Art, yer gonna love this...

[EE THr]

~EE~

Well, Art, you can send a printout of the appropriate pages of Carl's Website, to the same professional scientific institution which you approve of to evaluate your LRL schematics.
Simple, huh?
Glad to be able to help you out on that one.
Write when you have their evaluations back.

Why should I do that?....Art

Because you said it's what you wanted.

Is your memory failing again?

What I want to see is what the Scientific community says about this fake double Blind test...Art

 

[Kentucky Kache]

There should also be signed statements by both Carl and the Testee, plus witnesses, as to the results.

Does this mean you won't believe Carl until you see signed statements, and talk to witnesses, about the results?

It's obvious that I said it because Art always tries to say that Carl can't be trusted.

You are merely fishing for an argument, another typical Straw Man Fallacy tactic, used by Trolls.

I don't blame you for giving your strawman bit instead of an answer to the question. I can't expect you to cut your own throat.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Because you said it's what you wanted.
Is your memory failing again?

No..I just stated a fact..Carl's test will not be excepted by the Scientific community...So why should get it for you?..Art

 

[EE THr]

Does this mean you won't believe Carl until you see signed statements, and talk to witnesses, about the results?

It means exactly what I said. Nothing more, and nothing less.

If you can't understand it, get a dictionary.






Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

Don't be a doof---show the proof!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?

A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Because you said it's what you wanted.
Is your memory failing again?

No..I just stated a fact..Carl's test will not be excepted by the Scientific community...So why should get it for you?..Art

Wrong again, Art.

What I want to see is what the Scientific community says about this fake double Blind test...Art

Do your fantasies never end?






Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

Don't be a doof---show the proof!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?

A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Does this mean you won't believe Carl until you see signed statements, and talk to witnesses, about the results?

It means exactly what I said. Nothing more, and nothing less.

If you can't understand it, get a dictionary.

And I don't blame you for saying it that way. I can't expect you to cut your own throat.

 

[Carl-NC]

No..I just stated a fact..Carl's test will not be excepted by the Scientific community...

Art, ya might take note that I'm not trying to get my test "excepted" by the scientific community. It is what it is, a simple "can you locate a 10-ounce gold bar laying on the ground right in front of you" test. If a claimant doesn't like that test, they can propose their own. Pretty damned devious of me to allow that, eh?

PS - Art, by chance do you own a dictionary?

Those quotes have nothing to do with the method of the claimed finds, but rather with the finds themselves.

These quotes concern treasures "found" with LRLs. You don't hear the magnetometer guys spouting such silly alibis, they get what they came for and move on.

But in any case, why do you think that to be authenticated, anything would have to be proved to YOU? This is not a put down, I really would like to understand the thinking behind this. Why would anything have to go through you, or me, or anyone, in order to be authenticated?

I'll say it once again, proofs are for distillers and mathematicians. All this forum back-n-forth regarding LRL "proofs" is a Big Heaping Pile of it.

For the average Joe LRL user, no one needs to authenticate anything to me. If someone says they found a gold ring with a LectraSearch, I say bollocks. I've seen the inside of a LectraSearch, and I'm absolutely certain that it has no ability to locate a gold ring. How certain am I? $25,000 certain, that's how. And I'll lay it down for anyone who wishes to show me the LectraSearch can locate a gold ring. They don't have to if they don't want to, but I'll still say bollocks on their claim*.

But the LRL manufacturers, yeah, they got something to show. And I'm absolutely certain they got squat. How certain am I? $25,000 certain, that's how. How certain are they that they got squat? Also $25,000 certain. Even $1M certain. Chuckie's certain he's got squat. So's Blanes. And Afilani, and Fitzgerald, and Thomas, and Pagel, and Rose, and Yocum, and Winders. Everyone on this forum is certain of it, too, even when they deny it. So, if nothing else, the Challenge sucks the truth out of the manufacturers, and most of the bombastic blustering braggarts who know they cain't do it. AKA bluffers. Sucks the truth out of the sideline-deniers, too.


*Am I saying they didn't find a gold ring? No, only that the LectraSearch played no role in the find other than make-believe.

 

[EE THr]

Does this mean you won't believe Carl until you see signed statements, and talk to witnesses, about the results?

It means exactly what I said. Nothing more, and nothing less.

If you can't understand it, get a dictionary.

And I don't blame you for saying it that way. I can't expect you to cut your own throat.

Now your fantasy pretending has extended into your asserting that there is some meaning to what I said, other that exactly what I said.

Did your imaginary LRL point you in that direction?

When you get your dictionary, pick up one for Art, also. You may need to help him with it, though, because I've pointed out to him how to spell "accept" a couple of times, and he hasn't gotten it yet.





Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[hung]

For almost 10 yrs I've offered my LRL "challenge," primarily to call out LRL manufacturers. But off and on I've extended it to ordinary LRL users. At least twice I've come close to having the challenge accepted; Bob Yocum signed the contract but then refused to follow through, and Mike Tune dropped out just as the protocol was finalized. I've had other inquiries but no one serious enough to even negotiate a protocol.

Today I spent quite a few hours at Timber-Linn Park in Albany, OR while "Daniel" took a shot at my $25,000. We had a signed contract and I had the full prize money on the line. Ironically, he was using one of Yocum's Omni-Range model.

The contract required 8-of-10 successful trials. Daniel went 0-for-3 right off, meaning he could not possibly reach 8 hits, so we mutually agreed to cut the test off (he was spending an average of 1+ hour per trial, waaay more than anyone else I've ever tested). We did a final non-contract trial in which we significantly relaxed the rules (though still blind), but he still failed. This all left him quite confused, as he was certain that the device worked. And I'm quite certain that his belief in the device was sincere.

So there ya go Art, the challenge is legit, the prize is real. And now ya cain't say, "No one has ever taken Carl's challenge." Cause now they have.

Anyone else wanna try? A non-fraudulent LRL can easily win this thing.

WOW... I mean wow...

 

[aarthrj3811]

Does this mean you won't believe Carl until you see signed statements, and talk to witnesses, about the results?

It means exactly what I said. Nothing more, and nothing less.

If you can't understand it, get a dictionary.

And I don't blame you for saying it that way. I can't expect you to cut your own throat.

Now your fantasy pretending has extended into your asserting there there is some meaning to what I said, other that exactly what I said.

Did your imaginary LRL point you in that direction?

When you get your dictionary, pick up one for Art, also. You may need to help him with it, though, because I've pointed out to him how to spell "accept" a couple of times, and he hasn't gotten it yet.





Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Wow EE..Did you learn that in how to make friends 101..Art

 

[EE THr]

Does this mean you won't believe Carl until you see signed statements, and talk to witnesses, about the results?

It means exactly what I said. Nothing more, and nothing less.

If you can't understand it, get a dictionary.

And I don't blame you for saying it that way. I can't expect you to cut your own throat.

Now your fantasy pretending has extended into your asserting there there is some meaning to what I said, other that exactly what I said.

Did your imaginary LRL point you in that direction?

When you get your dictionary, pick up one for Art, also. You may need to help him with it, though, because I've pointed out to him how to spell "accept" a couple of times, and he hasn't gotten it yet.





Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Wow EE..Did you learn that in how to make friends 101..Art

Nope, I learned it in "How to Recognize a Con Artist."






Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

Don't be a doof---show the proof!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?

A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

But in any case, why do you think that to be authenticated, anything would have to be proved to YOU? This is not a put down, I really would like to understand the thinking behind this. Why would anything have to go through you, or me, or anyone, in order to be authenticated?

I'll say it once again, proofs are for distillers and mathematicians. All this forum back-n-forth regarding LRL "proofs" is a Big Heaping Pile of it.

For the average Joe LRL user, no one needs to authenticate anything to me. If someone says they found a gold ring with a LectraSearch, I say bollocks. I've seen the inside of a LectraSearch, and I'm absolutely certain that it has no ability to locate a gold ring. How certain am I? $25,000 certain, that's how. And I'll lay it down for anyone who wishes to show me the LectraSearch can locate a gold ring. They don't have to if they don't want to, but I'll still say bollocks on their claim*.

But the LRL manufacturers, yeah, they got something to show. And I'm absolutely certain they got squat. How certain am I? $25,000 certain, that's how. How certain are they that they got squat? Also $25,000 certain. Even $1M certain. Chuckie's certain he's got squat. So's Blanes. And Afilani, and Fitzgerald, and Thomas, and Pagel, and Rose, and Yocum, and Winders. Everyone on this forum is certain of it, too, even when they deny it. So, if nothing else, the Challenge sucks the truth out of the manufacturers, and most of the bombastic blustering braggarts who know they cain't do it. AKA bluffers. Sucks the truth out of the sideline-deniers, too.


*Am I saying they didn't find a gold ring? No, only that the LectraSearch played no role in the find other than make-believe.

If everyone is so certain that they have nothing, then why did you say this in your OP?

The contract required 8-of-10 successful trials. Daniel went 0-for-3 right off, meaning he could not possibly reach 8 hits, so we mutually agreed to cut the test off (he was spending an average of 1+ hour per trial, waaay more than anyone else I've ever tested). We did a final non-contract trial in which we significantly relaxed the rules (though still blind), but he still failed. This all left him quite confused, as he was certain that the device worked. And I'm quite certain that his belief in the device was sincere.

Also, if it's the manufacturers you're so against, then why bother with the guys here who just want to enjoy what they do? I ask this question a lot, but no one seems to have a good answer. That's one reason why I say that these tirades are not about LRL's, but rather about the posters.

You asked Art if he owns a dictionary. And this after accusing me of killing the messenger. Isn't that just a little hypocritical of you?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Does this mean you won't believe Carl until you see signed statements, and talk to witnesses, about the results?

It means exactly what I said. Nothing more, and nothing less.

If you can't understand it, get a dictionary.

And I don't blame you for saying it that way. I can't expect you to cut your own throat.

Now your fantasy pretending has extended into your asserting there there is some meaning to what I said, other that exactly what I said.

Did your imaginary LRL point you in that direction?

When you get your dictionary, pick up one for Art, also. You may need to help him with it, though, because I've pointed out to him how to spell "accept" a couple of times, and he hasn't gotten it yet.





Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Does YOUR dictionary teach you the say "there there", as you did above?
Do yourself a favor and think about your own shortcomings before pointing out those of others.

 

[EE THr]

Does YOUR dictionary teach you the say "there there", as you did above?
Do yourself a favor and think about your own shortcomings before pointing out those of others.

Dictionaries aren't about typos. If you ever get one, you'll see that.

Also see #39 in the link below---

ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Does YOUR dictionary teach you the say "there there", as you did above?
Do yourself a favor and think about your own shortcomings before pointing out those of others.

Dictionaries aren't about typos. If you ever get one, you'll see that.

Also see #39 in the link below---

ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Just pointing out your hypocrisies. So maybe a book on English grammar and composition would be more fitting for you. The point stands.

 

[EE THr]

Does YOUR dictionary teach you the say "there there", as you did above?
Do yourself a favor and think about your own shortcomings before pointing out those of others.

Dictionaries aren't about typos. If you ever get one, you'll see that.

Also see #39 in the link below---

ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Just pointing out your hypocrisies. So maybe a book on English grammar and composition would be more fitting for you. The point stands.

No, it was a typo. If you study grammar, you'll see it's not about typos.

You have no point.

#39 in the link below, is what was predicted, and still stands---

Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Does YOUR dictionary teach you the say "there there", as you did above?
Do yourself a favor and think about your own shortcomings before pointing out those of others.

Dictionaries aren't about typos. If you ever get one, you'll see that.

Also see #39 in the link below---

ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Just pointing out your hypocrisies. So maybe a book on English grammar and composition would be more fitting for you. The point stands.

No, it was a typo. If you study grammar, you'll see it's not about typos.

You have no point.

#39 in the link below, is what was predicted, and still stands---

Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

I challenge your statement that English grammar and composition doesn't teach things like saying "there there" for "That there." That point stands on it's own and needs nothing more to support it. What are you, three years old?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~
Nope, I learned it in "How to Recognize a Con Artist."

good job EE...So anyone who disagees with you are Con Artist...A month ago you added JP to your list because he agreed with me..Now you add Carl to your list..Are SWR and Ted your next target just because of your lack of knowledge?..Art

 

[Carl-NC]

Everyone on this forum is certain of it, too, even when they deny it.

If everyone is so certain that they have nothing, then why did you say this in your OP?

The fellow I tested doesn't post on this forum. He's a walker, not a talker. Doesn't mean he's right, just that he really believes what he says he believes. At least I can respect that.

Also, if it's the manufacturers you're so against, then why bother with the guys here who just want to enjoy what they do? I ask this question a lot, but no one seems to have a good answer. That's one reason why I say that these tirades are not about LRL's, but rather about the posters.

Well, first of all, the guys here don't just want to enjoy what they do, they really want to debate ad nauseum about what they think they can do. They do this because they know they can't really do what they think they can do, ergo the only thing left to do is debate it. The guy I tested doesn't drone on & on, because he really thinks he can do it. You also don't see these debates in the magnetometer forum, because they really can do it.

And I don't bother the local wannabe's too much, mostly I stay away from this place because the level of discussion has reached such a low point*, and none of these guys can do squat anyways. Only when Toto occasionally posts does the entertainment value pick up enough to interest me. But since LRL manufacturers avoid any kind of scrutiny, how else can I possibly determine whether any LRL Really Works unless I take a look at the average Joe LRL user? If A.Joe says, "Whenever I step on a silver coin, my L-rods cross" would a simple "show me" be unreasonable? And if he says, "I don't feel like showing you, even if you offered me $25,000" then what the heck is a reasonable conclusion? Tain't likely, McGee.

So, yeah, for now my Challenge is open to A.Joe to show me what he thinks he can do. If he don't wanna show me, I'll dismiss his claims and move on. No tirades needed.

You asked Art if he owns a dictionary. And this after accusing me of killing the messenger. Isn't that just a little hypocritical of you?

Eh, that was meant as humor. I know Art doesn't really own a dictionary.



*Just look at the off-topic sniping in this very thread. Jesus Cricket, it's pathetic.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Well, first of all, the guys here don't just want to enjoy what they do, they really want to debate ad nauseum about what they think they can do. They do this because they know they can't really do what they think they can do, ergo the only thing left to do is debate it. The guy I tested doesn't drone on & on, because he really thinks he can do it. You also don't see these debates in the magnetometer forum, because they really can do it.

Carl, my whole point about that is, these LRL users don't come here to fight with skeptics. They come here to discuss their chosen way of treasure hunting. They then find themselves in a position of having to defend what they do. Why is this? Why would anyoneone, especially those who call themselves treasure hunters, harass other treasure hunters for hunting by the methos they so choose? And why does the mods allow such harassment? It would not be tolerated on other boards. You guys claim to have proved LRL's fake. Great, now why don't you walk away with your trophy and let people do what they do, without harassment?

And I don't bother the local wannabe's too much, mostly I stay away from this place because the level of discussion has reached such a low point*

And why has the level of discussion reached such a low point? You know why.

You asked Art if he owns a dictionary. And this after accusing me of killing the messenger. Isn't that just a little hypocritical of you?

Eh, that was meant as humor. I know Art doesn't really own a dictionary.

You only hurt yourself there. People can see you accusing others of what you are doing here. It don't look good on you.

*Just look at the off-topic sniping in this very thread.

Again, why is that? If everyone would mind their own business and let everyone else live their own lives, doing what THEY CHOOSE to do, WITHOUT HARRASSMENT, this would not happen. Why keep it up?