Is there a Long Range Locator capable of this?

[hung]

The inside of the device, actually.

This answer lacks objectivity.
I ask again, what inside the device made them laugh?

A lawsuit is filed by someone who has suffered damages, which I haven't. You could argue a metal detector company has suffered damages, but the reality is that the LRL market is so small the damages aren't measurable. So a court may not allow a lawsuit to proceed if damages cannot be demonstrated.

In my country we have laws for this specific infraction and here it would be called 'hype'. USA laws cover the same procedures against this type of offense, altough probably employing another term. I remember I came to know of several cases related to certain types of food manufacturers who in the past, advertised some ingredients which were later proved lacking and had to pay heavy fines when discovered by the FDA.

So, some kind of lawsuit could apply. If the device DOES NOT WORK AS ADVERTISED, hype or whatever occured and the buyer lost his money getting something that did not work.
Didn't the same thing happened to Quadro Tracker but in another level?

You have always claimed that the LRLs you own do not work. Electroscopes included. But you and the other skeptics have NEVER filed any lawsuit against a single manufacturer.
I have never used a Electroscope. I don't know if it works or not. According to the patents I have read about it, the concept is nothing extraordinary and should work. I have had contact with some who successfully use them.

So, again, if you are POSITIVE is does not work, you could very well take them to court and prove your point.
Why you still have not done so?
See the contradiction... You are one of some who always claimed LRLs are bogus. Because of this, because of that...It's pseudoscience, etc. and etc.
But sucessful LRL users claim the opposite. Who has the benefit of doubt and needs to prove the point? The accuser.

Afilani and his Electroscopes are a USA based corporation. You and the other accusers are also from USA. So, until you take an objective action to support your claim, I see no reason to state that 'engineers laughed' when looked the 'insides' of it or keep populating forums saying it does not work. It's unfair and unethical.
Until then, I think you should prove it or remain shut.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Carl-NC]

This answer lacks objectivity.
I ask again, what inside the device made them laugh?

Not sure exactly, but I'd guess that 30 feet of Bell wire and the complete lack of a real circuit in a $795 "locator" probably did it.

You have always claimed that the LRLs you own do not work. Electroscopes included. But you and the other skeptics have NEVER filed any lawsuit against a single manufacturer.
So, again, if you are POSITIVE is does not work, you could very well take them to court and prove your point.
Why you still have not done so?
Afilani and his Electroscopes are a USA based corporation. You and the other accusers are also from USA. So, until you take an objective action to support your claim, I see no reason to state that 'engineers laughed' when looked the 'insides' of it or keep populating forums saying it does not work. It's unfair and unethical.
Until then, I think you should prove it or remain shut.

I'll disagree with you on one point. I believe it to be unethical to see fraud and remain silent. Some people believe otherwise. That's their choice.

Yes, I can easily demonstrate that LRLs don't work, using scientific test procedures, to the level that would be required in a court action. And I tend to agree, perhaps I should file a lawsuit. To do so, I would need to buy a new device directly from the manufacturer. However, my views of LRLs are well documented, so if I buy a device and then sue, a good defense will argue that I was not defrauded because I knew what I was buying. Also, such an action would immediately cost me in excess of $10,000 and could easily escalate to $50,000 or more. This is why no one ever files suit. However, I may eventually decide to try this, as opposed to reintroducing my challenge prize. We'll see.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Yes, I can easily demonstrate that LRLs don't work, using scientific test procedures, to the level that would be required in a court action. And I tend to agree, perhaps I should file a lawsuit. To do so, I would need to buy a new device directly from the manufacturer. However, my views of LRLs are well documented, so if I buy a device and then sue, a good defense will argue that I was not defrauded because I knew what I was buying. Also, such an action would immediately cost me in excess of $10,000 and could easily escalate to $50,000 or more. This is why no one ever files suit. However, I may eventually decide to try this, as opposed to reintroducing my challenge prize.

We'll see.
Sounds good Carl….Can you give us some Scientific Reports about how these Metal Detectors preformed. Come on now,,,Talk will no longer be considered as PROOF.. Scammers put out a lot of false information to their marks but do not submit any PROOF….Art

 

[Carl-NC]

What metal detectors?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Ducking and Dodging when you are ask a Question. Are LRL’s and MFD’s advertised as Metal Detectors. It is clear that all this Spinning, twisting, ducking and dodging is just avoiding having to not submit any proof. …Art

 

[Carl-NC]

Ducking and Dodging when you are ask a Question. Are LRL’s and MFD’s advertised as Metal Detectors. It is clear that all this Spinning, twisting, ducking and dodging is just avoiding having to not submit any proof. …Art

Art, you know I don't "duck & dodge." You may not like or agree with the answers I give, but I answer your questions. Save the rude responses for other people.

LRLs are not metal detectors. Even Dell will tell you this. Most LRLs are not advertised as metal detectors (some even have a setting for diamonds!), and many of them make no claims of being able to do anything in particular. Look at the ads for Electroscopes... they avoid making specific claims. Same with Vector Trek and Dell.

So let's reword your question slightly:

"Can you give us some Scientific Reports about how these LRLs p[er]formed[?]"

I don't know that anything approaching "scientific report" has been written specifically on treasure hunting LRLs. I've told you that before, at least twice. Formal reports have been written on equivalent non-treasure hunting devices, but you've rejected those. It's unlikely anyone is going to set up a formal large-scale test of LRLs for the purpose of a formal scientific report that would satisfy you. However, I'd be glad to personally meet with you and write a report on your results.

 

[aarthrj3811]

I don't know that anything approaching "scientific report" has been written specifically on treasure hunting LRLs. I've told you that before, at least twice. Formal reports have been written on equivalent non-treasure hunting devices, but you've rejected those. It's unlikely anyone is going to set up a formal large-scale test of LRLs for the purpose of a formal scientific report that would satisfy you. However, I'd be glad to personally meet with you and write a report on your results.
Formal reports have been written on equivalent non-treasure hunting devices, but you've rejected those.

Why do I disagree with these reports. I have never looked for bombs or people. I have looked for Gold, Silver, Copper, Dollar Bills, Rose quartz, meteorites and maybe a few other things. The 7 units that I have use all found what we were seeking. I know for a fact that 7 of them work

. It's unlikely anyone is going to set up a formal large-scale test of LRLs for the purpose of a formal scientific report that would satisfy you

I agree with that. I keep hearing about the thousand of people who have been scammed. I would like to talk to them just to see what went wrong. It seems that the people who have come here and made reports of having good results are often belittled.
The only proof that is around comes from people who have FOUND TREASURE and those that are happy with the products.
The real facts are that there is a lot of studies that have been done about Dowsing. Despite all the real proof and the thousands of satisfied Dowsers you guys keep bothering them. So I will not chance my mind about the skeptic…Why don’t you guys find a real problem to fix and leave the Treasure Hunters alone…Art

 

[hung]

Not sure exactly, but I'd guess that 30 feet of Bell wire and the complete lack of a real circuit in a $795 "locator" probably did it.

I think you are smarter than that.
The only way for electronic device manufacturers to protect their 'inventions' when they sell it if ever needed, is to make it harder for someone who inspects it to discover relevant points. They either use special resins as in the Mineoro's case or some other 'difficulty'. I believe the insides of the electroscopes is a mess on purpose. But this does not mean it can't possibly work.

I'll disagree with you on one point. I believe it to be unethical to see fraud and remain silent. Some people believe otherwise. That's their choice.

Yes, I can easily demonstrate that LRLs don't work, using scientific test procedures, to the level that would be required in a court action. And I tend to agree, perhaps I should file a lawsuit. To do so, I would need to buy a new device directly from the manufacturer. However, my views of LRLs are well documented, so if I buy a device and then sue, a good defense will argue that I was not defrauded because I knew what I was buying. Also, such an action would immediately cost me in excess of $10,000 and could easily escalate to $50,000 or more. This is why no one ever files suit. However, I may eventually decide to try this, as opposed to reintroducing my challenge prize. We'll see.

If you were ever serious about your 'challenge', which by the way I know you never were, 50 grand is half of the prize you 'intended' to give away, so I think it's worth that you spend this in a lawsuit against something you do believe 'cannot possibly work'.
But consider that you quite possibly will loose in court.

Actually there are two basic types of LRLs. The all-electronic ones and the swivel type electronic-radionic ones. The Mineoros and OKM Bionic 01 for instance are part of the first group and the RT from the second one. The electroscopes might fall mostly in this last group as tough as it works by swiveling, it does feature a 9v powersource and there's an electronic circuit inside.
So, I will refer to this last group simply because in the case of Mineoro for instance, there's no chance even minimal, to win a case against it as I and many others are living proofs for the several gold targets already found, specially gold veins.
Brazilian people are obcessed in comsumer rights and they do what is possible to file lawsuits against corporations who use hype. If the devices were fraudulent, don't doubt a single moment that Mineoro would be by now, out of business regarding LRLs.
To prove the device works, it would only require a user or a Mineoro representative to take the judge himself to a gold mining region to see the detector working.

So, let's rely on the swivel type LRLs, the ones that require human interface due to their own concept.
In that case, you might have a minimal chance to succed in your lawsuit against some corporations. Note that I said, 'might' as I've never used an Electroscope for instance and other swivel types LRLs. Except for the RT. And I found it working.
Well, how would you expect to prove it does not work? By telling the judge that a device with a Xtal, some electronics and 30 feet of Bell wire 'cannot possibly work'? Nah... I don't think you would be such a fool. You will demand a demonstration.
Talking about the scopes, which is a USA based company, assuming it does not work, it would be quite easy to prove this. I believe Afilani, the inventor himself would be called to demonstrate the device's capabilities. Thus, he should probably be the most qualified person as he was the one who invented the thing.
You claim it does not work. Others claim it does not work. But there are some who claim it does work! I know one person who found gold coins with it. Maybe he was lying? Maybe the ones who succeded were lying? You think it was random chance? Do you think it would require the user to perform 15 times the procedure right to call it functional? Hummm... I really don't think so.

So assuming Afilani succeded in locating the target in the field, you would be in good trouble. You would loose the cause and most important your reputation would be destroyed in a matter of hours trough the internet.
Would you really be prepared for this to happen?

 

[Carl-NC]

Why do I disagree with these reports. I have never looked for bombs or people. I have looked for Gold, Silver, Copper, Dollar Bills, Rose quartz, meteorites and maybe a few other things. The 7 units that I have use all found what we were seeking. I know for a fact that 7 of them work

As I said, no report I could ever provide would change your mind.

I agree with that. I keep hearing about the thousand of people who have been scammed. I would like to talk to them just to see what went wrong.

Lots of people contact me directly because of my web site, asking for more info. Last week I was contacted by 2 more people looking for a way to get their money back after realizing what they bought was junk. A third person contacted me stating he had bought a certain LRL but was just begininning to use it, and isn't convinced it's junk. Sometimes people contact me to tell me how wrong I am. The point is, these people rarely post here.

The only proof that is around comes from people who have FOUND TREASURE and those that are happy with the products.

As I've also said before, neither positive results nor failed tests constitute "proof," only evidence.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Well Carl…I received close to 100 e-mails telling me how much they loved my movie. I talk weekly with a lot of people who are enjoying using their LRL’s and MFD’s. Yes, some ask me questions about some of their problems and I try to help them. I enjoy that more than reading some phony scam job from people who do not understand what treasure hunting is….Art

 

[hung]

As I've also said before, neither positive results nor failed tests constitute "proof," only evidence.

This is wrong. You mistook two concepts.

Legally, proof is a concrete element and requires documentation.
Evidence, on the other hand, dispenses proof.
It's absolutely certain, even if it does not count on objective proof.

When a metal detector finds metal, it is evidently working. When a LRL finds a target, it's also evidently working.
Your example was unfortunate.

 

[Saturna]

Ducking and Dodging when you are ask a Question. Are LRL’s and MFD’s advertised as Metal Detectors. It is clear that all this Spinning, twisting, ducking and dodging is just avoiding having to not submit any proof. …Art

Art, you know I don't "duck & dodge." You may not like or agree with the answers I give, but I answer your questions. Save the rude responses for other people.

I wouldn't take it too personally. I suspect Art's computer adds those overused expressions to each of his posts automatically.

_________________________________________________

Also, I'll re-post this quote from hung just to give a reminder of his electronics/electrical knowledge.

It requires a very high level of electric current but without amperage.

 

[hung]

It requires a very high level of electric current but without amperage.

If you had the habit of reading, you would know this sentence was not made by me.
But whatever the case, your lack of scientific knowledge simply avoids further discussion. I'm really sorry.

 

[Ted Groves]

Also, I'll re-post this quote from hung just to give a reminder of his electronics/electrical knowledge.

It requires a very high level of electric current but without amperage.

Wow! Now that is classic!

Could you post a little more of the context?

 

[Saturna]

Here's the post ...
Whether they are your words or not hung, you put them under your name. They appear in the first post, along with some other laughable stuff (except to the dreamers). Carl's response in the third post is especially good.

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,300040.0.html

Here's a picture in case the post "disappears".

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Carl. …I noticed that you had no comments about my Movie that showed the Ranger Tell Examiner locating and findinganunknowntarget….http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,305970.100.html….Page two post #135..Of course the only ones complaining were your group. Of course I knew there was about ¾ oz of silver there. I found the signal about 500 feet from the target…According to some of your friends that makes it a known target. That is one of the big problems that I have with your people. Along with a lot of other things they do not know what a known target is…Art

 

[Carl-NC]

The only way for electronic device manufacturers to protect their 'inventions' when they sell it if ever needed, is to make it harder for someone who inspects it to discover relevant points. They either use special resins as in the Mineoro's case or some other 'difficulty'. I believe the insides of the electroscopes is a mess on purpose. But this does not mean it can't possibly work.

For sufficiently advanced technology (which, I presume, would supposedly apply to LRLs) a patent is a decent way to legally protect an invention. Beyond that, open up any (and I mean any) consumer electronic device... TV, radio, cellphone, GPS, computer, iPod, metal detector... and see if they are loaded up with lots of spare Bell wire, or modules epoxied from an ice cube tray. Minelab is the only company I know of that makes any effort at hiding technology, and all they do is grind off part numbers and spray-paint their boards.

The real problem with E-scopes is, when you remove the "protection," there was nothing to hide in the first place. There's nothing there. A battery that either powers a light bulb or a meter. That's all. That's probably what everyone was laughing at... a big rat's nest of nothing.

If you were ever serious about your 'challenge', which by the way I know you never were, 50 grand is half of the prize you 'intended' to give away, so I think it's worth that you spend this in a lawsuit against something you do believe 'cannot possibly work'.

My challenge prize was $25,000.

But consider that you quite possibly will loose in court.

As I said before, there's a slim possibility it would be dismissed on a technicality, such as the fact that I knew what I was buying. But there is also a possibility of winning the lawsuit and only getting actual damages, not including legal fees. That is, I could buy a Model 301 for $2450, sue and get my $2450 back, and be stuck with $10-50k in legal fees. Unlike practically every other developed nation, the US does not have a loser-pays legal system.

To prove the device works, it would only require a user or a Mineoro representative to take the judge himself to a gold mining region to see the detector working.

Courts generally give scientific evidence far more weight than anecdotal evidence. 100 people can claim to have been successful, but if no one can demonstrate it in a reasonable scientific test (that is, it continuously fails), then those 100 people won't look very credible.

Well, how would you expect to prove it does not work? ... You will demand a demonstration. ... I believe Afilani, the inventor himself would be called to demonstrate the device's capabilities. Thus, he should probably be the most qualified person as he was the one who invented the thing.

Yes, I would like a demonstration, and preferably by Afilani, but one that is scientifically credible. That would involve a randomized double-blind protocol, the foundation of scientific testing, not a coin tossed out in a field. You might want to read up on the details of legal scientific evidence, you might find that even without a demonstration LRLs are at a severe disadvantage in the courtroom.

Legally, proof is a concrete element and requires documentation.
Evidence, on the other hand, dispenses proof.
It's absolutely certain, even if it does not count on objective proof.

You speak of legal proof, whereas I believe everyone around here is demanding scientific proof. As I said before, "proofs" are for mathematicians and distillers (and maybe lawyers); science deals in evidence, not proofs.

 

[Carl-NC]

Hey Carl. …I noticed that you had no comments about my Movie that showed the Ranger Tell Examiner locating and findinganunknowntarget….http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,305970.100.html….Page two post #135..Of course the only ones complaining were your group. Of course I knew there was about ¾ oz of silver there. I found the signal about 500 feet from the target…According to some of your friends that makes it a known target. That is one of the big problems that I have with your people. Along with a lot of other things they do not know what a known target is…Art

What is there to say? I was incredibly impressed with how precisely you placed the video camera. I was also impressed with how clean* the silver dollar was. However, the video as a demonstration of an LRL recovery was woefully unimpressive (but I'm not complaining about it). That's why I'd like to come visit you, to see you in action.

*Clean, not shiny. Most of the silver I've dug up is shiny, but none of it comes out clean. It's always covered with dirt that has to be removed.

 

[Ted Groves]

*Clean, not shiny. Most of the silver I've dug up is shiny, but none of it comes out clean. It's always covered with dirt that has to be removed.

BINGO!

You only make the nth viewer of the video to make that comment to him. I'm betting the next piece of silver he happens to unearth in front of a video camera will be complete with encrusted dirt stuck to it.

 

[aarthrj3811]

You only make the nth viewer of the video to make that comment to him. I'm betting the next piece of silver he happens to unearth in front of a video camera will be complete with encrusted dirt stuck to it.

All Skeptics present the same kind of flawed answers.
Just some thing to think about…What if this mystery signal that makes the coin shake knocks the dirt off of it? Or maybe I dug up a bunch of dirt and ran it though the wash machine and put it and the coin back in the hole so it would come out clean….Art