Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

[EddieR]

Wonder why when a LRL'er posts links from a website that documents something they have said, it is argued (by pseudoskeptics, of course) that ANYTHING can be posted on the internet, whether it be true or not.....but yet to date all the "proof" that the pseudoskeptics have provided comes from THE INTERNET? Ever notice that Wikipedia has been named in that regard, that it's listings can be altered by anybody.....but yet the pseudoskeptics post links to it with amazing consistency. I guess the same rules don't apply to everyone.

Hmmmm......anybody else see desperation in the pseudoskeptic camp?

 

[EE THr]

Wonder why when a LRL'er posts links from a website that documents something they have said, it is argued (by pseudoskeptics, of course) that ANYTHING can be posted on the internet, whether it be true or not.....but yet to date all the "proof" that the pseudoskeptics have provided comes from THE INTERNET? Ever notice that Wikipedia has been named in that regard, that it's listings can be altered by anybody.....but yet the pseudoskeptics post links to it with amazing consistency. I guess the same rules don't apply to everyone.

Hmmmm......anybody else see desperation in the pseudoskeptic camp?

Generally, I use Wikipedia for definitions. If anyone thinks they aren't correct, they can post links to their own.

Typically, LRL Websites aren't good for unbiased definitions, for obvious reasons. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are best for definitions.

I don't believe your accusations, if they are about me. Post the links to which you refer....

 

[GuyinWH]

Wonder why when a LRL'er posts links from a website that documents something they have said, it is argued (by pseudoskeptics, of course) that ANYTHING can be posted on the internet, whether it be true or not.....but yet to date all the "proof" that the pseudoskeptics have provided comes from THE INTERNET? Ever notice that Wikipedia has been named in that regard, that it's listings can be altered by anybody.....but yet the pseudoskeptics post links to it with amazing consistency. I guess the same rules don't apply to everyone.

Hmmmm......anybody else see desperation in the pseudoskeptic camp?

It's a pretty filthy tactic to attack posting wikipedia arguments when NOT anybody can modify all of wikipedia. Most of the scientific information on wikipedia is dead on accurate as it can be (sometimes there are slight flaws but it's not intentionally misleading) now a days since you cannot permanently alter anything without submitting hard proof you have a background to speak on any subject there and without a definitive peer-reviewed source to back you up. Same ole LRL proponent BS here... attack legitimate sources and cry because their fraudulent sources can't be used and then trying to use that as a counter argument to their BS... Despicable.

 

[EddieR]

Wonder why when a LRL'er posts links from a website that documents something they have said, it is argued (by pseudoskeptics, of course) that ANYTHING can be posted on the internet, whether it be true or not.....but yet to date all the "proof" that the pseudoskeptics have provided comes from THE INTERNET? Ever notice that Wikipedia has been named in that regard, that it's listings can be altered by anybody.....but yet the pseudoskeptics post links to it with amazing consistency. I guess the same rules don't apply to everyone.

Hmmmm......anybody else see desperation in the pseudoskeptic camp?

It's a pretty filthy tactic to attack posting wikipedia arguments when NOT anybody can modify all of wikipedia. Most of the scientific information on wikipedia is dead on accurate as it can be (sometimes there are slight flaws but it's not intentionally misleading) now a days since you cannot permanently alter anything without submitting hard proof you have a background to speak on any subject there and without a definitive peer-reviewed source to back you up. Same ole LRL proponent BS here... attack legitimate sources and cry because their fraudulent sources can't be used and then trying to use that as a counter argument to their BS... Despicable.

I agree. It is despicable!!!

And if you knew what you were actually posting in regards to, you would know that in my post, I WAS REFERRING TO THE PSEUDO-SKEPTICS SAYING THAT WIKIPEDIA WAS NOT A VALID SOURCE BECAUSE IT COULD BE ALTERED.

The skeptic camp said it.

You should research before you jump in and make a post that goes nowhere.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EddieR~

I agree. It is despicable!!!

And if you knew what you were actually posting in regards to, you would know that in my post, I WAS REFERRING TO THE PSEUDO-SKEPTICS SAYING THAT WIKIPEDIA WAS NOT A VALID SOURCE BECAUSE IT COULD BE ALTERED.

The skeptic camp said it.

You should research before you jump in and make a post that goes nowhere.

Yes they do have a big problem with research....Next they will claim no research is necessary because everyone knows the facts...Sorry about...they have already tried that...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EddieR~

I agree. It is despicable!!!

And if you knew what you were actually posting in regards to, you would know that in my post, I WAS REFERRING TO THE PSEUDO-SKEPTICS SAYING THAT WIKIPEDIA WAS NOT A VALID SOURCE BECAUSE IT COULD BE ALTERED.

The skeptic camp said it.

You should research before you jump in and make a post that goes nowhere.

Yes they do have a big problem with research....Next they will claim no research is necessary because everyone knows the facts...Sorry about...they have already tried that...Art

I agree that Wikipedia is not the ultimate source of all truth. But it has a couple of good aspects. It can be corrected by others, and listing references at the bottom of the page is the normal structure.

For information which is established by several different groups, like various branches of Science, it's pretty good at keeping to the facts.

I have seen, however, a few listings where the references used are, themselves, strongly biased, and as such obviously consist of mere rhetoric, including out-of-context information, rather than established or provable facts as a whole. But these types of listings have always been about contraversal subjects, which would not be contraversal to begin with if those participating in debating about them would have stuck to only known and provable facts from the start. And in these types I have seen some grossly misleading entries, which I think must have been intentional misinformation by unsavory persons.

Like I said, the Scientific definitions and information are usually pretty straightforward, I guess because any significant alterations would immediately be discovered and corrected with proof by pertinent references which are widely known.

 

[EE THr]

Why can't the promoters of the pseudoscientific method agree on whether or not a LRL'er would publicize a working LRL? One day they say that if there was one that actually worked, they would not hide it, they would bring it into the public. Then, they claim (of course they will call it a "counterclaim" in order to escape showing proof of their opinion) that if a person had a working LRL, they would keep quiet about it and just go find everything for themselves.

Wonder why that is?

You are trying to mix apples with oranges there, Eddie.

The statement is that, any LRL manufacturer (that means mass-produced, for sale), should be happy to prove out his product (if it really worked) by having it Scientifically tested by a reputable organization. The lack of willingness to prove out his product is a very significant indication that it really doesn't work. That's just common sense.

As a couple of people have claimed that they have homemade LRLs that work, but that they are so secret that they won't sell them. It was brought up that if they don't want to sell them, then why even mention them on a public forum such as this one? Common sense says that it is self-contradicting for them to claim their device is a "big secret," then blab about it in public, all over this LRL Section!

Do you get it now?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

The statement is that, any LRL manufacturer (that means mass-produced, for sale), should be happy to prove out his product (if it really worked) by having it Scientifically tested by a reputable organization. The lack of willingness to prove out his product is a very significant indication that it really doesn't work. That's just common sense.

Your lack of knowledge is showing again...I only know about one company that anyone with common sense may consider as mass-producers of LRL’s. They have produced 4000 units in ten years...Common sense tells me that this is not mass-production. What test they do is none of my business..I own one of their units and happy with it.

As a couple of people have claimed that they have homemade LRLs that work, but that they are so secret that they won't sell them. It was brought up that if they don't want to sell them, then why even mention them on a public forum such as this one? Common sense says that it is self-contradicting for them to claim their device is a "big secret," then blab about it in public, all over this LRL Section!

Gee EE..I happen to have a home made device that works great..No I don’t want to sell it as that would be against the law. You seem to have a complete non-knowledge of the regulations that LRL manufactures have to know...

Do you get it now?

Yes we do...You have no idea or knowledge about the subject...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

The statement is that, any LRL manufacturer (that means mass-produced, for sale), should be happy to prove out his product (if it really worked) by having it Scientifically tested by a reputable organization. The lack of willingness to prove out his product is a very significant indication that it really doesn't work. That's just common sense.

Your lack of knowledge is showing again...I only know about one company that anyone with common sense may consider as mass-producers of LRL’s. They have produced 4000 units in ten years...Common sense tells me that this is not mass-production. What test they do is none of my business..I own one of their units and happy with it.

As a couple of people have claimed that they have homemade LRLs that work, but that they are so secret that they won't sell them. It was brought up that if they don't want to sell them, then why even mention them on a public forum such as this one? Common sense says that it is self-contradicting for them to claim their device is a "big secret," then blab about it in public, all over this LRL Section!

Gee EE..I happen to have a home made device that works great..No I don’t want to sell it as that would be against the law. You seem to have a complete non-knowledge of the regulations that LRL manufactures have to know...

Do you get it now?

Yes we do...You have no idea or knowledge about the subject...Art

Your arguments, as usual, are irrelevant. You want to start a debate about the exact definition of "mass-production." What does that have to do with the fact that LRLs don't work?

And, again, you only offer more cheap talk about your imaginary devices.

You can't prove to the World that any of your claims are true, and you are afraid to even try. That says they are false. Sorry.

Say hello to the Leprechauns for me!

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Your arguments, as usual, are irrelevant. You want to start a debate about the exact definition of "mass-production." What does that have to do with the fact that LRLs don't work?

Darn EE..why did you put "mass-production." in one of your posts? As of yet you have no proof that LRL’s don’t work.

And, again, you only offer more cheap talk about your imaginary devices.

What imaginary devices are you talking about? I am here to talk about a treasure hunting divices that is called a long range metal detector.

You can't prove to the World that any of your claims are true, and you are afraid to even try. That says they are false. Sorry.

So they are imaginary because you know nothing about proper test procedures?

Say hello to the Leprechauns for me!

You say hello for me since you seem to know all about imaginary things..Art

 

[EE THr]

And, again, you only offer more cheap talk about your imaginary devices.

What imaginary devices are you talking about? I am here to talk about a treasure hunting divices that is called a long range metal detector.

Why do you call them metal detectors, when they can't detect metal?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Why do you call them metal detectors, when they can't detect metal?

There you go again letting your imagination get out of control..

 

[EE THr]

And, again, you only offer more cheap talk about your imaginary devices.

What imaginary devices are you talking about? I am here to talk about a treasure hunting divices that is called a long range metal detector.

Why do you call them metal detectors, when they can't detect metal?

~EE~

Why do you call them metal detectors, when they can't detect metal?

There you go again letting your imagination get out of control..

And, again, you only offer more cheap talk about your imaginary devices.

What imaginary devices are you talking about? I am here to talk about a treasure hunting divices that is called a long range metal detector.

You are wrong again, Art.

It's not my imagination that they have never been proven to detect metal.

 

[EddieR]

Why can't the promoters of the pseudoscientific method agree on whether or not a LRL'er would publicize a working LRL? One day they say that if there was one that actually worked, they would not hide it, they would bring it into the public. Then, they claim (of course they will call it a "counterclaim" in order to escape showing proof of their opinion) that if a person had a working LRL, they would keep quiet about it and just go find everything for themselves.

Wonder why that is?

You are trying to mix apples with oranges there, Eddie.

The statement is that, any LRL manufacturer (that means mass-produced, for sale), should be happy to prove out his product (if it really worked) by having it Scientifically tested by a reputable organization. The lack of willingness to prove out his product is a very significant indication that it really doesn't work. That's just common sense.

As a couple of people have claimed that they have homemade LRLs that work, but that they are so secret that they won't sell them. It was brought up that if they don't want to sell them, then why even mention them on a public forum such as this one? Common sense says that it is self-contradicting for them to claim their device is a "big secret," then blab about it in public, all over this LRL Section!

Do you get it now?

You are absolutely wrong. In my statement above, which you quoted, I brought up what has actually been posted by skeptics. They have said that the user would never make it public, and then turn around and say they would sell it. Once again, do your research before you post. Look it up.

 

[EE THr]

You are absolutely wrong. In my statement above, which you quoted, I brought up what has actually been posted by skeptics. They have said that the user would never make it public, and then turn around and say they would sell it. Once again, do your research before you post. Look it up.

I don't recall reading anything like that. I think you are mistaken.

At any rate, how does that answer the topic question, "Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?"

It seems that that whole train of thought is just a diversion away from facing the facts of the thread topic.

So, can you or can't you?

 

[EE THr]

Why can't the promoters of the pseudoscientific method agree on whether or not a LRL'er would publicize a working LRL? One day they say that if there was one that actually worked, they would not hide it, they would bring it into the public. Then, they claim (of course they will call it a "counterclaim" in order to escape showing proof of their opinion) that if a person had a working LRL, they would keep quiet about it and just go find everything for themselves.

Wonder why that is?

Ah, yes---that statement.

First, and foremost, it's a misstatement!

Here's how it really goes---

1. Nobody but the LRL promoters have suggested any pseudoscience methods.
2. There is no disagreement about whether or not someone would promote a working LRL.
3. Those who have alleged working LRLs on the market, are already promoting them.
4. Those who claim to have "secret" LRLs, say they won't put them on the market, because they're "secret."
5. Some have said that there is no need to keep an LRL a "secret," because it could be patented.
6. Some have said that if one wanted to keep an LRL a "secret," then it shouldn't be publicised on the forum.
7. Some, including me, have said both 5 and 6. What's the problem there?
8. Numbers 3 and 4 were said by LRL makers and promoters. That's their problem, not mine.
9. Some who have claimed number 4, have also said that it's because their design has illegal power output. So they would be criminals, except that they don't have enough electronics wherewithall to properly add a radio amplifier to a signal generator, so they won't be arrested anyway.

What it boils down to, is that your conclusion is erroneous, because you are misattributing the sources of your premises.

And you are accusing me of not doing research properly?

Are you a member of the comedians union?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Here's how it really goes---

1. Nobody but the LRL promoters have suggested any pseudoscience methods.
2. There is no disagreement about whether or not someone would promote a working LRL.
3. Those who have alleged working LRLs on the market, are already promoting them.
4. Those who claim to have "secret" LRLs, say they won't put them on the market, because they're "secret."
5. Some have said that there is no need to keep an LRL a "secret," because it could be patented.
6. Some have said that if one wanted to keep an LRL a "secret," then it shouldn't be publicised on the forum.
7. Some, including me, have said both 5 and 6. What's the problem there?
8. Numbers 3 and 4 were said by LRL makers and promoters. That's their problem, not mine.
9. Some who have claimed number 4, have also said that it's because their design has illegal power output. So they would be criminals, except that they don't have enough electronics wherewithall to properly add a radio amplifier to a signal generator, so they won't be arrested anyway.

What it boils down to, is that your conclusion is erroneous, because you are misattributing the sources of your premises.

And you are accusing me of not doing research properly?

Are you a member of the comedians union?

Thank you again for yet another list of your personal opinions...Art

 

[Dell Winders]

To answer the ridiculous question posed in this thread, NO, I cannot scientifically prove to the world that my LRL's work. I am not a Scientist, nor do I have finances to hire a legitimate qualified Scientist to conduct all the necessary testing, and proving it to the world. And neither do I have any interest in doing so.

If you wish unquestionable Scientific proof to the world, or to yourself, you are free to do so at your own expense. Not mine.

End of discussion. Dell

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Here's how it really goes---

1. Nobody but the LRL promoters have suggested any pseudoscience methods.
2. There is no disagreement about whether or not someone would promote a working LRL.
3. Those who have alleged working LRLs on the market, are already promoting them.
4. Those who claim to have "secret" LRLs, say they won't put them on the market, because they're "secret."
5. Some have said that there is no need to keep an LRL a "secret," because it could be patented.
6. Some have said that if one wanted to keep an LRL a "secret," then it shouldn't be publicised on the forum.
7. Some, including me, have said both 5 and 6. What's the problem there?
8. Numbers 3 and 4 were said by LRL makers and promoters. That's their problem, not mine.
9. Some who have claimed number 4, have also said that it's because their design has illegal power output. So they would be criminals, except that they don't have enough electronics wherewithall to properly add a radio amplifier to a signal generator, so they won't be arrested anyway.

What it boils down to, is that your conclusion is erroneous, because you are misattributing the sources of your premises.

And you are accusing me of not doing research properly?

Are you a member of the comedians union?

Thank you again for yet another list of your personal opinions...Art

And thank you for another one of your personal attack diversions away from the fact that you can't Scientifically prove to the World that your LRLs work!

You are still your own best debunker---keep up the good work!

 

[EE THr]

To answer the ridiculous question posed in this thread, NO, I cannot scientifically prove to the world that my LRL's work. I am not a Scientist, nor do I have finances to hire a legitimate qualified Scientist to conduct all the necessary testing, and proving it to the world. And neither do I have any interest in doing so.

If you wish unquestionable Scientific proof to the world, or to yourself, you are free to do so at your own expense. Not mine.

End of discussion. Dell

Aw, Dell, you haven't been keeping up, have you. You can get it done for free! Take a look at A Scientific Test for LRLs, and pick one! That's all it takes. Then you won't need to bother with debunkers anymore!

It's not my responsibility to do your testing for you. Any manufacturer would jump at the chance to show Scientific proof that his product really worked (except for those who's products don't work, of course!)