Show us some actual field testing evidence Carl by posting just one short video of any of those 30 LRL's you claim do absolutely nothing. .....
Even if/when Carl were to make a video that showed the ones he's tested don't work, you wouldn't accept that anyhow. You'd just say as signal line says :
The only thing Carl proved is that he can't use one. .....
Eg.: "Wasn't using it right" or "Needs more practice" or "Durned those sunspots anyhow" etc..... So what good will it do if Carl made a video ? None at all. You'd just roll out the reasons to dismiss that too.
.... Your evidence that none of these things do anything is very weak i have to tell you......
Why would the burden of proof be on him to show that they
"don't" work? Seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the person who is making the extraordinary claim. Not on the skeptic who doesn't believe. In fact, for Carl to have even TRIED them at all, is commendable. He could have simply stopped at having said "show me". And not even have had to test them personally.
So why don't you allow them to be double blind tested ? And why dismiss the tests that have been done that show that they're nothing more than random chance ? Because you'll simply say that the tests were rigged or unfair in some way. Right ? Or that the users weren't using them right, and need more practice. Right ?
A metal detector can be propped on to a table, turned on to a steady threshold. And 100 randomly chosen people can walk by and wave a quarter in front of the coil. It will beep for all 100 of them. Why can't such a double blind test be done for LRL to show the world that they work ?
.... .Can it possibly be a strange coincidence now that your an engineer for Whites metal detectors ( or you were in the past) and you have been using your knowledge of electronics to fool gullible skeptical and curious people on these forums about the Long Range Locators for so many years now? Are the LRL's really that big of threat to the metal detecting industry? .....
Contact-light: I must say, THIS IS ORIGINAL !

I love it

Now we know Carl's true motives : It's a conspiracy. He knows full well that they work, eh ? But he's just a shill, sent by the metal detector industry, to hide the truth. So that people buy metal detectors, instead of LRL's. Interesting theory. Ok Carl, 'fess up. You know full well that they work. But you're just protecting the profits of the metal detector companies, right ?
.... Its so obvious by now that you have an agenda against the Long Rang Locators. .....
No more of an "agenda" than the proponents have, of saying they work. What's wrong with "agendas" ? If I went to tell my loved ones, that an email they got saying that they'd won a Jamaican Lottery (as long as they send in $1000 for taxes first) is a scam. Does that mean I have an "agenda" against Jamaicans or Lotteries ? No, it just means I'm getting the word out not to fall for the scam.
.... How can it even be conceivable with so many reports of finds and so many people that have reported success using these types of instruments around the world for so many years that every single one of these instruments that has ever been made is a scam and doesnt do squat?.....
If you go point the things at enough likely looking spots (ruins, & places where you've already got a lead), and then turn on your detector to "pinpoint", and then dig enough holes, then YES: You'll eventually find something. Was it the LRL that did it ? Or eventual random odds ? I mean history is FILLED with stories of people accidentally stumbling on to goodies. Eg.: construction workers digging a ditch. Or kids playing in a field, etc... Ok then: How much MORE SO a person who is intentionally going out , to most-likely-spots, is not eventually going to stumble on to something ?
But let's just say the LRL did in fact, with no aid from a detector, and no "eventual random odds" found something. Ok, we'll bite: Show us in a double blind test, how the thing points to stuff.
.... ..Where is your video proof? ....
Where is yours ? Oh, and to clarify : I'd want the video to be one-in-which a skeptic is there to double-ensure that it's double blind. And not up to eventual random chances. Because I don't doubt there's videos floating around on the internet, that will purport to show dowsing rods and LRL's that did indeed point to targets. But to ensure double blind, there would have to be 3rd parties involved that hide the objects. With assurances that no subtle clues exists, etc..... Otherwise, it's far too subconsciously easy to tilt the thing to a known test target's location.
I say this with no badgering involved. Not calling you or anyone a "liar". I have no doubt you are sincere.