L-rod Technique: Its a Hoax

[EE THr]

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

~EE THr~

It's official, documented, Scientific proof that LRLs are fraudulent---just what you have asked for many, many times.

You see Scientific proof and all I see is a statement by someone on a website in a report about how to use this explosive test kit on stuff that would be worn..

Yet neither you, nor anyone else, has ever provided appropriately documented Scientific proof that they work.

You are the one that will not except any of the documented Scientific proof..We have @70 testimonials here on T-Net, 100’s of testimonials on the internet, 100’s of photos of treasure finds and a lot of movies showing treasure finds.
Since we have shot holes in everyone of your personal believes you have nothing to talk about except to rehash old out dated posts..Art

You might as well just forget it, Art. Even though they claim (yes, they are claims, even though they say they never claim anything) that they have plenty of "proof", and have posted it here....when the "proof" is only postings made by them in the first place...it shows that they actually lack ANY proof and must resort to making their own.

Here is something interesting that offers a glimpse into the pseudo-skeptic mind: When I came on here and told my story about using a LRL, I was told I was mistaken, it was luck, etc. When I refused to back down, I was then called a liar. When I refused to back down from THAT, I was accused of being a salesman. Now, since I am interested in the LRL phenomenon, I am called a LRL promoter. Whatever.

Now here is the funny part: I was asked many times how I knew the LRL was successful in finding my ring. I received emails from the skeptical community asking questions. Recently, I changed my story when I discovered that the LRL I used before was indeed just a dowsing device. When I posted that, a few of the skeptical community applauded my change of mind, mostly by email, but a couple were on here. Now, here is the part that PROVES to me that their "scientific system" that THEY use is based only on what they WANT to believe: Not once was I asked what tests I performed that changed my mind. Not once. You see, it appears that the tests REALLY don't matter, as long as you arrive at the same conclusion as them. Now if anyone wants to offer proof contrary to that statement, I'm all ears.

But I don't think there will be any forthcoming....not acceptable proof, anyway.

The "claim" concerning LRLs, is that LRLs work. That claim is continually being made by the LRL promoters on here. It if weren't for that claim, there would be no debunkers.

The claim that LRLs work is the key disagreement in this section of the forum.

The claim that LRLs work has been challenged, for proof. That's all there is. Nobody needs to "prove" that LRLs don't work.

Although there has been lots of real evidence, meaning official, properly documented, Scientific proof that LRLs are fraudulent, it was never necessary to post any of it.

The people who claim that LRLs work, carry the burden of proving it with real proof. To say otherwise is pure nonsense. To try and avoid the need to really prove yourselves, by saying that proof is someone else's responsibility, is ridiculous. But if you want to be ridiculous, that's your problem, just the same as what I said above, to art. It doesn't matter to me either way, what others think of you.

Your story about not being asked how you tested is totally irrelevant. Does not being asked that, somehow make all the LRLs suddenly jump up and start actually working? There is no relation between the two concepts. But it is just another convoluted Straw Man Fallacy, which you are using to try and get away from your burden of proof. But it will always be there with you, the claimants.

And no, how you tested, when you found out that your LRL didn't work, really doesn't matter. It won't make LRLs work, because they are fraudulent, so who cares about how you found out. It no more matters as does how you found out that the Tooth Fairy isn't real. Whatever that story might be, it still won't make the Tooth Fairy real, will it....

And yes, you actually are an LRL promoter. You abandon commen sense, and support the other LRL fraud promoters every chance you get. You are neither unbiased, nor innocent.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[humble]

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

[mod] Terms Violation. Stop with the insults. [/mod]

 

[EddieR]

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

~EE THr~

It's official, documented, Scientific proof that LRLs are fraudulent---just what you have asked for many, many times.

You see Scientific proof and all I see is a statement by someone on a website in a report about how to use this explosive test kit on stuff that would be worn..

Yet neither you, nor anyone else, has ever provided appropriately documented Scientific proof that they work.

You are the one that will not except any of the documented Scientific proof..We have @70 testimonials here on T-Net, 100’s of testimonials on the internet, 100’s of photos of treasure finds and a lot of movies showing treasure finds.
Since we have shot holes in everyone of your personal believes you have nothing to talk about except to rehash old out dated posts..Art

You might as well just forget it, Art. Even though they claim (yes, they are claims, even though they say they never claim anything) that they have plenty of "proof", and have posted it here....when the "proof" is only postings made by them in the first place...it shows that they actually lack ANY proof and must resort to making their own.

Here is something interesting that offers a glimpse into the pseudo-skeptic mind: When I came on here and told my story about using a LRL, I was told I was mistaken, it was luck, etc. When I refused to back down, I was then called a liar. When I refused to back down from THAT, I was accused of being a salesman. Now, since I am interested in the LRL phenomenon, I am called a LRL promoter. Whatever.

Now here is the funny part: I was asked many times how I knew the LRL was successful in finding my ring. I received emails from the skeptical community asking questions. Recently, I changed my story when I discovered that the LRL I used before was indeed just a dowsing device. When I posted that, a few of the skeptical community applauded my change of mind, mostly by email, but a couple were on here. Now, here is the part that PROVES to me that their "scientific system" that THEY use is based only on what they WANT to believe: Not once was I asked what tests I performed that changed my mind. Not once. You see, it appears that the tests REALLY don't matter, as long as you arrive at the same conclusion as them. Now if anyone wants to offer proof contrary to that statement, I'm all ears.

But I don't think there will be any forthcoming....not acceptable proof, anyway.

The "claim" concerning LRLs, is that LRLs work. That claim is continually being made by the LRL promoters on here. It if weren't for that claim, there would be no debunkers.

The claim that LRLs work is the key disagreement in this section of the forum.

The claim that LRLs work has been challenged, for proof. That's all there is. Nobody needs to "prove" that LRLs don't work.

Although there has been lots of real evidence, meaning official, properly documented, Scientific proof that LRLs are fraudulent, it was never necessary to post any of it.

The people who claim that LRLs work, carry the burden of proving it with real proof. To say otherwise is pure nonsense. To try and avoid the need to really prove yourselves, by saying that proof is someone else's responsibility, is ridiculous. But if you want to be ridiculous, that's your problem, just the same as what I said above, to art. It doesn't matter to me either way, what others think of you.

Your story about not being asked how you tested is totally irrelevant. Does not being asked that, somehow make all the LRLs suddenly jump up and start actually working? There is no relation between the two concepts. But it is just another convoluted Straw Man Fallacy, which you are using to try and get away from your burden of proof. But it will always be there with you, the claimants.

And no, how you tested, when you found out that your LRL didn't work, really doesn't matter. It won't make LRLs work, because they are fraudulent, so who cares about how you found out. It no more matters as does how you found out that the Tooth Fairy isn't real. Whatever that story might be, it still won't make the Tooth Fairy real, will it....

And yes, you actually are an LRL promoter. You abandon commen sense, and support the other LRL fraud promoters every chance you get. You are neither unbiased, nor innocent.

Thank you! You just showed how pseudo-skeptics think. And it is there for all to see.

If my interest in the LRL phenomena makes me a promoter, then your pseudo-skeptic ways makes you a Randi promoter, as that is what he teaches. But your deceptions are not hidden very well, you need to study him more.



When you say the tests didn't matter.....LOL!

You are the one doing the frenzied posting about double blind tests and all that jazz! Wake up!!!!!

So...as long as the tests show what YOU want, they don't matter....but if the tests are to prove otherwise than what YOU want, the tests must be scientific, with witnesses, documentation, etc.

Pseudo-skepticism at its finest! Thank you for showing EVERYONE your true colors...(as if we didn't know).

And that folks, is why I don't put stock in the pseudo-scientific way of thinking.

 

[aarthrj3811]

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

~EE THr~

The "claim" concerning LRLs, is that LRLs work. That claim is continually being made by the LRL promoters on here. It if weren't for that claim, there would be no debunkers.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claim
1.
to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a right or as due: to claim an estate by inheritance.
2.
to assert and demand the recognition of (a right, title, possession, etc.); assert one's right to: to claim payment for services.
3.
to assert or maintain as a fact: She claimed that he was telling the truth.
4.
to require as due or fitting: to claim respect
1.
to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a right or as due: to claim an estate by inheritance.
2.
to assert and demand the recognition of (a right, title, possession, etc.); assert one's right to: to claim payment for services.
3.
to assert or maintain as a fact: She claimed that he was telling the truth.
4.
to require as due or fitting: to claim respect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promoter
Promoter may refer to:
• Promoter (entertainment), one who makes arrangements for events
• Corporate promoter, an entity who takes active steps in the formation, organization, or financing of a corporation
• Promoter (biology), a regulatory region of DNA located upstream of a gene, providing a control point for regulated gene transcription
• Promoter (catalysis), an accelerator of a catalyst, though not a catalyst itself
• Promoter (role variant), one of the sixteen personality types of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter
• Promoter (Catholic church), an office of the Catholic Church such as Promoter of the Laity, Promoter of Peace and Justice, or Promoter of the Faith (also known as the Devil's Advocate)

The claim that LRLs work is the key disagreement in this section of the forum.

Yes you have made it just that..We would like to discuss the use of these devices between people who are interested in their use.

The claim that LRLs work has been challenged, for proof. That's all there is. Nobody needs to "prove" that LRLs don't work.
That's all there is. Nobody needs to "prove" that LRLs don't work. We know they work because we use them to find treasure..You are the one that keeps making the claim that they do not work.
Although there has been lots of real evidence, meaning official, properly documented, Scientific proof that LRLs are fraudulent, it was never necessary to post any of it.

Now you claim to have proof but it is not necessary to post any of it.

The people who claim that LRLs work, carry the burden of proving it with real proof. To say otherwise is pure nonsense. To try and avoid the need to really prove yourselves, by saying that proof is someone else's responsibility, is ridiculous. But if you want to be ridiculous, that's your problem, just the same as what I said above, to art. It doesn't matter to me either way, what others think of you.

We see..the old blame game

Your story about not being asked how you tested is totally irrelevant. Does not being asked that, somehow make all the LRLs suddenly jump up and start actually working? There is no relation between the two concepts. But it is just another convoluted Straw Man Fallacy, which you are using to try and get away from your burden of proof. But it will always be there with you, the claimants.

Ok ..blame it on the old Straw Man Fallacy,
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2] Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated[citation needed] or over-simplified version of the opponent's original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent's actual statement.

You are very good at twisting and spinning

And no, how you tested, when you found out that your LRL didn't work, really doesn't matter. It won't make LRLs work, because they are fraudulent
so who cares about how you found out. It no more matters as does how you found out that the Tooth Fairy isn't real. Whatever that story might be, it still won't make the Tooth Fairy real, will it...
He is one of the few that has reported that his LRL did not work...What does the Tooth Fairy have to do with price of tea in China?

 

[EE THr]

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

..We would like to discuss the use of these devices between people who are interested in their use.

Since LRLs don't work, they don't have any "use" to discuss. Except maybe, "how to bilk people out of their money."

You are still trying to use the Tooth Fairy as proof that LRLs work.

And you, too, are still your own best debunker.

Keep up the good work!

 

[EE THr]

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

If my interest in the LRL phenomena makes me a promoter, then your pseudo-skeptic ways makes you a Randi promoter, as that is what he teaches. But your deceptions are not hidden very well, you need to study him more.

When you say the tests didn't matter.....LOL!

You are the one doing the frenzied posting about double blind tests and all that jazz! Wake up!!!!!

So...as long as the tests show what YOU want, they don't matter....but if the tests are to prove otherwise than what YOU want, the tests must be scientific, with witnesses, documentation, etc.

Pseudo-skepticism at its finest! Thank you for showing EVERYONE your true colors...(as if we didn't know).

And that folks, is why I don't put stock in the pseudo-scientific way of thinking.

That is a very good example of the LRL promoter blather. All talk and no real proof.

Insults are the only thing you can post, when you have no solid proof of your fantastic claims.

If LRLs could be proven to work, you and your ilk would have gladly provided proof by now. (Duh!)

You are your own best debunker.

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

 

[EddieR]

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

If my interest in the LRL phenomena makes me a promoter, then your pseudo-skeptic ways makes you a Randi promoter, as that is what he teaches. But your deceptions are not hidden very well, you need to study him more.

When you say the tests didn't matter.....LOL!

You are the one doing the frenzied posting about double blind tests and all that jazz! Wake up!!!!!

So...as long as the tests show what YOU want, they don't matter....but if the tests are to prove otherwise than what YOU want, the tests must be scientific, with witnesses, documentation, etc.

Pseudo-skepticism at its finest! Thank you for showing EVERYONE your true colors...(as if we didn't know).

And that folks, is why I don't put stock in the pseudo-scientific way of thinking.

That is a very good example of the LRL promoter blather. All talk and no real proof.

Insults are the only thing you can post, when you have no solid proof of your fantastic claims.

If LRLs could be proven to work, you and your ilk would have gladly provided proof by now. (Duh!)

You are your own best debunker.

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Here we go again... what "fantastic claims" are you referring to this time? Please...by all means, list them here.
And what insults are you referring to? You mean that when your opposition posts facts it's insults, but when you post alleged "facts" then they are NOT insults? Why not just say what you mean instead of pseudo-speak?

I notice you didn't deny your pseudo-scientific need for a desired outcome of tests. Thanks! Again, you show the pseudo-scientific mindset!

 

[EE THr]

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

Here we go again... what "fantastic claims" are you referring to this time? Please...by all means, list them here.

And what insults are you referring to? You mean that when your opposition posts facts it's insults, but when you post alleged "facts" then they are NOT insults? Why not just say what you mean instead of pseudo-speak?

I notice you didn't deny your pseudo-scientific need for a desired outcome of tests. Thanks! Again, you show the pseudo-scientific mindset!

The fantastic claims are that a device which does not transmit, can somehow send a signal at Long Range, and then have it somehow be re-transmitted over that same Long Range back, and be received by that same device, which doesn't have a receiver, and then be somehow be processed by the device, which doesn't have a signal processor, and then use that signal to somehow turn a pointing mechanism, even though there is nothing in the device which would cause a pointer to move. Now that's fantastic, I don't care who you are!

I'm referring to all the insults, that you LRL promoters constantly try to use as substitutes for real proof. Do you get it now?

You LRL promoters never post any real facts. You only make more and more empty claims, which you can never prove. Real sorry about that, but it's not my fault!

I post actual, documented, Scientific facts, but you LRL promoters always get upset (poor babies), and so you try to say that Reality is an insult to you. That figures. Just look at the products you are promoting. So there's really no surprise there!

The outcome of Scientific tests, administered by recognized professional organizations, are what they are. If an LRL ever was Scientifically proven to the World to actually work, the tests wouldn't show that they are actually fake devices of scam artists, would they!

Uh-oh! You'd better call headquarters, and get some better BS!

LRL promoters use only verbage as Social Proof, because they can never produce any Real Proof. But there actually are many Known Facts About LRLs, which they always ignore. Yet they continually demand proof from debunkers, while also ignoring A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud, even though they are fully aware that these points have never been rationally refuted.​

 

[werleibr]

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

~EE THr~

It's official, documented, Scientific proof that LRLs are fraudulent---just what you have asked for many, many times.

You see Scientific proof and all I see is a statement by someone on a website in a report about how to use this explosive test kit on stuff that would be worn..

Yet neither you, nor anyone else, has ever provided appropriately documented Scientific proof that they work.

You are the one that will not except any of the documented Scientific proof..We have @70 testimonials here on T-Net, 100’s of testimonials on the internet, 100’s of photos of treasure finds and a lot of movies showing treasure finds.
Since we have shot holes in everyone of your personal believes you have nothing to talk about except to rehash old out dated posts..Art

You might as well just forget it, Art. Even though they claim (yes, they are claims, even though they say they never claim anything) that they have plenty of "proof", and have posted it here....when the "proof" is only postings made by them in the first place...it shows that they actually lack ANY proof and must resort to making their own.

Here is something interesting that offers a glimpse into the pseudo-skeptic mind: When I came on here and told my story about using a LRL, I was told I was mistaken, it was luck, etc. When I refused to back down, I was then called a liar. When I refused to back down from THAT, I was accused of being a salesman. Now, since I am interested in the LRL phenomenon, I am called a LRL promoter. Whatever.

Now here is the funny part: I was asked many times how I knew the LRL was successful in finding my ring. I received emails from the skeptical community asking questions. Recently, I changed my story when I discovered that the LRL I used before was indeed just a dowsing device. When I posted that, a few of the skeptical community applauded my change of mind, mostly by email, but a couple were on here. Now, here is the part that PROVES to me that their "scientific system" that THEY use is based only on what they WANT to believe: Not once was I asked what tests I performed that changed my mind. Not once. You see, it appears that the tests REALLY don't matter, as long as you arrive at the same conclusion as them. Now if anyone wants to offer proof contrary to that statement, I'm all ears.

But I don't think there will be any forthcoming....not acceptable proof, anyway.

It is that way for almost a vast majority of the (what I call) common skeptic in everything scientific. It does not matter if it is LRL, dowsing, ghosts, global warming,religion, etc. The commoner already has his mind made up on what they are fighting about and 9 times out of 10 will never back down and when someone states what they beleive they will jump and defend that, but when someone states something against it, they are in the you are wrong I am right situation. The same can be said for those who beleive. Then when there is scientific evidence for ither one brought forword or scientific logic, the side that did not bring it up ignores it compleatly. This can be seen heavily in the global warming thread which I am in also. A reason I have stoped posting in this thread has been the back and forth elementary school crap.

Art, testemonials are not a proof that something works. Testemonials put up on websites can easily be rendered by the company to help promote their products, or from a PR firm.

Now, if you remember I am behind that the LRL's do not work as they are claimed. I do not care who the Randi character is and none of his ideas have ever been considered by me. My ideas and knowledge I post are from my own research and scientific logic. And just as the common skeptic had done in the past the common LRL promoter (name I use for those who back LRLs) only states you don't know what you are talking about and know nothing about such and such, yet they do not provide any information about that and when that info is researched it only goes to LRL advertising sites, Never to any public or University Library, unlike the stuff I post. You can research much of what i post at the library. I will continue to sit back for a little bit. Forming a way to make a long post showing why the electronics of an LRL do not work and how it is just a fancy dowsing device.

 

[aarthrj3811]

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

~EE THr~

The fantastic claims are that a device which does not transmit, can somehow send a signal at Long Range, and then have it somehow be re-transmitted over that same Long Range back, and be received by that same device, which doesn't have a receiver, and then be somehow be processed by the device, which doesn't have a signal processor, and then use that signal to somehow turn a pointing mechanism, even though there is nothing in the device which would cause a pointer to move. Now that's fantastic, I don't care who you are!

That’s a good fantasy EE..Thanks for finally making a statement about your CLAIMS
http://www.google.com/search?source...HP_enUS414US415&q=How+electronic+devices+work
HowStuffWorks "Electronics"

I'm referring to all the insults, that you LRL promoters constantly try to use as substitutes for real proof. Do you get it now?

We are sorry that you feel like you have been insulted..I was not good at make believe games even as a kid.

You LRL promoters never post any real facts. You only make more and more empty claims, which you can never prove. Real sorry about that, but it's not my fault!

I guess this would amount to what a person sees as facts and claims

I post actual, documented, Scientific facts, but you LRL promoters always get upset (poor babies), and so you try to say that Reality is an insult to you. That figures. Just look at the products you are promoting. So there's really no surprise there!

When have you done that?..I look at my LRL many times every day because it sets just above my computer screen..Yes it sets there and does nothing except when I pick up and go treasure hunting.

The outcome of Scientific tests, administered by recognized professional organizations, are what they are. If an LRL ever was Scientifically proven to the World to actually work, the tests wouldn't show that they are actually fake devices of scam artists, would they!

That’s what we have been telling you for months..

Uh-oh! You'd better call headquarters, and get some better BS!

Don’t call Randi as I think he is busy with court cases..

 

[EddieR]

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

Here we go again... what "fantastic claims" are you referring to this time? Please...by all means, list them here.

And what insults are you referring to? You mean that when your opposition posts facts it's insults, but when you post alleged "facts" then they are NOT insults? Why not just say what you mean instead of pseudo-speak?

I notice you didn't deny your pseudo-scientific need for a desired outcome of tests. Thanks! Again, you show the pseudo-scientific mindset!

The fantastic claims are that a device which does not transmit, can somehow send a signal at Long Range, and then have it somehow be re-transmitted over that same Long Range back, and be received by that same device, which doesn't have a receiver, and then be somehow be processed by the device, which doesn't have a signal processor, and then use that signal to somehow turn a pointing mechanism, even though there is nothing in the device which would cause a pointer to move. Now that's fantastic, I don't care who you are!

I'm referring to all the insults, that you LRL promoters constantly try to use as substitutes for real proof. Do you get it now?

You LRL promoters never post any real facts. You only make more and more empty claims, which you can never prove. Real sorry about that, but it's not my fault!

I post actual, documented, Scientific facts, but you LRL promoters always get upset (poor babies), and so you try to say that Reality is an insult to you. That figures. Just look at the products you are promoting. So there's really no surprise there!

The outcome of Scientific tests, administered by recognized professional organizations, are what they are. If an LRL ever was Scientifically proven to the World to actually work, the tests wouldn't show that they are actually fake devices of scam artists, would they!

Uh-oh! You'd better call headquarters, and get some better BS!

LRL promoters use only verbage as Social Proof, because they can never produce any Real Proof. But there actually are many Known Facts About LRLs, which they always ignore. Yet they continually demand proof from debunkers, while also ignoring A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud, even though they are fully aware that these points have never been rationally refuted.​

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!

 

[EE THr]

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!

 

[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)

 

[EE THr]

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

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)

Yes---you never find fault with the LRL promoters. Stating what you supposedly think about their posts, does not change what your actions have been.

I do, however, basically agree with what you said about people's statements, on both sides, not affecting your life either way. But I guess you weren't around when the LRL promoters were advising any new person who showed up, to buy an LRL. Shortly after I started asking questions in the LRL section, I received PMs from two different people with such advice.

Your last statement above, about "just using a friend of a friend saying they don't work," is totally bogus and insincere on your part. Are you saying that you somehow didn't see the fully documented, official reports, from recognized professional scientific organizations? Are you trying to simply pass those off as unimportant heresay? If so, then you are definitely an LRL promoter! No matter how "innocent" and "unbiased" you are now claiming to be!



And, if you are so unbiased, then why did you post this?---

You might as well just forget it, Art. Even though they claim (yes, they are claims, even though they say they never claim anything) that they have plenty of "proof", and have posted it here....when the "proof" is only postings made by them in the first place...it shows that they actually lack ANY proof and must resort to making their own.

Here is something interesting that offers a glimpse into the pseudo-skeptic mind: When I came on here and told my story about using a LRL, I was told I was mistaken, it was luck, etc. When I refused to back down, I was then called a liar. When I refused to back down from THAT, I was accused of being a salesman. Now, since I am interested in the LRL phenomenon, I am called a LRL promoter. Whatever.

Now here is the funny part: I was asked many times how I knew the LRL was successful in finding my ring. I received emails from the skeptical community asking questions. Recently, I changed my story when I discovered that the LRL I used before was indeed just a dowsing device. When I posted that, a few of the skeptical community applauded my change of mind, mostly by email, but a couple were on here. Now, here is the part that PROVES to me that their "scientific system" that THEY use is based only on what they WANT to believe: Not once was I asked what tests I performed that changed my mind. Not once. You see, it appears that the tests REALLY don't matter, as long as you arrive at the same conclusion as them. Now if anyone wants to offer proof contrary to that statement, I'm all ears.

But I don't think there will be any forthcoming....not acceptable proof, anyway.

Furthermore, if you are being truthful about LRLs "not affecting" your life either way, they why are you so fiercely adamant in your attacks against LRL debunkers? Sorry, but what you are claiming about your position on the LRL discussions, does not match your actions therein, at all. I'd call it a classic FAIL on your part.

If you can actually show that I am misunderstanding you, then I will gladly apologize.

 

[aarthrj3811]

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

~EE~

I do, however, basically agree with what you said about people's statements, on both sides, not affecting your life either way. But I guess you weren't around when the LRL promoters were advising any new person who showed up, to buy an LRL. Shortly after I started asking questions in the LRL section, I received PMs from two different people with such advice.

There you go again...Art

 

[EE THr]

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?

 

[EE THr]

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

~EE~

I do, however, basically agree with what you said about people's statements, on both sides, not affecting your life either way. But I guess you weren't around when the LRL promoters were advising any new person who showed up, to buy an LRL. Shortly after I started asking questions in the LRL section, I received PMs from two different people with such advice.

There you go again...Art

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[aarthrj3811]

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

~EE~

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

That seems to be what the posts prove

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.

Yes he does and I have used 7 of them that he claims does not work..They all helped me find and recover gold...Yes he makes a lot of claims

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.

We have read a lot of information about LRL..I would guess that your sources are bad..

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.

Right here on t-net a noted skeptic post his report on that..and yes...the signal can be measured on the outside of the case..

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

We have but you will not except our testimonials..It now looks like you prefer to believe the cult testomonials

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?

Gee...He has actually owned, used and saw a real LRL..His experience is not from looking at pictures from some skeptic web site...Art

 

[EE THr]

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

yes...the signal can be measured on the outside of the case..

Yes, a very weak signal can be measured on the outside of the calculator case, from about two inches only! This has been proved, right here on this forum, when photos were shown of the measured waveform. However it is false information to call it a "signal" because it was noted to be merely stray noise from the clock oscillator!

Plus, the measurements were made on an oscilloscope, which has an amplifier at the input. That LRL had no amplifier at all, so could not use that stray noise for processing, and it didn't have a processor, anyway.

Not just a fail, but a sad fail!

 

[EddieR]

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

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)

Yes---you never find fault with the LRL promoters. Stating what you supposedly think about their posts, does not change what your actions have been.

I do, however, basically agree with what you said about people's statements, on both sides, not affecting your life either way. But I guess you weren't around when the LRL promoters were advising any new person who showed up, to buy an LRL. Shortly after I started asking questions in the LRL section, I received PMs from two different people with such advice.

Your last statement above, about "just using a friend of a friend saying they don't work," is totally bogus and insincere on your part. Are you saying that you somehow didn't see the fully documented, official reports, from recognized professional scientific organizations? Are you trying to simply pass those off as unimportant heresay? If so, then you are definitely an LRL promoter! No matter how "innocent" and "unbiased" you are now claiming to be!



And, if you are so unbiased, then why did you post this?---

You might as well just forget it, Art. Even though they claim (yes, they are claims, even though they say they never claim anything) that they have plenty of "proof", and have posted it here....when the "proof" is only postings made by them in the first place...it shows that they actually lack ANY proof and must resort to making their own.

Here is something interesting that offers a glimpse into the pseudo-skeptic mind: When I came on here and told my story about using a LRL, I was told I was mistaken, it was luck, etc. When I refused to back down, I was then called a liar. When I refused to back down from THAT, I was accused of being a salesman. Now, since I am interested in the LRL phenomenon, I am called a LRL promoter. Whatever.

Now here is the funny part: I was asked many times how I knew the LRL was successful in finding my ring. I received emails from the skeptical community asking questions. Recently, I changed my story when I discovered that the LRL I used before was indeed just a dowsing device. When I posted that, a few of the skeptical community applauded my change of mind, mostly by email, but a couple were on here. Now, here is the part that PROVES to me that their "scientific system" that THEY use is based only on what they WANT to believe: Not once was I asked what tests I performed that changed my mind. Not once. You see, it appears that the tests REALLY don't matter, as long as you arrive at the same conclusion as them. Now if anyone wants to offer proof contrary to that statement, I'm all ears.

But I don't think there will be any forthcoming....not acceptable proof, anyway.

Furthermore, if you are being truthful about LRLs "not affecting" your life either way, they why are you so fiercely adamant in your attacks against LRL debunkers? Sorry, but what you are claiming about your position on the LRL discussions, does not match your actions therein, at all. I'd call it a classic FAIL on your part.

If you can actually show that I am misunderstanding you, then I will gladly apologize.

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.