Different Ways of Testing LRLs

[aarthrj3811]

Then why do you keep asking to have "groups of people," and "control groups"? That doesn't make any sense when testing a device. With a device, you just test it to see if it works or not. I don't see how groups would fit into a test like that.

Because all the definitions of double blind testing have similar wording

I don't see how groups would fit into a test like that.

Then it is not a double blind test..Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[EE THr]

Then why do you keep asking to have "groups of people," and "control groups"? That doesn't make any sense when testing a device. With a device, you just test it to see if it works or not. I don't see how groups would fit into a test like that.

Because all the definitions of double blind testing have similar wording

I don't see how groups would fit into a test like that.

Then it is not a double blind test..Art

Wrong, artie. We have been through this debate many times before.

Here is the Wikipedia definition again---

"Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor."

This doesn't say anything about "groups."

It says "usually" on humans. That means not always. You can test devices that way, also.

The definitions that use the word "groups" all pertain to companies testing drugs on people.

Do you want to have "groups" of LRL devices?

Groups have nothing to do with testing an LRL. Either it finds the stuff or it doesn't.

What else is there which would require "groups" to test an LRL.

The whole point of Carl's test is that if you can be only 70% successful, you get the reward of $25,000.00. That's it. Where would a "group" fit into that scenario? It wouldn't!

If a person says his LRL works good in the field, then it should work even better in a controlled environment like the test. You have only ten possible locations to choose from. If a person says he can find stuff with his LRL, then he should be able to score 100% in a test like that. Very simple. Can it find which location has the known target or not.

It can't be imagined to be more complicated, because it's not.

Either your LRL works or it doesn't.

Either your claims are true or they aren't.

 

[fenixdigger]

Let me hide things in 10 locations and you bring the best detector you have used and we will see if you can find 7 of them. Not a chance. You gotta be kidding us. This once again PROVES you do not have enough experience to be in here at this level.

 

[Saturna]

Let me hide things in 10 locations and you bring the best detector you have used and we will see if you can find 7 of them. Not a chance. You gotta be kidding us. This once again PROVES you do not have enough experience to be in here at this level.

Set up 50 all-plastic pails upsidedown. Put metal under some of them unseen by me. I'll detect them with an MD, and tell you which ones have the metal. We'll try it a few times and keep score of my results.

Then I'll do the same and you see if you can identify which hides metal using any LRL/dowsing rod you want.


Who do you think will be the most accurate ?

 

[woof!]

The plastic pails make the shootout real unfair. Howzabout wooden nickels in plain sight, and the LRL buffs get to mark on the backside which ones they're pretending are real? Laid out on the test field by an independent proctor of course.

I propose also giving dowsers who say LRL's are frauds, a shot at it. I predict they'll outshoot the LRL'ers, if not the beeperists.

I also predict that the results of such a shootout will be interpreted in different ways, so that everyone can claim victory. That's how drug companies get drugs that are worse than useless through the FDA approval process. There's even a name for how it's done: "correlation shopping". Reminding the Commissioner how much profit is at stake is just a way to remind the Dude At The Top that the drug is in the pipeline, keep it moving, it doesn't influence the regulatory thumbs up or down on the data, right?

If that doesn't work, you can go even higher on the money and political power food chain, and arrange to have your drug researcher put in the Commissioner's chair. Ever drink diet soda sweetened with Aspartame? That's how it was done. And the deed was rewarded with an even higher job. Rushbo was right: "follow the money".

* * * * * *

When it comes to commercial LRL's, we have long experience explaining those away based on the words and deeds of the actual manufacturers thereof, "Chuckie" being the most notorious such manufacturer of late, but others will follow him hoping that the anti-fraudsters on this forum won't notice.

Then there's the privateer dilletantes who start with a dowsing rod, start playing around with electronics (ask yourself "why electronics?"), and keep thinking they are getting enhanced results. In most cases they even deny they're dowsing, despite that swivel gizmo thing they're holding in their hand. This is not in the realm of how physical gadgets work, it's in the realm of how abject failure can be reinterpreted as success through the miracle of human delusion.

--Toto

Herewith an apocryphal story:

So there's this neighbor guy who has a boomer car, a real thumper. I start a conversion and it leads to something rather bizarre: he denies that it's a car! He insists that it's a sound machine, the thumps prove it, and that it is therefore not a car!

I point out to him that thumps or no thumps, he drives the thing around on city streets in a manner indistinguishable from that of the manner of automobiles, and that every element necessary to an automobile is present in his "whatever".

It's not a car. I am wrong, the cops are wrong, the gas pump is wrong, other drivers are wrong, even the dealer who sold it to him is wrong. It is not a car! The fact that it gets him to his stoopid girlfriend's house and back is a mere unexplainable coincidence!

And that's the low ridin' dog parable du jour.

 

[EE THr]

Let me hide things in 10 locations and you bring the best detector you have used and we will see if you can find 7 of them. Not a chance. You gotta be kidding us. This once again PROVES you do not have enough experience to be in here at this level.

You hide the targets any way you want, within the advertised specifications of my metal detector, and I will.

How much are you paying?



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?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[fenixdigger]

Missed the point. I am saying that the discriminating systems can be overcome. If I hide the targets 6 inches away from the sides of a metal building, what's your chances now? How about 2 inches from metal fence posts? How about on top of a shallow electric line? See what I'm saying?

You will have to go a long way to beat my minelab and I could not find targets like that.

On the other issue, we have found that in some situations, the "electronics" can cause false responses.

 

[Saturna]

Except that no MD user has EVER claimed that nearby non-target metal wouldn't interfere. Of course it would.


It's a matter of hiding something, and seeing if you could find it. We could also go to an empty beach (no people around) and bury gold coins in the sand (unseen by the contestants).
As long as they were within range of the MD, I would find some.


I bet the LRL/dowser guy would find none.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Most LRL users do not hunt beaches and parks..We leave the pocket change and pull tabs for other people to locate..Art

 

[10claw]

well art, fenix, looks like randy's mermaids are afraid of someone finding something with a long range indicator.
those girls need an awful lot of . why don't we start a thread on atomic power and see if they deny that too?
what about chocolate?. bbut i guess not. those little girls/boys or what ever are so busy cross dressing all they can
come up with is hear me now? hear me now? just the way of shims.

 

[fenixdigger]

My point exactly. ANY device can be defeated. People here act like LRL users claim to be 100% accurate. Would that be great?

Theories can be explored in many ways. See what happened with the one I put up? Oh no, it's dowsing, I can't try that. Then

the real dowsers say, No it's not pure dowsing. Then it's, Well it looks like dowsing to me, but I don't dowse so I think it is.

Real straight line logic, and that mind set continues through the whole forum. There was a good point brought up about chocolate.

How do you describe the taste to someone that never tasted it? How could they understand the answer? Simple, they couldn't.

So no matter how mad or insulted they felt, they still would not have a clue and claim the answers were not logical and a lie.

Especially if they were listening to other people that had never tasted it either and were in the majority.

The best way out of that trap? Taste it. Simple....Decide on your own experience however, make sure you got the right type.

 

[EE THr]

Missed the point. I am saying that the discriminating systems can be overcome. If I hide the targets 6 inches away from the sides of a metal building, what's your chances now? How about 2 inches from metal fence posts? How about on top of a shallow electric line? See what I'm saying?

You will have to go a long way to beat my minelab and I could not find targets like that.

On the other issue, we have found that in some situations, the "electronics" can cause false responses.

If you want to emulate Carl's test, you will have to allow for pre-scanning of the area, and mutual approval of it and the targets.

So, how much are you paying?



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Darn fenixdigger..I may have figured out how his scam works..he comes here and reads a few posts. He then makes up his own rules and posts them at http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,387205.0.html
Then every time we post an answer we have then insulted him and that is his proof..How do you spell Con Artist?..Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

If the LRL promoters can refrain from posting insults and nonsense.

Let's see if they can.

Unfortunatly for their credibility, they always respond to this with posts about ME, rather than about LRLs! Their diversionary tactics don't go unnoticed, however.

WE have answered your questions and put our views of the only test that is acceptable to you..We are not the ones that needs the proof..We know how LRL’s work..And yes we do talk about you a lot. ..Art

 

[EE THr]

If the LRL promoters can refrain from posting insults and nonsense.

Let's see if they can.

Unfortunatly for their credibility, they always respond to this with posts about ME, rather than about LRLs! Their diversionary tactics don't go unnoticed, however.

WE have answered your questions and put our views of the only test that is acceptable to you..We are not the ones that needs the proof..We know how LRL’s work..And yes we do talk about you a lot. ..Art

Until you prove your claims in public, your rants are meaningless.




Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Until you prove your claims in public, your rants are meaningless.

I already have done that..Art

 

[EE THr]

Until you prove your claims in public, your rants are meaningless.

I already have done that..Art

No, artie. Saying that you can succeed at a test in your back yard is not, in any way, proof.

Come up with an agreeable means of proving your claims.



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Come up with an agreeable means of proving your claims.

Who do I have to agree with?

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Come up with an agreeable means of proving your claims.

Who do I have to agree with?

Now you're just playing games, because you know that your LRL can't pass any test.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Now you're just playing games, because you know that your LRL can't pass any test.

I feel so bad..I have ask you what you would consider to be Public..I have ask you what you consider is an unbias observer. The only test that is acceptable to you is Carl’s test which he can find no one to take…For me this thread is over..you can delete it, or keep posting your nonsense..It is you decision…Art