FREE LRL?

[Dave Rishar]

I came here to let everyone know that I've had what seems like success using the free LRL method originally described by Dell Winders in the first post. Understandably, there are people doubting that. They have reason to doubt since I haven't actually completed the recovery yet. So take my information or leave it. GL

When you recovered the target, was it a good target?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

When you recovered the target, was it a good target?

He says it "seems like success ". So I will take that to mean "yes".

 

[gudfruit7]

When you recovered the target, was it a good target?

Hey man look I didn't mean to just ignore you but you keep asking a question I already clearly answered in multiple posts. But ill say it again... The reason I came here was to let people know that I had experienced success with the free lrl method. As I have explained clearly several times now, I have not completed the recovery yet. But im sure at least some people will be able to recognize the significance of the fact that another person was able to pin point the exact same targets using a device that costs several thousands of dollars. If you take that as mere coincidence then honestly guys i gotta tell ya, im really not interested in convincing you otherwise. Happy hunting

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I am speculating that 2 different LRL devices "pointing to the same spot" by 2 different users, *might* have "more plausible explanations". So too does seeming-successes of tech/theory get pointed to by dowsers and staged LRL tests. Granted & admitted. Yet when you study the tests more closely, other explanations come into play to explain the seeming-results. Because notice: The same tests can NEVER be done by critics. For a variety of "fall-back" reasons that I won't go into here.

As for "success" , I can see how you'd point to what you feel is a success at what you feel is a technological working, yet NOT a "success" at actually finding goodies.

The debate will probably go on even after an LRL advocate shows a seeming goodie. Because , yes, LRL and dowse proponents HAVE sometimes been shown posing for photos next to a jar of coins they said the LRL or dowse led them to. But you have to scrutinize closely, perhaps:

a) hunting in "super likely locations". Then go figure: even if just by random digging you'll find something. Ie.: if you dig around enough likely looking ruins long enough (especially if you already have an in-house clue or tip that "grandpa buried something here), then ... go figure: History is FILLED with accidental finds (farmer's plows, const. worker ditch-digging, etc....). Hence how-much-more-so someone going out with the direct explicit intention of finding goodies ? At likely spots, when they were following explicit clues. Ok, was it the LRL /dowse that did it ? Or was it random eventual odds ?

b) you pull out the metal detector to "pinpoint" (that's the ticket). Well, sure, if you pull out a metal detector at ANY place where mankind has frolicked (old cellar holes, ghost towns, likely ruins, etc...) you find .... drum roll ... metal. Maybe even a goodie. But even though you might have started with your LRL/dowse to point you in a certain direction (which lo & behold, was the ruins or "likely spot" you subconsciously pointed it to), then it stands to reason perhaps your detector was just beeping on expected metals.

 

[Dell Winders]

Then why did you advise people to turn the volume all the way up in your initial post?

All my advice comes from 50 years of personal Treasure hunting and recovery experience, spoken honestly. No one is obligated to accept my advice. Asinine questioning, and subtle negative inferences I will consider to be intentional provocation.

In my way of thinking, common sense logic, and science, dictates that a frequency, can be broadcast for great distances without the addition of audio (amplified sound you can hear). However, I do successfully use AMPLITUDE, with my MFD to increase, or decrease the strength and range of the MFD signal. The volume control on a cell phone appears to increase, or decrease Amplitude. (strength of signal)

From my own field experiences, as a long time Professional Treasure Hunter/-finder Salvor, Audio (Sound is totally unnecessary for a MFD to work efficiently, In truth, I find a continuous audio sound, irritating, and distracting. Dell

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

. . . to let people know that I had experienced success with the free lrl method. As I have explained clearly several times now, I have not completed the recovery yet.

I think the words you are looking for are: "I anticipate success at some time when I can actually verify an authentic signal from an item of value."

 

[Dell Winders]

There is no apology for telling then truth We are debating ( arguing) with a vindictive agenda to deter interest in Discussion forums related to LRL, MFD, etc use in Treasure Hunting. MFD has been on the market since I introduced it in 1986 and has earned it's place as a viable tool by Treasure hunting success through out the world, including my own.

Hundreds of comparison tests of different LRL Manufacturers products over the past 27 years have shown that most all signals detected by LRL users are consistent in detecting the same signals generated, or detected by other LRL's. My own, controlled, and thousands of field tests confirm this.

Thanks for sharing your opinions about the FREE cell phone MFD, LRL. Dell

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Asinine questioning, and subtle negative inferences I will consider to be intentional provocation.....

I too saw a seeming contradiction. And to point it out is not "asinine questioning" or "subtle negative inferences". If you have a legitimate answer for a seeming contradiction, fine. Spell it out as you tried. But be aware that to participate on a forum re.: public input tech. comparison studies means that you have to accept not only affirming views, but also possibly non-affirming doubting views. THAT'S the whole point of forums, is to compare the pros AND cons. I did not see Dave's question as anything more than a fair calm question.

 

[Dell Winders]

Sorry Tom in Ca, I don't see your name listed as a forum Moderator.

"All my advice comes from 50 years of personal Treasure hunting and recovery experience, spoken honestly. No one is obligated to accept my advice. Asinine questioning, and subtle negative inferences I will consider to be intentional provocation."

My statement was not specifically intended for Dave, but for all practitioners of this form of Skeptic agitation. I wish to believe that such practice is not in the best interest of this forum or those who wish to participate in direct informative discussions about this subject without the philosophical views, negative innuendo, and subtle inferences through the skeptic's use of asinine questioning. Only those practicing this behavior will have reason to defend it.

I can easily stop participating in this forum. I gain little from posting here, and there are friendlier, less hostile venues. I am only here to share my well earned knowledge with others of like interest. This forum is starting to come alive again with a renewed interest. Will the skeptics agree to maintain that momentum in my absence? I will be dropping out soon. Dell

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....negative innuendo, and subtle inferences through the skeptic's use of asinine questioning...

To my knowledge, the LRL forum is not strictly limited to the "pro" view. I recall that the dowse forum is ONLY for the "pro" view, and I have respected that (I don't input there). If the LRL forum is, likewise, "only for the pro view", then I apologize and stand corrected.

If a moderator wishes to alert several of us who have chimed in here with critical skeptical questions, that's fine. I can totally understand if a forum is limited to only those with a pro-view. To my knowledge, this was not one-such-forum.

And I do not consider the other pluasible explanations, and posts-of-doubts, to have been done in a less than professional way. I mean, sure, we're all men here. So some give & take locker-room talk is ok (ie.: playing the devils' advocate to get a conversation going) is not impermissible. I haven't seen anything that's gone beyond the pale and entered into "asinine" or "provoking", etc....

Don't stop inputting. I love reading what you write, and how you respond to difficult questions posed at LRL. It's a fascinating insight into the psychology of all this.

 

[Dave Rishar]

All my advice comes from 50 years of personal Treasure hunting and recovery experience, spoken honestly. No one is obligated to accept my advice. Asinine questioning, and subtle negative inferences I will consider to be intentional provocation.

In the case of what I believe is pseudo science, appeals to authority do not impress me. As for asinine questioning, our conversation was fairly straightforward:

You: "Make sure to turn up the volume on your cell phone all the way when generating frequencies."
Me: "Your cell phone probably doesn't generate an accurate frequency via its audio output."
You: "The audio isn't important."
Me: "Then why did you tell people to turn it up?"
You: "I've been doing this for 50 years."
Me: "Not with a cell phone, you haven't." (Okay, I just added that last part as a joke. It was not really part of our conversation. I was totally going to go there though, so I'm leaving it.)

The annoyance that my "asinine" questioning is provoking is likely cognitive dissonance. If you're not familiar with the term, Google it for a good read. It's part of the human condition, but surprisingly few humans have ever taken the time to learn about it. It only came to my attention last year, although I'd experienced it countless times before that. I'd known something about it on a subconscious level, but I'd never really sat down and read about it. Now I know why approximately half of America is melting down on a daily basis, and why people sometimes get really pissed off for incomprehensible reasons on the internet.

In my way of thinking, common sense logic, and science, dictates that a frequency, can be broadcast for great distances without the addition of audio (amplified sound you can hear).

Aha! Science! I love science! Now we're talking!

By your way of thinking, common sense logic, and science, what exactly is your cell phone doing while it's running a frequency generator app? Is it the same thing as a function generator? Given that the frequency seems to be pretty important (but at an electrical level, not an audial level), would a function generator not be a far better choice for this sort of job? Along with that last point, is the shape of the waveform itself unimportant, and if not, would you want to know what it looked like?

Serious questions. I'm not being asinine here. You've given this matter some thought, but I want to see how far down that rabbit hole you went.

 

[Dave Rishar]

But ill say it again... The reason I came here was to let people know that I had experienced success with the free lrl method.

There are a number of theories about how to "game" a slot machine. I have one of my own, one that I see repeated many times on the internet. I'm convinced that it works, but as I don't gamble, I haven't actually won anything with it. Was I successful? This question is presented as a thought experiment. It's quite a bit more complicated than it appears on the surface.

But im sure at least some people will be able to recognize the significance of the fact that another person was able to pin point the exact same targets using a device that costs several thousands of dollars. If you take that as mere coincidence then honestly guys i gotta tell ya, im really not interested in convincing you otherwise.

Is the amount of money that it costs relevant to whether or not it works? Think carefully before answering that.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

guffruit7, thanx for explaining . I can tell you are honestly digesting all sides of the issue.

 

[Carl-NC]

Gud, if it has swivelly things that point, it's dowsing. You can pretend it's not, and if that makes you feel good, then I recommend that's what you do. What you are experiencing has been experienced by countless other dowsers in the past, and every single one of them were just as convinced as you are now. Like them, you're gonna sink a ton of time and money into a hole that goes nowhere. I strongly urge you to visit the MECO folks to see what happens to people who refuse to let RealScience interfere with their fantasies. If the fantasy is what you prefer, then start digging!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Gud, if it has swivelly things that point, it's dowsing. You can pretend it's not, ....

No it's not dowsing. You know how I know ? Because it's got a battery, some wires, circuits, etc.... Also it is accompanied by very scientific sounding explanations. Hence ... no ... it's not dowsing. Repent Carl.

.... I strongly urge you to visit the MECO folks to see what happens to people who refuse to let RealScience interfere with their fantasies....

Everything that MECO says, and "real science" says, has no bearing on this. Because this is un-discovered science. Examples: Science once thought the world was flat. Science once thought that heavier-than-air flight was impossible, etc... Hence so-too will science some day explain LRL. Repent Carl.

 

[Carl-NC]

I don't agree. I look at dowsing as being totally dependent on what your central nervous system is doing. The guy with the electrical equipment has never been able to dowse a thing. You put a set of L-rods in his hands (minus any electrical device) and they are totally unresponsive. His abilities were 100% dependent on the equipment.

What are you waiting for? Start digging!

 

[Dell Winders]

Carl, what are you waiting for? Answer the questions.

Carl, please tell us about your years of field experience using, experimenting, testing, and comparing Dowsing, LRL and MFD, that makes you an authority on these subjects? Are you a Professional Treasure Hunter?

Carl,do you agree, or disagree, that the true definition of Dowsing is the meta-physical application of the mind to prompt a physical Ideomotor reaction of L-Rods, or Pendulums, and that No batteries, magnets, or electronics would be required in a meta-physical Dowsing exercise of the human mind?

Why do you keep inferring that those who have successfully located, and recovered objects of Treasure using these methods are mis-guided, or untruthful, and you are not?

As a courtesy, if you are merely posting a biased opinion, will you make that clear in your posts? Dell

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Dell, wanted to say: Sorry for your loss in your family. You have been a fair player and strong person for many years.

 

[Carl-NC]

Dell, I also peek at your Facebook page from time to time, and I'm very sorry for your loss. Sounds like you and Trudy shared some wonderful times together. I'm also glad your health has somewhat rebounded.

Not gonna engage with you any more on the forums, we've done all that needs to be done. Spend your energy on something more productive, and I'll do the same.

 

[Dave Rishar]

Right now, I know there's a target in the ground.

No, you don't, and you won't until you dig a hole.

Whether it really is gold or whether its just another piece of junk metal I know there's something there and based on any information you could possibly gather from any metal detecting technology available, its worth digging for.

Then why haven't you?

But now things are very different, right? Things are different because a separate person, with his own independent thoughts that were uninfluenced by any knowledge of the originally dowsed target, has now located the same target in the same exact location with a device that does not depend on dowsing ability. For both of us, this target is responding to a frequency that has been used to locate gold by a countless number of individuals. We also found that the target does not respond to the frequency of iron, steel, aluminum, or any other material of lesser value. On top of everything, I have an image of a rectangular object produced by the magnetometer...

If I was that sure of a gold target (and to be fair, I've never been that sure about any gold target that I've recovered), I wouldn't be arguing about how I found it on the Internet. I'd be digging it up, and then maybe talking about how I recovered it on the Internet - maybe, depending on what it was. But that's just me.

Now if you are going to sit there and tell me that it was just a meaningless coincidence that the guy instantly located the same exact target location to the inch, from several meters away, with the same exact frequencies and there just happens to be this dense rectangular object down there...

You put him several meters away before you turned him loose on it? And the object is large enough for you to locate four individual corners with swivel rods? Very interesting.

Do you see any problems with what I just said?

Then this topic is already closed. Because in my opinion you're being totally irrational and should just forget about treasure hunting. This level of confirmation is truly a privilege. Most of the time its more than you could ever hope for.

And now the problem is with me? Also interesting.

Be sure to post lots of pictures of your treasure when you dig it up. It sounds like a banner find to me.

So this could certainly be considered a success because based on logic alone I now know beyond any reasonable doubt that the target was not just a figment of my imagination. SOMETHING is there and I have many more reasons to believe that its actually valuable than I did before.

Because of the frequency, or because the guy that you paid to come out with the expensive machine went to an area several square meters in size and found the same thing that you did with your L-rods? Or is there more to the story?

Knowing that I'm digging for a real target, I can now feel comfortable investing the time and money in to the operation.

Beyond the money that you already spent hiring the guy with the expensive machine, anyway.

I have real motivation to follow through because im not digging blindly.

Just for the record, VLF detectorists do not dig blindly either. Those machines are actually pretty reliable. There are a number of dowsers on this very forum that use them to "zero in" on dowsed targets, and while that's been a great source of amusement for me in the past, I'll refrain from joking about it now.

Anyone with any experience knows that is HUGE man.

As I have absolutely no experience whatsoever with digging up items of value, your appeal to authority has worked on me. I can't wait. It'll be YUUUUUUUGE.

You guys act like there's some grand alternative out there to confirming this target. Should we all just give up treasure hunting because we cant be 100% sure we're digging for something valuable? Name a device on the market that can provide concrete target confirmation... You can't, because it doesn't exist.

But it does exist! When you use the right frequency with the L-rods, it only responds to the appropriate metal/mineral/person/sea otter, right? That's the way that I understood it anyway.