Art, yer gonna love this...

[Carl-NC]

For almost 10 yrs I've offered my LRL "challenge," primarily to call out LRL manufacturers. But off and on I've extended it to ordinary LRL users. At least twice I've come close to having the challenge accepted; Bob Yocum signed the contract but then refused to follow through, and Mike Tune dropped out just as the protocol was finalized. I've had other inquiries but no one serious enough to even negotiate a protocol.

Today I spent quite a few hours at Timber-Linn Park in Albany, OR while "Daniel" took a shot at my $25,000. We had a signed contract and I had the full prize money on the line. Ironically, he was using one of Yocum's Omni-Range model.

The contract required 8-of-10 successful trials. Daniel went 0-for-3 right off, meaning he could not possibly reach 8 hits, so we mutually agreed to cut the test off (he was spending an average of 1+ hour per trial, waaay more than anyone else I've ever tested). We did a final non-contract trial in which we significantly relaxed the rules (though still blind), but he still failed. This all left him quite confused, as he was certain that the device worked. And I'm quite certain that his belief in the device was sincere.

So there ya go Art, the challenge is legit, the prize is real. And now ya cain't say, "No one has ever taken Carl's challenge." Cause now they have.

Anyone else wanna try? A non-fraudulent LRL can easily win this thing.

[werleibr]

+1 and LIKE

[aarthrj3811]

~Carl~

The contract required 8-of-10 successful trials. Daniel went 0-for-3 right off, meaning he could not possibly reach 8 hits, so we mutually agreed to cut the test off (he was spending an average of 1+ hour per trial, waaay more than anyone else I've ever tested). We did a final non-contract trial in which we significantly relaxed the rules (though still blind), but he still failed. This all left him quite confused, as he was certain that the device worked. And I'm quite certain that his belief in the device was sincere.

Thank you carl for proving that there is one LRL user that can not use his device...By the way ..I was at the Bob Yocum challenge that you set up..You were a no show..You now say you had a signed contract with him...Has he every got his 25K ?..He passed the test after I got rid of the skeptic who were jamming Bob’s signals..Art

[werleibr]

~Carl~

The contract required 8-of-10 successful trials. Daniel went 0-for-3 right off, meaning he could not possibly reach 8 hits, so we mutually agreed to cut the test off (he was spending an average of 1+ hour per trial, waaay more than anyone else I've ever tested). We did a final non-contract trial in which we significantly relaxed the rules (though still blind), but he still failed. This all left him quite confused, as he was certain that the device worked. And I'm quite certain that his belief in the device was sincere.

Thank you carl for proving that there is one LRL user that can not use his device...By the way ..I was at the Bob Yocum challenge that you set up..You were a no show..You now say you had a signed contract with him...Has he every got his 25K ?..He passed the test after I got rid of the skeptic who were jamming Bob’s signals..Art

Skeptics now Jam signals. ha ha ha Art you are classic.

[aarthrj3811]

werleibr

Skeptics now Jam signals. ha ha ha Art you are classic.

Yes they do...they also like to yell “I saw his hand move”..and they like to wave a piece of gold around and yell “It did not pick this up”....sound like some that the skeptics would say.
Do you have any experience with a VHF MFD?...I was there and Carl was not but I am sure he received a report from the skeptics....Art

[werleibr]

werleibr

Skeptics now Jam signals. ha ha ha Art you are classic.

Yes they do...they also like to yell “I saw his hand move”..and they like to wave a piece of gold around and yell “It did not pick this up”....sound like some that the skeptics would say.
Do you have any experience with a VHF MFD?...I was there and Carl was not but I am sure he received a report from the skeptics....Art

Now it sounds like something the skeptics would say? But you don't know now do you.. You can only speculate.

[Kentucky Kache]

For almost 10 yrs I've offered my LRL "challenge," primarily to call out LRL manufacturers. But off and on I've extended it to ordinary LRL users. At least twice I've come close to having the challenge accepted; Bob Yocum signed the contract but then refused to follow through, and Mike Tune dropped out just as the protocol was finalized. I've had other inquiries but no one serious enough to even negotiate a protocol.

Today I spent quite a few hours at Timber-Linn Park in Albany, OR while "Daniel" took a shot at my $25,000. We had a signed contract and I had the full prize money on the line. Ironically, he was using one of Yocum's Omni-Range model.

The contract required 8-of-10 successful trials. Daniel went 0-for-3 right off, meaning he could not possibly reach 8 hits, so we mutually agreed to cut the test off (he was spending an average of 1+ hour per trial, waaay more than anyone else I've ever tested). We did a final non-contract trial in which we significantly relaxed the rules (though still blind), but he still failed. This all left him quite confused, as he was certain that the device worked. And I'm quite certain that his belief in the device was sincere.

So there ya go Art, the challenge is legit, the prize is real. And now ya cain't say, "No one has ever taken Carl's challenge." Cause now they have.

Anyone else wanna try? A non-fraudulent LRL can easily win this thing.

You say that at least twice you've come close to having the challenge accepted, and have had other inquiries as well, but no one serious enough to even negotiate a protocol. Until now, no one has taken you up on your offer? Then why did you say - (he was spending an average of 1+ hour per trial, waaay more than anyone else I've ever tested). Who else have you tested, if no one has taken your challenge?

Also, if anyone was willing to take such a challenge, I have to think he has seen something out of his machine before. I know I wouldn't want to do such a thing if I wasn't sure of my machine's ability. Just my thoughts on it.

[Carl-NC]

I've done a number of tests (somewhere over a dozen as best I can recall) but none were for the Challenge, they were all fairly informal. Even with looser standards no one has ever been able to demonstrate an LRL that can do more than find gravity.

Also, if anyone was willing to take such a challenge, I have to think he has seen something out of his machine before.

Most everyone I've ever run across has found heaping gobs of buried treasure with their LRLs, but no one seems to have anything to show for it.

"We've located the general area, still trying to pinpoint it."

"We're still trying to figure out how to recover all that treasure."

"I located the treasure, that's good enough for me, I don't need to dig it up."

"I don't want the treasure, the government will just confiscate it."

And so on...

These are called "alibis".

[Kentucky Kache]

Also, if anyone was willing to take such a challenge, I have to think he has seen something out of his machine before.

Most everyone I've ever run across has found heaping gobs of buried treasure with their LRLs, but no one seems to have anything to show for it.

"We've located the general area, still trying to pinpoint it."

"We're still trying to figure out how to recover all that treasure."

"I located the treasure, that's good enough for me, I don't need to dig it up."

"I don't want the treasure, the government will just confiscate it."

And so on...

These are called "alibis".

Those quotes have nothing to do with the method of the claimed finds, but rather with the finds themselves. But in any case, why do you think that to be authenticated, anything would have to be proved to YOU? This is not a put down, I really would like to understand the thinking behind this. Why would anything have to go through you, or me, or anyone, in order to be authenticated?

[EE THr]

But in any case, why do you think that to be authenticated, anything would have to be proved to YOU? This is not a put down, I really would like to understand the thinking behind this. Why would anything have to go through you, or me, or anyone, in order to be authenticated?

If you're going to make a claim, to the World---you need to prove it to the World.


Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?


Until you do, it's just worthless talk.

[aarthrj3811]

Hey KK...The last time I used my Omni Range Master I followed a signal for 4 miles...I had to cross two fast running streams with waist high water. That means there were also two deep canyons.. When I got to the spot Dells Weight chex told me there was more than ¾ oz of gold. When I checked the depth it was at @ 100 feet...My knowledge of gold told me that it was either a hot spot in a gold vein or a pocket gold deposit..Yes I walked away as I am not going to spend thousands of dollars and months of my live when there are so many easy targets..
~EE~

If you're going to make a claim, to the World---you need to prove it to the World.

So you are excepting Carl’s word about his test but all the LRL users are all fake..Has the Scientific Community excepted Carl’s test?

[Kentucky Kache]

But in any case, why do you think that to be authenticated, anything would have to be proved to YOU? This is not a put down, I really would like to understand the thinking behind this. Why would anything have to go through you, or me, or anyone, in order to be authenticated?

If you're going to make a claim, to the World---you need to prove it to the World.


Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?


Until you do, it's just worthless talk.

If you're talking about manufacturers, I would agree. But LRL users who come here to talk about their hobby should be able to do so without harassment. These people don't owe you, or me, an explanation of anything.

Art has a good point there. If you were not there to see Carl's tests for yourself, you are just taking something as truth, because someone said so. You are supposed to be against doing that.

[Kentucky Kache]

Hey KK...The last time I used my Omni Range Master I followed a signal for 4 miles...I had to cross two fast running streams with waist high water. That means there were also two deep canyons.. When I got to the spot Dells Weight chex told me there was more than ¾ oz of gold. When I checked the depth it was at @ 100 feet...My knowledge of gold told me that it was either a hot spot in a gold vein or a pocket gold deposit..Yes I walked away as I am not going to spend thousands of dollars and months of my live when there are so many easy targets..

I don't know what I would do if I found that much gold.

[aarthrj3811]

~KK~

I don't know what I would do if I found that much gold.

I don’t get out to treasure hunt to much..I have found a few treasures that I did not dig..That is my choose and no body else’s. I spend 3 months chasing a cache of Mormon gold coins only to find them in the circle of an off ramp on interstate 80 at a depth of 60 feet..I have followed signals to the fence line of military bombing ranges...When you find a signal unless your device can tell you the distance, depth and what may be there you will be doing a lot of walking for no reward a lot...Art

[EE THr]

~EE~

If you're going to make a claim, to the World---you need to prove it to the World.

So you are excepting Carl’s word about his test but all the LRL users are all fake..Has the Scientific Community excepted Carl’s test?

I think Carl said he would video the tests.

There should also be signed statements by both Carl and the Testee, plus witnesses, as to the results.

If you do his test, then you would certainly be there, and bring a friend with a video camera, too. What the heck, call the local newspaper out, as well.

Glad you mentioned that, Art!

Write when you've passed Carl's test. You should be able to afford a stamp, with that $25,000.00 in your pocket.

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

I think Carl said he would video the tests.

If Carl’s contract said that he could make a movie of the test he may have one

There should also be signed statements by both Carl and the Testee, plus witnesses, as to the results.

There may be if it was in the contract

If you do his test, then you would certainly be there, and bring a friend with a video camera, too. What the heck, call the local newspaper out, as well.

What don’t you understand about the fact I will not.

Glad you mentioned that, Art!
Write when you've passed Carl's test. You should be able to afford a stamp, with that $25,000.00 in your pocket.

What I want to see is what the Scientific community says about this fake double Blind test...Art

[EE THr]

If you do his test, then you would certainly be there, and bring a friend with a video camera, too. What the heck, call the local newspaper out, as well.

What don’t you understand about the fact I will not.

There isn't anything I don't understand about it. I assure you that I totally understand that you will never attempt Carl's test, or any other scientifically controlled random double-blind test---simply because you know that you will always fail at them.

Glad you mentioned that, Art!

Write when you've passed Carl's test. You should be able to afford a stamp, with that $25,000.00 in your pocket.

What I want to see is what the Scientific community says about this fake double Blind test...Art

Well, Art, you can send a printout of the appropriate pages of Carl's Website, to the same professional scientific institution which you approve of to evaluate your LRL schematics.

Simple, huh?

Glad to be able to help you out on that one.

Write when you have their evaluations back.

[Kentucky Kache]

There should also be signed statements by both Carl and the Testee, plus witnesses, as to the results.

Does this mean you won't believe Carl until you see signed statements, and talk to witnesses, about the results?

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Well, Art, you can send a printout of the appropriate pages of Carl's Website, to the same professional scientific institution which you approve of to evaluate your LRL schematics.
Simple, huh?
Glad to be able to help you out on that one.
Write when you have their evaluations back.

Why should I do that?....Art

[EE THr]

There should also be signed statements by both Carl and the Testee, plus witnesses, as to the results.

Does this mean you won't believe Carl until you see signed statements, and talk to witnesses, about the results?

It's obvious that I said it because Art always tries to say that Carl can't be trusted.

You are merely fishing for an argument, another typical Straw Man Fallacy tactic, used by Trolls.






Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

Don't be a doof---show the proof!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?

A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.