Ok Skeptics, I will accept the challenge of $25K

[EE THr]

Your welcome doof!!

Arch

Now you have belittled yourself by name-calling.

You are always your own best "skeptic."



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[architecad]

Your welcome doof!!

Arch

Now you have belittled yourself by name-calling.

You are always your own best "skeptic."



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Don't hide behind this forum. Don't be coward!!

 

[architecad]

Your welcome doof!!

Arch

Now you have belittled yourself by name-calling.

You are always your own best "skeptic."



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Don't hide behind this forum. Don't be coward!!

What are you rambling about now?







Random Double-Blind Tests for LRLs


Some people want to cause confusion by disputing the definition of "double-blind test."


Wikipedia---

"Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor."

World English Dictionary---

"double-blind — adj. (Compare single-blind) of or relating to an experiment to discover reactions to certain commodities, drugs, etc, in which neither the experimenters nor the subjects know the particulars of the test items during the experiments."


Because most double-blind testing done these days, is by drug and food companies, some LRLers have cherry picked only those definitions found which contain the word "groups" within them. So they want to insist that there must be a large group of LRLers tested at once, for the test to qualify as "double-blind."

However, as can be seen, the term "double-blind" refers only to who doesn't know what the key element is, which would be the tester and the testee.

Sometimes these tests must, by their nature, involve groups of people, but not always. If only a piece of equipment is being tested for performance, only the equipment and the operator are required to participate. This is confirmed by the following additional definitions---

Wiktionary---

"double-blind test (plural double-blind tests) A form of scientific testing in which neither the tester nor the subjects tested know which are the control items and which are the test items."

Although the above definition uses the plural form, "subjects," it does not say that a "group" must be tested, and the plural form simply refers to "people." Many "people" can do Carl's test---one at a time. Note: The "control items," as mentioned in the above definition, would be the empty target locations, in an LRL test.

The Free Dictionary---

"double blind /dou·ble blind/ (dub´'l blīnd´) pertaining to an experiment in which neither the subject nor the person administering treatment knows which treatment any particular subject is receiving.

In this one, the word "subject" is in the singular form. Carl's test is double-blind. None of the particular LRLers, which might take his test over the years, will know which location contains the real target. And neither will the administrator.


In LRL testing, the "random" part means that the objective is changed at random, so the operator, if failing one part of the test, cannot eliminate that objective location and thus have fewer to choose from in the next test.

A random, double-blind test is the only method which qualifies as a means of certified proof of the performance of an LRL.

Example---

Carl's double-blind test, and reward for $25,000.00.

I will add to the list from time-to-time, as I become aware of more items.





A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.
"The level of sanity or insanity of the subject matter, determines the level of sanity or insanity of the two-way communication attainable in any discussion."

You said that you know me. I tell you now we know each other. You said you going to give me what I deserve,....here I'm waiting!!

Arch

 

[EE THr]

You said that you know me. I tell you now we know each other. You said you going to give me what I deserve,....here I'm waiting!!

Arch

Now you are fabricating again, Arch.

I guess when you've got no facts, you have to make stuff up, huh?

Well, you fantasize about treasures, you fantasize about every rock you stumble across containing micro gold, so you might as well fantasize about everything else, too.

If you ever make it back from Never-Never Land, come back here and post something real for a change.




Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[architecad]

Arch---

And please stick to the topic on this thread.

You can mess up your own threads all you want, but here you need to remember the T.O.U.

Thank you.






A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.
"The level of sanity or insanity of the subject matter, determines the level of sanity or insanity of the two-way communication attainable in any discussion."

Who really mess up here is you. Let us alone!!. Read PM

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Now you are fabricating again, Arch.
I guess when you've got no facts, you have to make stuff up, huh?
Well, you fantasize about treasures, you fantasize about every rock you stumble across containing micro gold, so you might as well fantasize about everything else, too.

If you ever make it back from Never-Never Land, come back here and post something real for a change.

Hey arch...I sure enjoyed my fantasizing and delusions yesterday..I am going to enjoy more of my fantasizing and delusions by catching fish today...Art

 

[TabWhisperer]

The bottom line here on the subject is that Arch said he would accept the challenge and now refuses to. The $10k stipulation is nothing but an thinly veiled excuse so he can avoid the challenge and embarrassment. That ironically makes him the biggest skeptic over and above everyone else. Actions speak louder than words and he will not back up his own words. It's pretty much business as usual in the LRL world.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Jimbog~

The bottom line here on the subject is that Arch said he would accept the challenge and now refuses to. The $10k stipulation is nothing but an thinly veiled excuse so he can avoid the challenge and embarrassment. That ironically makes him the biggest skeptic over and above everyone else. Actions speak louder than words and he will not back up his own words. It's pretty much business as usual in the LRL world.

Wow...More skeptic excuses..He simple stated that he would do Carl’s fake double blind test for $10,000 and expenses..Sound fair to me for taking a chance of being ripped off...Art

 

[EE THr]

~Jimbog~

The bottom line here on the subject is that Arch said he would accept the challenge and now refuses to. The $10k stipulation is nothing but an thinly veiled excuse so he can avoid the challenge and embarrassment. That ironically makes him the biggest skeptic over and above everyone else. Actions speak louder than words and he will not back up his own words. It's pretty much business as usual in the LRL world.

Wow...More skeptic excuses..He simple stated that he would do Carl’s fake double blind test for $10,000 and expenses..Sound fair to me for taking a chance of being ripped off...Art

By that logic, Art, you should write to your State Governer, and demand to be paid $10K for buying a one dollar lottery ticket.

Good luck with that.

 

[aarthrj3811]

This is funny.
The guy doesn't even own a LRL
Correct SWR..With the $10,000 he can buy a MFD if he wants and go and beat Carl's fake double blind test..Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Quick... somebody give me $125K so that I can buy a NASCAR and win races, simply because I say that I can!
Good grief. Tom Bodet done turned the lights out for some folks

Good Luck SWR..See you on TV at the “Brickyard”..Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Even Jimmy Carter wouldn't be dumb enough to take that challenge. What person would knowingly
finance another's failure?

I still maintain that the truest test of an LRL,is to simulate a lost cache,by placing the prize money,in the form of gold,on an agreed upon size property--and let the challenger locate it within an agreed upon size area,commensurate to the search property.
If one truely has such technology,he should have no problem accomplishing such a feat.
The idea of a multiple-choice test,seems too artificial,and contrived to me. I think I would prefer something a little more sanguine.
There are psychological reasons for my position regarding this matter,which I shall not attempt to address here,at this time--suffice it to say,that the internal workings of the imagination,can cancel,or suspend that very subtle magnetic force,so vital to LongRangeDetection.

Hey David...I do not agree with some of your theories...but...You have challenged Randi’s bogus test and architecad has challenged Carl’s fake double blind test.. All I see is excuses made by the skeptics after you two have successfully proved what these tests are all about..They are just talking points...Art

 

[EE THr]

...You have challenged Randi’s bogus test and architecad has challenged Carl’s fake double blind test..

Your accusations about Randi and Carl have been hashed over many times on this forum, yet you have failed to ever come up with any credible evidence that either of these two tests are other than legitimate.

I even suggested other ways in which you could prove to the World that your LRLs actually work, involving totally unbiased administrators, who neither of us knows, and who are "credentialed" Science professionals, as you keep demanding. Yet you always come up with some nonsensical excuse to not provide a demonstration of your devices to these people, many of whom are right in your local area.

Your comments above have been claimed by you, many, many times before, and successfully debunked every time, yet you just keep on posting the same nonsense.

​

Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Your accusations about Randi and Carl have been hashed over many times on this forum, yet you have failed to ever come up with any credible evidence that either of these two tests are other than legitimate.
I even suggested other ways in which you could prove to the World that your LRLs actually work, involving totally unbiased administrators, who neither of us knows, and who are "credentialed" Science professionals, as you keep demanding. Yet you always come up with some nonsensical excuse to not provide a demonstration of your devices to these people, many of whom are right in your local area.
Your comments above have been claimed by you, many, many times before, and successfully debunked every time, yet you just keep on posting the same nonsense.

Reading comprehension is very important...Both of these bogus test clearly state that the terms and conditions can be discussed...Art.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Your accusations about Randi and Carl have been hashed over many times on this forum, yet you have failed to ever come up with any credible evidence that either of these two tests are other than legitimate.
I even suggested other ways in which you could prove to the World that your LRLs actually work, involving totally unbiased administrators, who neither of us knows, and who are "credentialed" Science professionals, as you keep demanding. Yet you always come up with some nonsensical excuse to not provide a demonstration of your devices to these people, many of whom are right in your local area.
Your comments above have been claimed by you, many, many times before, and successfully debunked every time, yet you just keep on posting the same nonsense.

Reading comprehension is very important...Both of these bogus test clearly state that the terms and conditions can be discussed...Art.

Being able to customize the terms and conditions makes both tests even more legitimate. And you're complaining about reading comprehension?

What about all the other options available for you to provide proof?





A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.
"The level of sanity or insanity of the subject matter, determines the level of sanity or insanity of the two-way communication attainable in any discussion."

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Being able to customize the terms and conditions makes both tests even more legitimate. And you're complaining about reading comprehension?
What about all the other options available for you to provide proof?

Why should I provide proof? My devices have found objects that contain the following elements..Gold, Silver, copper, nickel, iron, granite, magnesium, cobalt, silicate, bronzite, iridium, dinosaur bones, US paper money and a water well that is now producing 600 Gpm’s.
Unlike your hobby of bad mouthing treasure hunting I have proved to myself that my devices work so I can enjoy my hobby...
Now can we discuss Ok Skeptics, I will accept the challenge of $25K...Art

 

[werleibr]

~EE~

Being able to customize the terms and conditions makes both tests even more legitimate. And you're complaining about reading comprehension?
What about all the other options available for you to provide proof?

Why should I provide proof? My devices have found objects that contain the following elements..Gold, Silver, copper, nickel, iron, granite, magnesium, cobalt, silicate, bronzite, iridium, dinosaur bones, US paper money and a water well that is now producing 600 Gpm’s.
Unlike your hobby of bad mouthing treasure hunting I have proved to myself that my devices work so I can enjoy my hobby...
Now can we discuss Ok Skeptics, I will accept the challenge of $25K...Art

You used your lrl to find Dinosaur bones, and Paper money? Ok Art you have used your LRL to find metals that I posted in another Topic but failed to mention that there? See http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,417731.msg2980949.html#msg2980949 and read on for those who need a reminder. And one that really strikes me is as a laughable one is Iridium . That is the rarest of all earth metals!!!!! How much you say you find of this. hmmm?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~

And one that really strikes me is as a laughable one is Iridium . That is the rarest of all earth metals!!!!! How much you say you find of this. hmmm?

Yes Iridium is one of the rarest elements in the Earth's crust..Yes Iridium is also found in most of the meteorites laying on the earth...Iridium is one of the proofs offered by archeologists for the demise of dinosaurs. There is evidence that a large meteorite exploded off the coast of Mexico and put a layer of Iridium all the way to Utah... When I search for Meteorites I check all signals for Iron, Nickel, Magnesium, cobalt, silicate, bronzite and iridium....As usual you non treasure hunters lack of knowledge keeps you in a confused state of mind..Yes I have found two verified meteorites.
So can we now get back to the discussion about fake double blind tests?...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Being able to customize the terms and conditions makes both tests even more legitimate. And you're complaining about reading comprehension?
What about all the other options available for you to provide proof?

Why should I provide proof?

And there is your circular run-around, yet again.


First you say that you refuse to provide proof.

Then it is stated that you can't provide proof, because your LRLs don't work.

Then you whine about Randi's and Carl's tests being the reason you can't show proof.

Then your silly excuse for not performing a double-blind test is debunked.

Then you go right back to you silly excuse for refusing to provide proof.


A complete circle. And that's all you ever do.


And thus your motto---

​

Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[werleibr]

~werleibr~

And one that really strikes me is as a laughable one is Iridium . That is the rarest of all earth metals!!!!! How much you say you find of this. hmmm?

Yes Iridium is one of the rarest elements in the Earth's crust..Yes Iridium is also found in most of the meteorites laying on the earth...Iridium is one of the proofs offered by archeologists for the demise of dinosaurs. There is evidence that a large meteorite exploded off the coast of Mexico and put a layer of Iridium all the way to Utah... When I search for Meteorites I check all signals for Iron, Nickel, Magnesium, cobalt, silicate, bronzite and iridium....As usual you non treasure hunters lack of knowledge keeps you in a confused state of mind..Yes I have found two verified meteorites.
So can we now get back to the discussion about fake double blind tests?...Art

Yes i know iridium is in meteorites, and the K-T boundry. But you stating that you found iridium is different than stating you found a meteorite. It is all in the wording. And that is not the only reason scientists give for the demise of the dinosaurs, just fyi. It was many factors that all came together. [step on soap box] Just like your generation put this nation in the crapper. With your stuburness, and unwillingness to admit that you are wrong and make wrong choices. And then go and blame my generation for chooseing the leaders we do [step off soap box] Ok i know that soap box is ment for another area, but it has a point, Your stuberness and closed mindness to what other information people bring to the table. You don't care what others say against your points, if it don't help you, you ignore it or spin it. I on the other hand research into the things you post and find much of it useless. You quote way to much from websites. Time to open a book.