Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

[EE THr]

Thank You EE for all the proof...You have shown to the whole world just how obsolete all your claims are..Thank you very much and keep up the good work...Art

Wrong again, Art. Truth is never out of style.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Wrong again, Art. Truth is never out of style.

You are correct for a change..Our truth is correct..Your ego posts are proof of that...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Wrong again, Art. Truth is never out of style.

You are correct for a change..Our truth is correct..Your ego posts are proof of that...Art

After all your posts on this thread, not one of them says that you can prove to the World that your LRLs work.

By now, everyone knows what the truth is....Sorry.

 

[GuyinWH]

~EE~

Wrong again, Art. Truth is never out of style.

You are correct for a change..Our truth is correct..Your ego posts are proof of that...Art

After all your posts on this thread, not one of them says that you can prove to the World that your LRLs work.

By now, everyone knows what the truth is....Sorry.

hehe nice... i see you guys keep fighting the good fight against these LRL frauds. good to know theres people with good intentions still
trying to save others a world of trouble.

 

[werleibr]

Let's get something straight here (no pun intended). The skeptics do not want a test to prove that LRL's work--they want a test to prove LRL's DON'T work. They tried with the million dollar hoax. Dell Winders showed them that he easily beat their odds by a long ways with his MFD yet Carl Moreland, Sam Scafferi, and a couple other skeptics said it was not good enough. I don't recall the exact results, but it was 10 or 12 empty holes and they did this ten times or there abouts. So the first trial the odds are one in ten (1/10) to get it right, and after ten trials randon chance says Dell should have gotten one trial correct and missed nine (1/10 x 10 = 1). But Dell got seven correct. If that's not beating the odds then I don't know what is. To be fair, Randi never said Dell failed, he said they needed to run more tests.

Sorry, but you need to do your math again. By that I am stating you are incorrectly using probability to figure this equation out. The correct probability calculation should be the Binomial Probability calculation
nCr*pr*qn-r


Where;

n= number of trials (10 in our case)
r= number of specific events we wish to obtain (1 in our case)
p= probability that the event will occur (0.10 in our case)
q= probability that the event will NOT occur (0.90 in our case)

Plug that all in and you get the Probability to find it once in ten trials is 0.387 or 38.7%. Now if you state that he had gotten 7 correct than we change r to 7. That probability is 0.00000875 or 0.000875%
Now I will just give a list of all 10 trials and the probability of getting what number correct as a percentage
Number Correct Probability
0 8.75 x 10-4 %
1 38.7 %
2 19.4 %
3 5.74 %
4 1.11 %
5 0.149 %
6 0.0138 %
7 8.75 x 10-4 %
8 3.65 x 10-5 %
9 9 x 10-7 %
10 1 x 10-8 %


Now I am not an LRL promoter, but here are the true probabilities. If the man did as he said he did that would be superb. But just using this to show you that he had a 37% chance of ever getting one correct.

 

[humble]

MFD/LRL: There are probably other factors to consider. According to pseudo Scientific experts on this forum, if the signal was received thru the sand, or air it is impossible.

WHAT ARE THE ODDS?

MFD/LRL, A SKEPTICS TEST, UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS: Here is the scenario, 12 holes, 18 inches deep, were angered 20 feet apart in a semi circle. The MFD was placed in the center. 8 seperate double blind tests were conducted on detecting 11 Gold Krugerrands, or a chunk of Silver, by a proclaimed expert, of which 6 tests of the 8, were reported by the sponsors to be accurate.

MFD FIELD TEST UNDER NATURAL CONDITIONS: Last year, in the field, I set up the MFD/LRL at several locations on the beach where I suspected an offshore shipwreck. I detected much Gold & Silver, beyond buried deep beyond my ability to excavate. On an Emerald frequency (Beryillum), I detected a scatter of Emerald at an estimated 5 foot deep. Using a 4 inch auger inside a 6 foot Aluminum tube I recovered the cluster of Emerald, pictured below at a depth of 6 1/2 feet.

MENTAL DOWSING: Compare the odds of a mentally Dowsed target with a needle & thread pendulum, scanning a Google earth photograph of a 110 acre farm, 700 miles away, without ever being to the site.

A stone Marker pointing to a Dowsed Union Army campsite, was mentally dowsed as being at a specific location within the 110 acre farm. The farm had been in the owners family for 60 years and they had never seen any such marker. I traveled to the site and was joined by the property owner, and a third party witness who had never been to the property either.

We hiked to the designated area and after only 10 minutes searching we found the stone marker pictured below. We followed compass headings to the Mentally Dowsed campsite and found the stone marker was pointing directly to it.

RANDOM CHANCE GUESSING: Compare the odds of identifying, and locating an unknown marker, or Treasure Trove within 110 acres of rugged terrain, 0r guessing where Emeralds, are buried under a vast expanse of beach, when it is based on the 50/50 chance guess criteria used in James Randi, and Carl Morland's, claimed Scientific Challenge tests?

If, you were a Professional Treasure hunter, which method would you use to search for deep buried, or sunken Treasure? MFD/LRL, Dowsing, or Chance guessing? There is a big difference in the methods, and the learning time. Dell

 

[EE THr]

Here is the scenario, 12 holes, 18 inches deep, were angered 20 feet apart in a semi circle. The MFD was placed in the center. 8 double blind tests were conducted on 11 Gold Krugerrands by a proclaimed expert, of which 6 tests of those were reported by the sponsors to be accurate.

The problems with your story are many.

1. You aren't reporting the time and date of the event.
2. You aren't reporting the location.
3. You aren't reporting who administered the test.
4. You aren't reporting who the witnesses were.
5. You aren't reporting how long it took to complete the test.
6. You aren't reporting the sequence and durations of the guesses.
7. You aren't reporting whether the double-blind test was random or not.
8. You aren't reporting how many of these test events were performed, before the overall score was achieved. If you did a test of 8 tries, every day for a month, then only "counted" the one with the best guessing score, then mere random variations, from day to day, could produce one event out of 30 where the guesser did "very well." (This is how politicians like to skew polls, and drug and food companies like to skew test reports.)
9. You aren't showing any dated and signed documentation.

With number seven, "random" means the target is to be dug up and re-buried after each test. If it wasn't, then the process of elimination would aid in simply guessing at the remaining (fewer) possibilities.

You state there were 12 holes used, and 11 gold coins. So 11 of the holes each held a coin! That would be hard to fail at!

Your story is worthless. It's an insult to anyone reading it, to put forth such a goofy yarn.



But, like I said before, it is entertaining!

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey humble and signal_line...Odds and proof have nothing to do with this discusstion . At the rate LRL’s are selling it seems that they are competing for some kind of “bonus” or perhaps just trying to keep their jobs at the “Tinker Toy” manufactures..Art

 

[EE THr]

Each trial the odds (AKA random chance) is one in twelve or 1/12, times eight trials equals 8/12 or 2/3. That means random chance is less than one trial correct after eight attempts. But Dell Winders got 6 correct and that means he beat the odds by 9 times (6 divided by 2/3 equals 9). Not by double, not even by five times, but NINE TIMES. And the skeptics say that is not good enough.

NO PROOF IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE SKEPTICS, NOT EVEN WHEN THE TEST WAS DONE RIGHT IN FRONT OF JAMES RANDI'S NOSE.

NINE TIMES BETTER THAN RANDOM CHANCE!!!

Then why were 11 coins used?





P.S. Let's see a link to the documentation of your little story.

 

[humble]

INDIA - Police arrested a five member high-tech gang involved in stealing hidden treasures here on Monday. The accused have been identified as Subba Reddy and Prasad of Mark-apuram, Venkata Subbarao and Srinivasulu of Podili and Kotaiah of Tamma-dapalli in Yarragond-apalem mandal. The gang is equipped with a metal detector, bio-scanner among other gadgets worth Rs.18 lakhs and also using a four-wheeler to carry out their midnight operations. The metal detector is capable of detecting silver, gold and copper even if it is concealed 70 feet under the ground.

Sounds like another MFD user. humble

 

[EE THr]

INDIA - Police arrested a five member high-tech gang involved in stealing hidden treasures here on Monday. The accused have been identified as Subba Reddy and Prasad of Mark-apuram, Venkata Subbarao and Srinivasulu of Podili and Kotaiah of Tamma-dapalli in Yarragond-apalem mandal. The gang is equipped with a metal detector, bio-scanner among other gadgets worth Rs.18 lakhs and also using a four-wheeler to carry out their midnight operations. The metal detector is capable of detecting silver, gold and copper even if it is concealed 70 feet under the ground.

Sounds like another MFD user. humble

If you will please notice, the title of this thread includes the word "proof."

Your alleged anecdote may be interesting to some, but it doesn't belong in this particular thread.

Unless you are trying to claim that it is some kind of "proof." Which it certainly isn't.





P.S. Why were 11 coins used?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

If you will please notice, the title of this thread includes the word "proof."
Unless you are trying to claim that it is some kind of "proof." Which it certainly isn't

Re: Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

 

[humble]

INDIA - Police arrested a five member high-tech gang involved in stealing hidden treasures here on Monday. The accused have been identified as Subba Reddy and Prasad of Mark-apuram, Venkata Subbarao and Srinivasulu of Podili and Kotaiah of Tamma-dapalli in Yarragond-apalem mandal. The gang is equipped with a metal detector, bio-scanner among other gadgets worth Rs.18 lakhs and also using a four-wheeler to carry out their midnight operations. The metal detector is capable of detecting silver, gold and copper even if it is concealed 70 feet under the ground.

Sounds like another MFD user. humble

It does appear that the police of India, considered it as proof. But nevertheless, unless you consider yourself the LRL forum police, make your complaint to the moderator. It doesn't matter to me what your "Beliefs" are. humble



If you will please notice, the title of this thread includes the word "proof."

Your alleged anecdote may be interesting to some, but it doesn't belong in this particular thread.

Unless you are trying to claim that it is some kind of "proof." Which it certainly isn't.





P.S. Why were 11 coins used?

 

[EE THr]

Here is the scenario, 12 holes, 18 inches deep, were angered 20 feet apart in a semi circle. The MFD was placed in the center. 8 double blind tests were conducted on 11 Gold Krugerrands by a proclaimed expert, of which 6 tests of those were reported by the sponsors to be accurate.

The problems with your story are many.

1. You aren't reporting the time and date of the event.
2. You aren't reporting the location.
3. You aren't reporting who administered the test.
4. You aren't reporting who the witnesses were.
5. You aren't reporting how long it took to complete the test.
6. You aren't reporting the sequence and durations of the guesses.
7. You aren't reporting whether the double-blind test was random or not.
8. You aren't reporting how many of these test events were performed, before the overall score was achieved. If you did a test of 8 tries, every day for a month, then only "counted" the one with the best guessing score, then mere random variations, from day to day, could produce one event out of 30 where the guesser did "very well." (This is how politicians like to skew polls, and drug and food companies like to skew test reports.)
9. You aren't showing any dated and signed documentation.

With number seven, "random" means the target is to be dug up and re-buried after each test. If it wasn't, then the process of elimination would aid in simply guessing at the remaining (fewer) possibilities.

You state there were 12 holes used, and 11 gold coins. So 11 of the holes each held a coin! That would be hard to fail at!

Your story is worthless. It's an insult to anyone reading it, to put forth such a goofy yarn.



But, like I said before, it is entertaining!

Dell---

You seem to disappear whenever pertanent, common sense questions are asked.

Could you please address the nine points in the above quote box?




P.S. And while you're at it, why were 11 coins used, instead of just one?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

The problems with your story are many.

1. You aren't reporting the time and date of the event.
2. You aren't reporting the location.
3. You aren't reporting who administered the test.
4. You aren't reporting who the witnesses were.
5. You aren't reporting how long it took to complete the test.
6. You aren't reporting the sequence and durations of the guesses.
7. You aren't reporting whether the double-blind test was random or not.
8. You aren't reporting how many of these test events were performed, before the overall score was achieved. If you did a test of 8 tries, every day for a month, then only "counted" the one with the best guessing score, then mere random variations, from day to day, could produce one event out of 30 where the guesser did "very well." (This is how politicians like to skew polls, and drug and food companies like to skew test reports.)
9. You aren't showing any dated and signed documentation.
With number seven, "random" means the target is to be dug up and re-buried after each test. If it wasn't, then the process of elimination would aid in simply guessing at the remaining (fewer) possibilities.
You state there were 12 holes used, and 11 gold coins. So 11 of the holes each held a coin! That would be hard to fail at!
Your story is worthless. It's an insult to anyone reading it, to put forth such a goofy yarn.
But, like I said before, it is entertaining![/quote]

Sorry that you are confused again....This subject has been discussed many times on many forums...
Do your own reasearch

"The door to Knowledge & Understanding, is never open to a closed, or prejudiced mind”

 

[werleibr]

Each trial the odds (AKA random chance) is one in twelve or 1/12, times eight trials equals 8/12 or 2/3. That means random chance is less than one trial correct after eight attempts. But Dell Winders got 6 correct and that means he beat the odds by 9 times (6 divided by 2/3 equals 9). Not by double, not even by five times, but NINE TIMES. And the skeptics say that is not good enough.

NO PROOF IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE SKEPTICS, NOT EVEN WHEN THE TEST WAS DONE RIGHT IN FRONT OF JAMES RANDI'S NOSE.

NINE TIMES BETTER THAN RANDOM CHANCE!!!

Sorry in 8 Different tests each having a probablity of 1/12 the probability to get 6 correct is 0.000788%. The probability to get one correct is 36.2%. Learn your probabilties.

 

[EE THr]

Each trial the odds (AKA random chance) is one in twelve or 1/12, times eight trials equals 8/12 or 2/3. That means random chance is less than one trial correct after eight attempts. But Dell Winders got 6 correct and that means he beat the odds by 9 times (6 divided by 2/3 equals 9). Not by double, not even by five times, but NINE TIMES. And the skeptics say that is not good enough.

NO PROOF IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE SKEPTICS, NOT EVEN WHEN THE TEST WAS DONE RIGHT IN FRONT OF JAMES RANDI'S NOSE.

NINE TIMES BETTER THAN RANDOM CHANCE!!!

Sorry in 8 Different tests each having a probablity of 1/12 the probability to get 6 correct is 0.000788%. The probability to get one correct is 36.2%. Learn your probabilties.

From what was previously stated, it sounds like there were 12 holes dug, and a coin was placed in each hole except one (11 coins were used).

It appears that, since no mention of digging up the 18 inch deep coins after eash try, the tests were not randomized. That is, after a miss, there were fewer possibilities to guess from, on the next try. This reduces the odds.

But, in order to only guess 6 out of 8 tries correctly, he would have had to make the same wrong guess twice. Besides being unverified, the story just doesn't make sense.

This tale certainly does not come anywhere near qualifying as "Scientifically proving it to the World."

 

[werleibr]

Each trial the odds (AKA random chance) is one in twelve or 1/12, times eight trials equals 8/12 or 2/3. That means random chance is less than one trial correct after eight attempts. But Dell Winders got 6 correct and that means he beat the odds by 9 times (6 divided by 2/3 equals 9). Not by double, not even by five times, but NINE TIMES. And the skeptics say that is not good enough.

NO PROOF IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE SKEPTICS, NOT EVEN WHEN THE TEST WAS DONE RIGHT IN FRONT OF JAMES RANDI'S NOSE.

NINE TIMES BETTER THAN RANDOM CHANCE!!!

Sorry in 8 Different tests each having a probablity of 1/12 the probability to get 6 correct is 0.000788%. The probability to get one correct is 36.2%. Learn your probabilties.

From what was previously stated, it sounds like there were 12 holes dug, and a coin was placed in each hole except one (11 coins were used).

It appears that, since no mention of digging up the 18 inch deep coins after eash try, the tests were not randomized. That is, after a miss, there were fewer possibilities to guess from, on the next try. This reduces the odds.

But, in order to only guess 6 out of 8 tries correctly, he would have had to make the same wrong guess twice. Besides being unverified, the story just doesn't make sense.

This tale certainly does not come anywhere near qualifying as "Scientifically proving it to the World."

It is just that he is being way to vague on how procedure was run... If he gives details better on what happens after a fail, I can calculate the probability better.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~

It is just that he is being way to vague on how procedure was run... If he gives details better on what happens after a fail, I can calculate the probability better.

Gee..a fail is a fail..What about a fail needs to be calculated?..Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~

It is just that he is being way to vague on how procedure was run... If he gives details better on what happens after a fail, I can calculate the probability better.

Gee..a fail is a fail..What about a fail needs to be calculated?..Art