Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

[werleibr]

~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

Well are read below on the vaugeness.

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.

Ok so 12 holes are made. 8 tests were conducted. They used 11 south african gold coins or a piece of silver. What one is it? 11 coins or one piece of silver? Or was it 4 tests with coins and 4 with silver. Second where the 11 coins all in one hole, where they put into many holes We cannot assume that they were all in one or seperated out. So in reality if the coins were in 1 hole than my calculations hold, but if they were scattered among the holes the probability could range from 1/12 (all in one hole) to 11/12. Each time increasing the posibility of a success.

 

[werleibr]

Ha it just dawned on me that Humble has another screen name on here known as Shark. he he

 

[aarthrj3811]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability
Probability is ordinarily used to describe an attitude of mind towards some proposition of whose truth we are not certain.[1] The proposition of interest is usually of the form "Will a specific event occur?" The attitude of mind is of the form "How certain are we that the event will occur?" The certainty we adopt can be described in terms of a numerical measure and this number, between 0 and 1, we call probability.[2] The higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur. Thus, probability in an applied sense is a measure of the likeliness that a (random) event will occur.
The concept has been given an axiomatic mathematical derivation in probability theory, which is used widely in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, artificial intelligence/machine learning and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the likeliness of events. Probability is used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.

Yes the subject has been discussed many times...I would guess that it makes no difference when it comes to how a simple treasure hunting devices work..After all the probability theory is based on whether a coin will be heads or tails when it is flipped..Art

 

[werleibr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability
Probability is ordinarily used to describe an attitude of mind towards some proposition of whose truth we are not certain.[1] The proposition of interest is usually of the form "Will a specific event occur?" The attitude of mind is of the form "How certain are we that the event will occur?" The certainty we adopt can be described in terms of a numerical measure and this number, between 0 and 1, we call probability.[2] The higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur. Thus, probability in an applied sense is a measure of the likeliness that a (random) event will occur.
The concept has been given an axiomatic mathematical derivation in probability theory, which is used widely in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, artificial intelligence/machine learning and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the likeliness of events. Probability is used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.

Yes the subject has been discussed many times...I would guess that it makes no difference when it comes to how a simple treasure hunting devices work..After all the probability theory is based on whether a coin will be heads or tails when it is flipped..Art

And guess what.. the coins probability when given a field test comes up with the results of the theory.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~

And guess what.. the coins probability when given a field test comes up with the results of the theory.

My devices all have 100 % discrimination. One of my devices gives me the depth and distance 100% of the time. My devices are all accurate 100 % of the time. So why would I have to know the odds of probability in order to locate and recover treasure?...After all..I am not tossing coins...Art

 

[humble]

And guess what.. the coins probability when given a field test comes up with the results of the theory.

It's Really hard to understand how an intelligent person would even consider applying that theory to Treasure hunting?

But, if you are so smart as to think your application is Scientifically correct, here is a true scenario .......

If I made one thousand two foot wide sweeps, to a depth of 18 inches with my White's Metal detector over a 50,000 sq foot area of beach where there is a known shipwreck carrying Treasure, and Gold coins have been found here before, what are my theoretical odds of finding a Gold coin from that shipwreck with my Whites Metal detector on August 18, 2011?

humble

 

[EE THr]

Dell---

So do you have any documentation on the alleged "6 out of 8" test, or not?

 

[werleibr]

And guess what.. the coins probability when given a field test comes up with the results of the theory.

It's Really hard to understand how an intelligent person would even consider applying that theory to Treasure hunting?

But, if you are so smart as to think your application is Scientifically correct, here is a true scenario .......

If I made one thousand two foot wide sweeps, to a depth of 18 inches with my White's Metal detector over a 50,000 sq foot area of beach where there is a known shipwreck carrying Treasure, and Gold coins have been found here before, what are my theoretical odds of finding a Gold coin from that shipwreck with my Whites Metal detector on August 18, 2011?

humble

Once again you do not understand how this would work. It would need to be a controled test, because there is no known probability because of to many unknown variables to you proposed scenario. We would need number of coins present also.

 

[EE THr]

And guess what.. the coins probability when given a field test comes up with the results of the theory.

It's Really hard to understand how an intelligent person would even consider applying that theory to Treasure hunting?

But, if you are so smart as to think your application is Scientifically correct, here is a true scenario .......

If I made one thousand two foot wide sweeps, to a depth of 18 inches with my White's Metal detector over a 50,000 sq foot area of beach where there is a known shipwreck carrying Treasure, and Gold coins have been found here before, what are my theoretical odds of finding a Gold coin from that shipwreck with my Whites Metal detector on August 18, 2011?

humble

Once again you do not understand how this would work. It would need to be a controled test, because there is no known probability because of to many unknown variables to you proposed scenario. We would need number of coins present also.

I think he understands perfectly well.

The LRL promoters' motto seems to be: "When asked a direct question, simply inject a confusion factor, using irrelevant nonsense."

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~

Once again you do not understand how this would work. It would need to be a controled test, because there is no known probability because of to many unknown variables to you proposed scenario. We would need number of coins present also.

Thank you....That would tell us a lot..Are these the same odds makers that told us if we wore seat belts in our cars it would save lives?..Statistics have proved them wrong. When we go treasure hunting the only unknown variables we have is how much work it will take to dig the treasure..

 

[EE THr]

My devices are all accurate 100 % of the time.

...Art

When we go treasure hunting the only unknown variables we have is how much work it will take to dig the treasure..

You are trying very hard to convince people that LRLs work.

If your devices are as reliable as you claim, how come you can't show proof of anyone ever passing a simple, random double-blind test with one?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

If your devices are as reliable as you claim, how come you can't show proof of anyone ever passing a simple, random double-blind test with one?

I have reported on how my double-blind tests have been done...so..show us any one who has ever failed a double blind test...Art

 

[werleibr]

~werleibr~

Once again you do not understand how this would work. It would need to be a controled test, because there is no known probability because of to many unknown variables to you proposed scenario. We would need number of coins present also.

Thank you....That would tell us a lot..Are these the same odds makers that told us if we wore seat belts in our cars it would save lives?..Statistics have proved them wrong. When we go treasure hunting the only unknown variables we have is how much work it will take to dig the treasure..

Once again a claim with no proof.

For every one percent increase in safety belt use, 172 lives and close to $100 mill annual injury and death costs could be saved.
Safety belts when used properly reduce the number of serious traffic injuries by 5 percent and fatalities by 60-70 percent.

Source for the fact james madison university. http://www.jmu.edu/safetyplan/vehicle/generaldriver/safetybelt.shtml

Provide your facts Art.

Also a request by me to Carl-NC if u are stll lurking around. Will you please give detales about an lrl test u performed or attended. Please give number of trials, number of objects hidden per trial, number of possibile choices. I will then show the probability for the experiment. Then have u reply with the outcome. I.E. ther were 13 trials. 1 object was hidden in one box out of 7 boxes...or there were 10 trials, 5 coins were placed under different boxes. There was only one coin in a box. There were then 30 boxes to choose from...once u post this I will start a new topic just for statistics.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~

Once again a claim with no proof.

For every one percent increase in safety belt use, 172 lives and close to $100 mill annual injury and death costs could be saved.
Safety belts when used properly reduce the number of serious traffic injuries by 5 percent and fatalities by 60-70 percent.
So...If those were right we would a lot less deaths from Auto accidents..Hw come the death totals keep going up?

Source for the fact james madison university. http://www.jmu.edu/safetyplan/vehicle/generaldriver/safetybelt.shtml

Provide your facts Art.

Also a request by me to Carl-NC if u are stll lurking around. Will you please give detales about an lrl test u performed or attended. Please give number of trials, number of objects hidden per trial, number of possibile choices. I will then show the probability for the experiment. Then have u reply with the outcome. I.E. ther were 13 trials. 1 object was hidden in one box out of 7 boxes...or there were 10 trials, 5 coins were placed under different boxes. There was only one coin in a box. There were then 30 boxes to choose from...once u post this I will start a new topic just for statistics.

We all know Carl claims to have done some of these test...Carl also says that they have no meaning...Hang in there..We will flip a coin and see if you are right...Art

 

[werleibr]

~werleibr~

Once again a claim with no proof.

For every one percent increase in safety belt use, 172 lives and close to $100 mill annual injury and death costs could be saved.
Safety belts when used properly reduce the number of serious traffic injuries by 5 percent and fatalities by 60-70 percent.
So...If those were right we would a lot less deaths from Auto accidents..Hw come the death totals keep going up?

Source for the fact james madison university. http://www.jmu.edu/safetyplan/vehicle/generaldriver/safetybelt.shtml

Provide your facts Art.

Also a request by me to Carl-NC if u are stll lurking around. Will you please give detales about an lrl test u performed or attended. Please give number of trials, number of objects hidden per trial, number of possibile choices. I will then show the probability for the experiment. Then have u reply with the outcome. I.E. ther were 13 trials. 1 object was hidden in one box out of 7 boxes...or there were 10 trials, 5 coins were placed under different boxes. There was only one coin in a box. There were then 30 boxes to choose from...once u post this I will start a new topic just for statistics.

We all know Carl claims to have done some of these test...Carl also says that they have no meaning...Hang in there..We will flip a coin and see if you are right...Art

U quote me about the seatbelts and still provide no proof of any of your claims...Lrl or seatbelts.

 

[aarthrj3811]

werleibr

U quote me about the seatbelts and still provide no proof of any of your claims...Lrl or seatbelts.

Yes I did quote you..

 

[werleibr]

werleibr

U quote me about the seatbelts and still provide no proof of any of your claims...Lrl or seatbelts.

Yes I did quote you..

And againg you still do not provide evidence or proof to any of your claims..How can anyone take you serious?

 

[EE THr]

I have reported on how my double-blind tests have been done...so..show us any one who has ever failed a double blind test...Art

You want to see test failures? Go back and read the DOJ reports. Go back and read the court cases. But you know all about these already, so that just shows your eagerness to make misleading posts.

Your reports on your own tests are just more useless verbage.

 

[humble]

EE, your emoticon continues to express your confusion. I've tried to explain LRL to you, about what has already been done with LRL, and has been in practical use for 30 years, but you refuse to listen and it appears you will forever remain in denial of the truth in front of you?

The DOJ article is a farce that was authored by one of the Skeptics that frequents these forums. It does not reference any Scientific tests conducted on LRL's use by Treasure Hunters.

Your argument that no LRL's will work is based on your own purpose for being on this forum, and you don't have a legitimate Scientific leg to stand on in view of the facts. Whatever your agenda, it is an exercise in futility and the confusion is all yours. It's interesting to see that you have become an antagonist replacement for SWR.

I am a Professional Treasure Hunter/Salvor and I use LRL's with success. That is a fact! humble

 

[EE THr]

EE, your emoticon continues to express your confusion. I've tried to explain LRL to you, about what has already been done with LRL, and has been in practical use for 30 years, but you refuse to listen and it appears you will forever remain in denial of the truth in front of you?

The DOJ article is a farce that was authored by one of the Skeptics that frequents these forums. It does not reference any Scientific tests conducted on LRL's use by Treasure Hunters.

Your argument that no LRL's will work is based on your own purpose for being on this forum, and you don't have a legitimate Scientific leg to stand on in view of the facts. Whatever your agenda, it is an exercise in futility and the confusion is all yours. It's interesting to see that you have become an antagonist replacement for SWR.

I am a Professional Treasure Hunter/Salvor and I use LRL's with success. That is a fact! humble

You offer, as usual, only more and more verbage. I've seen all that for years, now. It seems that it's all you've got. Kind of like Bernie Madoff.

This particular topic is all about Scientifically proving it to the World. Apparently you can't understand that. But no matter, because others with common sense, can.

But thanks for confirming all my statements about LRL promoters. Keep up the good work!