Any expert on mexican gold coins?

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

If you pass a gold coin in front of a metal detector, within it's specified range, it will indicate the detection of the coin.

Thank you for the confirmations of what we have told you. We all know that if a person operates a metal detector in that manner it will beep..Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Dell Winders]

LRL's [have] no physical abilities of their own.

Are you serious? What the heck is that swively thing for?

Are You serious? Put on a blindfold, hold this LRL tight, and "Feel" the strength of the target "field" when the LRL locks onto a target. Follow the discriminated LRL signal line to the target while blindfolded.

Remove your unscrupulous agenda driven Cranium computer from it's rectal resting place, and wake up to the reality of physics. What has already been done, and repeated for years, can be done. Dell

 

[EE THr]

LRL's [have] no physical abilities of their own.

Are you serious? What the heck is that swively thing for?

Are You serious? Put on a blindfold, hold this LRL tight, and "Feel" the strength of the target "field" when the LRL locks onto a target. Follow the discriminated LRL signal line to the target while blindfolded.

Remove your unscrupulous agenda driven Cranium computer from it's rectal resting place, and wake up to the reality of physics. What has already been done, and repeated for years, can be done. Dell

First they claim that an LRL will point to the target. When common sense debunks that nonsense, now you are telling people that one must "feel" the what?---"the strength of the target 'field'"? So the rod won't point to the target, but "aids" the operator in "feeling the field of the target"? What "field" whould that be?

You have invoked Physics as your basis of definitions. But there is no such "field" in Physics. So you are trying to use an imaginary "field" as a premise for your conclusion. That is grossly and intentionally flawed logic.

Add to that, no LRL has ever passed a properly administered and documented Scientific test, and LRLs have been thoroughly tested and pronounced fake by highly recognized Scientific organizations and the courts.

You end up with devices which are called "...Locators," yet don't actually locate anything at all, or even "aid" in someone locating anything. And that's fraud.

 

[Dell Winders]

Common sense would help your understanding of physics. Try it!

It is you who are perpetuating a fraud. What I stated is true, and has been confirmed over and over again by Thousands of LRL users through out the world. Some are Scientist.

What has already been done, can be done. That's not belief, it's self proven fact. Dell

 

[EddieR]

LRL's [have] no physical abilities of their own.

Are you serious? What the heck is that swively thing for?

Are You serious? Put on a blindfold, hold this LRL tight, and "Feel" the strength of the target "field" when the LRL locks onto a target. Follow the discriminated LRL signal line to the target while blindfolded.

Remove your unscrupulous agenda driven Cranium computer from it's rectal resting place, and wake up to the reality of physics. What has already been done, and repeated for years, can be done. Dell

First they claim that an LRL will point to the target. When common sense debunks that nonsense, now you are telling people that one must "feel" the what?---"the strength of the target 'field'"? So the rod won't point to the target, but "aids" the operator in "feeling the field of the target"? What "field" whould that be?

You have invoked Physics as your basis of definitions. But there is no such "field" in Physics. So you are trying to use an imaginary "field" as a premise for your conclusion. That is grossly and intentionally flawed logic.

Add to that, no LRL has ever passed a properly administered and documented Scientific test, and LRLs have been thoroughly tested and pronounced fake by highly recognized Scientific organizations and the courts.

You end up with devices which are called "...Locators," yet don't actually locate anything at all, or even "aid" in someone locating anything. And that's fraud.

Truth is.....you actually DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT that no LRL has ever passed or failed the testing. And before you go on fabricating stories about your knowing it for a fact, the fact is this: Unless you can provide written documentation of EVERY test that has EVER been performed on LRL's, then you are just spouting your opinion. As usual.

Any sane person knows that there is NO way of knowing how many tests have been performed, the results of them, or who performed them. Geez.....

And you should really do your homework on physics. Try doing some research....like everyone here has suggested.

 

[EE THr]

LRL's [have] no physical abilities of their own.

Are you serious? What the heck is that swively thing for?

Are You serious? Put on a blindfold, hold this LRL tight, and "Feel" the strength of the target "field" when the LRL locks onto a target. Follow the discriminated LRL signal line to the target while blindfolded.

Remove your unscrupulous agenda driven Cranium computer from it's rectal resting place, and wake up to the reality of physics. What has already been done, and repeated for years, can be done. Dell

First they claim that an LRL will point to the target. When common sense debunks that nonsense, now you are telling people that one must "feel" the what?---"the strength of the target 'field'"? So the rod won't point to the target, but "aids" the operator in "feeling the field of the target"? What "field" whould that be?

You have invoked Physics as your basis of definitions. But there is no such "field" in Physics. So you are trying to use an imaginary "field" as a premise for your conclusion. That is grossly and intentionally flawed logic.

Add to that, no LRL has ever passed a properly administered and documented Scientific test, and LRLs have been thoroughly tested and pronounced fake by highly recognized Scientific organizations and the courts.

You end up with devices which are called "...Locators," yet don't actually locate anything at all, or even "aid" in someone locating anything. And that's fraud.

Truth is.....you actually DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT that no LRL has ever passed or failed the testing. And before you go on fabricating stories about your knowing it for a fact, the fact is this: Unless you can provide written documentation of EVERY test that has EVER been performed on LRL's, then you are just spouting your opinion. As usual.

Any sane person knows that there is NO way of knowing how many tests have been performed, the results of them, or who performed them. Geez.....

And you should really do your homework on physics. Try doing some research....like everyone here has suggested.

Poor Eddie. You are attempting to apply very strict logic, in order to arrive at a very illogical conclusion. (Cringe.)

Do you honestly think that if any LRL maker or promoter had documented proof that an LRL has proven itself in an unbiased properly administered Scientific test, that he wouldn't publish it?

(I can't wait to hear this convoluted answer! )

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Do you honestly think that if any LRL maker or promoter had documented proof that an LRL has proven itself in an unbiased properly administered Scientific test, that he wouldn't publish it?

Thank you for proving again that you do not read the posts on this board...We discussed the the Scientific Tests that were Made by the H3Tec manufacture... Art

 

[EddieR]

LRL's [have] no physical abilities of their own.

Are you serious? What the heck is that swively thing for?

Are You serious? Put on a blindfold, hold this LRL tight, and "Feel" the strength of the target "field" when the LRL locks onto a target. Follow the discriminated LRL signal line to the target while blindfolded.

Remove your unscrupulous agenda driven Cranium computer from it's rectal resting place, and wake up to the reality of physics. What has already been done, and repeated for years, can be done. Dell

First they claim that an LRL will point to the target. When common sense debunks that nonsense, now you are telling people that one must "feel" the what?---"the strength of the target 'field'"? So the rod won't point to the target, but "aids" the operator in "feeling the field of the target"? What "field" whould that be?

You have invoked Physics as your basis of definitions. But there is no such "field" in Physics. So you are trying to use an imaginary "field" as a premise for your conclusion. That is grossly and intentionally flawed logic.

Add to that, no LRL has ever passed a properly administered and documented Scientific test, and LRLs have been thoroughly tested and pronounced fake by highly recognized Scientific organizations and the courts.

You end up with devices which are called "...Locators," yet don't actually locate anything at all, or even "aid" in someone locating anything. And that's fraud.

Truth is.....you actually DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT that no LRL has ever passed or failed the testing. And before you go on fabricating stories about your knowing it for a fact, the fact is this: Unless you can provide written documentation of EVERY test that has EVER been performed on LRL's, then you are just spouting your opinion. As usual.

Any sane person knows that there is NO way of knowing how many tests have been performed, the results of them, or who performed them. Geez.....

And you should really do your homework on physics. Try doing some research....like everyone here has suggested.

Poor Eddie. You are attempting to apply very strict logic, in order to arrive at a very illogical conclusion. (Cringe.)

Do you honestly think that if any LRL maker or promoter had documented proof that an LRL has proven itself in an unbiased properly administered Scientific test, that he wouldn't publish it?

(I can't wait to hear this convoluted answer! )

Interesting. You whine about me using strict logic, and yet you want strict testing procedures. The conclusion I reached was: you are stating your opinion, nothing more. And yes, I agree, your opinion is illogical.

Do you have some type of proof showing that all test results have been made available to LRL makers? I didn't think so. I didn't send my own personal test results in for review.

I do think it's interesting that you have a selective belief system concerning the "scientific testing" that you promote.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Do you honestly think that if any LRL maker or promoter had documented proof that an LRL has proven itself in an unbiased properly administered Scientific test, that he wouldn't publish it?

Thank you for proving again that you do not read the posts on this board...We discussed the the Scientific Tests that were Made by the H3Tec manufacture... Art

I said "passed" a test. That was a non-test, if it even existed.

 

[EE THr]

Interesting. You whine about me using strict logic, and yet you want strict testing procedures. The conclusion I reached was: you are stating your opinion, nothing more. And yes, I agree, your opinion is illogical.

Do you have some type of proof showing that all test results have been made available to LRL makers? I didn't think so. I didn't send my own personal test results in for review.

I do think it's interesting that you have a selective belief system concerning the "scientific testing" that you promote.

You conveniently left out the part about "properly administered and documented."

So where is all your imaginary documentation?

Oops!---That doesn't exist, either!

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Art~

Thank you for proving again that you do not read the posts on this board...We discussed the the Scientific Tests that were Made by the H3Tec manufacture... Art

~EE~

I said "passed" a test. That was a non-test, if it even existed.

Thank you again...So all tests are considered to be non-tests...You also will consider that they did not exist...So lets see now..Testimonials, Photo’s of finds, Movies of finds and tests preformed by Scientific Laboratories are considered as fake...

So if all proof is considered as fake please tell us why any manufacture should spend his money to prove anything to a skeptic?...Art

 

[EE THr]

~Art~

Thank you for proving again that you do not read the posts on this board...We discussed the the Scientific Tests that were Made by the H3Tec manufacture... Art

~EE~

I said "passed" a test. That was a non-test, if it even existed.

Thank you again...So all tests are considered to be non-tests...You also will consider that they did not exist...So lets see now..Testimonials, Photo’s of finds, Movies of finds and tests preformed by Scientific Laboratories are considered as fake...

So if all proof is considered as fake please tell us why any manufacture should spend his money to prove anything to a skeptic?...Art

Once again, you have to add words in order to try and make a point.

Just show your proper documentation from an unbiased source.

Oops!---There isn't any!

 

[EddieR]

Interesting. You whine about me using strict logic, and yet you want strict testing procedures. The conclusion I reached was: you are stating your opinion, nothing more. And yes, I agree, your opinion is illogical.

Do you have some type of proof showing that all test results have been made available to LRL makers? I didn't think so. I didn't send my own personal test results in for review.

I do think it's interesting that you have a selective belief system concerning the "scientific testing" that you promote.

You conveniently left out the part about "properly administered and documented."

So where is all your imaginary documentation?

Oops!---That doesn't exist, either!

Nope, no documentation of my test exists. I, unlike you, am perfectly capable of remembering results. You have proven time and time again that you are challenged in that department.
And I, unlike you, won't make up some story about it existing.

Now, if you will recall....oh, never mind, you can't. Anyway...how about all that proof of your claims I asked you to show a few days ago? I notice you aint bringing that up. Why not? Oops!--- It doesn't exist! Who needs proof when you can just make up whatever "facts" you want and try to pass it as proof, eh?

 

[EE THr]

Interesting. You whine about me using strict logic, and yet you want strict testing procedures. The conclusion I reached was: you are stating your opinion, nothing more. And yes, I agree, your opinion is illogical.

Do you have some type of proof showing that all test results have been made available to LRL makers? I didn't think so. I didn't send my own personal test results in for review.

I do think it's interesting that you have a selective belief system concerning the "scientific testing" that you promote.

You conveniently left out the part about "properly administered and documented."

So where is all your imaginary documentation?

Oops!---That doesn't exist, either!

Nope, no documentation of my test exists. I, unlike you, am perfectly capable of remembering results. You have proven time and time again that you are challenged in that department.
And I, unlike you, won't make up some story about it existing.

Now, if you will recall....oh, never mind, you can't. Anyway...how about all that proof of your claims I asked you to show a few days ago? I notice you aint bringing that up. Why not? Oops!--- It doesn't exist! Who needs proof when you can just make up whatever "facts" you want and try to pass it as proof, eh?

Well, there aren't any documented tests where an LRL passed, are there?

I suppose I could have stated it this way: "There are no published documents of any properly administered Scientific test where an LRL was shown to reliably find anything."

And, of course, if any documents existed, they certainly would be published.

So there aren't any successful tests. LRL don't work. Get it now?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

And, of course, if any documents existed, they certainly would be published.

A great assumption on your part..Can you prove that claim?

So there aren't any successful tests. LRL don't work. Get it now?

And where have we heard that Claim before?

 

[EddieR]

Interesting. You whine about me using strict logic, and yet you want strict testing procedures. The conclusion I reached was: you are stating your opinion, nothing more. And yes, I agree, your opinion is illogical.

Do you have some type of proof showing that all test results have been made available to LRL makers? I didn't think so. I didn't send my own personal test results in for review.

I do think it's interesting that you have a selective belief system concerning the "scientific testing" that you promote.

You conveniently left out the part about "properly administered and documented."

So where is all your imaginary documentation?

Oops!---That doesn't exist, either!

Nope, no documentation of my test exists. I, unlike you, am perfectly capable of remembering results. You have proven time and time again that you are challenged in that department.
And I, unlike you, won't make up some story about it existing.

Now, if you will recall....oh, never mind, you can't. Anyway...how about all that proof of your claims I asked you to show a few days ago? I notice you aint bringing that up. Why not? Oops!--- It doesn't exist! Who needs proof when you can just make up whatever "facts" you want and try to pass it as proof, eh?

Well, there aren't any documented tests where an LRL passed, are there?

I suppose I could have stated it this way: "There are no published documents of any properly administered Scientific test where an LRL was shown to reliably find anything."

And, of course, if any documents existed, they certainly would be published.

So there aren't any successful tests. LRL don't work. Get it now?

Just because you haven't seen something DOES NOT MEAN it doesn't exist!

I get the feeling that if a successful test result WERE to surface....you would just say "it wasn't properly administered".....and then stick your head back in the sand.

Look at the goofy logic you are using!!!! You are basing your premise of test results based on your "thinking" (lol) that test results would "certainly" be published. Says who Who passed the law stating that all test results of every single thing in the world MUST be published? All you are doing is looking for evidence to support your belief, while ignoring and ridiculing anything contrary to your beliefs. It's that simple, and I'm sure others besides me have seen it and recognized it for what it is. Selective thinking in order to back up your belief system.

And here is an example of such: You constantly rail about "scientific testing has proven LRL's to be fraudulent". Science this and science that, yada yada yada....and yet YOU HAVE ADMITTED that there may be something to dowsing. Mainstream science does not support dowsing, so what's up with the reversal of your belief that science is "be all end all"? Selective thinking is the answer.

 

[EE THr]

Art & Eddie---

At least you are now both on the same page.


So, do you both honestly think that if an LRL maker had a legitimate Scientific test done, which would determine if their device actually could reliably find anything, that they would withhold it from publication if their unit passed?

 

[EddieR]

Art & Eddie---

At least you are now both on the same page.


So, do you both honestly think that if an LRL maker had a legitimate Scientific test done, which would determine if their device actually could reliably find anything, that they would withhold it from publication if their unit passed?

They may or may not, who knows? No one can speak for them (truthfully, anyway).

But, by the same token, not all tests would have to be initiated by the LRL makers, right?

Independent testing could be done without the manufacturers knowledge, correct?

So they may or may not even know if tests were performed, or the outcome of them, correct?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EddieR~

They may or may not, who knows? No one can speak for them (truthfully, anyway).

But, by the same token, not all tests would have to be initiated by the LRL makers, right?

Independent testing could be done without the manufacturers knowledge, correct?

So they may or may not even know if tests were performed, or the outcome of them, correct?

You are correct Eddie..You have done your own Testing on a LRL and published the result here on T-Net..Many others have done testing on LRL’s and also have published the results here on T-Net.

The reason you and others have posted the results on T-Net was your decision that this is where you wanted it to be published...

EE seems to think that everyone else has to prove that LRL’s work..EE claims that all LRL manufactures and anyone who claims to have found treasure with a LRL is scamming the public. He also claims that no treasure has ever been found by anyone using a LRL.
His claims make me wonder just where are these 1000’s of people who have been scammed. We know that they have not been in the courts or any place else...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EddieR~

They may or may not, who knows? No one can speak for them (truthfully, anyway).

But, by the same token, not all tests would have to be initiated by the LRL makers, right?

Independent testing could be done without the manufacturers knowledge, correct?

So they may or may not even know if tests were performed, or the outcome of them, correct?

You are correct Eddie..You have done your own Testing on a LRL and published the result here on T-Net..Many others have done testing on LRL’s and also have published the results here on T-Net.

The reason you and others have posted the results on T-Net was your decision that this is where you wanted it to be published...

EE seems to think that everyone else has to prove that LRL’s work..EE claims that all LRL manufactures and anyone who claims to have found treasure with a LRL is scamming the public. He also claims that no treasure has ever been found by anyone using a LRL.
His claims make me wonder just where are these 1000’s of people who have been scammed. We know that they have not been in the courts or any place else...Art

Do you two also believe that cows fly?

After all, you haven't interviewed every cow in the World. So does that mean that cows fly?

Show me one single case where an LRL has been tested by an unbiased administrator, and Scientifically been proven to work....