Any expert on mexican gold coins?

[EddieR]

~EddieR~

They may or may not, who knows? No one can speak for them (truthfully, anyway).

But, by the same token, not all tests would have to be initiated by the LRL makers, right?

Independent testing could be done without the manufacturers knowledge, correct?

So they may or may not even know if tests were performed, or the outcome of them, correct?

You are correct Eddie..You have done your own Testing on a LRL and published the result here on T-Net..Many others have done testing on LRL’s and also have published the results here on T-Net.

The reason you and others have posted the results on T-Net was your decision that this is where you wanted it to be published...

EE seems to think that everyone else has to prove that LRL’s work..EE claims that all LRL manufactures and anyone who claims to have found treasure with a LRL is scamming the public. He also claims that no treasure has ever been found by anyone using a LRL.
His claims make me wonder just where are these 1000’s of people who have been scammed. We know that they have not been in the courts or any place else...Art

Do you two also believe that cows fly?

After all, you haven't interviewed every cow in the World. So does that mean that cows fly?

Show me one single case where an LRL has been tested by an unbiased administrator, and Scientifically been proven to work....

You didn't answer the questions I asked. You are now doing the "strawman dance." Why avoid them? They weren't hard questions...

Answer them.

As for your question about cows flying...with the amount of BS that falls around when you start posting, I gotta wonder.......





P.S. In case you forgot, there were some questions you haven't answered.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[EE THr]

P.S. In case you forgot, there were some questions you haven't answered.

Your questions were not relevant to the fact that LRLs just don't work.

And I have already answered the one about who has tested. But since the results were "FAIL, on all counts," you are conveniently ignoring it. Typical of an LRL promoter.

 

[EddieR]

P.S. In case you forgot, there were some questions you haven't answered.

Your questions were not relevant to the fact that LRLs just don't work.

And I have already answered the one about who has tested. But since the results were "FAIL, on all counts," you are conveniently ignoring it. Typical of an LRL promoter.

I KNEW you would be too scared to answer them!!!!!! You are SO predictable!

You will not answer because IF you answered them truthfully (yeah right) it would show that you have NO basis for your claims.

Maybe cows DO fly in your world....because you seem to step in it every step you take.



BTW, since you seem to follow the skeptics "modus operandi", that makes you a skeptic (no matter what you say) and means you also promote their bogus agenda. So have fun with that!

I just wanted to point that out to ya. Don't worry about thanking me, it isn't necessary.

 

[EE THr]

P.S. In case you forgot, there were some questions you haven't answered.

Your questions were not relevant to the fact that LRLs just don't work.

And I have already answered the one about who has tested. But since the results were "FAIL, on all counts," you are conveniently ignoring it. Typical of an LRL promoter.

I KNEW you would be too scared to answer them!!!!!! You are SO predictable!

You will not answer because IF you answered them truthfully (yeah right) it would show that you have NO basis for your claims.

Maybe cows DO fly in your world....because you seem to step in it every step you take.



BTW, since you seem to follow the skeptics "modus operandi", that makes you a skeptic (no matter what you say) and means you also promote their bogus agenda. So have fun with that!

I just wanted to point that out to ya. Don't worry about thanking me, it isn't necessary.

The only thing you have pointed out is that---

1. There is no evidence by an unbiased organization that LRLs work.
2. You are an LRL promoter, trying to use any illogical tactic to convince the gullable that LRLs do work.
3. You infer that the DOJ and courts are lying, in order for you and others to continue to promote the LRL fraud.
4. You are still your own best debunker.

Keep up the good work!

 

[EddieR]

P.S. In case you forgot, there were some questions you haven't answered.

Your questions were not relevant to the fact that LRLs just don't work.

And I have already answered the one about who has tested. But since the results were "FAIL, on all counts," you are conveniently ignoring it. Typical of an LRL promoter.

I KNEW you would be too scared to answer them!!!!!! You are SO predictable!

You will not answer because IF you answered them truthfully (yeah right) it would show that you have NO basis for your claims.

Maybe cows DO fly in your world....because you seem to step in it every step you take.



BTW, since you seem to follow the skeptics "modus operandi", that makes you a skeptic (no matter what you say) and means you also promote their bogus agenda. So have fun with that!

I just wanted to point that out to ya. Don't worry about thanking me, it isn't necessary.

The only thing you have pointed out is that---

1. There is no evidence by an unbiased organization that LRLs work.
2. You are an LRL promoter, trying to use any illogical tactic to convince the gullable that LRLs do work.
3. You infer that the DOJ and courts are lying, in order for you and others to continue to promote the LRL fraud.
4. You are still your own best debunker.

Keep up the good work!

Awww...still scared, I see. I don't blame you.

Here is ACTUALLY what I'm pointing out:

1. I never claimed there was evidence by unbiased orgs that LRL's work. If you knew how to understand what you read, you would know that.
2. How can I be a promoter if I question whether they work or not? I have posted many times here that I don't know if they work or not. If you knew how to understand what you read, you would know that.
3. I have never inferred that the DOJ and courts are lying. If you knew how to understand what you read, you would know that.
4. You are out to intentionally mislead people by stifling free thought. Since I always have to explain everything to you, I'll go ahead and explain free thought (not that you will get it anyway). Free thought, the way I am using it here, concerns people using their head, their own thought processes, and not just believing what patsy's on the Randi payroll spout out of their derriere. Being that you try to stifle peoples creative thought, well, you are pretty much full of the poo of your "flying cows".
5. Even the real skeptics question your arguments....because they aren't worth your flying cows poo. If you knew how to understand what you read....ahh, never mind.
6. It's a good thing that intelligent people outnumber you pseudoskeptics, as the world would still be in the stone age with the type of thinking promoted by your ilk.
7. You are your own best "exposer" of your "square thought" processes.

Perhaps, with this laid out before you, you can understand the idiocy of your "making up stories" and "twisting " what others say to make it suit your agenda. Alas, it will only if you understand what you read, and with your track record so far.....I really doubt you will this either.

I suppose we will see in your reply, won't we?

 

[EE THr]

Awww...still scared, I see. I don't blame you.

Here is ACTUALLY what I'm pointing out:

1. I never claimed there was evidence by unbiased orgs that LRL's work. If you knew how to understand what you read, you would know that.
2. How can I be a promoter if I question whether they work or not? I have posted many times here that I don't know if they work or not. If you knew how to understand what you read, you would know that.
3. I have never inferred that the DOJ and courts are lying. If you knew how to understand what you read, you would know that.
4. You are out to intentionally mislead people by stifling free thought. Since I always have to explain everything to you, I'll go ahead and explain free thought (not that you will get it anyway). Free thought, the way I am using it here, concerns people using their head, their own thought processes, and not just believing what patsy's on the Randi payroll spout out of their derriere. Being that you try to stifle peoples creative thought, well, you are pretty much full of the poo of your "flying cows".
5. Even the real skeptics question your arguments....because they aren't worth your flying cows poo. If you knew how to understand what you read....ahh, never mind.
6. It's a good thing that intelligent people outnumber you pseudoskeptics, as the world would still be in the stone age with the type of thinking promoted by your ilk.
7. You are your own best "exposer" of your "square thought" processes.

Perhaps, with this laid out before you, you can understand the idiocy of your "making up stories" and "twisting " what others say to make it suit your agenda. Alas, it will only if you understand what you read, and with your track record so far.....I really doubt you will this either.

I suppose we will see in your reply, won't we?

Where did I say that you claimed there was properly documented evidence?

As I have told you many times before, you are an LRL promoter because you always attack people who state the truth about LRLs, and you deny all the evidence which shows that LRLs are a fraud.

You keep asking for evidence that LRLs don't work. That evidence has been posted here many times, by several people, but you refuse to acknowledge it, including the DOJ report.

Free thought is one thing, and truth is another. You can think whatever you want, but it's not necessarily the truth. In the case of LRLs, if you think they work, it's not the truth.

People who are knowledgeable about electronics, don't question that LRLs don't work. There is nothing about me, personally, that would make them work or not work. You keep trying to bring me into the equation, and I'm not part of it.

Intelligent people don't buy snake oil, invest with Bernie Madoff, or claim that LRLs work.


When a person must resort to insults, it means he has no real facts to support his position. You have nothing to back up any of your claims about LRLs.

There is ample evidence that LRLs don't work. So, if you were really unbiased, and as intelligent as you claim to be, you wouldn't be wondering if they worked or not. And you wouldn't be attacking people who posted that evidence.

If LRLs really did work, you would have plenty of real, Scientific, evidence to post in order to refute anyone who said they didn't. Therefore, you wouldn't need to waste time by trying to insult me.

This shows that you are a promoter of the fraudulent devices known as "LRLs."

And that you are still your own best debunker.

Keep up the good work!

 

[EddieR]

Awww...still scared, I see. I don't blame you.

Here is ACTUALLY what I'm pointing out:

1. I never claimed there was evidence by unbiased orgs that LRL's work. If you knew how to understand what you read, you would know that.
2. How can I be a promoter if I question whether they work or not? I have posted many times here that I don't know if they work or not. If you knew how to understand what you read, you would know that.
3. I have never inferred that the DOJ and courts are lying. If you knew how to understand what you read, you would know that.
4. You are out to intentionally mislead people by stifling free thought. Since I always have to explain everything to you, I'll go ahead and explain free thought (not that you will get it anyway). Free thought, the way I am using it here, concerns people using their head, their own thought processes, and not just believing what patsy's on the Randi payroll spout out of their derriere. Being that you try to stifle peoples creative thought, well, you are pretty much full of the poo of your "flying cows".
5. Even the real skeptics question your arguments....because they aren't worth your flying cows poo. If you knew how to understand what you read....ahh, never mind.
6. It's a good thing that intelligent people outnumber you pseudoskeptics, as the world would still be in the stone age with the type of thinking promoted by your ilk.
7. You are your own best "exposer" of your "square thought" processes.

Perhaps, with this laid out before you, you can understand the idiocy of your "making up stories" and "twisting " what others say to make it suit your agenda. Alas, it will only if you understand what you read, and with your track record so far.....I really doubt you will this either.

I suppose we will see in your reply, won't we?

Where did I say that you claimed there was properly documented evidence?

As I have told you many times before, you are an LRL promoter because you always attack people who state the truth about LRLs, and you deny all the evidence which shows that LRLs are a fraud.

You keep asking for evidence that LRLs don't work. That evidence has been posted here many times, by several people, but you refuse to acknowledge it, including the DOJ report.

Free thought is one thing, and truth is another. You can think whatever you want, but it's not necessarily the truth. In the case of LRLs, if you think they work, it's not the truth.

People who are knowledgeable about electronics, don't question that LRLs don't work. There is nothing about me, personally, that would make them work or not work. You keep trying to bring me into the equation, and I'm not part of it.

Intelligent people don't buy snake oil, invest with Bernie Madoff, or claim that LRLs work.


When a person must resort to insults, it means he has no real facts to support his position. You have nothing to back up any of your claims about LRLs.

There is ample evidence that LRLs don't work. So, if you were really unbiased, and as intelligent as you claim to be, you wouldn't be wondering if they worked or not. And you wouldn't be attacking people who posted that evidence.

If LRLs really did work, you would have plenty of real, Scientific, evidence to post in order to refute anyone who said they didn't. Therefore, you wouldn't need to waste time by trying to insult me.

This shows that you are a promoter of the fraudulent devices known as "LRLs."

And that you are still your own best debunker.

Keep up the good work!

I didn't insult you. I stated a fact. You obviously have trouble understanding what you read, whether it's true misunderstanding or denial, I don't know.

You once again state in your post above that I have no evidence to back up my claims about LRL's. You bring this up repeatedly, but you can't even tell me what you think my claims are!

Let's start with that one. EE, just WHAT are my "claims" about LRL's?

If you get this one wrong, I guess it will prove what I have been saying all along, won't it?

I do not ask for evidence that LRL's don't work, by the way. I simply question the sources that you use...as anyone should do.

But, by repeatedly making up your little untruths about me, you have proven to be your own best "exposer" of square thinking.

Kudos to you!!!

 

[EE THr]

I didn't insult you. I stated a fact. You obviously have trouble understanding what you read, whether it's true misunderstanding or denial, I don't know.

You once again state in your post above that I have no evidence to back up my claims about LRL's. You bring this up repeatedly, but you can't even tell me what you think my claims are!

Let's start with that one. EE, just WHAT are my "claims" about LRL's?

If you get this one wrong, I guess it will prove what I have been saying all along, won't it?

I do not ask for evidence that LRL's don't work, by the way. I simply question the sources that you use...as anyone should do.

But, by repeatedly making up your little untruths about me, you have proven to be your own best "exposer" of square thinking.

Kudos to you!!!

Yes, you have continually insulted me, with your statements that I don't understand what I read, and so forth. You are trying to hide the fact that you insult anyone who posts documented facts about LRLs. Sorry, that doesn't work. There is no reason to say anything personal about anyone, because the overall subject is the so-called "LRLs." Either something works, or it doesn't. In this case, they don't.

By continually attacking anyone who posts facts which show that LRLs are fraudulent, you are automatically claiming that they work. Just because you are trying to deny this, doesn't erase it. You are an LRL promoter, or else you wouldn't be denying legitimate facts.

If you don't claim that LRLs work, then what is it that you "have been saying all along"? It's either that LRLs work, or your personal attack against people who post the truth. Which is it? Not that it matters, because they both amount to the same thing!

You are trying to promote LRLs indirectly, and try to fool people into thinking that you are unbiased, but anyone can see what you are really doing. You are very obviously totally biased toward LRLs. The fact that you try to deny the obvious is merely unscrupulous.

Your not just "questioning" the reports from highly recognized Scientific organizations, knowledgeable electronics people, and the courts---you are adamantly denying their legitimacy, and trying to discredit anyone who posts them. That paints you as an LRL promoter. I don't need to make up any untruths about you. I could care less about you personally, concerning discussions of LRLs. Your problem is that you don't discuss LRLs, but instead attempt to insult and invalidate people. This is a tactic used by Politicians and Con Artists. I'm just pointing this out, not making it up.

If you are truly "only interested in the LRL phenomenon," then when why not limit your post to the devices themselves, instead of all the ad hominem attacks?

Even though you continually try to deny your tactics, you can never hide the obviousness of your actions.

You remain your own best debunker.

Keep up the good work!

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Where did I say that you claimed there was properly documented evidence?

Gee..Lets see...Testimonials. photo’s of finds, Movies of finds etc.

As I have told you many times before, you are an LRL promoter because you always attack people who state the truth about LRLs, and you deny all the evidence which shows that LRLs are a fraud.

So.. in your opinion we are promoters because we question your claims about LRL’s..and we question why your claim that LRL’s are fraudulent because no one has ever been found guilty by a Jury..

You keep asking for evidence that LRLs don't work. That evidence has been posted here many times, by several people, but you refuse to acknowledge it, including the DOJ report.

Yes we keep asking for evidence of your claims..when what you claim as evidence is put on this board we discuss why it is not evidence

Free thought is one thing, and truth is another. You can think whatever you want, but it's not necessarily the truth. In the case of LRLs, if you think they work, it's not the truth.

No..We question just what is your thoughts

People who are knowledgeable about electronics, don't question that LRLs don't work. There is nothing about me, personally, that would make them work or not work. You keep trying to bring me into the equation, and I'm not part of it.

Your right ..People who claim to be knowledgeable in electronics keep claiming that they are telling the truth

Intelligent people don't buy snake oil, invest with Bernie Madoff, or claim that LRLs work.

Yes we are a bunch of dummies..We don't buy snake oil, invest with Bernie Madoff, or claim that LRLs work.

When a person must resort to insults, it means he has no real facts to support his position. You have nothing to back up any of your claims about LRLs.

Why do you keep insulting the treasure hunters?

There is ample evidence that LRLs don't work. So, if you were really unbiased, and as intelligent as you claim to be, you wouldn't be wondering if they worked or not. And you wouldn't be attacking people who posted that evidence.

No.. I am not unbiased..I know that my LRL’s will locate gold and have saw no evidence that they do not work

If LRLs really did work, you would have plenty of real, Scientific, evidence to post in order to refute anyone who said they didn't. Therefore, you wouldn't need to waste time by trying to insult me.

Sorry that you feel insulted but we don’t know what evidence you keep claiming to have.

This shows that you are a promoter of the fraudulent devices known as "LRLs."

Good to see that you are still sticking to all your claims

And that you are still your own best debunker.

It looks to me that EddieR is not a skeptic like you

Keep up the good work!

I am sure that he will keep doing his good work..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Where did I say that you claimed there was properly documented evidence?

Gee..Lets see...Testimonials. photo’s of finds, Movies of finds etc.

As I have told you many times before, you are an LRL promoter because you always attack people who state the truth about LRLs, and you deny all the evidence which shows that LRLs are a fraud.

So.. in your opinion we are promoters because we question your claims about LRL’s..and we question why your claim that LRL’s are fraudulent because no one has ever been found guilty by a Jury..

You keep asking for evidence that LRLs don't work. That evidence has been posted here many times, by several people, but you refuse to acknowledge it, including the DOJ report.

Yes we keep asking for evidence of your claims..when what you claim as evidence is put on this board we discuss why it is not evidence

Free thought is one thing, and truth is another. You can think whatever you want, but it's not necessarily the truth. In the case of LRLs, if you think they work, it's not the truth.

No..We question just what is your thoughts

People who are knowledgeable about electronics, don't question that LRLs don't work. There is nothing about me, personally, that would make them work or not work. You keep trying to bring me into the equation, and I'm not part of it.

Your right ..People who claim to be knowledgeable in electronics keep claiming that they are telling the truth

Intelligent people don't buy snake oil, invest with Bernie Madoff, or claim that LRLs work.

Yes we are a bunch of dummies..We don't buy snake oil, invest with Bernie Madoff, or claim that LRLs work.

When a person must resort to insults, it means he has no real facts to support his position. You have nothing to back up any of your claims about LRLs.

Why do you keep insulting the treasure hunters?

There is ample evidence that LRLs don't work. So, if you were really unbiased, and as intelligent as you claim to be, you wouldn't be wondering if they worked or not. And you wouldn't be attacking people who posted that evidence.

No.. I am not unbiased..I know that my LRL’s will locate gold and have saw no evidence that they do not work

If LRLs really did work, you would have plenty of real, Scientific, evidence to post in order to refute anyone who said they didn't. Therefore, you wouldn't need to waste time by trying to insult me.

Sorry that you feel insulted but we don’t know what evidence you keep claiming to have.

This shows that you are a promoter of the fraudulent devices known as "LRLs."

Good to see that you are still sticking to all your claims

And that you are still your own best debunker.

It looks to me that EddieR is not a skeptic like you

Keep up the good work!

I am sure that he will keep doing his good work..Art

Another of your usual post, Art....No real evidence, no real facts, but just all that you have left---jibberish and insults.

 

[EddieR]

I didn't insult you. I stated a fact. You obviously have trouble understanding what you read, whether it's true misunderstanding or denial, I don't know.

You once again state in your post above that I have no evidence to back up my claims about LRL's. You bring this up repeatedly, but you can't even tell me what you think my claims are!

Let's start with that one. EE, just WHAT are my "claims" about LRL's?

If you get this one wrong, I guess it will prove what I have been saying all along, won't it?

I do not ask for evidence that LRL's don't work, by the way. I simply question the sources that you use...as anyone should do.

But, by repeatedly making up your little untruths about me, you have proven to be your own best "exposer" of square thinking.

Kudos to you!!!

Yes, you have continually insulted me, with your statements that I don't understand what I read, and so forth. You are trying to hide the fact that you insult anyone who posts documented facts about LRLs. Sorry, that doesn't work. There is no reason to say anything personal about anyone, because the overall subject is the so-called "LRLs." Either something works, or it doesn't. In this case, they don't.

By continually attacking anyone who posts facts which show that LRLs are fraudulent, you are automatically claiming that they work. Just because you are trying to deny this, doesn't erase it. You are an LRL promoter, or else you wouldn't be denying legitimate facts.

If you don't claim that LRLs work, then what is it that you "have been saying all along"? It's either that LRLs work, or your personal attack against people who post the truth. Which is it? Not that it matters, because they both amount to the same thing!

You are trying to promote LRLs indirectly, and try to fool people into thinking that you are unbiased, but anyone can see what you are really doing. You are very obviously totally biased toward LRLs. The fact that you try to deny the obvious is merely unscrupulous.

Your not just "questioning" the reports from highly recognized Scientific organizations, knowledgeable electronics people, and the courts---you are adamantly denying their legitimacy, and trying to discredit anyone who posts them. That paints you as an LRL promoter. I don't need to make up any untruths about you. I could care less about you personally, concerning discussions of LRLs. Your problem is that you don't discuss LRLs, but instead attempt to insult and invalidate people. This is a tactic used by Politicians and Con Artists. I'm just pointing this out, not making it up.

If you are truly "only interested in the LRL phenomenon," then when why not limit your post to the devices themselves, instead of all the ad hominem attacks?

Even though you continually try to deny your tactics, you can never hide the obviousness of your actions.

You remain your own best debunker.

Keep up the good work!

Well, well, well...at least you admit you aren't sure about my "claims" now. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked.

Now let me get this straight: I should not post anything that could be construed as a personal attack (i.e. to invalidate someone or insult them), correct? And yet, in the same post where you accuse me of doing said thing, YOU call ME a "promoter" and a "debunker". What's wrong with this picture? Are you the only one who doesn't get it?

Since you seemingly aren't capable of answering simple questions (that are asked based on your attacks toward me), why should I not wonder about your level of reading comprehension?

You repeatedly posting blatant untruths and veiled insults (yes, you have been called out on that too) makes you look suspiciously like you are serving a pseudoskeptic agenda. Clouding the waters, so to speak.

No wonder everyone has left.... you seem incompetent to carry a rational conversation without resorting to fibs and character assassination.

BTW, you never answered my question about your selective belief in science concerning LRL's vs. dowsing....

 

[EE THr]

Well, well, well...at least you admit you aren't sure about my "claims" now. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked.

Now let me get this straight: I should not post anything that could be construed as a personal attack (i.e. to invalidate someone or insult them), correct? And yet, in the same post where you accuse me of doing said thing, YOU call ME a "promoter" and a "debunker". What's wrong with this picture? Are you the only one who doesn't get it?

Since you seemingly aren't capable of answering simple questions (that are asked based on your attacks toward me), why should I not wonder about your level of reading comprehension?

You repeatedly posting blatant untruths and veiled insults (yes, you have been called out on that too) makes you look suspiciously like you are serving a pseudoskeptic agenda. Clouding the waters, so to speak.

No wonder everyone has left.... you seem incompetent to carry a rational conversation without resorting to fibs and character assassination.

BTW, you never answered my question about your selective belief in science concerning LRL's vs. dowsing....

Oh, I'm sure about your claims....haven't you read my posts?

It goes like this: Someone posts that LRLs can find stuff. Then someone posts proof that LRLs don't work. Then you and your fellow promoters try to insult him, because there is no proof to post that LRLs do work. Then the insult you back. You deserve that, don't you? If anyone reads the other threads, they will see that this pattern always plays out. Oh, I forgot the last step in the pattern: The LRL promoters then whine because they got insulted! You are merely propegating that pattern (again). That's so sad.

Your bias toward LRLs is a fact, not an insult. By posting your bias, you are promoting that LRLs work. But you haven't been quite able to pull it off, and with your illogic you debunk yourself. That's not an insult, it's just an observation of facts.

Sorry, no "blatent untruths" here. Just posting Scientific reports, and observations from this forum.

I have posted by position about dowsing as it relates to LRLs, many, many times. Go fish.

 

[EddieR]

Well, well, well...at least you admit you aren't sure about my "claims" now. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked.

Now let me get this straight: I should not post anything that could be construed as a personal attack (i.e. to invalidate someone or insult them), correct? And yet, in the same post where you accuse me of doing said thing, YOU call ME a "promoter" and a "debunker". What's wrong with this picture? Are you the only one who doesn't get it?

Since you seemingly aren't capable of answering simple questions (that are asked based on your attacks toward me), why should I not wonder about your level of reading comprehension?

You repeatedly posting blatant untruths and veiled insults (yes, you have been called out on that too) makes you look suspiciously like you are serving a pseudoskeptic agenda. Clouding the waters, so to speak.

No wonder everyone has left.... you seem incompetent to carry a rational conversation without resorting to fibs and character assassination.

BTW, you never answered my question about your selective belief in science concerning LRL's vs. dowsing....

Oh, I'm sure about your claims....haven't you read my posts?

It goes like this: Someone posts that LRLs can find stuff. Then someone posts proof that LRLs don't work. Then you and your fellow promoters try to insult him, because there is no proof to post that LRLs do work. Then the insult you back. You deserve that, don't you? If anyone reads the other threads, they will see that this pattern always plays out. Oh, I forgot the last step in the pattern: The LRL promoters then whine because they got insulted! You are merely propegating that pattern (again). That's so sad.

Your bias toward LRLs is a fact, not an insult. By posting your bias, you are promoting that LRLs work. But you haven't been quite able to pull it off, and with your illogic you debunk yourself. That's not an insult, it's just an observation of facts.

Sorry, no "blatent untruths" here. Just posting Scientific reports, and observations from this forum.

I have posted by position about dowsing as it relates to LRLs, many, many times. Go fish.

Well....

you have now proven that you ....(1)won't answer a question straight out. (2)still have NO idea of what the "claims" are that you attribute to me. (3)cannot or will not attempt to understand anything posted by anyone else unless it fits your agenda.

I feel I cannot continue any debating with you because you "refuse to play on an even field". Even the people who align themselves to your beliefs have abandoned you.

With that said, I will no longer debate with you for the simple fact that, since you are not capable of understanding things, I feel like a high school bully picking on a kindergarten kid.

I'm finished with your lies and double-speak.

Have a good day.

 

[EE THr]

Well....

you have now proven that you ....(1)won't answer a question straight out. (2)still have NO idea of what the "claims" are that you attribute to me. (3)cannot or will not attempt to understand anything posted by anyone else unless it fits your agenda.

I feel I cannot continue any debating with you because you "refuse to play on an even field". Even the people who align themselves to your beliefs have abandoned you.

With that said, I will no longer debate with you for the simple fact that, since you are not capable of understanding things, I feel like a high school bully picking on a kindergarten kid.

I'm finished with your lies and double-speak.

Have a good day.

You are right about my not answering certain questions. That's because I don't see it as necessary to answer off-topic or nonsensical questions (Strawman loaded questions). Since you never post about LRLs themselves, you only want to talk about people, and I don't see any reason to fall for your diversionary tactics.

And none of your tired old talk about "not understanding" and "not knowing your claims" and so forth, deserve any answers. Insults and ad hominem attacks are all you have, because you can't defend your fraudulent LRL promotion.

 

[Dell Winders]

Only results count.

 

[EE THr]

Only results count.

About the apparent copyright holder of your imaged printout, Dave Fasold---
In 1996 Fasold coauthored a paper with geologist Lorence Collins entitled "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure" that concluded the boat-shaped formation was a curious upswelling of mud that happened to look like a boat. In April 1997 during his testimony in an Australian court case Fasold repudiated his belief in the Ark, and stated that he regarded the claim as "absolute BS".

Mud doesn't have "walls." Sorry, you'll have to do better than that---this story has already been shown to be false, by the expidetion leader himself.

It looks like another case of the popular excuse, "I found it, but didn't dig it up."

 

[mikusek]

Lovely coin......

 

[Dell Winders]

EE,I don't know what you are ranting about but I'm just stating the facts which are, the MFD detected a pattern of Iron anomalies within the structure, whether man made, or geological. Who Cares?

The locations of these Iron anomalies were confirmed with GPR, Magnetometer, and shallow Iron anomalies were verified with a Whites metal detector w/a 15 inch coil. The Iron recovered was declared as being Wrought Iron in appearance by Scientist. This is all documented.

No brass plate was found confirming the structure was built by Noah & Sons and I never said it was. Get real! Dell

 

[EE THr]

EE,I don't know what you are ranting about but I'm just stating the facts which are, the MFD detected a pattern of Iron anomalies within the structure, whether man made, or geological. Who Cares?

The locations of these Iron anomalies were confirmed with GPR, Magnetometer, and shallow Iron anomalies were verified with a Whites metal detector w/a 15 inch coil. The Iron recovered was declared as being Wrought Iron in appearance by Scientist. This is all documented.

No brass plate was found confirming the structure was built by Noah & Sons and I never said it was. Get real! Dell

The narrative seems to be by Dave Fasold. He admitted that he faked the find, so that makes the rest of his story highly questionable. None of it would pass as creditable for any Scientific publication.

In light of all the evidence that LRLs and MFDs don't work, plus your refusal to state that they do locate gold or anything else, I have to say that it's a sham.

What else would you expect?

 

[woof!]

Hmmmm...... Dell seems to want to connect the dots between himself and the world famous "Noah's Ark", until such time as it leads to an embarrassment he already knew about but didn't think he'd get caught at.

Here's the rest of the story.

There was no physical "Noah's Ark". The story in the Bible is a Hebrew adaptation of the flood story in the far more ancient Epic of Gilgamesh. It's no secret, just Google it. Neither version of "the great flood" is historical, although both are based on the fact that residents of the Mesopotamian floodplain were painfully aware of what floods are.

The Epic is a fantasy novel based very loosely on a few historical facts that were still known at the time. The much later Hebrew writer from whose hand we received the Noah story couldn't figure out how many of what animal, and he completely botched the raven thing. From a literary perspective, a much inferior piece of writing. Except for two things: the shabbily written Noah story invoked themes with deeper meaning; and, the Noah story lucked out to become embedded in a library which was later adopted by adherents of a religious sect which thanks to the Roman Empire, endured to become the world's predominant religion today.

The Epic includes no hydrological nonsense of an ark landing on top of the tallest mountain they were aware of: it's a story of floating downstream. The part of the Epic that could be regarded as reflecting history (whether or not it actually does) is at least sort of believable. The Noah story puts the Ark on the top of Ararat , a hydrological impossibility, not for historical purposes but for symbolic purposes.

Too bad that modern civilization doesn't like what the redactor of the Noah story tried to teach us. This [USA] nation landed on the top in 1945, and I've watched it go downhill ever since. There is no Noah's Ark on Ararat, that's the wishful thinking of people who take mythology literally (rather than understanding the meaning of the story) that drives that quest. [Plus, the ringleaders who raise funds for Ararat expeditions know exactly how to pump gullibillies, the ringleaders themselves have no need for any theology beyond that of dollar-worship.] If you want to know where the Ark is now, buried in ice carrying nothing towards safety, Ararat is the wrong place to look. Try the national debt as an example of high-stakes burial.

* * * * * * *

And that brings us full circle to the swingy thingies. In my well informed opinion and personal experience, effective dowsing does happen. But nobody needs to trust me on that, because it's everyone's experience that the gullible, driven by wishful thinking rather than by desire to know what is real, make up alabis that convince them they succeeded even when they've failed. Reading the dowsing forum is just like listening to gamblers who win a hundred bucks for every thou they put into it, and that proves they're winners! There are a few gamblers who clean the clocks of the gullibillies, and (I would argue) there are a few people who can dowse effectively, possibly a few who can even do it doodlebugging with a silly LRL because the part of their brain that should recognize the fraudulent nature of "LRL"s hasn't gotten that far yet.

Last time I checked the dowsing forum a few days ago, there was a page 1 thread on books about dowsing. In that thread there was a link to an online booklet that really impressed me. The author did a pretty good job of surveying the subject from a very broad perspective, listening carefully to user reports, scientific critique, and the historical and cultural traditions that surround the whole subject.

Based on that broad evidence, the author arrived at conclusions a bit different from my own. Our buddy Arthur posted in that thread to the effect he found a lot to agree with in that booklet although he couldn't agree with the whole thing. Imagine that, Art and I agreeing more or less on something!

Cutting to the chase on that....... The author began with a dogmatic Christian perspective (don't know or care what denomination, I have no dog in that fight) which led his conclusion that dowsing and the things that resemble it are the work of a clever supernatural spirit known as Satan, the deceiver. As it turns out, throughout history many cultures have reported similar phenomena but have explained their direct experience as individual "spirits" beneficent and downright evil and everything in between. It is that more universal report to which I give credence.

* * * * * *

The funny thing is, that if there were never any supernatural Satan, or God, or non-Christian "spirits", and of course no physical attraction between dowsing rod and object, dowsing would continue as folk practice not much impaired. The whole commercial and folk level gambling enterprises are funded by the majority of believers who despite their belief can be depended on to lose money.

Add electronic "magic" that most people don't understand well enough to reason about, and you've got instant LRL, even if the electronics aren't really there, the whole thing is a deeply cynical con game. EE gets this much right: the supposedly electronic part of LRL is outright malarkey, and it's the perps' own advertising that proves it. Fraud. ......I take a slightly different tack, that it's theoretically possible that guys like Dell aren't bright enough to understand what the heck is happening between their ears and in their hands and in the electronics if any and in the results which there surely are (as a minimum, negative).

* * * * * *

The LRL apologists often lump "believing in God" to "believing in LRL's". As absurd as this is, I don't have to invent it, you don't have to pay much attention around here to see it happen. That's downright funny, because it's always coming from a Christian perspective on what "believing in God" is, and the mainstream Christian perspective on dowsing/LRL type stuff is that it's the work of the devil. For the most part, I agree with that assessment, that's why my experimentation in this arena has been very careful and has not replaced my day job nor changed my religious beliefs or practices.

It is my deep appreciation for the insights of the Hebrew religious tradition to which Christianity exposed me, that leads me to participation in this forum. The prophets are clear that this stuff is dangerous to the human mind unequipped to deal with it. The written word mostly forbids it outright, that being the simplest way of dealing with the issue. For most folks, an outright ban is the best advice that can be given.

But, as I often say, if having been told what LRL's are, you still want one, and it's your own money and not your family's that you're spending, GO FOR IT! The Universe welcomes the opportunity to punish you for your wilfulness, and the only remaining question is whether or not you'll learn your lesson.

--Toto

EDIT: here's the link to the thread: http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,440680.0.html

EDIT: ACK! I just looked at the thread and the mods have done a Joe Stalin censorship job on it! That's what sucks about the Internet, if you don't have a hard copy the information can disappear without notice.

MESSAGE TO MODERATOR: if you don't want controversy, you don't understand what a "forum" is (the concept is more than 2,000 years old) and you'll kill the purpose and interest that makes your enterprise possible.

Less than 24 hours ago I had to tell ADI that their takeover by lawyers who know nothing of electronics, but who are determined to get even with the engineers of their college frat days, are going to kill a major USA semiconductor company, but at least the lawyers will have golden parachutes! We're writing the history of empires, right here in real time.

That's the awkward situation that the new mods find themselves in-- not even grasping what a forum actually is, much less understanding how it creates the value that produces the revenue that keeps them employed.

Tnet is not in the category of "too big to fail". Tnet ain't exactly on the National Committees' radar screens, the pay to play threshold is probably on the order of twenty bucks. Tnet happens here (if it happens at all) and now, no matter who wins the Prez election.

-- Toto