LRL Finally Resolved - TFIC

[rwizard]

[If you are easily upset by probing inquiry and strong opinion, and a faithful practitioner of LRL, you may wish to skip this post - the goal here is provoking thoughtful discussion, not generating anger and increased blood pressure. ]

First, let me preface my request (challenge if you prefer) of the LRL faithful with my own observations about your articles of faith.

Although the LRL pious among you may disagree, I believe the following passage speaks to the theory behind LRL:

"Thus the logical basis of Contagious Magic, like that of Homoeopathic Magic, is a mistaken association of ideas; its physical basis, if we may speak of such a thing, like the physical basis of Homoeopathic Magic, is a material medium of some sort which, like the ether of modern physics, is assumed to unite distant objects and to convey impressions from one to the other." - Sir James George Frazer in The Golden Bough (1922)

It is certainly true, that divining (the putative progenitor of LRL), like other forms of magic, is a very old practice. Curses, hexes, calling of demons, and even human sacrifice, also have a rich and long lived history. And all of these practices have been long held in high regard in certain quarters. I doubt that there are any readers of this post whose ancestors did not believe in the power of one or more of these practices, and there are still those today who give credence to these sorts of beliefs. For example, "mal de ojo" is a common belief among recent Hispanic immigrants to the U.S.,.

Those who have studied behavioral psychology will see the same mechanism at work in areas such as this, and specifically, in LRL believers, as that which has disrupted so many behavioral experiments - extraneous reinforcement. The pigeons are "dancing" so to speak.

Of course, those who sell LRL equipment would at least appear to be followers of another dogma, that of bank robber Willie Sutton, who explained that he robbed banks, "because that's where the money is".

So, I have a very simple request of the LRL believers out there - a "challenge" for those who prefer that more inflammatory didactic. Using something approximating correct grammar and spelling, and structured, rational logic, please give me a brief, coherent, and dispositive hypothesis for the function of LRL and your devices.

Specifically, you should explain what it is you are sensing, and how you are sensing it. This should include an explanation of the mechanism and/or circuitry of any devices you feel are a good example of a reliable and effective device. It is also asked that you offer an objective metric by which one can observe the phenomena you describe. You should be specific, accurate, and complete about what parts or components are needed, and what the intended function of the part is in this context. It should be possible for a reasonable person to reproduce the experiment with the information you provide.

And finally, you must be consistent with the laws of physics in your explanation. This is necessary to a rational discourse, and if you stray from it you are simply reinforcing my initial assertion that those of you who purchase and use LRL equipment are religiously devout practitioners of a magical belief. If you say that what the person is wearing, or the alignment of the moon can play havoc with the effectiveness of your device, then you must also offer a testable hypothesis to explain the effects that such factors have on the phenomena we are measuring with your devices.

If the nature of your "science" exceeds that of commonly known and accepted science, then it is also incumbent upon you you to meet the same standards of explanation, proof, and observability, as have been set forth for your explanation of LRL and any devices you wish to advocate for as viable LRL devices.

For those who are considering the purchase of an LRL device, if the seller cannot answer the questions I have raised, I suggest that you shop elsewhere - perhaps for one of the legitimate technologies. There are a number of good books on geophysics as applied to archaeology to help you get started, check Amazon and Barnes & Noble. I find magnetometry (gradiometry) and soil resistivity profiling to be very affordable and demonstrably effective tools for mapping large sites.

Not only are the above techniques well proven and thoroughly explained, but you can build the equipment yourself for a modest cost. No need to waste hard earned money while filling the purses of hucksters and con artists. There are web resources for building fluxgate magnetometers and an excellent book on building the (mostly obsolete, but still effective) proton precession magnetometer. Soil resistivity studies can be done with items you may already have on hand, but again, there are web resources for building the equipment. GPR, while useful, is beyond the average budget.

And if you are interested in legitimate tools for searching on a larger scale than the above devices will accomodate, I would suggest you read "Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology" by Parcak, "Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective" by (Various Authors), or the soon to be released "Satellite Remote Sensing: A New Tool for Archaeology (Remote Sensing and Digital Image Processing)" by Lasaponara. You may be able to find such imagery from publicly funded sources at a modest cost, or even at no cost.

For the LRL convicted, I have little doubt that the words of Omar Khayyám will apply:

"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out of the same Door as in I went."

Respectfully, and without malice, until I receive a reply which is substantially compliant with the parameters I have set forth, and whose testable hypothesis withstands rigorous consideration, I have little choice but to class practitioners of LRL's liturgy, and keepers of its doubtful pneuma, as being one or more of the following: unschooled, analphabetic, misinformed, gullible, schizo-affective with a peculiar hyper-religiosity based on superstitious psuedo-scientific beliefs (Al Gore Disease). I list these as causalities, not as name calling, and I don't think LRL practitioners are lacking in intelligence, in general they are intelligent and inquisitive folks. I just think they are confused about reality by way of the aforementioned mechanisms. Others will undoubtedly take issue with these conclusions. No doubt any ensuing discourse will be instructive and enlightening.

I stand ready to be persuaded. Are you up to the challenge? (sorry, no money is in play )

(NB: Rants, invectives, taunting, and verbal vitriol are the refuge of those with no facts on their side, and no substantive point to be made. Such replies will likely go unanswered, at least by me. They will serve as a hollow testament to the true nature of LRL, a religion of dubious merit.)

[Kentucky Kache]

So, I have a very simple request of the LRL believers out there - a "challenge" for those who prefer that more inflammatory didactic. Using something approximating correct grammar and spelling, and structured, rational logic, please give me a brief, coherent, and dispositive hypothesis for the function of LRL and your devices.

Why would you "require" of others what you haven't displayed yourself?
It's only a question.

[Kentucky Kache]

(NB: Rants, invectives, taunting, and verbal vitriol are the refuge of those with no facts on their side, and no substantive point to be made. Such replies will likely go unanswered, at least by me. They will serve as a hollow testament to the true nature of LRL, a religion of dubious merit.)

Aye

As soon as he's spoken of he shows up.

[rwizard]

Why would you "require" of others what you haven't displayed yourself?
It's only a question.

A fair question, although I did not ask for perfection, only an "approximation". Can you please site the error(s) you seem to imply exist? Is my post so filled with mistakes as to fail even a standard of approximation?

In any case, you seem to be dodging the central question - is there any legitimacy to LRL ?

[woof!]

Kentucky knows enough about the H3Tec to comment on it specifically.

--Toto

[Kentucky Kache]

Why would you "require" of others what you haven't displayed yourself?
It's only a question.

A fair question, although I did not ask for perfection, only an "approximation". Can you please site the error(s) you seem to imply exist? Is my post so filled with mistakes as to fail even a standard of approximation?

In any case, you seem to be dodging the central question - is there any legitimacy to LRL ?

No one is dodging anything, because no one feels they have to prove anything to you. If there's anything for me to prove, it will be to myself.

[rwizard]

Aye

Thanks. I really like your "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof" tag line, but I will be very surprised to see anything constituting even mundane and ordinary proof. I would be happy to simply see a coherent hypothesis put forth.

[rwizard]

No one is dodging anything, because no one feels they have to prove anything to you. If there's anything for me to prove, it will be to myself.

Sincere thanks for your time and contributions, which I found more illuminating than you might have intended. You remind me of the physically inept youth, who chooses not to play a sport because it is "a dumb game" and not because he is uncoordinated and unskilled at it.

Since you have made it clear that you feel you have nothing you wish to contribute to the questions I raised, and that you wish not to play this particular sport with the group, I shall not trouble you further, and I will leave you in peace to play only with yourself, and to prove things solely in your own mind, however challenging that may or may not be for you.

Thanks for posting.

[Kentucky Kache]

Sincere thanks for your time and contributions, which I found more illuminating than you might have intended. You remind me of the physically inept youth, who chooses not to play a sport because it is "a dumb game" and not because he is uncoordinated and unskilled at it.

Since you have made it clear that you feel you have nothing you wish to contribute to the questions I raised, and that you wish not to play this particular sport with the group, I shall not trouble you further, and I will leave you in peace to play only with yourself, and to prove things solely in your own mind, however challenging that may or may not be for you.

Thanks for posting.

(NB: Rants, invectives, taunting, and verbal vitriol are the refuge of those with no facts on their side, and no substantive point to be made. Such replies will likely go unanswered, at least by me. They will serve as a hollow testament to the true nature of LRL, a religion of dubious merit.)

[rwizard]

Kentucky knows enough about the H3Tec to comment on it specifically.

--Toto

From the H3Tec web page: "We have 6 years of scientific imperial[sic] data that has helped us tune and refined[sic] the “H3”[sic] technology."

"Imperial" data? Where do you get "imperial data" from, a king?

Clearly, these are well qualified scientists at work.

Of course, that is just a guess, and it is not based on empirical data, much less "imperial" data.

[Kentucky Kache]

Kentucky knows enough about the H3Tec to comment on it specifically.

--Toto

From the H3Tec web page: "We have 6 years of scientific imperial[sic] data that has helped us tune and refined[sic] the “H3”[sic] technology."

"Imperial" data? Where do you get "imperial data" from, a king?

Clearly, these are well qualified scientists at work.

Of course, that is just a guess, and it is not based on empirical data, much less "imperial" data.

(NB: Rants, invectives, taunting, and verbal vitriol are the refuge of those with no facts on their side, and no substantive point to be made. Such replies will likely go unanswered, at least by me. They will serve as a hollow testament to the true nature of LRL, a religion of dubious merit.)

[Carl-NC]

"We have 6 years of scientific imperial[sic] data..."

That ain't nuthin' but funny. Even funnier that the True Believers eat this stuff up... imperial data is surely best data you can buy with your LRL dollar.

Apologist Ike says Chuckie knows "several languages"... too bad he slept through English.

[woof!]

[If you are easily upset by probing inquiry and strong opinion, and a faithful practitioner of LRL, you may wish to skip this post - the goal here is provoking thoughtful discussion, not generating anger and increased blood pressure. ]

First, let me preface my request (challenge if you prefer) of the LRL faithful with my own observations about your articles of faith.

Although the LRL pious among you may disagree, I believe the following passage speaks to the theory behind LRL:

"Thus the logical basis of Contagious Magic, like that of Homoeopathic Magic, is a mistaken association of ideas; its physical basis, if we may speak of such a thing, like the physical basis of Homoeopathic Magic, is a material medium of some sort which, like the ether of modern physics, is assumed to unite distant objects and to convey impressions from one to the other." - Sir James George Frazer in The Golden Bough (1922)

It is certainly true, that divining (the putative progenitor of LRL), like other forms of magic, is a very old practice. Curses, hexes, calling of demons, and even human sacrifice, also have a rich and long lived history. And all of these practices have been long held in high regard in certain quarters. I doubt that there are any readers of this post whose ancestors did not believe in the power of one or more of these practices, and there are still those today who give credence to these sorts of beliefs. For example, "mal de ojo" is a common belief among recent Hispanic immigrants to the U.S.,.

Those who have studied behavioral psychology will see the same mechanism at work in areas such as this, and specifically, in LRL believers, as that which has disrupted so many behavioral experiments - extraneous reinforcement. The pigeons are "dancing" so to speak.

Of course, those who sell LRL equipment would at least appear to be followers of another dogma, that of bank robber Willie Sutton, who explained that he robbed banks, "because that's where the money is".

So, I have a very simple request of the LRL believers out there - a "challenge" for those who prefer that more inflammatory didactic. Using something approximating correct grammar and spelling, and structured, rational logic, please give me a brief, coherent, and dispositive hypothesis for the function of LRL and your devices.

Specifically, you should explain what it is you are sensing, and how you are sensing it. This should include an explanation of the mechanism and/or circuitry of any devices you feel are a good example of a reliable and effective device. It is also asked that you offer an objective metric by which one can observe the phenomena you describe. You should be specific, accurate, and complete about what parts or components are needed, and what the intended function of the part is in this context. It should be possible for a reasonable person to reproduce the experiment with the information you provide.

And finally, you must be consistent with the laws of physics in your explanation. This is necessary to a rational discourse, and if you stray from it you are simply reinforcing my initial assertion that those of you who purchase and use LRL equipment are religiously devout practitioners of a magical belief. If you say that what the person is wearing, or the alignment of the moon can play havoc with the effectiveness of your device, then you must also offer a testable hypothesis to explain the effects that such factors have on the phenomena we are measuring with your devices.

If the nature of your "science" exceeds that of commonly known and accepted science, then it is also incumbent upon you you to meet the same standards of explanation, proof, and observability, as have been set forth for your explanation of LRL and any devices you wish to advocate for as viable LRL devices.

For those who are considering the purchase of an LRL device, if the seller cannot answer the questions I have raised, I suggest that you shop elsewhere - perhaps for one of the legitimate technologies. There are a number of good books on geophysics as applied to archaeology to help you get started, check Amazon and Barnes & Noble. I find magnetometry (gradiometry) and soil resistivity profiling to be very affordable and demonstrably effective tools for mapping large sites.

Not only are the above techniques well proven and thoroughly explained, but you can build the equipment yourself for a modest cost. No need to waste hard earned money while filling the purses of hucksters and con artists. There are web resources for building fluxgate magnetometers and an excellent book on building the (mostly obsolete, but still effective) proton precession magnetometer. Soil resistivity studies can be done with items you may already have on hand, but again, there are web resources for building the equipment. GPR, while useful, is beyond the average budget.

And if you are interested in legitimate tools for searching on a larger scale than the above devices will accomodate, I would suggest you read "Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology" by Parcak, "Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective" by (Various Authors), or the soon to be released "Satellite Remote Sensing: A New Tool for Archaeology (Remote Sensing and Digital Image Processing)" by Lasaponara. You may be able to find such imagery from publicly funded sources at a modest cost, or even at no cost.

For the LRL convicted, I have little doubt that the words of Omar Khayyám will apply:

"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out of the same Door as in I went."

Respectfully, and without malice, until I receive a reply which is substantially compliant with the parameters I have set forth, and whose testable hypothesis withstands rigorous consideration, I have little choice but to class practitioners of LRL's liturgy, and keepers of its doubtful pneuma, as being one or more of the following: unschooled, analphabetic, misinformed, gullible, schizo-affective with a peculiar hyper-religiosity based on superstitious psuedo-scientific beliefs (Al Gore Disease). I list these as causalities, not as name calling, and I don't think LRL practitioners are lacking in intelligence, in general they are intelligent and inquisitive folks. I just think they are confused about reality by way of the aforementioned mechanisms. Others will undoubtedly take issue with these conclusions. No doubt any ensuing discourse will be instructive and enlightening.

I stand ready to be persuaded. Are you up to the challenge? (sorry, no money is in play )

(NB: Rants, invectives, taunting, and verbal vitriol are the refuge of those with no facts on their side, and no substantive point to be made. Such replies will likely go unanswered, at least by me. They will serve as a hollow testament to the true nature of LRL, a religion of dubious merit.)

Welcome to one of the planet's best psychological research laboratories, rwizard. Liked a lot of the things you said. Thunked I wuz the only person left who quotes Willie Sutton, ye must be an olde phart! any chance y'were an Oaklander during the 70's?

After you've spent a little time here, you'll probably figure out that it's not as neat as "true believers" and "skeptics". Among those who get labelled by the "true believers" as "skeptics" are a few who have good reason to regard at least some dowsing as a bona fide mysterious phenomenon, even if it may not pass the Amazing Randi Critereon. This however is not the dowsing forum, it's the LRL forum. What distinguishes LRL's from plain vanilla dowsing is a combination of real electronics which don't do what the manufacturer claims (i.e. fraud), claims about electronics that aren't even there (i.e fraud), denial that the swingy thingy has anything to do with dowsing (and in at least one case denial that the apparatus is not an "LRL"!), etc. etc. etc. almost always including advertising which reveals that the manufacturer knows exactly the same thing that the anti-fraudsters know. On this forum, the anti-fraudsters who postest the mostest are electrical engineers who recognize fraud relating to the supposed electronics and are therefore not posting as skeptics, but as people who actually know the subject matter and know the same thing the manufacturers do about it.

In recent times there's been a very active "double-blind" thread. When it comes to LRL's, this is a red herring, that's why both sides of the aisle love it so much. The bottom line on LRL's is not whether someone might have subconscious knowledge of unknown origin which produces a swing of the swingy thingy in that person's hands (that's an issue for the dowsing forum which most LRL apologists deny is relevant to LRL's), the bottom line is the fraudulent nature of the electronic stuff, especially when the electronic stuff is either entirely nonfunctional, or isn't even there other than in the customer's imagination.

To put it another way, the solid ground on this forum is to agree with the manufacturers thereof that "LRL's" are fraudulent and that what makes them fraudulent is not lack of pointing ability (they have that, just like a bent coathanger or even an index finger), what makes them fraudulent is intentional misrepresentation of what the product is.

--Toto

[rwizard]

Welcome to one of the planet's best psychological research laboratories, rwizard. Liked a lot of the things you said. Thunked I wuz the only person left who quotes Willie Sutton, ye must be an olde phart! any chance y'were an Oaklander during the 70's?
.... <snip>
--Toto

Thanks Toto,

Can't say I've ever been to Oakland. As for age, at least getting older beats all of the other alternatives I'm aware of .

Certainly you are correct, there are shades of gray between the convicted and the skeptical. The phenomena of superstition (in the behavioral context, not the common parlance) is extremely seductive, and we all fall prey to it at times. I believe that it is usually the mechanism at work when otherwise reasonable people begin to suspect that there is something mysterious to this dowsing/LRL/you name it.

I have a strong background in electronics. I was also responsible for technology planning and analysis at a Fortune 250 company, so I've had a lot of practice evaluating a wide range of technical, scientific, and industrial equipment, and separating the wheat from the chaff. I am well aware of the faux nature of the electronic aspect of these devices. Or, as you put it so succinctly, "(i.e. fraud)".

Sadly, the bogus circuitry used by con men is generally not even slightly creative. Putting a little black paint across the lettering of a once common Signetics or Exar part is such a half-baked effort at creating the impression of mysterious secret technology. I've taught technically inclined middle school students who were more skilled and creative than that.

In any case, others had plowed the "circuitry is fake" ground repeatedly, and debunked the technical aspects of these devices, so I thought I would take a somewhat different tack, just to see what it might yield. Apparently the answer to date is that it has yielded nothing of interest.

As for the LRL users, frankly, I have no problem with people painting themselves blue, cutting a willow branch and running naked through the woods with it, waving it around, looking for treasure, and imagining that they are dowsing/LRLing resurrected Picts. And in the midst of doing these things, if they find some lost treasure, and avoid poison ivy, then good for them. After all, we all need a way to pass the time.

What draws my ire is the activity of liars and confidence men in this or any arena, who separate honest but naive people from their hard earned money. If some inquisitive tinkerer wants to attach coat hangers to a shoebox with a blinking light and call it a treasure finder, that's fine by me. If that same person offers it for sale as a treasure finder, and lies about what it does, and how it works, preying on the inability of the potential buyer to make a rigorous analysis of the claims, and relying on the tried and true manipulations of mediums, psychics, and flim-flam artists to seduce their victims, and abscond with outrageous sums, then they should go to jail.

Since I am personally unlikely to get to send any con artists to jail, I like to twist the tails of such scoundrels as often, and as hard, as possible.

But your points are well made, and well taken. There is little merit to any of this beyond the slim hope that a potential victim will be warned off by the noise we create. In the end, we shall most likely all leave by the door we entered.

Take Care.

[Saturna]

What draws my ire is the activity of liars and confidence men in this or any arena, who separate honest but naive people from their hard earned money.

Then there are the ones who sell this nonsense to military people, in harm's way, with claims of finding explosives/bombs etc.

[aarthrj3811]

~Saturna~

Then there are the ones who sell this nonsense to military people, in harm's way, with claims of finding explosives/bombs etc.

Please tell us how many dumb military people have purchased Treasure Hunting LRL’s to find explosives/bombs etc?....Art

[Kentucky Kache]

~Saturna~

Then there are the ones who sell this nonsense to military people, in harm's way, with claims of finding explosives/bombs etc.

Please tell us how many dumb military people have purchased Treasure Hunting LRL’s to find explosives/bombs etc?....Art

That's what I was thinking...must be some pretty dumb military people around.

[EE THr]

~Saturna~

Then there are the ones who sell this nonsense to military people, in harm's way, with claims of finding explosives/bombs etc.

Please tell us how many dumb military people have purchased Treasure Hunting LRL’s to find explosives/bombs etc?....Art

An LRL is an LRL, Art. Live with it.

[Kentucky Kache]

~Saturna~

Then there are the ones who sell this nonsense to military people, in harm's way, with claims of finding explosives/bombs etc.

Please tell us how many dumb military people have purchased Treasure Hunting LRL’s to find explosives/bombs etc?....Art

An LRL is an LRL, Art. Live with it.

Yeah Art, live with it.

EE, don't you just hate it when people can't live with the fact that they can't change other people?

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

An LRL is an LRL, Art. Live with it.

Thank You EE for telling me that..I am confused because I have 3 TV’s in my house with three different technology in them..The pictures are all different size, look different and even one of them is rectangular and seems to by flat...Art