Doubt kills growth

[signal_line]

I already said I would submit to Carl's test, just pay me for my time and expenses $2500. That's probably only a day's wages for you rich guys. Maybe you can work out some tax-free donations? I will even throw in one of my Revelation Locator Rods and give lessons. I also said I probably will not be able to pass any trumped-up test, but I don't care. And it won't prove that LRL's don't work, either. I guarantee you it not "scientific" anyway. And if that gives the skeptics a license to harass and intimidate, well, they already do that. Might as well get paid for it. I don't recall ever reading the rules, but I did see somewhere about doing many repetitions. Of course this is designed to confuse and contaminate the area with magnetic remnance and certainly is not how real treasure hunting is done. So you see the idea of the test is only to break down the user through fatigue and confusion then claim they don't work. That's what I know of and I'm sure ol' Carl has some more tricks up his sleeve like possibly electronic jamming, etc. I suppose I could install some sort of intrusion alarm to check for this, but why? I don't need to prove LRL's work. I know they do and there's no way I will ever convince you hard-core skeptics. I'll bet even if I could possibly teach you, you still wouldn't admit it.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[woof!]

I'm sure ol' Carl has some more tricks up his sleeve like possibly electronic jamming, etc.

Signal, do you understand how silly that is? The only way that Carl could possibly think that "electronic jamming" would stop an LRL, is if he thought LRL's had electronics that weren't bogus! And if he thought that, he wouldn't be "jamming" yours, White's would be manufacturing them and proudly submitting them to critical testing!

All it takes for an LRL to "work" for a gullibilly, is the swingy thingy has to swingy, and the salespitch has to qualify the buyers as gullibillies. That's what your own salespitch in this very thread demands of potential buyers. You give an excellent demo of what people like Carl and myself and EE say about LRL proponents. Even better than Art.

Got a minute to learn how IQ works? Thomas is the biggie in the LRL business. Perhaps you've noticed that he doesn't post here trying to defend his products against informed critique. That's how IQ works.

--Toto

EDIT: but if they could hold up under scrutiny, at that point nobody would be referring to them as LRL's any more. Not the manufacturer, not LRL proponents. Nobody! So you see, we all know the same thing about LRL's. To be called an "LRL", it has to be bogus.

 

[EE THr]

I already said I would submit to Carl's test, just pay me for my time and expenses $2500.

With all the alleged treasure loot you supposedly locate so easily, why would you be concerned about a piddling $2,500.00?

Not to mention that I just posted a link to a page which explains how to get an LRL tested, by an unbiased administrator, for free!

Like I said above, the circular logic of you LRL promoters can always be relied upon to come back around and contradict your own previous stories. Thanks for verifying that one more time, after the many, many previous occasions.

 

[woof!]

I already said I would submit to Carl's test, just pay me for my time and expenses $2500. That's probably only a day's wages for you rich guys. Maybe you can work out some tax-free donations? I will even throw in one of my Revelation Locator Rods and give lessons. I also said I probably will not be able to pass any trumped-up test, but I don't care. And it won't prove that LRL's don't work, either. I guarantee you it not "scientific" anyway. And if that gives the skeptics a license to harass and intimidate, well, they already do that. Might as well get paid for it. I don't recall ever reading the rules, but I did see somewhere about doing many repetitions. Of course this is designed to confuse and contaminate the area with magnetic remnance and certainly is not how real treasure hunting is done. So you see the idea of the test is only to break down the user through fatigue and confusion then claim they don't work. That's what I know of and I'm sure ol' Carl has some more tricks up his sleeve like possibly electronic jamming, etc. I suppose I could install some sort of intrusion alarm to check for this, but why? I don't need to prove LRL's work. I know they do and there's no way I will ever convince you hard-core skeptics. I'll bet even if I could possibly teach you, you still wouldn't admit it.

In plain English, you insist on being paid to fail with the cameras running, and are bragging about it on a public forum! And even more amazingly, you expect people to take you seriously! (Don't worry, at least Art will, he's the guy whom you should be paying off with a Revelator.)

Any gullibillies impressed with Mike's maneuver? If so, prove you're no skeptic, and blow your piggy bank on Mike's swingy thingy right now.

--Toto

 

[signal_line]

I never said I was guaranteed to fail, just that the test is most likely set up that way. I don't know what Carl has up his sleeve, but why would anyone want to give away $25,000? I even told him I can certainly understand if he puts several "deterents" in place to prevent detection. I see no reason why Carl would not set up his test like the million dollar hoax which was intented to never pay out the prize money.

Now if you want to know what sounds absolutely ridiculous is your claiming you know all about LRL's and why they can't possibly work. That is so absurd. I don't know you well enough to know if you are being serious or not, but I assume you are. You better keep your daytime job.

 

[woof!]

Signal, the people who sell LRL's prove by their statements and actions that they know their gizmo is a hoax. Your own posts in this very thread are good examples. The manufacturer should know whether or not the thing is a hoax. When the manufacturer regards the thing as a hoax, why should anyone else think otherwise?

We already know why Art would, but I'm not Art.

--Toto

 

[aarthrj3811]

~woof~

In plain English, you insist on being paid to fail with the cameras running, and are bragging about it on a public forum! And even more amazingly, you expect people to take you seriously! (Don't worry, at least Art will, he's the guy whom you should be paying off with a Revelator.)

Any gullibillies impressed with Mike's maneuver? If so, prove you're no skeptic, and blow your piggy bank on Mike's swingy thingy right now.

Hey Mike..You are right about what the skeptic’s will do to disrupt a test..I saw them disrupt one of the tests that Carl had set up...The man had spent his money and I had also spent money to attend . Now they complain because they are not getting any more free rides...Art

 

[woof!]

~woof~

In plain English, you insist on being paid to fail with the cameras running, and are bragging about it on a public forum! And even more amazingly, you expect people to take you seriously! (Don't worry, at least Art will, he's the guy whom you should be paying off with a Revelator.)

Any gullibillies impressed with Mike's maneuver? If so, prove you're no skeptic, and blow your piggy bank on Mike's swingy thingy right now.

Hey Mike..You are right about what the skeptic’s will do to disrupt a test..I saw them disrupt one of the tests that Carl had set up...The man had spent his money and I had also spent money to attend . Now they complain because they are not getting any more free rides...Art

Heck, why do you guys keep whining about "skeptic tests"? Don't the manufacturers of LRL's know how to set up a credible demonstration of their efficacy without Carl's or A.R's assistance?

The answer is that yes, they do know. The problem is that they got nothing to show. So they whine that it's the fault of "skeptics" that their stuff doesn't work.

Why would anyone buy a product from a manufacturer that has nothing to show but alabis? It's a question that Signal started this very thread for the purpose of answering, and he's answered it very well indeed -- LRL's are for gullibillies. He don't want nobody with a lick of sense buying his gadget by mistake and then posting on a forum that they got suckered.

Art, just to make sure you understand this much: it was Signal who started this thread and who has posted the stuff he's posted. It was not me, it was not Carl, it was not EE, it wasn't even Dell who seems to be staying out of this one. If you're not flattered by the portrait that Signal paints of the ideal LRL customer, take your complaint to him.

--Toto

 

[signal_line]

Well, I can see I will have to be dealing with knuckle heads. My offer of $2500 was bare minimum. I think I will need three days (solar magnetic conditions are near their worst) and I will buy some other intrusion detection equipment so I have decided I won't do it for less than $5000 now. Otherwise I won't be happy. I'm looking at five days plus all my expenses. That's as cheap as anyone else will do it for. Not to mention being filmed so all my expertise will be given away on the internet. Should charge ten times that amount, then you can sell the training video. And I also said if I win the prize I will forfeit my fee.

 

[woof!]

Mike, you're making this funnier by the minute. You insist on being paid to lose, but not to win! If you want to be promised $5K for the privilege of watching you do nothing, a feat we're all certain you can deliver on, I don't think Carl's your man. I predict that not even Art would pay $5K (or for that matter even a plugged nickel) to watch you do nothing.

I'd pay a plugged nickel to watch you do nothing right in front of me, as long as the show don't last more than five minutes. Arrange to have Thomas hold the camera if you like. Probably the best offer you'll get.

--Toto

 

[aarthrj3811]

~woof~

Heck, why do you guys keep whining about "skeptic tests"? Don't the manufacturers of LRL's know how to set up a credible demonstration of their efficacy without Carl's or A.R's assistance?

Gee woof...There is a credible demonstration right here on this board...Many of the treasure hunters do it often...It is not us who keeps whining about taking a test...We know our devices work..It is the skeptics that know nothing about them..

The answer is that yes, they do know. The problem is that they got nothing to show. So they whine that it's the fault of "skeptics" that their stuff doesn't work.

We know our devices work. It is the skeptics that keep complaining because no one will take their fake tests..

Why would anyone buy a product from a manufacturer that has nothing to show but alabis? It's a question that Signal started this very thread for the purpose of answering, and he's answered it very well indeed -- LRL's are for gullibillies. He don't want nobody with a lick of sense buying his gadget by mistake and then posting on a forum that they got suckered.

Yes it seems like there are no complaints about people being defrauded by the manufactures..Just claims by the skeptics who have never used one...

Art, just to make sure you understand this much: it was Signal who started this thread and who has posted the stuff he's posted. It was not me, it was not Carl, it was not EE, it wasn't even Dell who seems to be staying out of this one. If you're not flattered by the portrait that Signal paints of the ideal LRL customer, take your complaint to him.

Yes it was..

Just a quick note here. I compare doubt to a plant that had a branch cut off and cauterized. People don't realize that doubt is many times a subconscious brain program. Part of learning to use any kind of locator involves being able to stop these mental programs from controlling you. In less time than it takes to blink an eye, the doubt program will kill your best attempt at locating. Pinch! and it's gone. That's why every book ever written on locating says to stay away from negative people. They plant the seeds

of doubt into your subconscious. Say a prayer for these poor unfortunate souls.

Whats wrong with someone telling the truth?...Art

 

[EE THr]

Signal---

Did it ever occur to you that the $25,000.00 winnings will pay for all your expenses?

It would even cover the cost of a spectrum analyser, which you could use to check for any nasty "interference."

"This field is clean!"​

Of course, if you simply took my suggestion about A Scientific Test for LRLs, you wouldn't need to travel, and you wouldn't need to worry about tricksters hiding behind every tree.

But you have been totally ignoring that....

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Of course, if you simply took my suggestion about A Scientific Test for LRLs, you wouldn't need to travel, and you wouldn't need to worry about tricksters hiding behind every tree.
But you have been totally ignoring that....

Gee EE...It seems that with 99 posts that subject was not ignored..But that is just your personal whining opinion..Art

 

[Carl-NC]

I already said I would submit to Carl's test, just pay me for my time and expenses $2500.

Mike, you're the third person, right here on this very forum, who wants to be paid for failure. No one, absolutely no one, wants to be paid for success, cause all the proponents know exactly the same thing as all the skeptics.

I also said I probably will not be able to pass any trumped-up test, but I don't care. And it won't prove that LRL's don't work, either. I guarantee you it not "scientific" anyway. I don't recall ever reading the rules, but I did see somewhere about doing many repetitions. Of course this is designed to confuse and contaminate the area with magnetic remnance and certainly is not how real treasure hunting is done. So you see the idea of the test is only to break down the user through fatigue and confusion then claim they don't work.

The alibis flow freely before a protocol is even considered! And it's all my fault!

That's what I know of and I'm sure ol' Carl has some more tricks up his sleeve like possibly electronic jamming, etc.

Toto covered this one nicely... ain't nothing to jam. You'll notice I don't offer the challenge to folks who make metal detectors, magnetometers, GPR, NQR, and so forth... in short, stuff that's got non-bogus electronics, stuff that Really Works.

I don't know what Carl has up his sleeve, but why would anyone want to give away $25,000?

Done answered this one in the past... Bob Fitzgerald once told me to put up or shut up. It worked! I put up, and he shut up.

It works with you as well -- $25,000 if you can successfully demonstrate your LRL -- but you insist on getting paid to fail, you won't even entertain the possibility that you could ever succeed. So you see, my challenge only demonstrates that you and I agree on what your LRL is designed to do. The glaring lack of "why don't you show ol' Carl?" demonstrates that every LRL believer agrees as well.

Tellyawhat, Mike... you make up the test. How do you normally test* your LRL? How do you normally demonstrate your LRL to other folks? Start with those, maybe you can come up with a test you feel you can succeed with, unless you you know your gizmo does nothing but swivel to the tune of wishful thinking. If you really believe it does more than this, you can devise a test; if you don't believe it can do more, then you'll make no effort to come up with a protocol, and you'll blame me. Is this completely unfair to you?

- Carl


*Assuming you ever test it, but I spoze as long as it swivels, it passes the functionality test, and all that's left is the marketing test. Sorry, I don't pay for successful marketing.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Of course, if you simply took my suggestion about A Scientific Test for LRLs, you wouldn't need to travel, and you wouldn't need to worry about tricksters hiding behind every tree.

But you have been totally ignoring that....

Gee EE...It seems that with 99 posts that subject was not ignored..But that is just your personal whining opinion..Art

I was talking about this---

...the very, very, best advertisement---getting the most bang for their buck---would be to post the results of a Free Scientific Test.

Which Signal has ignored in this thread....


Wake up, Art.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

I was talking about this---
Quote from: EE THr on Yesterday at 05:54:19 pm

...the very, very, best advertisement---getting the most bang for their buck---would be to post the results of a Free Scientific Test.

Which Signal has ignored in this thread....

Darn..I thought I read a reply from Signal giving his terms for taking a test..It seems that a lot of people do not believe your theory is the correct...You have to realize that beggars seldom get what they are asking for... Art

 

[signal_line]

Scientific?

You skeptics are so biased, like notorious skeptic from the midwest said "I am totally unbiased." Whoever BELIEVES that is about a GULLIBLE as it gets. You missed your calling in politics.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~signal_line~

Scientific?

You skeptics are so biased, like notorious skeptic from the midwest said "I am totally unbiased." Whoever BELIEVES that is about a GULLIBLE as it gets. You missed your calling in politics.

Good to see you back...I see that we have found a subject that we agree on...this is the sorriest group of skeptics that Randi ever assigned to us..Yes they are like politicians ..You can’t believe anything that they say...Art

 

[hung]

I'm a bit surprised that (some) LRL users still seem to take Carl serious other than skeptics.

 

[Carl-NC]

I'm a bit surprised that (some) LRL users still seem to take Carl serious other than skeptics.

Ya see what I mean, Mike? Even Hung thinks ya cain't do squat. We're all in agreement!