I am enjoying your post signal-line. It's very on-script for the subject. Any attempt for critics/skeptics to question this, is easily batted away. Examples:
Well, if you ask some EE that works for a metal detector company, the answer would parrot the wikipedia phony crap....
Yes . You can't trust anything you read on wikipedia, right ? Unless it concurs with one's views. Then, of course, it was correct. Never mind that that wikipedia is simply the consensus of contributors, and that their sources (bibliography) can be looked up to see where their assertions come from. It's just much easier to 'diss the source. You can 'diss a dictionary. Or diss any source you want. Unless, of course, it backs up our own biases. Then, of course the source was correct, eh ?
.... take a $30 frequency generator and some bent welding rod and charge over a thousand bucks .....
Right: It's not that LRL's are non-working snake oil, right ? It's merely that any non-working ones, that can be pointed to, by the skeptics, are merely singular examples of unique ones that don't happen to work. It will be never-ending: No matter HOW many non-working ones the skeptics can point to, those too will simply be lumped into the "spurious" category. And at no time does it ever prove that the whole enterprise is bogus. Right ? Thus becoming bullet-proof.
........ They work if you can learn how to use them. . ....
This is my favorite: At no point can any skeptic ever test one. Because when the unit is shown not to work, it NEVER means "they don't work". It always merely means that the tester/user "didn't learn how to use them". Right ?
.... .. If you are like me, count the learning time in years or decades. . ....
Year
s or decade
s. I like how you use plurals. Because then it can become "never-ending". Example: If the person testing/trying them spent years, you merely tell them to "try for a decade". If at the end of 10 yrs. they still don't find squat, you merely tell them to "try for
2 decades". If at the end of 2 decades it still doesn't work, well gee, you tell them they need
3 decades. See how that never ends ? Thus it's NEVER that it "doesn't work". It's always that the user "
needs more decades". Right ?
.... Then a big problem comes when you get out in the field--wind, uneven ground, brush, lots of stuff to distract you.. ....
Right. If ever you don't find a goodie, well then: Durned that 1) wind, 2) uneven ground, 3) brush, 3) distractions, etc.... It's never that it doesn't work. We can add all sorts of other impediments to this list: 4) Sun spots, 5) magnets that were in nearby people's pockets, 6) trace elements of minerals in the ground, etc.... Right ?
I have a friend who has en expensive unit. He says it works. ....
Would love to know what his definition of "
works" is. Waving the thing around enough likely looking ruins, or places he's already researched that should contain something ? And then pulling out a detector to "pinpoint" (that's the ticket). And .... lo & behold ... metal ! (maybe even a goodie).
But this fails to account for the fact that ANYWHERE you dig (where human activity was abundant) you will , of course, find metal when you dig. History is FILLED with stories of persons accidentally stumbling onto goodies when they weren't even looking (gardeners, ditch-diggers, house-rebuilders, etc....) . Then how much more-so a person who's gone out researching likely spots? With the express dedicated purpose of "finding goodies" ? Of COURSE he will eventually find something. And then ... presto ... the wand worked ? Or was it random eventual chance ?
... they take a very long time to master, if ever. ....
You are awesome signal-line. Not only have you covered the "decades" line, but .... to make it even more bullet-proof, you can add "
if ever" . To cover those who spend a life-time trying to discern "bogus or not" .
... 80% operator skill, 20% equipment. So when you hear someone tell how evil the L-rods are, get a good laugh about it knowing that person is like the mother who called her son an S.O.B. LOL ....
Yup. Right on script: It's not that they don't work. It's that the operator skill wasn't sufficient. Thus it can NEVER be tested. Any shown inability is merely the operator skill. Right ? And if the skeptic goes to show scientifically impossible, well that's an easy script too: "Un-discovered science", Right ? Just as in science once thought the earth was flat, or that heavier than air flight was impossible. Utterly bullet-proof.
