Different Ways of Testing LRLs

[EE THr]

Different Ways of Testing LRLs

It’s your Tread and so far you have come up with only one test..We have rejected it that test has it has been submitted..You turn..Art

First, tell be what is wrong with Carl's test?

It is a true random double-blind test (that fact can be confirmed by a college of your choice, so don't even bother trying to say that it isn't).

It can be administered by an unbiased proctor.

It meets all your requirements.

So what's the problem with that?


Besides, the topic question is addressed to LRLers. It's not for me to answer for you.






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?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Wow, it's been a whole day, and none of the LRL promoters can find anything wrong with Carl's test.

Then I assume they all like it!

Thank you very much.

Now, who will sign up for the test?




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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Wow, it's been a whole day, and none of the LRL promoters can find anything wrong with Carl's test.

Then I assume they all like it!

Thank you very much.

Now, who will sign up for the test?

"Folks just do not understand that something has be be proven to work...first...before you can prove that it doesn't"
~SWR

 

[EE THr]

And since you apparently approve of Carl's test now, since you posted but didn't deny the post above yours, when will you be signing up for the test?





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?

 

[EE THr]

I really screws up any attempt to be logical….Art

 

[EE THr]

Wow, it's been a whole day, and none of the LRL promoters can find anything wrong with Carl's test.

Then I assume they all like it!

Thank you very much.

Now, who will sign up for the test?

"Folks just do not understand that something has be be proven to work...first...before you can prove that it doesn't"
~SWR

So go ahead and prove that your LRL claims work, instead of trying to get people to prove that they don't.

1. Claim made.
2. Challenge to claim.
3. Proof of claim.

That's how it works.

When you prove your original claim, then everything else becomes moot, and you won't have to worry about trying to nit-pick it all apart anymore!







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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

3. Proof of claim.

Yes EE..Where can we find all your Proof of your claims ? Please do not refer us to the insult thread..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

3. Proof of claim.

Yes EE..Where can we find all your Proof of your claims ? Please do not refer us to the insult thread..Art

We've been all through this, very thoroughly, several times before, artie.

Here it goes again: You are the claimant. I am a challenger. I have challenged you to show proof of your claim.


"Don't be lame---prove your claim."





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?

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

3. Proof of claim.

Yes EE..Where can we find all your Proof of your claims ? Please do not refer us to the insult thread..Art

I made no claims, artie. You made the claim that your LRL works better than a coathanger.

Now prove it.



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?

 

[EE THr]

con-artie;

Speaking of testing LRLs, after all that is the topic, you never answered my question.

You said that a fair test would need to have 30 people, just like the drug companies.


My question was: Do you want all 30 to search for the target at once? Or 10 at a time? Or just one at a time?

Or do you want all 30 to search for 30 targets, all at once?

Can't you at least tell me what it is you want?





Or do we have yet another "Question the LRLers Refuse to Answer"?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Wow..It took you 3 posts to say nothing..Good job..Art

 

[EE THr]

Wow..It took you 3 posts to say nothing..Good job..Art

Well, con-artie, it looks like we have another winner! Thanks!

 

[EE THr]

Update!


It now appears that there is no test that the LRL promoters will consider taking.

It has also become evident that they refuse to suggest any type of test themselves!


One of the characteristics of a Con Artist is that they refuse to have their story checked out. They do not want their lies to be tested for validity, because then their scam would be exposed.


It is therefore obvious that these braggarts have been lying to the public the whole time. It's as simple as that.

However, they still have the opportunity to redeem themselves, by going to the "Questions LRLers Refuse to Answer" topic thread, and answering up to the simple, easy to answer, questions there.

How about it fellas? You will show your true colors, either way, you know. So you have nothing to lose!




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?

 

[Rudy(CA)]

Update!


It now appears that there is no test that the LRL promoters will consider taking.

It has also become evident that they refuse to suggest any type of test themselves!


One of the characteristics of a Con Artist is that they refuse to have their story checked out. They do not want their lies to be tested for validity, because then their scam would be exposed.


It is therefore obvious that these braggarts have been lying to the public the whole time. It's as simple as that.

However, they still have the opportunity to redeem themselves, by going to the "Questions LRLers Refuse to Answer" topic thread, and answering up to the simple, easy to answer, questions there.

How about it fellas? You will show your true colors, either way, you know. So you have nothing to lose!




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?

Can hardly blame them for not wanting to take a test. After all, not taking the test is their most advantageous choice,
leading to an indeterminate outcome.

If they take a fair, unbiased, test and fail, the fat lady will have sung and the show is over. But, if they delay the
day of reckoning, then they have not failed the test, the fat lady is still somewhere behind the curtains somewhere
and they can continue to amuse themselves by making posts that we'll react to.

In a way, it is the non-quantum equivalent version of Schrödinger's cat.

 

[fenixdigger]

Hmmmm, Seems like that little SHO-NUFF experiment makes that quote as legit as the rest of the 10,000 posts. Good Job.


SHO-NUFF

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

hi fenix, swr posted -->If they take a fair, unbiased, test and fail
**********

True, but there is no such an animal as has been explained several times.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

hi fenix, swr posted -->If they take a fair, unbiased, test and fail
**********

True, but there is no such an animal as has been explained several times.

Don Jose de La Mancha

If you are talking about those whining about "bad vibes spoil the test," then no, it has not been explained.

The LRLs are advertised as a functioning piece of electronic equipment, period. And the ads infer that they will find treasure (among other things). Therefore, either they can do this, or they can't do this, per the expectations of the potential consumer, as generated by the makers' ads.

Further, the makers claim that the LRLs work by Scientific principles. Since Scientific principles are all based on proven facts, the makers are making Scientific claims, which require, in turn, Scientific proof.

The LRL promoters cannot provide this Scientific proof, and there are no valid reasons why they shouldn't either prove their claims, or cease making them.

Trying to stretch definitions and giving emotional excuses does not excuse them from the necessity to prove claims, especially of products which are aggressively marketed for high profit.

No?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Evening EE: you posted -->The LRLs are advertised as a functioning piece of electronic equipment, period
****************

Yes they do in lieu of actually understanding how they could possibly work, but that isn't enough reason to
blanketly negate or deny them. The universe is full of things that we cannot explain or even imagine, yet---.

Don Josed de La Mancha

 

[aarthrj3811]

~SWR~

Its all about the fraud. It is amazing how gullible folks are. And even more amazing to see those who solicit themselves as "educated" argue in defense of the fraud.

It is all about the truth. It is amazing how gullible Randi folks are. You do not have to proclaim to be a expert in Electronics to discuss a simple treasure Hunting device..Art

 

[EE THr]

Evening EE: you posted -->The LRLs are advertised as a functioning piece of electronic equipment, period
****************

Yes they do in lieu of actually understanding how they could possibly work, but that isn't enough reason to
blanketly negate or deny them. The universe is full of things that we cannot explain or even imagine, yet---.

Don Josed de La Mancha

RDT---

When you refer to "something which cannot be explained," the key word there is "something." It assumes that there is, in fact, "something" to explain. And you are inferring that the "something" is that LRLs work. That has not been shown to be true. So your using that as an argument point is totally invalid. It's circular logic, and it doesn't work.

If a few people are actually having some kind of success with LRLs, that's one thing. But to advertise LRLs as treasure finding devices, to all the public, has never been shown to be legitimate.

And when I say few, I think that here, on probably the largest treasure hunting forum in the World, many more than three or four successful LRL hunters would surely speak up, regardless of any "non-belivers" rebutting them. And, by the nature of the vast majority of the comments by the three or four LRLers that do post here, I think anyone with common sense would seriously doubt that they are actually successful at anything other than accepting under-the-table gratuities from the manufacturers.

Other than all that, like I have said many times on here before, I have no reason to doubt that dowsing can work for some people, but I also have no first hand knowledge that it does, either. However, I do have strong reason to believe that LRLs are totally fraudulent.

And that the LRLers who do post here, claim to be totally unable to see the simple logic above, is, realistically, an additional major strike against their credibility.

...Just sayin'....