My Movie

[EddieR]

In your "explanation" of how I located the ring, did you not state "the same attributes you employed to locate the ring with the LRL could have just as easily been employed using a metal detector"? And did you not state that you had done this many times yourself? A yes or no answer for each question will suffice.

Yes. and Yes.

Now if I may, Your Honor, I'd like to clarify my usage of the word attribute. As a long-time user of a metal detector it would be (in my mind at least) absolutely ludicrous to even consider "triangulation" methods with a metal detector. Thus, I mistakenly thought you were also a user of metal detectors, my error. The "attribute" I was thinking of, was of course not iterated as "triangulation", but in my mind I was thinking "prior knowledge".

However, now that you bring up triangulation with a metal detector, I would have to say that YES, a metal detector COULD be used to triangulate as long as it was used as a dowsing tool and not as a metal detecting tool. I once owned a Compass detector, that if held in a certain way could be utilized as a dowsing tool, so in that regard, I suppose one could triangulate with it and eventually zero in on a target the same as you claim to have done with your dowsing contraption.

Well, at least you believe in dowsing.

And yes, of course I metal detect... I own 15 of 'em. 8)

 

[Ted Groves]

Well, at least you believe in dowsing.

And yes, of course I metal detect... I own 15 of 'em. 8)

Did I say I believed in dowsing?

Dowsing (and this includes all LRL/MFD pseudo-enhanced dowsing contraptions), when used in an uncontrolled environment, tend to operate as indicators of one's own intuition. If you couple intuition with prior knowledge, logic, good research and best guessing; there are instances when the tool will indicate a spot where you might locate a sought after target.

Also, if you always use your gold-seeking dowsing contraption in a known gold-producing environment, you can always find reasons to believe it led you to some amount of gold. It may be minute (flour) gold, but you can use any of the results you get to help you think it "worked". Of course you could always find some significant gold too. That only stands to reason, since you are looking in an area known to produce gold.

However, if you now take any (or all) of the "intuition indicators", as mentioned above; and submit them to a controlled test protocol, usually double-blind, then every one of the contraptions will produce the exact same results. That is, they will be akin to simple guessing, or in others words the results will ALWAYS be in line with random selection or a few small statistical points either side of random selection.

 

[aarthrj3811]

However, now that you bring up triangulation with a metal detector, I would have to say that YES, a metal detector COULD be used to triangulate as long as it was used as a dowsing tool and not as a metal detecting tool. I once owned a Compass detector, that if held in a certain way could be utilized as a dowsing tool, so in that regard, I suppose one could triangulate with it and eventually zero in on a target the same as you claim to have done with your dowsing contraption.

Just to throw in my 2 cents here, when this was written; "the same attributes you employed to locate the ring with the LRL could have just as easily been employed using a metal detector," Ted was clearly (to me at least) referring to the ideomotor response you utilized to lead you to the location you remembered losing your ring

.

You might have convinced yourself that the LRL did the leading, but in fact you were the only thing guiding yourself to that location. If you could turn off your skepticism towards the skeptics for a moment or two, it doesn't take much critical thinking to understand that even though you don't understand LRLs, it would be wise to listen to those that understand electronics and engineering when trying to figure out how an LRL is supposed to work.
This is the thing that always confounds me. Seemingly normal, mostly intelligent people, putting all their logic on the back-burner when someone presents them with a magical machine they promise will make them find hidden treasures easily.

Whether you want to believe it or not, you were not looking for a hidden object when you went hunting for your ring. Even if you refuse to remember it, there were events that took place up to you losing your ring that you remember. Those clues lead you to the right spot.

Remember, you can stump for these devices all you want, but you still haven't "found" anything you didn't already know was there.... It's kinda like swearing your car can take you to a win on the Indy 500 because you passed a Porsche on the highway last week.

One event does not qualify the other.
Not to your satisfaction, obviously. But since I do know how LRLs work (and you don't), it has certainly been proven to my satisfaction

Don't feel bad Eddie, you are not the first lawyer to be completely fooled by LRLs and the mechanism that causes them to appear to work. I could give you examples of Patent Attorneys who have also succumbed to the LRL illusion.

As Carl has already iterated to you... you just need to look a little closer. As long as you put off doing that; you will stay confounded - many stay that way their entire life. Still, I have personally witnessed some who learn the truth.... in this life. It's strictly your choice.

Dowsing (and this includes all LRL/MFD pseudo-enhanced dowsing contraptions), when used in an uncontrolled environment, tend to operate as indicators of one's own intuition. If you couple intuition with prior knowledge, logic, good research and best guessing; there are instances when the tool will indicate a spot where you might locate a sought after target.

Also, if you always use your gold-seeking dowsing contraption in a known gold-producing environment, you can always find reasons to believe it led you to some amount of gold. It may be minute (flour) gold, but you can use any of the results you get to help you think it "worked". Of course you could always find some significant gold too. That only stands to reason, since you are looking in an area known to produce gold.

However, if you now take any (or all) of the "intuition indicators", as mentioned above; and submit them to a controlled test protocol, usually double-blind, then every one of the contraptions will produce the exact same results. That is, they will be akin to simple guessing, or in others words the results will ALWAYS be in line with random selection or a few small statistical points either side of random selection.

You two sure missed your calling…May be you could collaborate and write a book. I am sure you would get on the best sellers list Under BEST FICTION book of the year. You may also think about writing a book about SI-FI or even a book about what happens when the BRAIN MISS-FIRES. Or HOW TO IGNORE PROOF which you have a lot of experience at. As an after thought...May be do a self help book about HOW TO TRY TO LEARN ALL ABOUT PYCO BABBALE...Art

 

[davebien]

My head hurts after reading all this !!! (or trying to read)

 

[EddieR]

Well, at least you believe in dowsing.

And yes, of course I metal detect... I own 15 of 'em. 8)

Did I say I believed in dowsing?

Dowsing (and this includes all LRL/MFD pseudo-enhanced dowsing contraptions), when used in an uncontrolled environment, tend to operate as indicators of one's own intuition. If you couple intuition with prior knowledge, logic, good research and best guessing; there are instances when the tool will indicate a spot where you might locate a sought after target.

Also, if you always use your gold-seeking dowsing contraption in a known gold-producing environment, you can always find reasons to believe it led you to some amount of gold. It may be minute (flour) gold, but you can use any of the results you get to help you think it "worked". Of course you could always find some significant gold too. That only stands to reason, since you are looking in an area known to produce gold.

However, if you now take any (or all) of the "intuition indicators", as mentioned above; and submit them to a controlled test protocol, usually double-blind, then every one of the contraptions will produce the exact same results. That is, they will be akin to simple guessing, or in others words the results will ALWAYS be in line with random selection or a few small statistical points either side of random selection.

Okay. I don't deny the logic, research, and all that, but sometimes there is no way it could be used to explain a recovery.

I'll give you a for instance. When my grandparents bought property about 30 years ago, they found out in an old book about a moonshine still that had been dismantled and buried on the property in the 1920's. My grandmother found the still about six years ago by using dowsing rods. It was buried at the foot of a hill about 3 miles from the house. There was no indications that would lead one to think that it would be buried there.

No "empty holes" were dug, the still was recovered on the first dig. How could intuition or logic come into play here?

By the way, she said she was dowsing for copper.....the tubing and tank were made of copper, according to the book.

 

[ClonedSIM]

So nobody ever "loses" anything in the sense that most people use the term. We all know unconsciously where things were lost?

Didn't say that. Isn't that your biggest complaint, you always cry we're putting words in your mouth?

Nope, that isn't what I said at all, but if you really stop to think about it, how difficult is is to really lose something? Retrace your steps, thinking about the last time you absolutely knew where the object was. Unless something is stolen, or it's realtively light and falls out of a pocket or bag unnoticed, or if it was lost and then found by another person in a public place, lost object usually aren't. They've been set down some place, and a little thinking would find the item in no time.

Cool...I'm gonna sell all my detectors and just tap into the "collective consciousness" and go get rich!

There you go again... When did I say this?

I do hope that you understand that all your post is based on is theory....

Theory? Really?? The whole thing?

This is the thing that always confounds me. Seemingly normal, mostly intelligent people, putting all their logic on the back-burner when someone presents them with a magical machine they promise will make them find hidden treasures easily.
This isn't theory.

Remember, you can stump for these devices all you want, but you still haven't "found" anything you didn't already know was there.... It's kinda like swearing your car can take you to a win on the Indy 500 because you passed a Porsche on the highway last week. One event does not qualify the other.
Nor is this.

The rest may be called an opinion, but it's an opinion based on plenty of experience with users of these things.

 

[Ted Groves]

Okay. I don't deny the logic, research, and all that, but sometimes there is no way it could be used to explain a recovery.

I'll give you a for instance. When my grandparents bought property about 30 years ago, they found out in an old book about a moonshine still that had been dismantled and buried on the property in the 1920's. My grandmother found the still about six years ago by using dowsing rods. It was buried at the foot of a hill about 3 miles from the house. There was no indications that would lead one to think that it would be buried there.

No "empty holes" were dug, the still was recovered on the first dig. How could intuition or logic come into play here?

By the way, she said she was dowsing for copper.....the tubing and tank were made of copper, according to the book.

How do you explain your grandmother's find?

Logical reasons? Mystic reasons? Scientific laws associated with her find?

If the dowsing rods she used didn't have any "smarts" of their own, what do think caused them to assist her in the find? Unseen forces the rods reacted to? Signal lines the rods locked on to?

How certain are you about the "find" location being the only one that was ever dug, or investigated.

Are you privy to exactly all the "story" and folklore associated with the "still". For instance, could she have had information perhaps you are not aware of? Perhaps others with her that had information you are not aware of?

What do you think? Any answers to my questions?

 

[ClonedSIM]

Perhaps, in Eddie's case (and in his defense), he just likes a good argumentative debate, and secretly wishes he was back in practice.

It would not surprise me at all to learn that he "really" does know the truth about these commercial LRL devices, but is taking the "other side" because he believes some of us were (are) a little too hard on Art and Mike and similar "gullibles".

Ted does make an excellent point. Eddie's posts carry an air of intelligence with them you can't fake by cutting and pasting, and it's so darn difficult for me to believe someone with a lick of sense could possibly believe in these things once they've been exposed to both sides of the debate.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Perhaps, in Eddie's case (and in his defense), he just likes a good argumentative debate, and secretly wishes he was back in practice.

It would not surprise me at all to learn that he "really" does know the truth about these commercial LRL devices, but is taking the "other side" because he believes some of us were (are) a little too hard on Art and Mike and similar "gullibles".

Ted does make an excellent point. Eddie's posts carry an air of intelligence with them you can't fake by cutting and pasting, and it's so darn difficult for me to believe someone with a lick of sense could possibly believe in these things once they've been exposed to both sides of the debate.

I can only wonder how he can be a Paranormal Investigator, and believe an empty plastic box can move on its own without wanting to learn, or understand why

It's a great question. It's understood that the first thing most paranormal investigators do is try to look for the most logical solution to the "haunting" they've been presented with, in order to de-bunk it, and Eddie has stated this is true about himself as well, but he's not even attempting to do this with LRLs.... I wonder why??

 

[EddieR]

Okay. I don't deny the logic, research, and all that, but sometimes there is no way it could be used to explain a recovery.

I'll give you a for instance. When my grandparents bought property about 30 years ago, they found out in an old book about a moonshine still that had been dismantled and buried on the property in the 1920's. My grandmother found the still about six years ago by using dowsing rods. It was buried at the foot of a hill about 3 miles from the house. There was no indications that would lead one to think that it would be buried there.

No "empty holes" were dug, the still was recovered on the first dig. How could intuition or logic come into play here?

By the way, she said she was dowsing for copper.....the tubing and tank were made of copper, according to the book.

How do you explain your grandmother's find?

Logical reasons? Mystic reasons? Scientific laws associated with her find?

If the dowsing rods she used didn't have any "smarts" of their own, what do think caused them to assist her in the find? Unseen forces the rods reacted to? Signal lines the rods locked on to?

How certain are you about the "find" location being the only one that was ever dug, or investigated.

Are you privy to exactly all the "story" and folklore associated with the "still". For instance, could she have had information perhaps you are not aware of? Perhaps others with her that had information you are not aware of?

What do you think? Any answers to my questions?

I believe in dowsing. I don't consider it paranormal in the sense that some would, because I believe that it is inherent in us all, it just comes more natural to some. Kinda like playing a musical instrument. Some people practice playing a guitar for years and still can't carry a tune, but some can pick it up and within a few days can play very well.

As far as the story, I know all the facts, as I was the one who found the book packed away in an old trunk. I was with her at the time of the find, I was the one with the shovel, so I know no other holes were dug.

Can I explain it? Nope. But it was cool!

 

[EddieR]

Perhaps, in Eddie's case (and in his defense), he just likes a good argumentative debate, and secretly wishes he was back in practice.

It would not surprise me at all to learn that he "really" does know the truth about these commercial LRL devices, but is taking the "other side" because he believes some of us were (are) a little too hard on Art and Mike and similar "gullibles".

Ted does make an excellent point. Eddie's posts carry an air of intelligence with them you can't fake by cutting and pasting, and it's so darn difficult for me to believe someone with a lick of sense could possibly believe in these things once they've been exposed to both sides of the debate.

Why is it so difficult for you to believe that people can have a mind of their own and not be ruled by "textbook logic"?

 

[EddieR]

Perhaps, in Eddie's case (and in his defense), he just likes a good argumentative debate, and secretly wishes he was back in practice.

It would not surprise me at all to learn that he "really" does know the truth about these commercial LRL devices, but is taking the "other side" because he believes some of us were (are) a little too hard on Art and Mike and similar "gullibles".

Ted does make an excellent point. Eddie's posts carry an air of intelligence with them you can't fake by cutting and pasting, and it's so darn difficult for me to believe someone with a lick of sense could possibly believe in these things once they've been exposed to both sides of the debate.

I can only wonder how he can be a Paranormal Investigator, and believe an empty plastic box can move on its own without wanting to learn, or understand why

Where did I say I didn't want to learn or understand?

 

[ClonedSIM]

Perhaps, in Eddie's case (and in his defense), he just likes a good argumentative debate, and secretly wishes he was back in practice.

It would not surprise me at all to learn that he "really" does know the truth about these commercial LRL devices, but is taking the "other side" because he believes some of us were (are) a little too hard on Art and Mike and similar "gullibles".

Ted does make an excellent point. Eddie's posts carry an air of intelligence with them you can't fake by cutting and pasting, and it's so darn difficult for me to believe someone with a lick of sense could possibly believe in these things once they've been exposed to both sides of the debate.

Why is it so difficult for you to believe that people can have a mind of their own and not be ruled by "textbook logic"?

Why do you keep assuming there are meaning to my posts that are only apparent to you? Where did I say textbook logic? Where did I say your intelligence was textbook intelligence?

I said anyone with a lick of sense should be able to see through these toys after seeing both sides of the debate.

 

[Tommy Torquemada]

You two sure missed your calling…May be you could collaborate and write a book. I am sure you would get on the best sellers list Under BEST FICTION book of the year. You may also think about writing a book about SI-FI or even a book about what happens when the BRAIN MISS-FIRES. Or HOW TO IGNORE PROOF which you have a lot of experience at. As an after thought...May be do a self help book about HOW TO TRY TO LEARN ALL ABOUT PYCO BABBALE...Art

Would not it be more accurate to say, "You two certainly have may be could cooperate your occupation missed you and could write a book. I am certain would be received you on the bestseller list under BEST FICTION book of the year. They may think also of letter of a beech around SOWED FI or even a book, around which happen, when the BRAIN FIRES YOUNG WOMAN. Or HOW you PROOF IGNORING that you have many experience at. As on after thought. .. May a self-help book is makes, around LIKE TO ATTEMPTS, ALL AROUND PYCO BABBALE TO LEARNING."

 

[ClonedSIM]

You two sure missed your calling…May be you could collaborate and write a book. I am sure you would get on the best sellers list Under BEST FICTION book of the year. You may also think about writing a book about SI-FI or even a book about what happens when the BRAIN MISS-FIRES. Or HOW TO IGNORE PROOF which you have a lot of experience at. As an after thought...May be do a self help book about HOW TO TRY TO LEARN ALL ABOUT PYCO BABBALE...Art

Would not it be more accurate to say, "You two certainly have may be could cooperate your occupation missed you and could write a book. I am certain would be received you on the bestseller list under BEST FICTION book of the year. They may think also of letter of a beech around SOWED FI or even a book, around which happen, when the BRAIN FIRES YOUNG WOMAN. Or HOW you PROOF IGNORING that you have many experience at. As on after thought. .. May a self-help book is makes, around LIKE TO ATTEMPTS, ALL AROUND PYCO BABBALE TO LEARNING."

 

[ClonedSIM]

Where did I say I didn't want to learn or understand?

Well, here is one example:

Nope. I don't care what's inside it. But just for the record, I've never opened up any of my detectors either.

Rather than play your game, I'll say right now your didn't say "learn or understand". However, "I don't care what's inside it" translates to a closed minded person with absolutely no investigative moxie.

Word.

Isn't it interesting that the first time a believer actually provides proof, it's proof against their own claims?

 

[EddieR]

Where did I say I didn't want to learn or understand?

Well, here is one example:

Nope. I don't care what's inside it. But just for the record, I've never opened up any of my detectors either.

Rather than play your game, I'll say right now your didn't say "learn or understand". However, "I don't care what's inside it" translates to a closed minded person with absolutely no investigative moxie.

Word.

Wrong. Dead wrong. There is a huge difference in wanting to learn about something and destroying something to see what makes it "tick". Did you take all your toys apart when you were a kid? LOL

 

[EddieR]

Where did I say I didn't want to learn or understand?

Well, here is one example:

Nope. I don't care what's inside it. But just for the record, I've never opened up any of my detectors either.

Rather than play your game, I'll say right now your didn't say "learn or understand". However, "I don't care what's inside it" translates to a closed minded person with absolutely no investigative moxie.

Word.

Isn't it interesting that the first time a believer actually provides proof, it's proof against their own claims?

Isn't it though.....

 

[EddieR]

Where did I say I didn't want to learn or understand?

Well, here is one example:

Nope. I don't care what's inside it. But just for the record, I've never opened up any of my detectors either.

Rather than play your game, I'll say right now your didn't say "learn or understand". However, "I don't care what's inside it" translates to a closed minded person with absolutely no investigative moxie.

Word.

Isn't it interesting that the first time a believer actually provides proof, it's proof against their own claims?

I know Eddie's pattern. It's an old lawyers trick, known as "Duh em up". Works as good as the everlasting cigar ash trick.

Actually, if ya just gotta know...my staff and I are placing bets on your responses to the posts....thanks for the fifteen bucks! LOL

Played like a gee-tar.

 

[EddieR]

Where did I say I didn't want to learn or understand?

Well, here is one example:

Nope. I don't care what's inside it. But just for the record, I've never opened up any of my detectors either.

Rather than play your game, I'll say right now your didn't say "learn or understand". However, "I don't care what's inside it" translates to a closed minded person with absolutely no investigative moxie.

Word.

Okay, that's what it means to you. Now let me tell you what the person with a little bit of sense sees when they read it: "I don't care what's inside it" means "I don't care what's inside it".

Simple huh?