LRL Finally Resolved - TFIC

[EE THr]

Hey Tom...There are thousands of LRL owner/users that have done more than look inside of the boxes..they have read the instructions and practiced how to use them..They have then went into the field and located and recovered treasure..100’s have posted their finds and how they recovered them on the internet. So non electronic people, Dowsers and non Dowsers will continue to purchase these devices and enjoy their hobby..Art

Out of of those "100's" of allegedly successful LRL users, why hasn't a single one picked up Carl's $25,000.00 Reward?


(And don't claim that his test is bogus, because you have no way to know, because neither you, nor any of your alleged "100's of users," have ever even tried it.)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Art---

P.S. If you're thinking of starting a circular argument by using all of your excuses, one at a time, then first make sure that none you use are already on this list.

Thanks.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Art---

P.S. If you're thinking of starting a circular argument by using all of your excuses, one at a time, then first make sure that none you use are already on this list.

No need to..all you have to do is read it...Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

~E~

Out of of those "100's" of allegedly successful LRL users, why hasn't a single one picked up Carl's $25,000.00 Reward?

Just maybe you should ask the 4 people who have excepted Carl’s challenge ..


(

And don't claim that his test is bogus, because you have no way to know, because neither you, nor any of your alleged "100's of users," have ever even tried it.)

So what if no one has every proved to Carl that they can or can not use their devices?
~EE~

P.S. If you're thinking of starting a circular argument by using all of your excuses, one at a time, then first make sure that none you use are already on this list.

No need to..all you have to do is read it...Art

Q: Is your test really double-blind? It doesn't fit the definition I've read, which includes control groups.
A: Yes. Most definitions of "double-blind" focus on its use in medical trials, which includes the use of control groups for testing against the "placebo effect." But there is no placebo effect in dowsing, therefore no need for a control group.
Q: Why don't you specify the exact test protocol where everyone can read it?

A: Now I do. But I am still aware that there is no one-size-fits-all test, and am open to alternate test protocols from manufacturers.

Q: My LRL does not use dowsing rods, it is entirely electronic. Is that acceptable?

A: You will need to provide a photograph of the device, and specific claims of what it is capable of doing (i.e., detecting gold).
Q: What if, during the test, I can read the mind of someone who knows the target location? Will that disqualify my results?
A: Not at all. Mind-reading is allowed.
Q: What if, during the test, I can read the body language of someone who knows the target location, or pick up on some other subtle cue?
A: The test is specifically designed to prevent this. However, if I have not covered all the bases on this, then that will be my problem, and will not disqualify the results.
Q: Why won't you allow non-manufacturers to specify an alternate test protocol?
A: Developing a test protocol can take a lot of time and effort. I cannot do this for every claimant, so I limit this privilege to manufacturers. However, I'll certainly listen to other test proposals, and would consider anything that does not involve considerable time or expense.
Q: How many people have taken your challenge?
A: So far, zero.
Q: I've heard that several people have accepted your challenge, and you backed out.
A: Not at all. Two people have offered me alternate challenges. When I agreed to the first one, the challenger refused to move forward with the test. In the second case, I brought up some procedural concerns, but challenger refused to even discuss my concerns, so the whole thing went nowhere. In a third case, manufacturer Bob Yocum initially agreed to my challenge (and I agreed to his test protocol), and he set a particular date for the test. But he did not follow through on finalizing the contract in time for me to make that date, and then he refused to set any other test date, and withdrew from the challenge.

Any more excuses EE?

 

[ClonedSIM]

P.S. If you're thinking of starting a circular argument by using all of your excuses, one at a time, then first make sure that none you use are already on this list.

No need to..all you have to do is read it...Art

Q: Is your test really double-blind? It doesn't fit the definition I've read, which includes control groups.
A: Yes. Most definitions of "double-blind" focus on its use in medical trials, which includes the use of control groups for testing against the "placebo effect." But there is no placebo effect in dowsing, therefore no need for a control group.
Q: Why don't you specify the exact test protocol where everyone can read it?

A: Now I do. But I am still aware that there is no one-size-fits-all test, and am open to alternate test protocols from manufacturers.

Q: My LRL does not use dowsing rods, it is entirely electronic. Is that acceptable?

A: You will need to provide a photograph of the device, and specific claims of what it is capable of doing (i.e., detecting gold).
Q: What if, during the test, I can read the mind of someone who knows the target location? Will that disqualify my results?
A: Not at all. Mind-reading is allowed.
Q: What if, during the test, I can read the body language of someone who knows the target location, or pick up on some other subtle cue?
A: The test is specifically designed to prevent this. However, if I have not covered all the bases on this, then that will be my problem, and will not disqualify the results.
Q: Why won't you allow non-manufacturers to specify an alternate test protocol?
A: Developing a test protocol can take a lot of time and effort. I cannot do this for every claimant, so I limit this privilege to manufacturers. However, I'll certainly listen to other test proposals, and would consider anything that does not involve considerable time or expense.
Q: How many people have taken your challenge?
A: So far, zero.
Q: I've heard that several people have accepted your challenge, and you backed out.
A: Not at all. Two people have offered me alternate challenges. When I agreed to the first one, the challenger refused to move forward with the test. In the second case, I brought up some procedural concerns, but challenger refused to even discuss my concerns, so the whole thing went nowhere. In a third case, manufacturer Bob Yocum initially agreed to my challenge (and I agreed to his test protocol), and he set a particular date for the test. But he did not follow through on finalizing the contract in time for me to make that date, and then he refused to set any other test date, and withdrew from the challenge.

Any more excuses EE?

And what kind of exception do you take with these statements and answers, Art? It certainly sounds like Carl is willing to go to great lengths to work with the manufacturer to develop a test acceptable to all parties.

I agree with EE, you can't claim this test is bogus or unfair unless you've tried it for yourself. After all, you've said more than once that unless a "skeptic" has used an LRL for themselves, it's not possible for them to claim that the devices cannot work as described, despite any kind of electronic knowledge or experience they posses.

Unless a manufacturer is already aware their devices will fail in a stringent testing environment, there's no reason for them not to accept this challenge as they have nothing at all to lose, and everything to gain. In addition to the prize money, which should be a simple payday for any manufacturer that can back up their own claims, just think of the excellent press this would generate. Not only would their sales shoot through the roof in a heartbeat, they would also be able to plant their flag as the group that made one of the most vocal skeptics of these devices eat their words.

What am I missing here??

 

[aarthrj3811]

~ClonedSIM~

And what kind of exception do you take with these statements and answers, Art? It certainly sounds like Carl is willing to go to great lengths to work with the manufacturer to develop a test acceptable to all parties.

All one has do is read what EE posts and read the links that he provides.. I answered the questions....Have you every been to one of Carl’s bogus tests? I have been to two of them..Have you ever talked to any of the people who have excepted Carl’s challenge?..Have you read the posts from the other two challengers?..The pattern is clear...Art

 

[EE THr]

~ClonedSIM~

And what kind of exception do you take with these statements and answers, Art? It certainly sounds like Carl is willing to go to great lengths to work with the manufacturer to develop a test acceptable to all parties.

All one has do is read what EE posts and read the links that he provides.. I answered the questions....Have you every been to one of Carl’s bogus tests? I have been to two of them..Have you ever talked to any of the people who have excepted Carl’s challenge?..Have you read the posts from the other two challengers?..The pattern is clear...Art

Art---

What are the names of your alleged "four challengers," and give the dates and locations of the supposed "two of Carl's tests" which you attended.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

What are the names of your alleged "four challengers," and give the dates and locations of the supposed "two of Carl's tests" which you attended.

Gee EE..My memory is not very good but...The first was a guy from Richmond California..The date was set @ one month in advance..We were at the San Francisco Airport but Carl was not. The second was a demonstration in Gardnerville Nevada that Carl set up 1 and ? months in advance. That is when Carl e-mailed me. Bob did not want the money but agreed to the test. Bob had rented the park and had people from all over the USA in attendance..Carl was a no show but the skeptic goons were there.
The other two was Kelly Brown and Arch..It seems like both Carl?s and Randi?s money is save, because no one will ever be allowed to take the test..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

What are the names of your alleged "four challengers," and give the dates and locations of the supposed "two of Carl's tests" which you attended.

Gee EE..My memory is not very good but...The first was a guy from Richmond California..The date was set @ one month in advance..We were at the San Francisco Airport but Carl was not. The second was a demonstration in Gardnerville Nevada that Carl set up 1 and ? months in advance. That is when Carl e-mailed me. Bob did not want the money but agreed to the test. Bob had rented the park and had people from all over the USA in attendance..Carl was a no show but the skeptic goons were there.
The other two was Kelly Brown and Arch..It seems like both Carl?s and Randi?s money is save, because no one will ever be allowed to take the test..Art

I don't know the other names, but Arch is the guy who wanted to be given $10,000.00 before taking the test, right? And he wanted to keep the 10K, win or lose.

 

[EE THr]

We were at the San Francisco Airport but Carl was not.

You are saying here that Carl agreed to travel to S.F.

Was there a signed contract, as required?

 

[EE THr]

The second was a demonstration in Gardnerville Nevada that Carl set up 1 and ? months in advance. That is when Carl e-mailed me. Bob did not want the money but agreed to the test. Bob had rented the park and had people from all over the USA in attendance..Carl was a no show but the skeptic goons were there.

Why would anybody in their right minds not want $25,000.00? Sounds fishy to me.

You say first that it was a "demonstration." Then that "Bob" didn't want the money. Was there a written contract on this one?

 

[EE THr]

The other two was Kelly Brown and Arch..

Who is kelly Brown? Is he a member of this forum? Since you mention him and Arch in the same sentence, it sounds like the same kind of deal. Did he want money before the test, too?

Was there a signed contract with this Kelly Brown?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

I don't know the other names, but Arch is the guy who wanted to be given $10,000.00 before taking the test, right? And he wanted to keep the 10K, win or lose.

Yes it is always that way...You are always uninformed about the facts..
Don?t you skeptics always tell us..

It certainly sounds like Carl is willing to go to great lengths to work with the manufacturer to develop a test acceptable to all parties.

Darn...Sort of shoots down your claim that no one will take the test...Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

You are saying here that Carl agreed to travel to S.F.
Was there a signed contract, as required?

Carl said he would be there...No there was not a contract

Why would anybody in their right minds not want $25,000.00? Sounds fishy to me.

I don?t

You say first that it was a "demonstration." Then that "Bob" didn't want the money. Was there a written contract on this one?

Why do you need a contract if there is no money involved?

Who is kelly Brown? Is he a member of this forum? Since you mention him and Arch in the same sentence, it sounds like the same kind of deal. Did he want money before the test, too?

Was there a signed contract with this Kelly Brown?

Who is Kelly Brown..He was the one who excepted Carl?s offer right here on T-Net..The deal for a contract was never completed.

Is he a member of this forum?

He was

Did he want money before the test, too?

To the best of my knowledge he did not

Art

 

[EE THr]

Art---

Carl can answer for himself, but as far as I know, he wouldn't go to any great lengths to travel somewhere unless the protocol for any test was agreed upon in advance. Personally, I wouldn't walk across the street unless the test was fully agreed upon in advance. So I think your claim about their ever being a S.F. test is false, because there was no contract signed by the alleged "challenger."

Carl does mention on his Website, that there were some people who wanted to do the test in certain ways which would give them unfair advantages (which is to say they wanted to cheat by using trickery), and when he held to his Scientific methods, they backed out.

Since you tried to say that Arch was a "challenger," but Carl's test was bogus. But in reality, Arch was a bogus challenger, because of his ridiculous demand to be paid 10K whether he passed the test or not.

Next, your so-called challenger "Bob," didn't have a signed agreement as to the protocols. The same thing I said about your S.F. fantasy applies. Who would want to travel out of state, just to find that some whacko wants to perform "magic tricks" without any Scientific merit? He would probably have set-up the field he rented in advance, and then "miraculously" found all the targets which he buried.

And your Kelly Brown must be the guy who wouldn't sign the contract, either. That seems to be a problem with you guys. You talk big, but just can't seem to make your LRLs work under Scientifically controlled contitions. So you never will sign the agreement, money or not. All you can actually perform is a bunch of staged trickery and slight of hand.

But thanks for your examples of just how true my comments above actually are.

Like I have told you many times before, you are your own best skeptic. At least you're consistant, though.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Since you tried to say that Arch was a "challenger," but Carl's test was bogus. But in reality, Arch was a bogus challenger, because of his ridiculous demand to be paid 10K whether he passed the test or not.

The fact is that Arch did say he would take the test. The facts are that he tried to come to an agreement.

Next, your so-called challenger "Bob," didn't have a signed agreement as to the protocols. The same thing I said about your S.F. fantasy applies.

Thank You..that is 3 now.

Who would want to travel out of state, just to find that some whacko wants to perform "magic tricks" without any Scientific merit?

Who would want to put their money up for a test that would prove nothing about LRL?s?

And your Kelly Brown must be the guy who wouldn't sign the contract, either.

That?s 4...Any more excuses?...Art

 

[EE THr]

Who would want to put their money up for a test that would prove nothing about LRL?s?

Who says it needs to prove anything about LRLs? That is just another of your many Straw Man Fallacy diversions. The whole point is that if someone can get an LRL to actually work, they win the $25,000.00. It doesn't need to "prove" anything about LRLs---You find the targets and you get the 25K, that's all.

But nobody can simply do that.

I don't understand any of your other nonsensical "answers," only that none of those people ever qualified to take the test as simply outlined on Carl's Website.

It's not that complicated. Just go take the test, instead of demanding money in advance, or the other nonsense demands. None of the people you tried to say were "challengers," were legitimate, all your claims about them were bogus.






Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Who says it needs to prove anything about LRLs? That is just another of your many Straw Man Fallacy diversions. The whole point is that if someone can get an LRL to actually work, they win the $25,000.00. It doesn't need to "prove" anything about LRLs---You find the targets and you get the 25K, that's all.

Who says it needs to prove anything about LRLs?

Apparently you do.

That is just another of your many Straw Man Fallacy diversions.

Who?s diversions?

The whole point is that if someone can get an LRL to actually work, they win the $25,000.00

We have already proved that our LRL?s work..You have said that we can find treasure with the devices in our hands.

It doesn't need to "prove" anything about LRLs

You are correct..It will only prove if one person knows how to use his LRL.

I don't understand any of your other nonsensical "answers," only that none of those people ever qualified to take the test as simply outlined on Carl's Website.

Qualified to take the test?

It's not that complicated. Just go take the test, instead of demanding money in advance, or the other nonsense demands. None of the people you tried to say were "challengers," were legitimate, all your claims about them were bogus.

Gee EE..My memory is not very good but...The first was a guy from Richmond California..The date was set @ one month in advance..We were at the San Francisco Airport but Carl was not. The second was a demonstration in Gardnerville Nevada that Carl set up 1 1/2 months in advance. That is when Carl e-mailed me. Bob did not want the money but agreed to the test. Bob had rented the park and had people from all over the USA in attendance..Carl was a no show but the skeptic goons were there.
The other two was Kelly Brown and Arch..It seems like both Carl?s and Randi?s money is save, because no one will ever be allowed to take the test..Art

 

[Ted Groves]

Really, I have not seen any indication that anyone here who claims to know electronics has a clue about anything that is used in treasure hunting. Furthermore, I have not heard of anyone here finding anything with a treasure finding device, while professing to understand their operation. I am not going to teach you, you can buy a book to find out how they work. If I was going to spoonfeed you, I would demand compensation. This is a total waste of my time and I need to let it sink back into the gutter from which it came. rockhound

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[EE THr]

It's not that complicated. Just go take the test, instead of demanding money in advance, or the other nonsense demands. None of the people you tried to say were "challengers," were legitimate, all your claims about them were bogus.

Gee EE..My memory is not very good but...The first was a guy from Richmond California..The date was set @ one month in advance..We were at the San Francisco Airport but Carl was not. The second was a demonstration in Gardnerville Nevada that Carl set up 1 1/2 months in advance. That is when Carl e-mailed me. Bob did not want the money but agreed to the test. Bob had rented the park and had people from all over the USA in attendance..Carl was a no show but the skeptic goons were there.
The other two was Kelly Brown and Arch..It seems like both Carl?s and Randi?s money is save, because no one will ever be allowed to take the test..Art

Like I said before, all of your alleged examples are bogus, because there was no agreed upon protocol. What do you people have against signing a protocol agreement, if you're not up to trickery?