discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrLs

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

They probably do, I wouldn't know. But....the list itself is a total fabrication made up by you based on past postings...and then you try to use it to discredit people that think for themselves. Pitiful.

You degrade the list and verify it's veracity in
the same post, neat trick!

Neat trick...indeed!

A calculator can shoot a magic treasure finding beam because they were conned into believing such a ridiculous concept is really thinking for themselves.

Interesting that you are the only one here that keeps referring to a calculator shooting a magic treasure finding beam. You must really believe it since you are THE ONLY ONE HERE that says that.

This must be from childrens book of immature comebacks.
What are you going to do next, repeat everything he says,
hold your breath, tell your mommy?

The following is a preemptive response to the childish
insult you will direct towards me, in a language you are
best suited to understand.

"I know you are but what am I"?

Childish insult? Nope. Just a question. Can you quote anyone else other than SWR saying that there is a calculator that shoots a magic treasure finding beam?

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Oh, okay.....so how about posting the source where you got the list from, then.

Failure to do so will be proof that you alone made it up.

I asked you first, con-eddie.

And you don't make up the rules of logic and proof. My list is correct as it stands, and you can't even find fault with one single part of it. What a doofus!





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]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Childish insult? Nope. Just a question. Can you quote anyone else other than SWR saying that there is a calculator that shoots a magic treasure finding beam?

That's a childish question, coneddie.

The "magic treasure finding beam" is a reference to the imagined signals of LRLs. The LRL opponents have stated over and over that LRLs don't "transmit" anything at all, but merely have some normal, very low level, standard random circuit noise.

So in essence, we have all said it.

And you are trying to con people into believing that they transmit some kind of a signal which is powerful enough to travel "Long Range" to a target, and then back again, to the LRL unit, which doesn't contain a receiver anyway! You are a crook, and a puppet of the makers. (Duh!)



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?

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Childish insult? Nope. Just a question. Can you quote anyone else other than SWR saying that there is a calculator that shoots a magic treasure finding beam?

That's a childish question, coneddie.

The "magic treasure finding beam" is a reference to the imagined signals of LRLs. The LRL opponents have stated over and over that LRLs don't "transmit" anything at all, but merely have some normal, very low level, standard random circuit noise.

So in essence, we have all said it.

And you are trying to con people into believing that they transmit some kind of a signal which is powerful enough to travel "Long Range" to a target, and then back again, to the LRL unit, which doesn't contain a receiver anyway! You are a crook, and a puppet of the makers. (Duh!)



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?

Wrong. I have never tried to con anyone into believing anything. I have always told people to think for themselves.

I see the problem in the pseudo-skeptic camp. You want to lump everyone into a single category if they do not believe as you do.

I'm certain that there are frauds, hucksters, and con men in the LRL field. I have stated that before. But that doesn't mean that the people that purchase/use the equipment should be lumped in the same category. Of course, pseudo-skeptics want to say different. Just because someone is pulling a con job doesn't mean everyone is. Once again, pseudo-skeptics say that since we have used or are using a LRL, we are promoting them and touting the manufacturers. Well, tell me something. If that is true, isn't everyone that has bought a car promoting the bad car salesman? You know, the one that rips people off.

Of course, pseudo skeptics will say this does not apply, it's not the same, blah blah blah. Yes, the principle of the sale is the same. Only the most idiotic moron would say it's not.

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

That's a childish question, coneddie.

The "magic treasure finding beam" is a reference to the imagined signals of LRLs. The LRL opponents have stated over and over that LRLs don't "transmit" anything at all, but merely have some normal, very low level, standard random circuit noise.

So in essence, we have all said it.

And you are trying to con people into believing that they transmit some kind of a signal which is powerful enough to travel "Long Range" to a target, and then back again, to the LRL unit, which doesn't contain a receiver anyway! You are a crook, and a puppet of the makers. (Duh!)

You have to remember that 'Eddie' owns/promotes/solicits a know fraudulent instrument themselves. Statistically, anything it takes to continue the scam/fraud they will employ that method. Including childish insults, total nonsense and much ado about nothing.

Oh look...SWR said "much ado about nothing". Let's point that out instead of validating our claims with reliable references, sources and citations. (parody/rhetorical situation involving the "working" mind of of pro-fraudsters)

The problem is...you guys don't consider anything reliable unless it is in agreement with you.

Of course, I must remember that you promote/solicit a known fraudster yourself....so why should we believe anything you say?

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Wrong. I have never tried to con anyone into believing anything. I have always told people to think for themselves.

I see the problem in the pseudo-skeptic camp. You want to lump everyone into a single category if they do not believe as you do.

I'm certain that there are frauds, hucksters, and con men in the LRL field. I have stated that before. But that doesn't mean that the people that purchase/use the equipment should be lumped in the same category. Of course, pseudo-skeptics want to say different. Just because someone is pulling a con job doesn't mean everyone is. Once again, pseudo-skeptics say that since we have used or are using a LRL, we are promoting them and touting the manufacturers. Well, tell me something. If that is true, isn't everyone that has bought a car promoting the bad car salesman? You know, the one that rips people off.

Of course, pseudo skeptics will say this does not apply, it's not the same, blah blah blah. Yes, the principle of the sale is the same. Only the most idiotic moron would say it's not.

So...being a pro-fraudster means you can fabricate/create new categories for/about pseudo-skeptics?

You seem to be very creative in pretending how the word/term pseudo skeptic should be used that makes you totally clueless as what Pseudoskepticism is.

Oh, trust me...I know what pseudo skepticism is. It is rampant here. As for being pro- fraudster....I 'm sorry, I don't support you or your beliefs.

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

The problem is...you guys don't consider anything reliable unless it is in agreement with you.

whoa...hold the phone here!

You seem to be making things up again.

Please post a quote where those who are skeptical about LRLs performing as advertised and licensed/degree holding Electrical Engineers have stated such?

"You guys" have not produced the first reliable reference, source or citation that would validate any claims made by "you guys"

In a nutshell, as I don't have the time to go through all the past posts....you know good and well that there are LRL users on here that have told their stories.....have posted links to videos.....etc.....but you guys shot it down.

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

The problem is...you guys don't consider anything reliable unless it is in agreement with you.

Jeeze, coneddie, that's the oldest and most childish complaint in the book.

You tell a robber to quit robbing people, and he says, "You just want everything your way."

Of course con artists don't agree with us, because if they did, they couldn't rob people anymore!

Try cutting the nonsense and getting back to the topic.

I had posted some viewpoints on developing possible theories for making a long range detector, as the topic title indicates. Why do you want to divert focus off of this topic? Does the discussion of actual facts screw up the fantasy that you and your ilk are trying to feed people?

Where is your actual contribution to this thread topic?

Hint: You don't have any! (Duh!)



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?

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Oh, trust me...I know what pseudo skepticism is. It is rampant here. As for being pro- fraudster....I 'm sorry, I don't support you or your beliefs.

No. I don't trust you, and your posts/claims reflect that you do not know how to use the word/term pseudoskeptic

I'll disregard the other childish nonsense

It's probably best to disregard the nonsense. But it makes your posts hard to understand, as there is some pertinent info there occasionally, interspersed with the nonsense.

But anyway...I don't care if you trust me or not. You are not a part of my everyday life, so your like or dislike of me is of no consequence....as with the other pseudoskeptics.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

sigh, that's an extremely interesting theory on ------------------------

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

The problem is...you guys don't consider anything reliable unless it is in agreement with you.

Jeeze, coneddie, that's the oldest and most childish complaint in the book.

You tell a robber to quit robbing people, and he says, "You just want everything your way."

Of course con artists don't agree with us, because if they did, they couldn't rob people anymore!

Try cutting the nonsense and getting back to the topic.

I had posted some viewpoints on developing possible theories for making a long range detector, as the topic title indicates. Why do you want to divert focus off of this topic? Does the discussion of actual facts screw up the fantasy that you and your ilk are trying to feed people?

Where is your actual contribution to this thread topic?

Hint: You don't have any! (Duh!)



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?

If it's childish then why do you guys live by it?

Grow up, EEL.

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

The problem is...you guys don't consider anything reliable unless it is in agreement with you.

whoa...hold the phone here!

You seem to be making things up again.

Please post a quote where those who are skeptical about LRLs performing as advertised and licensed/degree holding Electrical Engineers have stated such?

"You guys" have not produced the first reliable reference, source or citation that would validate any claims made by "you guys"

In a nutshell, as I don't have the time to go through all the past posts....you know good and well that there are LRL users on here that have told their stories.....have posted links to videos.....etc.....but you guys shot it down.

In a nutshell?

In a nutshell...you ain't got diddle.

Thanks for validating your post/claim with nothing but air :::swoosh::: I know good and well these devices will not and cannot perform as advertised, and are fraudulent instruments used to commit a scam/con. I can validate my claim/stance with reliable references, sources, citations, photographic evidence as well as physical evidence.

But...."you guys" shot it down

Hmmm....I don't see "personal experience" there. Oh, that's right. You just looked at pictures.

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

In a nutshell, as I don't have the time to go through all the past posts....you know good and well that there are LRL users on here that have told their stories.....have posted links to videos.....etc.....but you guys shot it down.

Well, let's see about that. There is you, who admits that he can't get his LRLs to reliably find anything. Then there is conartie, who claims that his LRLs work, if you are a dowser, yet they don't have anything to do with dowsing, and proves it by posting obviously fake photos and videos. Then there is fenix, who posts a dowsing experiment with coathangers in order to try to convince people that LRLs work, if you can dowse. And all three of you keep encouraging people to use your phony LRLs, even though they have been proven to not work.

So that's three. Well, fenix has some number of friends who just post insults---kind of a tag team thingy that they use to screw up any meaningfull discussions. I won't mention broom hilda because nobody knows what the heck she is, or what task she is supposed to be doing here, besides merely insulting people. She doesn't own an LRL, but I guess is just "buddies" with a manufacturer.

So, that's the group of LRL promoters who still keep trying to BS everyone, even though we all know your devices are fake from beginning to end.

And that's what you are proud to be a part of?

Figures.




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]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

If it's childish then why do you guys live by it?

The Scientific Method agrees with us, and we don't consider it unreliable.

Reality agrees with us, and we don't consider it unreliable.

Common sense agrees with us, and we don't consider it unreliable.

Your logic is flawed, conedith.





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]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Hmmm....I don't see "personal experience" there. Oh, that's right. You just looked at pictures.

And you were stupid enough to actually go out and buy the things!

Or do the manufacturers give them to you for promoting them?





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?

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Hmmm....I don't see "personal experience" there. Oh, that's right. You just looked at pictures.

And you were stupid enough to actually go out and buy the things!

Or do the manufacturers give them to you for promoting them?





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?

Well, now you have proven that you don't know what you are talking about! If you would care to read...you would know that someone gave me the LRL. I didn't buy it. I didn't even know what the thing was, or how to use it until I was shown.

You are stupid, piglet. Maybe you should research before you post. It might make you look smart.


Nah....it won't.

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

In a nutshell, as I don't have the time to go through all the past posts....you know good and well that there are LRL users on here that have told their stories.....have posted links to videos.....etc.....but you guys shot it down.

Well, let's see about that. There is you, who admits that he can't get his LRLs to reliably find anything. Then there is conartie, who claims that his LRLs work, if you are a dowser, yet they don't have anything to do with dowsing, and proves it by posting obviously fake photos and videos. Then there is fenix, who posts a dowsing experiment with coathangers in order to try to convince people that LRLs work, if you can dowse. And all three of you keep encouraging people to use your phony LRLs, even though they have been proven to not work.

So that's three. Well, fenix has some number of friends who just post insults---kind of a tag team thingy that they use to screw up any meaningfull discussions. I won't mention broom hilda because nobody knows what the heck she is, or what task she is supposed to be doing here, besides merely insulting people. She doesn't own an LRL, but I guess is just "buddies" with a manufacturer.

So, that's the group of LRL promoters who still keep trying to BS everyone, even though we all know your devices are fake from beginning to end.

And that's what you are proud to be a part of?

Figures.




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?

I don't encourage anyone to use anything, except their brain. Perhaps you can back up your lie with some proof? Of course not.

Pitiful, Pathological EEL.

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

If it's childish then why do you guys live by it?

The Scientific Method agrees with us, and we don't consider it unreliable.

Reality agrees with us, and we don't consider it unreliable.

Common sense agrees with us, and we don't consider it unreliable.

Your logic is flawed, conedith.





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?

The scientific method may be changed tomorrow due to new findings. Everyone creates their own reality. You have not demonstrated common sense.

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

The scientific method may be changed tomorrow due to new findings. Everyone creates their own reality. You have not demonstrated common sense.

And that's where you go south.

The Scientific Method has nothing to do with finding new things for it. It is a system of establishing the reality of something. Only a moron would suggest that it would change. Or an LRL promoter, and con artist, such as yourself.

You claim that LRLs work. You defend them, and the people who make and sell them. And you insult anyone who proves that they can't, and don't, work.

Yours was given to you? Just as I suspected.

You are only here to interfere with normal discussions, by diverting the focus to off-topic BS.

What have you contributed to this thread? Nothing.

Want proof of that? You're doing it right now.

Another LRL maker's puppet!

Supposedly innocent, with a different slant on things, but a doofer just the same as the rest.

And so obvious!






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?

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

The scientific method may be changed tomorrow due to new findings. Everyone creates their own reality. You have not demonstrated common sense.

And that's where you go south.

The Scientific Method has nothing to do with finding new things for it. It is a system of establishing the reality of something. Only a moron would suggest that it would change. Or an LRL promoter, and con artist, such as yourself.

You claim that LRLs work. You defend them, and the people who make and sell them. And you insult anyone who proves that they can't, and don't, work.

Yours was given to you? Just as I suspected.

You are only here to interfere with normal discussions, by diverting the focus to off-topic BS.

What have you contributed to this thread? Nothing.

Want proof of that? You're doing it right now.

Another LRL maker's puppet!

Supposedly innocent, with a different slant on things, but a doofer just the same as the rest.

And so obvious!






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?

It looks like you STILL didn't do your research before posting. The LRL was given to me by a friend. Not a manufacturer.