Maybe We Can Agree?

[EE THr]

~EE~

Fake photos, fake movies, fake testimonials, and tests with your friends and family, are not formal proof.

Real photo’s, Real movies, Real testimonials ,and test with your friends and family are real tests.

If they are so good, people would be proving it every day, just like they do with regular metal detectors.

We do that all the time.. Because we do not have a non treasure hunting Skeptic with us does not make them false. The 63 owner/operators of these devices have given their reports on this thread. The 1000’s of testimonials and photos on the internet you consider as false.

And Carl wouldn't be offering a reward for anyone proving that they do work

So you are saying that a fake double blind test that no one has ever taken is iron clad proof that LRL’s do not work?

If you don't like Carl's test, then use the test which you designed and have approved of.

But do it in public, with unbiased observers.

Which would you like to take your test in front of---
Your local metal detector club?
Your local high school science class?
Your local community college science department?
A university science department?



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?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

But do it in public, with unbiased observers.

Could you please explain what public means in your world?
Could you please explain what an unbiased observers is?..
The test I reported on was attended by my son who hide the targets, Two LRL users and a Dowsers..The two LRL users were from out of state and had traveled to Reno to check out a site that I had posted about. The Dowser lives near by..So do you consider them as the Public and unbias?..Art

 

[EE THr]

But do it in public, with unbiased observers.

Could you please explain what public means in your world?
Could you please explain what an unbiased observers is?..
The test I reported on was attended by my son who hide the targets, Two LRL users and a Dowsers..The two LRL users were from out of state and had traveled to Reno to check out a site that I had posted about. The Dowser lives near by..So do you consider them as the Public and unbias?..Art

There is no way of anyone knowing if that actually occurred or not. Surely you realize that.

I have already listed several means of verifying your test performance. All you have to do is choose one from the list, or think of a suitable one which we can agree on.

Videos from such a verifiable source would be good. A signed affidavit would also be good.

But I can't see any reason not to make yourself an easy $20K after expenses, by taking Carl's test. You keep saying that Carl's test is incorrect, but you won't say how to correct it, or how the step-by-step procedure would work to suit you. Common sense says that you are simply making false accusations in order to avoid taking that test.

At any rate, if you are going to continue making claims that nonfunctional devices can find a target 15 times out of 15 tries, you are going to have to either prove it or look like a fool. You might as well be claiming that cows fly, over and over and over.

If you spent as much energy taking a test, as you do making all these claims and insults and nonsense posts, you would have passed the test by now and be twenty grand richer. That's just one more reason why your claims appear to be totally bogus.

But if you want to go on looking like a fool, that's up to you. I would think that you could realize that people are smarter than you have thought they were.



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]

Could you please explain what public means in your world?
Could you please explain what an unbiased observers is?..
.So do you consider them as the Public and unbias?..Art
These are the 3 questions that you did not answer..Art

 

[EE THr]

Could you please explain what public means in your world?
Could you please explain what an unbiased observers is?..
.So do you consider them as the Public and unbias?..Art
These are the 3 questions that you did not answer..Art

You are just spamming the topic anyway, so what difference would it make.

But I did answer, if you read my post.

Public means open to whoever wants to observe.
Unbiased is in the dictionary. Here it means someone who you don't know, so they won't have favoritism.
No, your family and friends are not "public" or unbiased.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Public means open to whoever wants to observe.
Unbiased is in the dictionary. Here it means someone who you don't know, so they won't have favoritism.
No, your family and friends are not "public" or unbiased.

Thank You for ruling out Carls fake double blind test...Nothing more to add to this dead thread...art

 

[EE THr]

Public means open to whoever wants to observe.
Unbiased is in the dictionary. Here it means someone who you don't know, so they won't have favoritism.
No, your family and friends are not "public" or unbiased.

Thank You for ruling out Carls fake double blind test...Nothing more to add to this dead thread...art

You never have had anything to add to it. Because you will never take a test when observed by a real, unbiased party. Because your fantasy LRLs don't work!



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~

I predict that the answers from the LRLers will be either nonsensical gibberish, outright insults, or off-topic diversions.

Yes EE...After 324 posts all our facts will be viewed by you in the same way...Art

 

[EE THr]

I predict that the answers from the LRLers will be either nonsensical gibberish, outright insults, or off-topic diversions.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
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?

Yep, I was right again.

 

[EE THr]

Now that we've all another little traipse off into Never-Never Land, with even more of the LRL promoters' nonsensical gibberish, insults, and off-topic diversions, maybe we can all get back to confronting the original topic questions---


Maybe We Can Agree

It can be confusing to try to talk about two or three different things in one thread. I mean, sometimes you say something about one thing, and someone replies to your post, but somehow swings it over to something else, and gives an answer regarding that other thing. How are you supposed to respond to that?

So, people can be talking about two different things, and not even realize it! The next thing you know, it doesn't make any sense, and everyone gets ticked off simply because nobody's making sense anymore.

But maybe we can sort out some things, and maybe that will let us stay on track, and eliminate some of the confusion.

The matter does arise, of mixing dowsing with LRLs. There are different way that problems in communication can start with these two getting mixed up, or being used interchangeably. I don't think that they need to be combined in concept, in order to discuss either one.

There is a problem in talking about LRLs, when people want to use dowsing terminology.

Yet there are some who insist that they do go together.

And others who insist that they don't.

Most of these kinds of problems come up when talking about the tests. Both from people who think LRL is dowsing, and from people who say it's not.

So, look at it this way. According to Carl's test, it doesn't matter if it's considered dowsing or not, because either it passes his test, or it doesn't. The theory of how it works doesn't come into play, in his test. So there is no need to talk dowsing, when discussing Carl's test. It simply doesn't matter.

But, if there are people who find fault with Carl's test, and state dowsing reasons as being part of the problem, then they are also stating that LRLs are somehow using dowsing. The people who are stating this, apparently consider that LRLs somehow enhance the dowsing success, though.

As far as the LRL advocates go, this doesn't seem to matter, as long as they find stuff.

But it does make a difference when considering whether LRLs are fraudulently advertised, because they infer that anyone can use them, and don't state that dowsing ability is required. This concept can go around and around with problems, because of this lack of understanding and agreement.

So, can it be agreed that the free-swinging pointer type of LRLs are supposed to be dowsing enhancers?

Or can we agree that they are totally electronic devices, and not dowsing based?

Or, is there a better definition of the free-swinging pointer types of LRLs?





I predict that the answers from the LRLers will be either nonsensical gibberish, outright insults, or off-topic diversions.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
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?