L-rod Technique: Its a Hoax

[EddieR]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

Eddie---

Your, and others, idea that only if a person owns an LRL, can he determine if they work or not is seriously flawed.

Carl Moreland own many LRLs, and you LRL promoters just try to brush that off as though it's nothing. So for a debunker to buy an LRL would be of no discussion value whatsoever.

I simply cannot believe that you have not read all the information showing that the contents of the LRL boxes have nothing of value at all, which would enable them to either send, receive, or evaluate any kind of a "signal," much less one that would sense treasure! It's just not there.

For example, do you really believe that a calculator, velcroed to a box with no battery in it, can transmit and receive a "signal," then process it to actually move a pointing device to indicate the direction of a buried treasure? Even a person with no electronics knowledge knows better than that.

So, if these "LRL" things don't work, then what is wrong with saying so, and pointing out why they don't?

If you think it's OK for the LRL promoters to say they work, then why would you think it's bad for someone who knows better, to say they don't? Why do you attack us, and not them? Because you are biased, and favor the LRL promoters, and thus qualify yourself as one. It's not me trying to make you one, you have made yourself one, by your own actions. So, who's fault is that?

You have misunderstood. I have NEVER said that a person should own one to determine if it works or not. I said that a person who hasn't personally tested them is not qualified to say "yes" OR "no" as far as them working or not working. It's just common sense. Without personal testing, it becomes an opinion. And there is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is proclaimed to be an opinion and nothing more.

For nearly 30 years, scientists brushed off reports of a large, hairy, man-like creature that lived in the mountains. Then, they finally got off their duffs and actually went to investigate the reports and the Mountain Gorilla became a known species. 30 years of turning their heads the other way and refusing to look for themselves.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

Sure, I saw the reports. But a report doesn't make it so. Look at the global warming/climate change debate. You can find reports from recognized scientific organizations saying the whole thing is BS....and you can find reports from recognized scientific organizations that will make you want to go live in a cave on a high mountain to avoid the coming flood. So, if both sides used scientific method/study to arrive at their conclusions, which one is right? Sometimes science just doesn't get everything right. Look at the revisions made EVERY YEAR in scientific journals.

As for my position on the LRL phenomenon, I will clarify: I do NOT claim that LRL's work. I CANNOT make that claim as I have not used any that are currently on the market. I also do not claim that LRL's DO NOT work. Again, I have not used any that are currently on the market, so I cannot truthfully make that claim. I do not respond to every post made by the "debunkers" (actually, if you compare our post counts, my posting ratio is very low compared to yours), so I cannot see your statement of my being "fiercely adamant in attacks against LRL debunkers" as having much merit. Sorry.

And also, you commented on me being biased because of a post I made about my experience, the tests I performed with the LRL, and so on. Everything in that post was only the truth. If you will notice, in that post I left an open door for anyone to post proof contrary to what I had written. But there was nothing valid posted. Heck, you even said that tests don't matter...? HUH? You have made post after post about tests, so obviously they matter very much.

The reports: The government has nothing to gain by falsifying LRL testing. The government would like for them to work. They even stated that they wanted to know if the testing problems could be fixed, and the LRLs improved, so they could actually use them. (Before you ask, that's in the report.)

But upon investivation of the inside components, they soon realized that the device did nothing at all. They even report on their conclusions about other types of "LRLs." All findings were that they were bogus. If they could have made any of them work adequately, they would have. But there is just nothing there to "improve." They are all total duds, in every aspect.

With Global Warming, the whole plan was for the U.N. to charge American Citizens (and people in other countries) "Carbon Tax." The Carbon Tax would go directly to the Wrold Bank, which is owned by the U.N. It's just another arm of the Bankster Fraud, of which everyone is now aware of, via official documentation of their actual plans. The only Scientists who we now know lied, and vouched for Global Warming, were government funded. Big surprise. The World Bank has no plans to use the money collected from this tax in any kind of program to do anything to the climate---their scheme is to "penalize" people for outputting carbondioxide by taxing them, then just keep the money as their own profits! And that's why some unethical but highly paid "scientists" claimed that Global Warming existed. But that is not a discussion for this section of the forum.

So, on one hand you have the government reports that LRLs are fraudulent, with no reason to lie about that. While some "scientists" had very good reasons to lie about Global Warming.


Your claims: While you don't print word-for-word that "LRLs work," you direct attacks at debunkers, and never at LRL promoters. That is an absolute fact, and anyone can simply scroll through any thread on here and see that it is true. Maybe not every one of your posts are attacks, but those that are, you direct at debunkers, and they are very harsh and insulting. Since this is easily confirmed, it in fact has very high merit. By attacking only debunkers, and never LRL promoters, you are vouching for everything the LRL promoters say, and are defining yourself as one. I didn't do that, you did. So don't try to blame it on me.


My post counts: Post counts are irrelevant. If I have a higher post count than you, do you think that will somehow make LRLs start working? Often when I make a post, I get replies from several LRL promoters, so I usually try to answer them all (except the ones which are just non-understandable gibberish nonsense, or all insults and no data).


Your post about your experience: Yes, you told your story. That's nice. But then you tried to use the non-logic that, because no debunker asked you how you tested when you determined that the LRL wasn't working, therefore the debunkers are invalid. Asking you questions will not make LRLs suddenly work! So your feelings may have been hurt that nobody asked you about it, but your illogic is merely an unnecessary attack on debunkers. PLUS, it seems to me that you also said, when you made the original post about your experience, to not ask you any questions about how you determined it (I could be mistaken. You can check that if you want. But I seem to remember that because I thought it strange for you to say that, at the time.) At any rate, that's why I said it wasn't important how you did it. You don't need to build a swimming pool, to find out that a bowling ball won't float! In other words, what does it matter, because if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. That's no surprise!

Furthermore, your test wasn't documented, so it actually can't be considered "proof" of anything. So the details of how you went about it, as far as the LRL discussion is concerned, aren't really worth much. I figured if you thought it really was important, that you would have included it at the time! So, why not go ahead and post it, now that it's come up?


Should a debunker own an LRL? I was using the term "own" the same as you are using "personally test." Yes, the words are different, but the idea, in this discussion about knowledge of whether LRLs work or not, is just about the same idea. Excuuuuuuuuuse me. To make it "official," I'll just say: You don't need to personally test a bowling ball in a swimming pool, to know that it won't float! Feel better now?


Yes, the Mountain Gorillas were found. They also found out that Bernie Madoff wasn't really investing their money, and was a total fraud. But they "believed." There were a few debunkers who tried to warn them, but the SEC wouldn't listen, and didn't investigate until a few years later. When will treasure hunting LRLs be criminally investigated? Who knows? What are the priorities of the Feds these days? TSA groping? Importing drugs? Running pedophile rings? (Before you get all bent out of shape, these things are all thoroughly documented.) They're very busy with things they consider more important, it seems.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

Thank you EE for again providing more useless facts and we all agree that your posts L-rod Technique: this thread is a HOAX

 

[werleibr]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

Now we are finally getting to the nitty gritty. Please, by all means....show me/quote me where I personally have made those claims. You won't/can't because I have never claimed that...at all.

Oh, let me guess....you deduced that they were my claims because of my interest in the LRL phenomenon, right? Sorry, real life doesn't work that way! You are playing with shades of gray instead of plain black and white. To make a claim, a person must say something. DUH!!!

Of course, if you insist that assumptions made by one can be called "proof" of claims made by another...well....I can assume that you are a major Randi fan, he is your idol, even. And due to certain events going on in his life right now, concerning identity theft...... well, you haven't condemned that, so I suppose we can assume that you support identity theft too?

Silly, isn't it? And yet you do it constantly. You make assumptions from what others post. Well, I just did that too.

Merry Christmas!

When you insult people for posting facts which show LRLs to be fraudulent, you are vouching for the LRL promoters, and all they stand for.

When you, at the same time, never find fault with all the wild, unsbustantiated claims made by the LRL promoters, who refuse to even try to provide actual documented Scientific proof, you are again vouching for the LRL promoters, and all they say.

The reason I specify "documented Scientific proof," is because they continually try to use mere stories as "proof" of their claims. This amounts to trying to back up their fantastic claims, with more fantastic claims.




Here is the whole point---

Do you consider "just more claims" to be "proof" of their original claims?


Happy New Year!

So I never find fault, eh? Look, the stories told on here are, to me, just stories. If someone goes and finds a million dollars in gold, then comes here and tells their story, that's cool. And if someone comes on here and says that the LRL they once had never performed for them, well...that's cool too. Should I require proof from the guy that said his device didn't work? Nope. Should I require proof from the guy that says he found all that gold? Nope again. And why not? Because it doesn't affect my life one way or the other! So it's no big deal.

If more people could understand that little tidbit of info and apply it to their own lives, the world would be a much easier place to live. (I'm not just talking about LRL's, either. I mean everything! This "politically correct jazz has gone waaaaay to far.)

For example, let's discuss a used car. If I am buying a used car, and the salesman says there is nothing wrong with any car on his lot.....the car I'm interested in is the one that I will have a mechanic look at. Not the other cars on the lot, just the one that affects my life (the one I am buying). It would be silly to demand proof from the salesman that every car on his lot is problem free....if I have no intention of using them. If a salesman sells bad cars, the market will correct it. He will go out of business due to no sales because of his reputation.

Now, let's apply that to LRL's. If a salesman sells something that doesn't work, the market will correct it in the same fashion. But it hasn't, so the deal might warrant a little more investigation, eh?

No, this is not a "claim" made by me that all (or any) LRL's work. I haven't used any that are currently on the market, so I am not qualified to make that call. If I ever decided to make a purchase of one, I would travel to the dealer and do my own testing. Not on targets hidden by the dealer, but real tests with the LRL in my hands.

And really, anyone that makes the claim that they don't work, while never even having used them, is just using a "friend of a friend said they don't work" type of argument.


8)

Good attempt on the analogy but it falls short with other things when you take into consideration cons. If a car salesman sells bad cars, the market does not necessarly correct it. There are many con car salesman that get people, because people fall for it. Once people wise up to it all they do is change the name of the business and address and blam they start the cycle all over again. This can be seen all over the country. Second, you may take the con mans car to your mechanic, but what if your mechanic was also receiving a nice some of money from that dealer? The mechanic notices it is from that dealer thanks to the tags on the back on the trunk. He acts like he looks it over and tells you that it is good. Dealer pays mechanic, mechanic knows you will come back to him for more business because the car will break down in the near future. Now in this paragraph change car salesman to LRL Dealer and change mechanic to LRL promoter or "teacher".

The other bad thing about the analogy, cars have been proven to work, LRL's have not.

 

[EE THr]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

Thank you EE for again providing more useless facts and we all agree that your posts L-rod Technique: this thread is a HOAX

You have made yet another post with nothing but insults and nothing even resembling supporting evidence. This indicates that you have nothing to counter my statements with---which means you have no real reason to post insults in the first place. You are just insulting for the sake of insulting.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

~EE~

You have made yet another post with nothing but insults and nothing even resembling supporting evidence. This indicates that you have nothing to counter my statements with---which means you have no real reason to post insults in the first place. You are just insulting for the sake of insulting.

It seems that every day more people come here that use LRL’s for treasure hunting..In fact so many have now posted that I have lost count. All you seem to be bring to the table is posts from skeptic web sites...It must be terrible not to have any proof of all your claims..Sorry if telling the truth is an insult to you..Art

 

[EE THr]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

~EE~

You have made yet another post with nothing but insults and nothing even resembling supporting evidence. This indicates that you have nothing to counter my statements with---which means you have no real reason to post insults in the first place. You are just insulting for the sake of insulting.

It seems that every day more people come here that use LRL’s for treasure hunting..In fact so many have now posted that I have lost count. All you seem to be bring to the table is posts from skeptic web sites...It must be terrible not to have any proof of all your claims..Sorry if telling the truth is an insult to you..Art

There is no "skeptic Website." All I did was post a quote by Don Patterson!

You are the one who asked me to post the link to that treasure hunting Website!

You are the one who is trying to twist things around.

There are no "New people posting every day." Yes, we got a couple new posters in the last few weeks. I hope you're not trying to say that those who have simply gotten new usernames are "new people"!

Sorry if you consider officially documented proof, to somehow not be proof. At any rate, it's better than when you try to pass-off mere additional claims as somehow being "proof."

Merry Christmas.

 

[EddieR]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

Now we are finally getting to the nitty gritty. Please, by all means....show me/quote me where I personally have made those claims. You won't/can't because I have never claimed that...at all.

Oh, let me guess....you deduced that they were my claims because of my interest in the LRL phenomenon, right? Sorry, real life doesn't work that way! You are playing with shades of gray instead of plain black and white. To make a claim, a person must say something. DUH!!!

Of course, if you insist that assumptions made by one can be called "proof" of claims made by another...well....I can assume that you are a major Randi fan, he is your idol, even. And due to certain events going on in his life right now, concerning identity theft...... well, you haven't condemned that, so I suppose we can assume that you support identity theft too?

Silly, isn't it? And yet you do it constantly. You make assumptions from what others post. Well, I just did that too.

Merry Christmas!

When you insult people for posting facts which show LRLs to be fraudulent, you are vouching for the LRL promoters, and all they stand for.

When you, at the same time, never find fault with all the wild, unsbustantiated claims made by the LRL promoters, who refuse to even try to provide actual documented Scientific proof, you are again vouching for the LRL promoters, and all they say.

The reason I specify "documented Scientific proof," is because they continually try to use mere stories as "proof" of their claims. This amounts to trying to back up their fantastic claims, with more fantastic claims.




Here is the whole point---

Do you consider "just more claims" to be "proof" of their original claims?


Happy New Year!

So I never find fault, eh? Look, the stories told on here are, to me, just stories. If someone goes and finds a million dollars in gold, then comes here and tells their story, that's cool. And if someone comes on here and says that the LRL they once had never performed for them, well...that's cool too. Should I require proof from the guy that said his device didn't work? Nope. Should I require proof from the guy that says he found all that gold? Nope again. And why not? Because it doesn't affect my life one way or the other! So it's no big deal.

If more people could understand that little tidbit of info and apply it to their own lives, the world would be a much easier place to live. (I'm not just talking about LRL's, either. I mean everything! This "politically correct jazz has gone waaaaay to far.)

For example, let's discuss a used car. If I am buying a used car, and the salesman says there is nothing wrong with any car on his lot.....the car I'm interested in is the one that I will have a mechanic look at. Not the other cars on the lot, just the one that affects my life (the one I am buying). It would be silly to demand proof from the salesman that every car on his lot is problem free....if I have no intention of using them. If a salesman sells bad cars, the market will correct it. He will go out of business due to no sales because of his reputation.

Now, let's apply that to LRL's. If a salesman sells something that doesn't work, the market will correct it in the same fashion. But it hasn't, so the deal might warrant a little more investigation, eh?

No, this is not a "claim" made by me that all (or any) LRL's work. I haven't used any that are currently on the market, so I am not qualified to make that call. If I ever decided to make a purchase of one, I would travel to the dealer and do my own testing. Not on targets hidden by the dealer, but real tests with the LRL in my hands.

And really, anyone that makes the claim that they don't work, while never even having used them, is just using a "friend of a friend said they don't work" type of argument.


8)

Good attempt on the analogy but it falls short with other things when you take into consideration cons. If a car salesman sells bad cars, the market does not necessarly correct it. There are many con car salesman that get people, because people fall for it. Once people wise up to it all they do is change the name of the business and address and blam they start the cycle all over again. This can be seen all over the country. Second, you may take the con mans car to your mechanic, but what if your mechanic was also receiving a nice some of money from that dealer? The mechanic notices it is from that dealer thanks to the tags on the back on the trunk. He acts like he looks it over and tells you that it is good. Dealer pays mechanic, mechanic knows you will come back to him for more business because the car will break down in the near future. Now in this paragraph change car salesman to LRL Dealer and change mechanic to LRL promoter or "teacher".

The other bad thing about the analogy, cars have been proven to work, LRL's have not.

Well, you bring up a valid point about the mechanic being on the take. Of course, that could also offer up the question of the scientists being on Randi's payroll, eh?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

~EE~

There is no "skeptic Website." All I did was post a quote by Don Patterson!

Did you read all that garbage?

You are the one who asked me to post the link to that treasure hunting Website!

Yes I could not find Don Patterson’s post

You are the one who is trying to twist things around.

If you say so but we all know the truth

There are no "New people posting every day." Yes, we got a couple new posters in the last few weeks. I hope you're not trying to say that those who have simply gotten new usernames are "new people"!

Wow..where have you been sleeping...Yes some have new “legally changed” usernames and some are not legal...Do you want a list of skeptics names also.. You seem to not understand how information boards work on the internet...We are all guests here on T-Net...Marc makes the decisions as to who can post on his web site not you or myself.

So

rry if you consider officially documented proof, to somehow not be proof. At any rate, it's better than when you try to pass-off mere additional claims as somehow being "proof."

I have saw no documented proof that is believable at all..Art

 

[EddieR]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

Sure, I saw the reports. But a report doesn't make it so. Look at the global warming/climate change debate. You can find reports from recognized scientific organizations saying the whole thing is BS....and you can find reports from recognized scientific organizations that will make you want to go live in a cave on a high mountain to avoid the coming flood. So, if both sides used scientific method/study to arrive at their conclusions, which one is right? Sometimes science just doesn't get everything right. Look at the revisions made EVERY YEAR in scientific journals.

As for my position on the LRL phenomenon, I will clarify: I do NOT claim that LRL's work. I CANNOT make that claim as I have not used any that are currently on the market. I also do not claim that LRL's DO NOT work. Again, I have not used any that are currently on the market, so I cannot truthfully make that claim. I do not respond to every post made by the "debunkers" (actually, if you compare our post counts, my posting ratio is very low compared to yours), so I cannot see your statement of my being "fiercely adamant in attacks against LRL debunkers" as having much merit. Sorry.

And also, you commented on me being biased because of a post I made about my experience, the tests I performed with the LRL, and so on. Everything in that post was only the truth. If you will notice, in that post I left an open door for anyone to post proof contrary to what I had written. But there was nothing valid posted. Heck, you even said that tests don't matter...? HUH? You have made post after post about tests, so obviously they matter very much.

The reports: The government has nothing to gain by falsifying LRL testing. The government would like for them to work. They even stated that they wanted to know if the testing problems could be fixed, and the LRLs improved, so they could actually use them. (Before you ask, that's in the report.)

But upon investivation of the inside components, they soon realized that the device did nothing at all. They even report on their conclusions about other types of "LRLs." All findings were that they were bogus. If they could have made any of them work adequately, they would have. But there is just nothing there to "improve." They are all total duds, in every aspect.

With Global Warming, the whole plan was for the U.N. to charge American Citizens (and people in other countries) "Carbon Tax." The Carbon Tax would go directly to the Wrold Bank, which is owned by the U.N. It's just another arm of the Bankster Fraud, of which everyone is now aware of, via official documentation of their actual plans. The only Scientists who we now know lied, and vouched for Global Warming, were government funded. Big surprise. The World Bank has no plans to use the money collected from this tax in any kind of program to do anything to the climate---their scheme is to "penalize" people for outputting carbondioxide by taxing them, then just keep the money as their own profits! And that's why some unethical but highly paid "scientists" claimed that Global Warming existed. But that is not a discussion for this section of the forum.

So, on one hand you have the government reports that LRLs are fraudulent, with no reason to lie about that. While some "scientists" had very good reasons to lie about Global Warming.


Your claims: While you don't print word-for-word that "LRLs work," you direct attacks at debunkers, and never at LRL promoters. That is an absolute fact, and anyone can simply scroll through any thread on here and see that it is true. Maybe not every one of your posts are attacks, but those that are, you direct at debunkers, and they are very harsh and insulting. Since this is easily confirmed, it in fact has very high merit. By attacking only debunkers, and never LRL promoters, you are vouching for everything the LRL promoters say, and are defining yourself as one. I didn't do that, you did. So don't try to blame it on me.


My post counts: Post counts are irrelevant. If I have a higher post count than you, do you think that will somehow make LRLs start working? Often when I make a post, I get replies from several LRL promoters, so I usually try to answer them all (except the ones which are just non-understandable gibberish nonsense, or all insults and no data).


Your post about your experience: Yes, you told your story. That's nice. But then you tried to use the non-logic that, because no debunker asked you how you tested when you determined that the LRL wasn't working, therefore the debunkers are invalid. Asking you questions will not make LRLs suddenly work! So your feelings may have been hurt that nobody asked you about it, but your illogic is merely an unnecessary attack on debunkers. PLUS, it seems to me that you also said, when you made the original post about your experience, to not ask you any questions about how you determined it (I could be mistaken. You can check that if you want. But I seem to remember that because I thought it strange for you to say that, at the time.) At any rate, that's why I said it wasn't important how you did it. You don't need to build a swimming pool, to find out that a bowling ball won't float! In other words, what does it matter, because if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. That's no surprise!

Furthermore, your test wasn't documented, so it actually can't be considered "proof" of anything. So the details of how you went about it, as far as the LRL discussion is concerned, aren't really worth much. I figured if you thought it really was important, that you would have included it at the time! So, why not go ahead and post it, now that it's come up?


Should a debunker own an LRL? I was using the term "own" the same as you are using "personally test." Yes, the words are different, but the idea, in this discussion about knowledge of whether LRLs work or not, is just about the same idea. Excuuuuuuuuuse me. To make it "official," I'll just say: You don't need to personally test a bowling ball in a swimming pool, to know that it won't float! Feel better now?


Yes, the Mountain Gorillas were found. They also found out that Bernie Madoff wasn't really investing their money, and was a total fraud. But they "believed." There were a few debunkers who tried to warn them, but the SEC wouldn't listen, and didn't investigate until a few years later. When will treasure hunting LRLs be criminally investigated? Who knows? What are the priorities of the Feds these days? TSA groping? Importing drugs? Running pedophile rings? (Before you get all bent out of shape, these things are all thoroughly documented.) They're very busy with things they consider more important, it seems.

Yes, you are right about what the reports say, I know all that.

You agree that I don't say "LRL's work". Good.

In my story, I call into question the methods used by debunkers, not the debunkers themselves. They constantly ask for proof, and when Art or someone else posts "their proof" it is called into question. There are a myriad of questions asked, then the accusations fly. However, if Art was to post that he discovered that his LRL doesn't work....would anyone ask for proof? I doubt it. Simply because he now agrees with the debunkers.

Once again, you ASSUME that my feelings were hurt because nobody asked questions about my testing (BTW, I could consider that an insult, the way you used your wording). You seem to assume a lot without facts to back it up. Why is that? I just commented on the apparent bias concerning testing. And trust me, I wasn't the only one who noticed.

But, at any rate...you have your position on LRL's, and I have my position on the testing (or lack of) of LRL's. That's just the way it is.

Cheerio!

 

[EE THr]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

~EE~

There is no "skeptic Website." All I did was post a quote by Don Patterson!

Did you read all that garbage?

I didn't tell you to read it. I just posted the link you asked for. And you didn't even say "thanks"!

You are the one who asked me to post the link to that treasure hunting Website!

Yes I could not find Don Patterson’s post

You are the one who is trying to twist things around.

If you say so but we all know the truth

Yeah, the truth is what I just said, above.

There are no "New people posting every day." Yes, we got a couple new posters in the last few weeks. I hope you're not trying to say that those who have simply gotten new usernames are "new people"!

Wow..where have you been sleeping...Yes some have new “legally changed” usernames and some are not legal...Do you want a list of skeptics names also.. You seem to not understand how information boards work on the internet...We are all guests here on T-Net...Marc makes the decisions as to who can post on his web site not you or myself.

I didn't say anything about "legal" or not. I've not been sleeping. There have been only a half dozen "new" posters within the past few weeks. You seem to be imagining things....Again!


So

rry if you consider officially documented proof, to somehow not be proof. At any rate, it's better than when you try to pass-off mere additional claims as somehow being "proof."

I have saw no documented proof that is believable at all..Art

It's believable all right---you just don't want to admit it!

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

~EE~

I didn't say anything about "legal" or not. I've not been sleeping. There have been only a half dozen "new" posters within the past few weeks. You seem to be imagining things....Again!

Thank You for addmitting that...

Why are we discussing old technology instead of the more advanced techonolgy that is getting greater every day?

 

[EE THr]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

Yes, you are right about what the reports say, I know all that.

You agree that I don't say "LRL's work". Good.

In my story, I call into question the methods used by debunkers, not the debunkers themselves. They constantly ask for proof, and when Art or someone else posts "their proof" it is called into question. There are a myriad of questions asked, then the accusations fly. However, if Art was to post that he discovered that his LRL doesn't work....would anyone ask for proof? I doubt it. Simply because he now agrees with the debunkers.

Once again, you ASSUME that my feelings were hurt because nobody asked questions about my testing (BTW, I could consider that an insult, the way you used your wording). You seem to assume a lot without facts to back it up. Why is that? I just commented on the apparent bias concerning testing. And trust me, I wasn't the only one who noticed.

But, at any rate...you have your position on LRL's, and I have my position on the testing (or lack of) of LRL's. That's just the way it is.

Cheerio!

What I said was, that you don't claim that LRLs work, in those exact words. But you are inferring that claim, when your attacks are always against debunking posts, and never against LRL promoting posts. That is just a sneaky method of reinforcing the LRL promoters' claims, while trying to say that you are unbiased, which just isn't so---and that is verified by merely reading all of your posts!

Asking for proof: If the LRL promoters didn't constantly insult those who question their fantastic claims, there would probably be much less asking for proof. The LRL promoters continually make claims than LRLs can to impossable things. For example, there is absolutely no way that a pocket calculator can detect treasure at any range, much less Long range. It's just silly. Plus, making different calculations, with different numbers, has been shown to not change any frequency in or around the calculators. That's just not the way calculators work! And there is nothing inside that LRL box that could possible add anything to that, because it has no battery! Lets be clear about this particular point: Do you believe a calculator LRL does any of what they claim?


On testing: If you have the skill to determine whether or not real scientific tests are valid, then you have the skill to design a test which would be valid. So what kind of testing would you do to determine if an LRL really worked or not?


I wouldn't ask Art for proof that an LRL didn't work, no. Would ask for proof that a bowling ball won't float?


This is not a "political" thing. It's a Reality thing. They just don't work, that's all. It's not my fault they don't work. The reason I point out all the reasons that I know that, is not because I hate anybody, or just to be argumentative, or play a game---it's simply because they really don't work, and that's the only reason! A couple years ago, wouldn't you have told your friends that Bernie Madoff was a crook, and not to invest their money with them, if you knew? It's just a basic fact.


About your feelings: I said, "maybe." But maybe I shouldn't have said that. I apologize.

Merry Christmas!

 

[EE THr]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

~EE~

I didn't say anything about "legal" or not. I've not been sleeping. There have been only a half dozen "new" posters within the past few weeks. You seem to be imagining things....Again!

Thank You for addmitting that...

Why are we discussing old technology instead of the more advanced techonolgy that is getting greater every day?

Because it was brought up by someone, and I replied about it.

8)

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

~EE~

Because it was brought up by someone, and I replied about it.

Yes it was brought up by some one...You
L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax
Posted Dec 13, 2011, 06:28:56 pm

 

[EE THr]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

~EE~

Because it was brought up by someone, and I replied about it.

Yes it was brought up by some one...You
L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax
Posted Dec 13, 2011, 06:28:56 pm

It's not my fault that it's a hoax!


Merry Christmas!

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

~EE~

It's not my fault that it's a hoax!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax
A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.[1] It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment,[1] or rumors, urban legends, pseudosciences or April Fools' Day events that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes.[2]

So you are telling the Professional treasure hunters , others treasure hunters that have been mentioned in this thread and all the people they have sold treasure to over the years that they have been fooled by rumors, urban legends, pseudosciences or April Fools' Day events that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes...They will be glad to hear that as they spend all they imaginary money they have ...It is amazing that all these buyers are still in business...

I sure hope that my imaginary coin dealer is not reading this thread as I recovered one coin to day that I may want to sell..Art

 

[EE THr]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

So you are telling the Professional treasure hunters , others treasure hunters that have been mentioned in this thread and all the people they have sold treasure to over the years that they have been fooled by rumors, urban legends, pseudosciences or April Fools' Day events that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes...They will be glad to hear that as they spend all they imaginary money they have ...It is amazing that all these buyers are still in business...

I sure hope that my imaginary coin dealer is not reading this thread as I recovered one coin to day that I may want to sell..Art

You're right, Art. I never should have said that LRLs are a hoax.

Hoax is definitely the wrong word. I'm sorry.















I should have used the word "fraud."

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

OK EE...Well .You do not seem to understand what treasure hunting is about especially when someone uses a LRL. When I find a legend I research it to find out if it is true or not..When I have all the information that I can get I then start searching for the treasure. The first thing I do is map dowse the suspect area...Now I have a good idea of where to look. I then search the area at a distance..When I get a signal I then determine what is there using that function with my LRL. At that time I can also determine the distance to the target and the depth that it is buried.
What I don’t know at that time is if it is the treasure I have been researching. I believe the photo below is where gold coins from a robbery of the Carson City Mint were buried..If so they are now worth a lot of money..I know for a fact that there is gold coins buried on that mountain and nothing else..I probably will never know as I am to old to be climbing that mountain...Art

 

[EE THr]

Re: L-rod Technique: It's a Hoax

That mountain doesn't look very tall. But it does look steep.

The area you have marked looks like hard rock. Have you looked it over with binnoculars? Is there a cave there? Or a depression that looks like a pit was dug, then washed out a little by rain?