in the hand?.In fact..Were they designed to to follow a moving target...You seem to forget that these devices were designed to find buried treasure..LRL treasure hunters do not look for buried treasure that can move from site to site..
So your right..Your statement is impossible..So..what one of your proofs do you want to discuss next?..art
Re: Known Facts About LRLs Only---No Insults or Tall Tales
Reply To This Topic #132 Posted Today at 12:25:11 PM
~EE~
Quote
Well, I want to be sure that whatever organization they are sent to, has your approval. I wouldn't want to send them someplace that you end up saying isn't trustworthy.
How about the FBI Lab? Do you trust them?
You see EE..Until I see the report and what they say I can not evaluate anything..Were they trustworthy..Who knows that until you investigate..Like I said before..It is your problem and not mine..

The reason for this thread is so EE can not claim that we do not answer his question..Art

[EE THr]

The electronics and the sought after material makes the device swing.

I disregarded your above comment, because it is too generalized to be of any data value. In other words, it is nonsensical gibberish.

But if you would really like an answer, here it is---

There are no "electronics" components, used in the free-swinging type of devices commonly referred to as "LRLs," which are capable of causing anything to move.

If you think there is, then exactly which electronic component does this, and how?


And also include your idea of exactly how the "material being sought after" supposedly aids in effecting movement of the pointer.

[fenixdigger]

Now Art I've told you about posting the truth and non-delusional facts here. I can't imagine what a mess that will stir up. Guess I'll go look at my 10,001 post Prediction and see what they will say.

[EE THr]

You see EE..Until I see the report and what they say I can not evaluate anything..Were they trustworthy..Who knows that until you investigate..Like I said before..It is your problem and not mine..

The reason for this thread is so EE can not claim that we do not answer his question..Art

Please state who you trust before the schematics are sent off, so the game doesn't go on forever, with you disagreeing with whoever evaluates them. That's way to easy for you to do.

Surely you trust some credentialed professional organization, somewhere?

So, who do you trust?

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Please state who you trust before the schematics are sent off, so the game doesn't go on forever, with you disagreeing with whoever evaluates them. That's way to easy for you to do.

Surely you trust some credentialed professional organization, somewhere?

So, who do you trust? Surly not you.

Well, I want to be sure that whatever organization they are sent to, has your approval. I wouldn't want to send them someplace that you end up saying isn't trustworthy.
How about the FBI Lab? Do you trust them?

You see EE..Until I see the report and what they say I can not evaluate anything..Were they trustworthy..Who knows that until you investigate..Like I said before..It is your problem and not mine..

Truthful answer

The reason for this thread is so EE can not claim that we do not answer his question..Art

[EE THr]

~EE~

Please state who you trust before the schematics are sent off, so the game doesn't go on forever, with you disagreeing with whoever evaluates them. That's way to easy for you to do.

Surely you trust some credentialed professional organization, somewhere?

So, who do you trust? Surly not you.

Well, I want to be sure that whatever organization they are sent to, has your approval. I wouldn't want to send them someplace that you end up saying isn't trustworthy.
How about the FBI Lab? Do you trust them?

You see EE..Until I see the report and what they say I can not evaluate anything..Were they trustworthy..Who knows that until you investigate..Like I said before..It is your problem and not mine..

Truthful answer

The reason for this thread is so EE can not claim that we do not answer his question..Art

No, Art, you refuse to answer the question of, "What credentialed professionsl organization do you approve of to send the LRL schematics to, for evaluation?"

Since you are so particular about answering all questions, I think you should answer this one.

It pertains to "Who do you trust now," not after they evaluate them.

If you don't trust any properly credentialed professional organization, then just say so. Since you refuse to approve of one now, it appears that you don't trust any of them. Do you?

[aarthrj3811]

No, Art, you refuse to answer the question of, "What credentialed professionsl organization do you approve of to send the LRL schematics to, for evaluation?"

We have told you..We don’t care and put you in charge of that task.

Since you are so particular about answering all questions, I think you should answer this one.

You can think anything that you want

It pertains to "Who do you trust now," not after they evaluate them.

No it does not... You see EE..Until I see the report and what they say I can not evaluate anything..Were they trustworthy..Who knows that until you investigate..Like I said before..It is your problem and not mine..

If you don't trust any properly credentialed professional organization, then just say so. Since you refuse to approve of one now, it appears that you don't trust any of them. Do you?

How can I answer that..I got it ..If you send the schematics to My Garbage Collection Organization who falls into the any properly credentialed professional organization no I would not trust them..Art

[aarthrj3811]

We have discussed your Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices
Where can the fraud be found.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a random double blind test.

4. LRL promoters refuse to have their devices or schematics evaluated by a credentialed professional organization.

After discussing your own personal believes on all four items it seems that have several different believes about each of the four..That is not proof of any thing and sure does not amount to fraud...Art

[EE THr]

We have discussed your Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices
Where can the fraud be found.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a random double blind test.

4. LRL promoters refuse to have their devices or schematics evaluated by a credentialed professional organization.

After discussing your own personal believes on all four items it seems that have several different believes about each of the four..That is not proof of any thing and sure does not amount to fraud...Art

Yes, it is evidence of fraud.

Haven't you ever heard of circumstantial evidence?

All four of the points have been validated as true, now.

A jury would add that up to fraud, especially since you refuse to provide any proof of your claims, besides your saying so. That wouldn't look good in court, you know.

[aarthrj3811]

`EE~
Yes, it is evidence of fraud.

Haven't you ever heard of circumstantial evidence?
All four of the points have been validated as true, now.
A jury would add that up to fraud, especially since you refuse to provide any proof of your claims, besides your saying so. That wouldn't look good in court, you know.

Thank You for finally coming out of the closet and telling us how real logic does not work...Art

Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.[1] The conclusion drawn is also called an inference. The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic.
Human inference (i.e. how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology; artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference. Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data.

[EE THr]

The Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a random double blind test.
4. LRL promoters refuse to approve of a credentialed professional organization at which to have their devices or schematics evaluated.

The proponent's only rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-4. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. This makes their reports of allegedly finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list. Besides, just saying you found something, or publishing non-verifiable "testimonials" is not proof. A random double-blind test, fully documented by an unbiased observer, would be real proof.

-----

There are no "electronics" components, used in the free-swinging type of devices commonly referred to as "LRLs," which are capable of causing anything to move.

If you think there is, then exactly which electronic component does this, and how?


And also include your idea of exactly how the "material being sought after" supposedly aids in effecting movement of the pointer.

Since you failed to reply to the above quoted questions of mine, it is assumed that you have no answer, and concede to point number two in my list of proofs.

~EE~

Please state who you trust before the schematics are sent off, so the game doesn't go on forever, with you disagreeing with whoever evaluates them. That's way to easy for you to do.

Surely you trust some credentialed professional organization, somewhere?

So, who do you trust? Surly not you.

Well, I want to be sure that whatever organization they are sent to, has your approval. I wouldn't want to send them someplace that you end up saying isn't trustworthy.
How about the FBI Lab? Do you trust them?

You see EE..Until I see the report and what they say I can not evaluate anything..Were they trustworthy..Who knows that until you investigate..Like I said before..It is your problem and not mine..

Truthful answer

The reason for this thread is so EE can not claim that we do not answer his question..Art

No, Art, you refuse to answer the question of, "What credentialed professionsl organization do you approve of to send the LRL schematics to, for evaluation?"

Since you are so particular about answering all questions, I think you should answer this one.

It pertains to "Who do you trust now," not after they evaluate them.

If you don't trust any properly credentialed professional organization, then just say so. Since you refuse to approve of one now, it appears that you don't trust any of them. Do you?

Your failure to answer this question validates my point number four in the" Proofs." And also verifies point number one.


Point number three has already been well established by you and all other LRL promoters.




So, that covers all the four points in the "Big Four Proofs of LRL Fraud."



If you want to challenge the factuality of these four proofs, you're going to have to do more than merely say, "They're foo-foo." Especially since you have already admitted that they are true!

[aarthrj3811]

Your failure to answer this question validates my point number four in the" Proofs." And also verifies point number one.

Point number three has already been well established by you and all other LRL promoters.

So, that covers all the four points in the "Big Four Proofs of LRL Fraud."

If you want to challenge the factuality of these four proofs, you're going to have to do more than merely say, "They're foo-foo." Especially since you have already admitted that they are true!

So..The facts that you believe to be proof are the fraud..Ok..I will buy that..Art

[EE THr]

Your failure to answer this question validates my point number four in the" Proofs." And also verifies point number one.

Point number three has already been well established by you and all other LRL promoters.

So, that covers all the four points in the "Big Four Proofs of LRL Fraud."

If you want to challenge the factuality of these four proofs, you're going to have to do more than merely say, "They're foo-foo." Especially since you have already admitted that they are true!

So..The facts that you believe to be proof are the fraud..Ok..I will buy that..Art

Your attempts to alter what I said don't work.

Here is what I said---

The Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a random double blind test.
4. LRL promoters refuse to approve of a credentialed professional organization at which to have their devices or schematics evaluated.

The proponent's only rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-4. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. This makes their reports of allegedly finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list. Besides, just saying you found something, or publishing non-verifiable "testimonials" is not proof. A random double-blind test, fully documented by an unbiased observer, would be real proof.

And you have already admitted that they are all true.

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

And you have already admitted that they are all true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth
A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.[1]
Purpose
The purpose and or consequence of a half truth is to make something that is really only a belief appear to be knowledge, or a truthful statement to represent the whole truth, or possibly lead to a false conclusion. According to the justified true belief theory of knowledge, in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe in the relevant true proposition, but one must also have a good reason for doing so. A half truth deceives the recipient by presenting something believable and using those aspects of the statement that can be shown to be true as good reason to believe the statement is true in its entirety, or that the statement represents the whole truth. A person deceived by a half truth considers the proposition to be knowledge and acts accordingly.

[EE THr]

~EE~

And you have already admitted that they are all true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth
A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.[1]
Purpose
The purpose and or consequence of a half truth is to make something that is really only a belief appear to be knowledge, or a truthful statement to represent the whole truth, or possibly lead to a false conclusion. According to the justified true belief theory of knowledge, in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe in the relevant true proposition, but one must also have a good reason for doing so. A half truth deceives the recipient by presenting something believable and using those aspects of the statement that can be shown to be true as good reason to believe the statement is true in its entirety, or that the statement represents the whole truth. A person deceived by a half truth considers the proposition to be knowledge and acts accordingly.

Are you now trying to say that you haven't admitted that each one is true?

[aarthrj3811]

Are you now trying to say that you haven't admitted that each one is true?

Yes I have..I have also explained how they really work. You have provided me with 3 or 4 explanations of how you believe they work..
@2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
Your theories are..

There is no electromechanical or electromagnetic or electrostatic drive mechanism in the device, so no force is applied to the pointer portion to turn it..EE

That is true

They are free-swinging---the pointer turns when you tilt your hand...EE

That is un true.

First of all, that makes it a dowsing rod. So thanks for admitting that.

That is un true
Because the "electronics" don't move it---you do.

So, no electronic influence, you tilt your hand to move it---viola, it's a dowsing device...EE

Part truth

Also, the swivel pointer or rods, are not powered by anything at all, except, as Carl points out, gravity....EE
What's to talk about. The LRL devices don't move the pointer, you do.

Same as with a coat hanger. You can call it whatever you want, but it still does nothing....

My explaination
When the electronics make contact with the object that it is programmed to locate the tool will swing ... Every Dowser knows that hand movement is not a requirement to locate treasure...
How does hand movement make it a Dowsing Rod?...Art

So EE... Thus they are half truths..If you can not make you mind up as to why the device swings it can not be a true statement or a proof of fraud...Art

[EE THr]

My explaination
When the electronics make contact with the object that it is programmed to locate the tool will swing...Art

Art---

The "electronics" don't contact anything except the inside of the plastic box.

If the "tool" will swing all by itself, then the handle can be clamped in a vice, and the "tool will swing" to point at the target. And if you then move the target a foot to the side, the "tool will swing" to point at the new target position. Is that what you are now claiming?

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

The "electronics" don't contact anything except the inside of the plastic box.
That seems to be your believe..

If the "tool" will swing all by itself, then the handle can be clamped in a vice, and the "tool will swing" to point at the target. And if you then move the target a foot to the side, the "tool will swing" to point at the new target position. Is that what you are now claiming?

No..It is what you are claiming..this has been discussed may times so go find the answers..Art