humble said:
Hey humble..EE is scared to death of LRL users because we know and have proved that he has no knowledge about them. He does not understand that we want to talk to other LRL users and exchange information with them.
It looks like EE thinks his name is Marc and owns this web site..Art
EE, your logic defies rational explanation. I hope you will explain your rationale to the web site host so he in turn can explain to the rest of us as to why he would create a forum titled "Long Range Locators" (LRL) if no users of LRL existed to post on such a forum, or why you infer that those who claim to being Long Range Locator users are lieing because you say LRL users don't exist?
humble said:
Perhaps it's the terminology you are having difficulty with. Would it help you if I referred to myself as a user of Remote Sensing Discrimination (RSD) ? humble
I am sure if there was a treasure hunting tool named Mickey Mouse there would be a section to discuss the tool here on t-net.
Why?...Your post about LRL’s are all fictional so what would be the difference?
They are not fictional to the 61 plus owner operators who have testified here on t-net and the 100’s of people on the internet that have testified to how they have worked for them
Does that make sense to anyone?...Art
EE THr said:humble said:
Yes, if anyone could get a currently marketed "LRL" to reliably locate anything, some kind of non-empirical ability would be necessary, because their pseudoelectronics circuitry does nothing in that regard.
There is no evidence that any privately invented "super" LRLs exist, except for some ridiculous claims by a couple of sub-amateur pseudoelectronics wannabes.
And a "non-electronic" LRL would be a dowsing device, by definition.
As I have said before, I have no reason to doubt that someone, somewhere, might be able to find stuff with an LRL, but not because of their so-called "electronic" components.
Lately I have added that I do have reason to believe that none of the LRLers posting on here have ever found anything with an LRL.
I might add that, although there are measurable electromagnetic radiation waves emanating from brains, and measurable electricity inside brains, the same is true for other cells throughout human and animal bodies, and in vegetation.
Also, the electromagnetic energy radiating from cells is of very short range. Using the observations that thoughts can affect others over very long distance spans, to support the idea that cell emanations travel long distances, even though their range has been proven to be short, is a misapplication of logic. There is no reason to conclude that physical "energy" must be responsible for "paranormal" abilities, unless it is being promoted that the soul does not exist, such as with the mantra of Eugenics. None of the "mind is in the brain" claims have ever been scientifically proven, simply because that is not the case.
And that is why an "electronic" device cannot enhance whatever abilities for dowsing a person might have. Because so-called PSI phenomenon do not occur within the physical realm (which includes energy), but they can affect the physical.
I won't argue the existence of the soul, because I am not trying to "convince" anyone about it, but rather I am merely answering the question of the topic title. People can certainly think for themselves on this matter, so trying to convince anyone is not of much help.
But that's my answer....
aarthrj3811 said:
EE THr said:
where did you get Judy's picture?
You are funny! If you are not a Skeptic why do you find my reference to self proclaimed Skeptics as an insult to you. That doesn't make sense. Then why do those members refer to themselves as "Skeptics". I am not insulting them by referring to them by the title they wish to be called. Aren't you aware that Skeptics are a very powerful organization and proud of it?
humble said:humble---
Your insult about "a common fallacy" was totally unnecessary. The ideometer effect is a repeatedly documented phenomenon. Your referring to it as a fallacy is a falsehood.
I certainly didn't mention anything about the ideoMETER effect. You may be referring to the Ideomotor effect. The Skeptics have informed this, and other forums that the Ideomoter is something that cannot be seen, touched, feel, taste, can not be electronically metered, sensed, or measured, Therefore there is no absolute way to prove it, yet with all the unknown factors they claim that gravity, or a Ideomotor controlled muscle reaction is the only force that will cause a hand held L-rod to move. These are Skeptic beliefs, and not proven facts.
Certainly, a trained Ideomotor response is no doubt utilized in the art of Dowsing, but as I stated in my answer to Judy's question, no psi ability is necessary to learn to use a LRL. It is not Psychic Dowsing
Sorry I didn't check the spelling. The whole idea of ideomotor response is that it is not a conscious action, so it cannot be trained. But yes, it can be proven, by the fact that dowsers can "find" the target when they already know where it is, but not when they don't.
I don't want to go off topic by talking about dowsing in the LRL forum, but water dowsers are the largest group of people claiming this ability; but their problem is that water is all over the place underground. It's known as the water table. Dig just about anywhere, and you will eventually hit water.
And "skeptics" very seldom post anything on this board. If you are referring to those who post facts showing that LRL are fraudulent, then your calling them "skeptics" is a misnomer and an insult.
They don't call themselves skeptics. I am not a "skeptic," and I don't know of anyone posting currently who calls themself a skeptic.
I am not insulting them by referring to them by the title they wish to be called. Aren't you aware that Skeptics are a very powerful organization and proud of it?
I don't know of anyone from any "skeptic organization" who posts on here.
I'm not trying to be insulting but you seem to be oblivious to the facts.
Your statement that facts posted which disprove LRLs, do not account for "mystery" devices and some alleged, yet unproven, "sense of feel," is merely confusing the real question of topic, with rumor and fantasy.
I apologize, for it has not been my intent to confuse you. I have not seen any facts you have posted that dis-prove mine, or anyone's successful use of LRL's.
Then you haven't been paying attention. A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.
Big J asked a simple question, and rather then replying with a simple, straightforward answer, you just had to take a few shots at those who merely post the truth. Not very nice, and not suitable to your username, either.
The answer to Judy's question was very straight forward. I will repeat "NO PSI ABILITY IS NEEDED TO USE A LRL".
I was talking about all the BS about skeptics and your fantasies about "LRLs."
As far as my user name being unsuitable, that's entirely possible but most of the good names have been taken. I looked at your user name and my first impression was that EE may stand for Electronics Engineer, and since most expensive LRL's around the world are manufactured by electronics people, you would be well versed to know what you are talking about. So what does the EE stand for? humble
humble said:JudyH said:Question for LRL Users.....
Can you get positive results if someone else "baits" the rod or "sets the frequency" on the LRL....without personal knowledge of the bait or settings they used? In other words....can you get positive results without "putting it (the target)" in Your mind?
Absolutely! No mental input required. For that reason even the harshest critics here could learn to use LRL, IF, they wished to do so. humble
humble said:
Wrong again
Actions show who and what they are.
But they are here.
Yes ..in your mind
Yes we know that you skeptics are full of BS...and yes we know all about your LRL fantasies
~humble~
~EE~
~humble~
~EE~
Re: Is a certain PSI ability needed or useful for Lrl"s? Dowsing yes.
How to properly enter the frequencies...how to check for depth, distance and weight of the target. How to follow the signal to the target..How to pin point the target...in your case how to read and understand the manual would probably be the biggest problem. They are all different so learning how your device works is the important thing...Art
humble said:
