Serious question; no offense meant

[aarthrj3811]

No...He wanted photo’s so he could show messy stuff inside of them..It was pretty simple to mess them up...Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[kuger]

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl pretty much admitted that the theory [behind LRLs] is a sound, scientific one...

Carl doesn't believe in the theory behind LRLs...

KK, you seem to have a hard time figuring out what I believe in.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

KK, you seem to have a hard time figuring out what I believe in.

No, you just apparently had forgotten about admitting that you believed in it. I'm simply saying that you seem to have different stories at different times. You believe in it, then you don't. You believe in it, but you don't. I really don't think it me who has a hard time figuring out what you believe. Are you saying you didn't believe in the theory when you built the LRL?

 

[Carl-NC]

Can you even tell me what is the theory behind LRLs?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Can you even tell me what is the theory behind LRLs?

We've already discussed that extensively. It's actually a principal.

 

[Carl-NC]

Well, I don't want to make any assumptions since you guys tend to believe in all sorts of whacky things, even things that are demonstrably wrong, like Edison inventing the light bulb. So let's be specific... what is the theory (or "principal") behind the H3Tec?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Well, I don't want to make any assumptions since you guys tend to believe in all sorts of whacky things, even things that are demonstrably wrong, like Edison inventing the light bulb. So let's be specific... what is the theory (or "principal") behind the H3Tec?

If you're talking to me, I wouldn't know. I've never seen an H3Tec, except in pictures/videos.
Carl, do you really consider the principle of resonant frequency to be "whacky"? Are you changing your mind yet again?

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl, do you really consider the principle of resonant frequency to be "whacky"? Are you changing your mind yet again?

If you want to suggest that some LRL operates on the principle of resonant frequencies, then show me that LRL. For all the ones I know about, such a suggestion would be as whacky as saying they operate on the principle of refrigeration.

Chuckie seemed to think you dived into the H3Tec deep end but, then again, truth ain't never been Chuckie's forte.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

If you want to suggest that some LRL operates on the principle of resonant frequencies, then show me that LRL. For all the ones I know about, such a suggestion would be as whacky as saying they operate on the principle of refrigeration.

Chuckie seemed to think you dived into the H3Tec deep end but, then again, truth ain't never been Chuckie's forte.

For the 100th time, I'm not saying any LRL works or not, on ANY principle. What I AM saying, and what that site I posted is saying, is that long range detection is based on the principle of resonant frequency. And again for the 100th time, I say IF a true LRL doesn't exist, then one CAN BE invented, because the principle is true. It's pretty simple. If the principle of radio waves didn't exist, then the radio could never have been invented. But even before the radio (box) was invented, radio existed.

I don't know Chuckie, and I'm sure that Chuckie don't know me.

 

[Carl-NC]

If you want to insist that long-range detection is based on the principle of resonant frequency, then show me a device that does it. If no long range locator based on such a principle actually exists, then what makes you believe that long-range detection is based on such a principle? You could equally say that refrigeration is the correct principle.

Edit: You once got a warm-welcome message on Chuckie's forum, so someone there knows you.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

If you want to insist that long-range detection is based on the principle of resonant frequency, then show me a device that does it. If no long range locator based on such a principle actually exists, then what makes you believe that long-range detection is based on such a principle? You could equally say that refrigeration is the correct principle.

Edit: You once got a warm-welcome message on Chuckie's forum, so someone there knows you.

Why can't you see what I type? I didn't say that there is, or is not such a device. I do say the principle is a sound, scientific one. You believed the same thing when we discussed it on that site, but you said it could never be done because of the amount of power required. And you must have believed it when you built the LRL you said you built. Do you think scientific laws changed because you failed in building a successful LRL?

I got a warm welcome message on Chuckie's forum? What forum would that be? If you're referring to a website I may have joined, then you're probably right. I've joined several treasure related web sites, but this one is the only one I use. What's your point?
BTW, if the above did happen, how did you see it? You must have been there too.

 

[Carl-NC]

If you actually read the thread you cited, you will see that I disagree that resonance is a "sound principle" for long-range detection. I've never believed it to be so, before or after building an LRL. The LRL project was merely to offer interested people a way to try an LRL without spending the kids' college funds on it.

So what makes you believe that "resonant frequencies" is a sound principle for LRLs, but refrigeration is not? Who, exactly, says it's a sound principle?




Welcome Kentucky Kache - Message Board

 

[Kentucky Kache]

If you actually read the thread you cited, you will see that I disagree that resonance is a "sound principle" for long-range detection. I've never believed it to be so, before or after building an LRL. The LRL project was merely to offer interested people a way to try an LRL without spending the kids' college funds on it.

So what makes you believe that "resonant frequencies" is a sound principle for LRLs, but refrigeration is not? Who, exactly, says it's a sound principle?




Welcome Kentucky Kache - Message Board

So now you DON'T believe in resonant frequencies? I'm talking about resonant frequency, LRL's or not. If the principle of resonant frequency is good, LRL or not, then the possibility of using that principle for long range detection is real. How could the radio be invented? Because the principle behind it was real. How could the light bulb be invented (whether you believe it was invented by Thomas Edison, or Mohamed Ali)? Because there were scientific principles that were hit upon to make it work. Many wrong ways were attempted before the right way was finally discovered.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Welcome Kentucky Kache - Message Board

Okay, that was one of the sites I've signed up on. So what? You still need to explain your point. And something else you need to explain. What were YOU doing on that site?

 

[Carl-NC]

So now you DON'T believe in resonant frequencies? I'm talking about resonant frequency, LRL's or not. If the principle of resonant frequency is good, LRL or not, then the possibility of using that principle for long range detection is real.

I can demonstrate to you the principle of resonant frequency as it pertains to a tuba. Does it mean a tuba makes for an effective LRL? What, exactly, is the "principle of resonant frequency" you're espousing for LRLs, who has proposed that principle for LRLs, and what LRLs operate on that principle? If you have no idea, just say, "I have no idea."

Okay, that was one of the sites I've signed up on. So what? You still need to explain your point. And something else you need to explain. What were YOU doing on that site?

Are you kidding? Man, that was one of the most entertaining cases of mass delusion I've ever witnessed! I was there for the sheer entertainment. Nobody, I mean NOBODY, comes close to Chuckie as an LRL religious leader.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

I can demonstrate to you the principle of resonant frequency as it pertains to a tuba. Does it mean a tuba makes for an effective LRL? What, exactly, is the "principle of resonant frequency" you're espousing for LRLs, who has proposed that principle for LRLs, and what LRLs operate on that principle? If you have no idea, just say, "I have no idea."



Are you kidding? Man, that was one of the most entertaining cases of mass delusion I've ever witnessed! I was there for the sheer entertainment. Nobody, I mean NOBODY, comes close to Chuckie as an LRL religious leader.

You don't need to explain it, I already understand it. It's really pretty simple. As it has to do, or COULD have to do with long range detection, read that thread again. It's there.

You were on "Chuckie's" site for pure entertainment, huh. Sounds to me like you're pretty taken with the guy. Honestly, I don't know him, or anything about his site. There are a few sites out there I've signed up on, and couldn't for the life of me tell you what my user name and password is. User name was obvious on that site, but have no idea what my password was. But you. You seem to know quite a bit about the place. Something you're trying to find out there?

 

[Carl-NC]

Chuckie used to sell an LRL, which he claimed worked on the principle of resonant frequencies. It was a bogus claim, and the whole thing was a dowsing rod fraud. As usual for LRLs. The whole story is posted on Geotech.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Chuckie used to sell an LRL, which he claimed worked on the principle of resonant frequencies. It was a bogus claim, and the whole thing was a dowsing rod fraud. As usual for LRLs. The whole story is posted on Geotech.

If Chuckie was a fraud, then boo on Chuckie. I have nothing to do with Chuckie or his machine, or his site. We discussed this on that site back a few years ago (the one I posted the link to). I didn't start hearing you guys talk about chuckie until after that. Chuckie doesn't come into the picture, as far as what I believe, so you might want to change tactics.

 

[Carl-NC]

What, exactly, is the "principle of resonant frequency" you're espousing for LRLs, who has proposed that principle for LRLs, and what LRLs operate on that principle? If you have no idea, just say, "I have no idea."