LRL Finally Resolved - TFIC

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

No, any test that Carl set up, would be according to his protocol, as posted on his site, linked at the bottom of this post. You have already admitted that your "examples" were not in agreement with his Scientific test protocol. Your "challengers" might have alleged that they wished to follow Scientific protocol, but they eventually refused to agree to it. Your attempt to use those as "examples" shows your willingness to use false information, and discredits anything else you claim.

Gee..You are the one calling Carl’s test a double blind test. You are the one that says Carl will work with the volunteers. Like I said before ...Have you read the contract that Carl does not seem be able to find anyone to agree to ?

The issue of "double-blind" testing for LRL devices has already been covered in the Random Double-Blind Tests for LRLs thread, in which your attempts to substitute irrelevent meanings for the actual definition, were resoundingly debunked. And now you are attempting, all over again, to use the same BS, even though you know it is wrong. Again, your egarness to use false information has been proven out by you, yourself.

Yes it is all on that thread..Just because you think you are right I still question why all the definitions have words ending in “S” in them

Like I have said many times before, and it still holds true, "You are your own best 'skeptic.' "

I would guess that you do not comprehend the word”Skeptic”

I look forward to many more post from you, because you always prove my points. Thanks in advance.

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

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

~EE~

No, any test that Carl set up, would be according to his protocol, as posted on his site, linked at the bottom of this post. You have already admitted that your "examples" were not in agreement with his Scientific test protocol. Your "challengers" might have alleged that they wished to follow Scientific protocol, but they eventually refused to agree to it. Your attempt to use those as "examples" shows your willingness to use false information, and discredits anything else you claim.

Gee..You are the one calling Carl’s test a double blind test. You are the one that says Carl will work with the volunteers. Like I said before ...Have you read the contract that Carl does not seem be able to find anyone to agree to ?

Volunteers work for free---you keep insisting that a flock of professionals needs to be hired, in order for it to be a double-blind test, which is false. All the information about Scientific protocol is listed on Carl's site, just follow the appropriate links. Carl isn't trying "to find" people, he has just made an open offer, and, since nobody can make an LRL actually work under Scientifically controlled conditions, and they won't be allowed to use their slight-of-hand trickery, or know where the targets are before hand, none of them will sign a contract, which would result in their being exposed (again) as fakers.

The issue of "double-blind" testing for LRL devices has already been covered in the Random Double-Blind Tests for LRLs thread, in which your attempts to substitute irrelevent meanings for the actual definition, were resoundingly debunked. And now you are attempting, all over again, to use the same BS, even though you know it is wrong. Again, your egarness to use false information has been proven out by you, yourself.

Yes it is all on that thread..Just because you think you are right I still question why all the definitions have words ending in “S” in them

Not all of them do---reread the first post. If 10 subjects took Carl's test, one at a time, it would not be a "group" test. There. I just used an "s" after "subject," and it didn't mean a whole flock of people taking the test at once. Get it now?

Like I have said many times before, and it still holds true, "You are your own best 'skeptic.' "

I would guess that you do not comprehend the word”Skeptic”

OK. Maybe I should say that you are your own best "debunker," then. Do you like that one better? No matter---the meaning is quite clear, and that's what counts!

I look forward to many more post from you, because you always prove my points. Thanks in advance.

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


Ah, you always try to use amateur pseudo-sickology as your last ditch effort to have a comeback. I love it, because it means that you have run out of your mainline nonsensical excuses.

Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~’

Volunteers work for free...

The biggest bunch of volunteers I know of are the US Military

you keep insisting that a flock of professionals needs to be hired, in order for it to be a double-blind test, which is false. All the information about Scientific protocol is listed on Carl's site, just follow the appropriate links. Carl isn't trying "to find" people, he has just made an open offer, and, since nobody can make an LRL actually work under Scientifically controlled conditions, and they won't be allowed to use their slight-of-hand trickery, or know where the targets are before hand, none of them will sign a contract, which would result in their being exposed (again) as fakers.

Right from the Skeptic’s dictionary
http://www.skepdic.com/control.html
A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls. A randomized test is one that randomly assigns items to the control and the experimental groups...

Not all of them do---reread the first post. If 10 subjects took Carl's test, one at a time, it would not be a "group" test. There. I just used an "s" after "subject," and it didn't mean a whole flock of people taking the test at once. Get it now?

So you are now saying that you are rwizard?

OK. Maybe I should say that you are your own best "debunker," then. Do you like that one better? No matter---the meaning is quite clear, and that's what counts!

Thank You for your statement.. you do not comprehend the word ”Skeptic”

Ah, you always try to use amateur pseudo-sickology as your last ditch effort to have a comeback. I love it, because it means that you have run out of your mainline nonsensical excuses.

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

 

[EE THr]

~EE~’

Volunteers work for free...

The biggest bunch of volunteers I know of are the US Military

you keep insisting that a flock of professionals needs to be hired, in order for it to be a double-blind test, which is false. All the information about Scientific protocol is listed on Carl's site, just follow the appropriate links. Carl isn't trying "to find" people, he has just made an open offer, and, since nobody can make an LRL actually work under Scientifically controlled conditions, and they won't be allowed to use their slight-of-hand trickery, or know where the targets are before hand, none of them will sign a contract, which would result in their being exposed (again) as fakers.

Right from the Skeptic’s dictionary
http://www.skepdic.com/control.html
A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls. A randomized test is one that randomly assigns items to the control and the experimental groups...

My definitions are all from real dictionaries. You lose!

Not all of them do---reread the first post. If 10 subjects took Carl's test, one at a time, it would not be a "group" test. There. I just used an "s" after "subject," and it didn't mean a whole flock of people taking the test at once. Get it now?

So you are now saying that you are rwizard?

OK. Maybe I should say that you are your own best "debunker," then. Do you like that one better? No matter---the meaning is quite clear, and that's what counts!

Thank You for your statement.. you do not comprehend the word ”Skeptic”

Oh I understand that word just fine. And my original statement about you being your own best still stands. You are the one who doesn't get the definition of it, because you keep trying to call me (and other people knowledgeable in electronics) one, when we are not "skeptical" at all---we just know for sure that LRLs don't work, and have no doubts about that at all. That's a big difference, which you have never quite gotten the idea of.

Ah, you always try to use amateur pseudo-sickology as your last ditch effort to have a comeback. I love it, because it means that you have run out of your mainline nonsensical excuses.

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

Thanks for admitting to it, but why don't you just come right out and say that you've run out of BS?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

My definitions are all from real dictionaries. You lose!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment
A blind or blinded experiment is a scientific experiment where some of the persons involved are prevented from knowing certain information that might lead to conscious or unconscious bias on their part, invalidating the results.
For example, when asking consumers to compare the tastes of different brands of a product, the identities of the latter should be concealed — otherwise consumers will generally tend to prefer the brand they are familiar with. Similarly, when evaluating the effectiveness of a medical drug, both the patients and the doctors who administer the drug may be kept in the dark about the dosage being applied in each case — to forestall any chance of a placebo effect, observer bias, or conscious deception.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-double-blind-test.htm
A double blind test is a scientific test in which neither test subjects nor administrators know who is in the control group and who is in the experimental group. The intent is to create an unbiased test environment, ensuring that the results of the testing are accurate and will stand up to analysis by other members of the scientific community. The concept of a double blind test is an excellent example of the scientific method, since it aims to be entirely objective and potentially repeatable.

And the best of all
http://skepdic.com/control.html....
A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls. A randomized test is one that randomly assigns items to the control and the experimental groups.
The purpose of controls, double-blind, and randomized testing is to reduce error, self-deception and bias. An example should clarify the necessity of these safeguards.

It sure seems that you do not know what a Double Blind Test is..
Persons... subjects…control group… consumers..
More than one person...

. You are the one who doesn't get the definition of it, because you keep trying to call me (and other people knowledgeable in electronics) one, when we are not "skeptical" at all---we just know for sure that LRLs don't work, and have no doubts about that at all. That's a big difference, which you have never quite gotten the idea of.

Then why can’t you prove that LRL’s do not work?

Thanks for admitting to it, but why don't you just come right out and say that you've run out of BS?

You did it again.
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

 

[aarthrj3811]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment
A blind or blinded experiment is a scientific experiment where some of the persons involved are prevented from knowing certain information that might lead to conscious or subconscious bias on their part, invalidating the results.
For example, when asking consumers to compare the tastes of different brands of a product, the identities of the latter should be concealed — otherwise consumers will generally tend to prefer the brand they are familiar with. Similarly, when evaluating the effectiveness of a medical drug, both the patients and the doctors who administer the drug may be kept in the dark about the dosage being applied in each case — to forestall any chance of a placebo effect, observer bias, or conscious deception.
Blinding can be imposed on researchers, technicians, subjects, funders, or any combination of them. The opposite of a blind trial is an open trial. Blind experiments are an important tool of the scientific method, in many fields of research — from medicine, forensics, psychology and the social sciences, to natural sciences such as physics and biology and to market research. In some disciplines, such as drug testing, blind experiments are considered essential.

In other disciplines, blind experiments would be very useful, but they are totally impractical or unethical.

An oft-cited example is in the field of developmental psychology. Although it would be scientifically expedient to raise children under arbitrary experimental conditions, such as on a remote island with a fabricated enculturation, it is obviously a violation of ethics and human rights.
The terms blind (adjective) or to blind (transitive verb) when used in this sense are figurative extensions of the literal idea of blindfolding someone. The terms masked or to mask may be used for the same concept. (This is commonly the case in ophthalmology, where the word 'blind' is often used in the literal sense.)

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-double-blind-test.htm
Typically, such as test is “blind,” meaning that test subjects do not know whether they are in the control group or the experimental group. This is intended to eliminate bias on the part of the test subjects, who may respond differently if they know which group they are in. In a double blind test, the researchers performing the testing also do not know who is in which group. This eliminates observer or experimenter bias, as experimenters may unwittingly bias participants because they expect them to respond in a particular way. The double blind test is an industry standard for many pharmaceutical tests.
To administer a double blind test, a separate coordinator assigns the test subjects random numbers and divides them into two groups. Each subject is given a unique code which is known only to the coordinator. This coordinator also provides the drug to be administered. At the end of the trial, the researchers are given the code so that they can begin to interpret the results.
Using a double blind test method can ensure that test results are valid and more widely accepted by the general scientific community. It tends to cost more to administer a double blind test, because of additional paperwork and processing, but many scientists feel that this cost is well worth the benefits. In an even more elaborate situation, a triple blind test, the statistician examining the results is also kept in the dark about the identities of experimental and control group members.

http://www.innovateus.net/innopedia...t+are+the+Applications+of+Double-Blind+tests?
What is a Single-Blind Test?
Single-blind test describes experiments where information that could introduce bias or otherwise skew the result is withheld from the participants, but the experimenter will be in full possession of the facts. In a single-blind test, the individual subjects do not know whether they are so-called “test” subjects. Single blind experimental design is used where the experimenters must know the full facts and so the experimenters cannot themselves be blind. In simpler terms, if the “Pepsi Challenge” is taken as an example, the taste test, where a blindfolded subject sips from one can, then another, and tries to pick which one he likes the best. The blindfold makes sure that the taster doesn’t know which brand of soda before he sips it. This is a “single-blind” test.

http://www.innovateus.net/innopedia/what-double-blind-test#What+is+a+Single-Blind+Test?
What is a Double blind test?
Double blind test describes experiments where information that could introduce bias or otherwise skew the result is withheld from both the participants and the experimenters / testers. It used in most testing situations where there is a chance that the results of that test could be affected by the tester. With the same example of the Pepsi challenge, a double-blind test means that not only the taster is blinded to which soda is which, but the person giving the test is blinded as well. Using the Pepsi-challenge again, making it double-blind would involve making sure the person running the test doesn’t know which brand of soda he tastes. Double blind testing helps ensure that the test results are legitimate, and are not affected by intentional or unintentional actions of those participating in the test. Double blind testing is good because it performs 3 things which are as follows.
Prevents the placebo effect: A placebo effect means that the subjectivity of the participant could not affect the test results
Prevents experimenter bias: The experimenter could also affect the testing, intentionally. This could involve outright cheating or something more subtle, like giving unintended non-verbal queues to the participant
• Randomizes controls and placebos: There must not be any predictable pattern in your testing order. The control group and the placebo group must be mixed together randomly

What are the Applications of Double-Blind tests?
• Blind experiments are an important tool of the scientific method, in many fields of research - from medicine, forensics, psychology, and the social sciences, to natural sciences such as physics and biology• While better known in medicine, double blind experiments are often used in other fields such as surveys, questionnaires and market research
• Double blind testing is used in drug testing which are considered to be essential

 

[EE THr]

Art---

You always pick the ones which refer to drug testing or food tasting.

Do you give your LRL a pill to get it going?

Does your LRL drink Cola?

If not, then only one LRL can be tested at a time. No group.

The "control" is the empty targets.


Here is the applicable definition---

The Free Dictionary---

"double blind /dou·ble blind/ (dub´'l blīnd´) pertaining to an experiment in which neither the subject nor the person administering treatment knows which treatment any particular subject is receiving.

The "treatment" would be the real target.


The number of people participating at one time has nothing to do with the term "double-blind."


I'm glad that you always try to claim that it must include a group, because then everyone can see just how silly your reasoning is. Thanks again!

You are still your own best skeptic!







Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

You always pick the ones which refer to drug testing or food tasting.

Could that be that Drug Manufactures are the only ones that are required to do Double Blind tests?

Do you give your LRL a pill to get it going?

If I knew that it would make it work better I would

Does your LRL drink Cola?

No but I do drink gator aide

If not, then only one LRL can be tested at a time. No group.

Good thinking

The "control" is the empty targets.

They could be if the administrate designed the test that way

Here is the applicable definition---

The Free Dictionary---

"double blind /dou•ble blind/ (dub´'l blīnd´) pertaining to an experiment in which neither the subject nor the person administering treatment knows which treatment any particular subject is receiving.

The "treatment" would be the real target.


The number of people participating at one time has nothing to do with the term "double-blind."


I'm glad that you always try to claim that it must include a group, because then everyone can see just how silly your reasoning is. Thanks again!

You are still your own best skeptic!

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/double+blind+experiment
Blind experiment
A blind or blinded experiment is a scientific experiment where some of the persons involved are prevented from knowing certain information that might lead to conscious or unconscious bias on their part, invalidating the results.
For example, when asking consumers to compare the tastes of different brands of a product, the identities of the latter should be concealed — otherwise consumers will generally tend to prefer the brand they are familiar with. Similarly, when evaluating the effectiveness of a medical drug, both the patients and the doctors who administer the drug may be kept in the dark about the dosage being applied in each case — to forestall any chance of a placebo effect, observer bias, or conscious deception.
Blinding can be imposed on researchers, technicians, subjects, funders, or any combination of them. The opposite of a blind trial is an open trial. Blind experiments are an important tool of the scientific method, in many fields of research — from medicine, forensics, psychology and the social sciences, to basic sciences such as physics and biology and to market research. In some disciplines, such as drug testing, blind experiments are considered essential.
The terms blind (adjective) or to blind (transitive verb) when used in this sense are figurative extensions of the literal idea of blindfolding someone. The terms masked or to mask may be used for the same concept. (This is commonly the case in ophthalmology, where the word 'blind' is often used in the literal sense.)
History
One of the earliest suggestions that a blinded approach to experiments would be valuable came from Claude Bernard, who recommended that any scientific experiment be split between the theorist who conceives the experiment and a naive (and preferably uneducated) observer who registers the results without foreknowledge of the theory or hypothesis being tested. This suggestion contrasted starkly with the prevalent Enlightenment-era attitude that scientific observation can only be objectively valid when undertaken by a well-educated, informed scientist.[1]
Single-blind trials
Single-blind describes experiments where information that could introduce bias or otherwise skew the result is withheld from the participants, but the experimenter will be in full possession of the facts.
In a single-blind experiment, the individual subjects do not know whether they are so-called "test" subjects or members of an "experimental control" group. Single-blind experimental design is used where the experimenters either must know the full facts (for example, when comparing sham to real surgery) and so the experimenters cannot themselves be blind, or where the experimenters will not introduce further bias and so the experimenters need not be blind. However, there is a risk that subjects are influenced by interaction with the researchers — known as the experimenter's bias. Single-blind trials are especially risky in psychology and social science research, where the experimenter has an expectation of what the outcome should be, and may consciously or subconsciously influence the behavior of the subject.
A classic example of a single-blind test is the "Pepsi challenge". A marketing person prepares several cups of cola labeled "A" and "B". One set of cups has Pepsi, the others have Coca-Cola. The marketing person knows which soda is in which cup but is not supposed to reveal that information to the subjects. Volunteer subjects are encouraged to try the two cups of soda and polled for which ones they prefer. The problem with a single-blind test like this is the marketing person can give (unintentional or not) subconscious cues which bias the volunteer. In addition it's possible the marketing person could prepare the separate sodas differently (more ice in one cup, push one cup in front of the volunteer, etc.) which can cause a bias. If the marketing person is employed by the company which is producing the challenge there's always the possibility of a conflict of interests where the marketing person is aware that future income will be based on the results of the test.
Double-blind trials
Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor.
In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group. Only after all the data have been recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the placebo effect, observer bias, and experimenter's bias). Random assignment of the subject to the experimental or control group is a critical part of double-blind research design. The key that identifies the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party and not given to the researchers until the study is over.
Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation where there is the possibility that the results will be affected by conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the experimenter.
Computer-controlled experiments are sometimes also erroneously referred to as double-blind experiments, since software may not cause the type of direct bias between researcher and subject. Development of surveys presented to subjects through computers shows that bias can easily be built into the process. Voting systems are also examples where bias can easily be constructed into an apparently simple machine based system. In analogy to the human researcher described above, the part of the software that provides interaction with the human is presented to the subject as the blinded researcher, while the part of the software that defines the key is the third party. An example is the ABX test, where the human subject has to identify an unknown stimulus X as being either A or B.
Usage
In medicine
Double-blinding is relatively easy to achieve in drug studies, by formulating the investigational drug and the control (either a placebo or an established drug) to have identical appearance (color, taste, etc.). Patients are randomly assigned to the control or experimental group and given random numbers by a study coordinator, who also encodes the drugs with matching random numbers. Neither the patients nor the researchers monitoring the outcome know which patient is receiving which treatment, until the study is over and the random code is broken.
Effective blinding can be difficult to achieve where the treatment is notably effective (indeed, studies have been suspended in cases where the tested drug combinations were so effective that it was deemed unethical to continue withholding the findings from the control group, and the general population),[2][3] or where the treatment is very distinctive in taste or has unusual side-effects that allow the researcher and/or the subject to guess which group they were assigned to. It is also difficult to use the double blind method to compare surgical and non-surgical interventions (although sham surgery, involving a simple incision, might be ethically permitted). A good clinical protocol will foresee these potential problems to ensure blinding is as effective as possible. It has also been argued[4] that even in a doubly-blind experiment, general attitudes of the experimenter such as skepticism or enthusiasm towards the tested procedure can be subconsciously transferred to the test subjects.
Evidence-based medicine practitioners prefer blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs), where that is a possible experimental design. These are high on the hierarchy of evidence; only a meta analysis of several well designed RCTs is considered more reliable.[citation needed]
In physics
Modern nuclear physics and particle physics experiments often involve large numbers of data analysts working together to extract quantitative data from complex datasets. In particular, the analysts want to report accurate systematic error estimates for all of their measurements; this is difficult or impossible if one of the errors is observer bias. To remove this bias, the experimenters devise blind analysis techniques, where the experimental result is hidden from the analysts until they've agreed—based on properties of the data set other than the final value—that the analysis techniques are fixed.
One example of a blind analysis occurs in neutrino experiments, like the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, where the experimenters wish to report the total number N of neutrinos seen. The experimenters have preexisting expectations about what this number should be, and these expectations must not be allowed to bias the analysis. Therefore, the experimenters are allowed to see an unknown fraction f of the dataset. They use these data to understand the backgrounds, signal-detection efficiencies, detector resolutions, etc.. However, since no one knows the "blinding fraction" f, no one has preexisting expectations about the meaningless neutrino count N' = N x f in the visible data; therefore, the analysis does not introduce any bias into the final number N which is reported. Another blinding scheme is used in B meson analyses in experiments like BaBar and CDF; here, the crucial experimental parameter is a correlation between certain particle energies and decay times—which require an extremely complex and painstaking analysis—and particle charge signs, which are fairly trivial to measure. Analysts are allowed to work with all of the energy and decay data, but are forbidden from seeing the sign of the charge, and thus are unable to see the correlation (if any). At the end of the experiment, the correct charge signs are revealed; the analysis software is run once (with no subjective human intervention), and the resulting numbers are published. Searches for rare events, like electron neutrinos in MiniBooNE or proton decay in Super-Kamiokande, require a different class of blinding schemes.
The "hidden" part of the experiment—the fraction f for SNO, the charge-sign database for CDF—is usually called the "blindness box". At the end of the analysis period, one is allowed to "unblind the data" and "open the box".
In forensics
In a police photo lineup, an officer shows a group of photos to a witness or crime victim and asks him or her to pick out the suspect. This is basically a single-blind test of the witness' memory, and may be subject to subtle or overt influence by the officer. There is a growing movement in law enforcement to move to a double blind procedure in which the officer who shows the photos to the witness does not know which photo is of the suspect.

 

[EE THr]

Art---

The parts of your last post, which refer to drug of food testing, are irrelevant, of course, by your own admission in your previous post.

However, those parts which apply to the testing of materials themselves, not their effects on people, show that the definitions I posted, and my comments about them, are true and applicable to LRL testing.

So, thanks for providing all that evidence above, with which you have just proven yourself to be wrong.

You are your own best skeptic!


But in all your posts, you try to distract attention from the main subject---real "proof." Your entire nonsensical meanderings are merely poor attempts at Straw Man arguments, in order to evade the actual point of focus, which is real "proof" of your silly claims.

Since you can never prove that LRLs work, you will always do anything to try and avoid that topic.

Which is exactly what you will do next!






Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~
The parts of your last post, which refer to drug of food testing, are irrelevant, of course, by your own admission in your previous post.
However, those parts which apply to the testing of materials themselves, not their effects on people, show that the definitions I posted, and my comments about them, are true and applicable to LRL testing.
So, thanks for providing all that evidence above, with which you have just proven yourself to be wrong.
You are your own best skeptic!
But in all your posts, you try to distract attention from the main subject---real "proof." Your entire nonsensical meanderings are merely poor attempts at Straw Man arguments, in order to evade the actual point of focus, which is real "proof" of your silly claims.
Since you can never prove that LRLs work, you will always do anything to try and avoid that topic.
Which is exactly what you will do next!

Thank You again..I have put the difinations for a double blind test on here.
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
So..What do you think that Carl’s fake Double Blind test will prove?

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.

No there is not..We have 100 plus different devices on the market so how can they all be identical? Do you know what a Patten is?

2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.

That has been debated..Can you name any tools that will move without human envolvement?

3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a double blind test.

No..the only Manufacturer that has excepted Carl’s challenge could not agee to Carl’s contract demands

4. The proponent's only rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for.

You have stated that we are able to find treasure with the devices

The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary

How will Carl’s test prove this?

This makes their reports of finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list.

So all the prove we have presented are void because you say so...Art

 

[EE THr]

Art---

I have never stated that you find anything with LRLs.

What I said was, that (at that time) I had no reason to doubt that you found stuff, but it you did, it may have been by dowsing, and the electronics in the "LRL" don't function in that regard.

Besides that lie, the rest of your chatter is merely more of your obvious attempts to change the subject.

You are your own best skeptic.







Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

I have never stated that you find anything with LRLs.
What I said was, that (at that time) I had no reason to doubt that you found stuff, but it you did, it may have been by dowsing, and the electronics in the "LRL" don't function in that regard.
Besides that lie, the rest of your chatter is merely more of your obvious attempts to change the subject.
You are your own best skeptic.

Thank You EE..I see you are ignoring the questions.

There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.

We have 100 plus different devices on the market so how can they all be identical?
Do you know what a Patten is?

The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.

Can you name any tools that will move without human envolvement?

The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary

How will Carl’s test prove this?

 

[EE THr]

Art---

You are the one making the claims, about LRLs. So you should be answering questions, not asking them. But that is you way of trying to avoid the obvious. I (and the others) have already refuted all of your nonsensical side-stories, several times over, and I'm tired of playing that game.

It's time for you to face the main question.







Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

You are the one making the claims, about LRLs. So you should be answering questions, not asking them. But that is you way of trying to avoid the obvious. I (and the others) have already refuted all of your nonsensical side-stories, several times over, and I'm tired of playing that game.

Thank You very much for refusing to discuss your Claims.,,
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,387205.0.html
Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

It's time for you to face the main question.

Re: LRL Finally Resolved - TFIC
After you answer my questions

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

You are the one making the claims, about LRLs. So you should be answering questions, not asking them. But that is you way of trying to avoid the obvious. I (and the others) have already refuted all of your nonsensical side-stories, several times over, and I'm tired of playing that game.

Thank You very much for refusing to discuss your Claims.,,
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,387205.0.html
Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

It's time for you to face the main question.

Re: LRL Finally Resolved - TFIC
After you answer my questions

Sorry, Art, but you have already asked all those irrelevent questions before. And what you are trying to imply has already been proven to be wrong.

Get back to the real question. You claim that LRLs work. But neither you, nor anyone else, has ever proven it (to anyone else but supposedly yourselves).






Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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?

 

[woof!]

I nominate this thread for "stupidest thread of the season" prize.

--Toto

 

[aarthrj3811]

I nominate this thread for "stupidest thread of the season" prize.

I second that motion..

10,116 new LRL and MFD users will go into the field and enjoy their hobby of Treasure Hunting
Soon to be 15,000 then 20,000 and then even more
And Millions of Dowsers will also be using their Dowsing Rods as has been recorded for over 8,000 years..

 

[werleibr]

I nominate this thread for "stupidest thread of the season" prize.

I second that motion..

10,116 new LRL and MFD users will go into the field and enjoy their hobby of Treasure Hunting
Soon to be 15,000 then 20,000 and then even more
And Millions of Dowsers will also be using their Dowsing Rods as has been recorded for over 8,000 years..

3rd that motion.

Also Art does have a point EE. Just testing one person will not debunk the LRL working or not. It will not hold up statistically.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~

3rd that motion.
Also Art does have a point EE. Just testing one person will not debunk the LRL working or not. It will not hold up statistically.

Thank You...Art