Load of crap or legit?? What are your thoughts

[Tom_in_CA]

.... failures to learn to .... successfully use a LRL? Dell

Exactly. The seeming failure of it to work, does NOT mean "it doesn't work". It merely means the user didn't "learn" it properly.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Someday I'll make a video of what the contraption I am working on can do. I have about a half-gram of gold pieces in a plastic vial with a screw-on lid. I put that inside a thick glass jar with a glass lid. I put that inside a cast iron wood stove. I can easily detect that from across the room within a few inches. Apparently the cast iron has a certain amount of diffraction so the line is off a little bit.

Would love to see this video. And to be utterly fair .... And to alleviate any doubters or persons who try to claim alternate explanations: Can you loop in an impartial un-biased 3rd party person, who is utterly versed in the potentials for "alternate explanations". Such that it becomes a double blind test. Eg.: A 4th party who hides the object, and so forth.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

For the dowsers out there, including the new electronic kind, please post your pics of treasures worth over $1k you have found in the last two years. Should have found something in the last two years.

Couple of answers to this:

a) There are indeed sometimes pix of persons, posing with jars of coins they've found with wands and LRL's. You can pick up old treasure magazines from the 1970s and '80s and see no shortage of photo's in the advertisements, of guys posing next to the goodies they found.

b) But even if they DON'T post show & tell pix (common to how md'rs do it ALL THE TIME), that still doesn't mean a thing. Because .... think of it smokey: The average users of these devices/methods are NOT running around hunting single fumble fingers coins like md'rs do. Instead: They're after "big game" (caches). Therefore they are not at liberty to show them. Because of fears of claim-jumpers, thieves, and the IRS. Besides: They are not obligated to prove anything to you in the first place (in fact, you can even get in trouble for asking the question).

I say this as an honest un-badgering answer to your question. Based on the answers I have received, over the years, when I mused the very same thing.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

What a load of rubbish. That video is a bunch of bolshevik!
....

I am sure you meant this in a non-hostile way. Right ?

 

[signal_line]

Sorry about that. I deleted the post. Was just trying to have a little fun and see what kind of reaction it got. Just can't B.S. a skeptic! Wow, sounds like a quadruple blind test. I don't know anybody could pass that. Just a joke folks.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Sorry about that. I deleted the post. Was just trying to have a little fun and see what kind of reaction it got. Just can't B.S. a skeptic! Wow, sounds like a quadruple blind test. I don't know anybody could pass that. Just a joke folks.

Oh, I thought you were serious. Ok, pheeww

 

[signal_line]

Hope I don't get banned for this little stunt. I told Jeff I would not cause him any more trouble. Sorry. My bad

 

[signal_line]

Obviously I am B.S.'ing one way or the other. I make it easy this way so you can decide which story you choose to believe.

 

[Goldfinger450]

This reminds me of a Joke about a Lady that was real particular about her fresh chicken to serve guests, she picked up several chickens, sniffed the front and the back and told the Butcher- These won't do!! He said Lady, I doubt if you could pass that test yourself.

 

[signal_line]

Yeah GF, a double blind test around here is wear a blindfold and a nose plug.

I'm just going to keep quiet about the contraption for now. Should never have said anything. My mistake. I can't blame a skeptic for being a skeptic. If I put out a video you can surely see they would not believe it so not in any big hurry. Hell, I still have a hard time believing it and I've been working with it for over two years now. You read those metal detector theory articles and there is no way possible the thing can work. No way. They think I'm some redneck hick from the hinterlands. Oh, that's right, I am. I guess that's what really burns their rear. And yeah, I shouldn't be "In their face". Like I've said before if they really were open mined they'd be a whole lot more interested in finding out about it. The bashing is a sport to them so this is just a little payback for the condescension. My Post Traumatic Skeptic Disorder is flaring up again.

 

[signal_line]

There is five small pieces of gold in the plastic vial, a total of 10.2 grains. I put this inside a cast iron wood stove with everything closed and can easily detect it with the contraption from across the room, about 12 feet away. The line is within a few inches. The red stuff is candle wax. Didn't try it but pretty sure my metal detector would not be able to get much of a signal off the gold even with the coil right up against the thick glass.

 

[signal_line]

I use the plastic vial with 10.2 grains as a test target in my yard (without the glass candle jar). I can hit it from the length of my yard, nearly a hundred feet range. Sometimes it takes three minutes or so for the line to lock on. When conditions are volatile the line will move around. I put out some silver coins maybe five ounces, and that gives a louder response right at first, but once it locks on to the gold it's like the silver isn't there (when on the gold frequency). I still have a hard time believing it can pick up that small amount of gold from across the yard. The line accuracy is about the same as if shooting a pistol.

I was a bit excited to see how well it hits a target inside the wood stove. I put the silver and the gold inside and it's easy to distinguish each. So it's not like the signal is just hitting the iron. It's like the iron is not there. I call it the Philadelphia Experiment because the iron becomes invisible. I don't know but it is like the signal permeates the molecular structure.

 

[smokeythecat]

At one point I actually considered a long range detector for the beach. My dealer friend had some in stock. We tried it out a couple times and this particular one did not work. It could not located the pound of silver coins we set out for it to find. Also on that model, and I don't remember the brand anymore, was about a year and a half ago, anyway, when we got to the beach the constant breeze made it useless and there is gold down there in large amounts, just no one knows where. Two known shipwrecks, both of which had gold on them. A buddy found a single gold coin in the summer and I found one in 2013.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... If I put out a video you can surely see they would not believe it ....

Well, yes and no. You have to understand that if someone comes out with un-conventional method, that defies all scientific logic , then ... yes... the "proof" (video or whatever) will be held to a higher standard. UNLIKE if someone were demonstrating a metal detector on a video, then it just flows logically from the easily shown electronic schematics of WHY there should be a "beep", in the first place. Unlike an LRL (or dowsing, etc...) where no such schematics and electronic rationale exists. NOT that the proponent won't TRY to cast about technical terms (and put some diodes inside). But it doesn't withstand cross-examination of the electronic engineers who dispute that there is no reason that it could perform.

Hence, yes, the standard of proof is going to be held higher for "unconventional" methods. You certainly must understand that. If I said I have a tennis shoe (in which I installed a battery) that can "find gold", and my "proof" was a video I made all-by-myself, then ...... be honest: Wouldn't you be skeptical ?

Your video WOULD be believed if you had 3rd party un-biased persons, who are well-versed in academic protocols to ensure that nothing subliminal was going on. Heck, you don't even need to prove an electronic basis for how-it-works. Just to have various safeguards, and double-blinds going on. Ie.: invite skeptics to be there during the filming, the planting of the target, etc... So that it can be determined if it's random eventual chance, subconscious clues, etc....