Test: Can LRL Promoters Offer Verifiable Information---Without Insults?

[EE THr]

Several people have already posted verifiable information showing that LRLs are fake devices.

Now let's see if any LRL "users" can post any verifiable information that indicate they work....

Without any insults, of course.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[woof!]

EE, all it takes for an LRL to "work" is for the swingy thingy to swivel. If it does that much, many users will be happy no matter how much they paid for a coat hanger with lipstick believing that the majick is in the lipstick. Even if the results they get are no better than chance, or even worse than chance (as I suspect is often the case with LRL's), the thing still "works"-- it swivels, and the alabi system handles the rest.

--Toto

 

[signal_line]

I didn't read any of this htread except the title.

Dell Winders did a test right in front of James Randi the skeptic. As I understand it there was twelve holes and they put a gold coin in one hole and I think they put silver coins in the other eleven holes. Using his MFD (Molecular Frequency Discriminator) Dell found the gold coin on six out of eight tries. He said the geomagnetic conditions had deteriorated and stopped the test after eight tries.

But for a moment let's assume he had made twelve tries and only found the gold coin six times. For starters the random odds say he should have only found it ONE TIME OUT OF TWELVE. But he found it six times and only made eight tries to do so. Now it doesn't take much common sense to see that he beat the odds. You don't have to know statistics to understand DELL BEAT THE ODDS BIG TIME. Not by twice not by five times, it was actually by nine times because he only made eight tries.

Now when someone tries to tell you that he did not beat the odds, either they are using intentional deception or they aren't smart enough to calculate the odds. What do you think? And then ask yourself Why would someone cheat on this and say he did not beat the odds? Do they think you are not smart enough to see this?

 

[werleibr]

I didn't read any of this htread except the title.

Dell Winders did a test right in front of James Randi the skeptic. As I understand it there was twelve holes and they put a gold coin in one hole and I think they put silver coins in the other eleven holes. Using his MFD (Molecular Frequency Discriminator) Dell found the gold coin on six out of eight tries. He said the geomagnetic conditions had deteriorated and stopped the test after eight tries.

But for a moment let's assume he had made twelve tries and only found the gold coin six times. For starters the random odds say he should have only found it ONE TIME OUT OF TWELVE. But he found it six times and only made eight tries to do so. Now it doesn't take much common sense to see that he beat the odds. You don't have to know statistics to understand DELL BEAT THE ODDS BIG TIME. Not by twice not by five times, it was actually by nine times because he only made eight tries.

Now when someone tries to tell you that he did not beat the odds, either they are using intentional deception or they aren't smart enough to calculate the odds. What do you think? And then ask yourself Why would someone cheat on this and say he did not beat the odds? Do they think you are not smart enough to see this?

Where can we find any documentation on this? Does Dell have any other than his word? Does Randi have any other than his word?

 

[signal_line]

I don't read the skeptics posts, but I will tell you the original skeptic that claimed Dell did not beat the odds was Sam Scafferi. Then Carl and some other skeptics followed lock step to claim Dell did not beat the odds. Either he does not know how to compute odds, or he intentionally left out the fact that there were twelve targets to choose from each time. The way he calculated it was to claim there were only two choices, which of course six out of eight is not all that decisive. But that is not how the test was conducted--there were twelve choices each time. One in twelve performed twelve times means the odds are Dell should only have found the gold coin one time. But Dell found the gold coin six times with only eight tries. That is nine times better than random chance. Anyone who thinks that is not good enough is either stupid or dishonest, or both.

 

[werleibr]

I don't read the skeptics posts, but I will tell you the original skeptic that claimed Dell did not beat the odds was Sam Scafferi. Then Carl and some other skeptics followed lock step to claim Dell did not beat the odds. Either he does not know how to compute odds, or he intentionally left out the fact that there were twelve targets to choose from each time. The way he calculated it was to claim there were only two choices, which of course six out of eight is not all that decisive. But that is not how the test was conducted--there were twelve choices each time. One in twelve performed twelve times means the odds are Dell should only have found the gold coin one time. But Dell found the gold coin six times with only eight tries. That is nine times better than random chance. Anyone who thinks that is not good enough is either stupid or dishonest, or both.

Please do not avoid the question. Is there documentation of this test? If so where so I may look at it. And your talking about probabilty and odds is incorrect. I have shown you this in the past. But since you fail to remember them here it is again.

This is for the 8 trials that allegaly happend


Number Correct Probabilty Of happening
0 49.85%
1 36.26%
2 11.54%
3 2.10%
4 0.24%
5 0.02%
6 7.9*10-4%
7 2.0*10-5%
8 2.3*10-7%



So finding the coin 6 out of 8 trials yielded a probability of occuring of 7.9*10-4% otherwise seen as 0.00079%.

Now to let you know about how this probabilty works again. Each Test he had a probabilty of 1/12 or 8.33% chance of being correct. Each trial was indepent of the next so in each trial he had a probabilty of 8.33%. But when you find the probabilty that he got multiple trials correct you get a different formula and you come up with the answers above. As you can she he would have almost a 50% chance of never finding one during the 8 trials than anything else. If you need help interperating these numbers just say and I will elaberate more.

So please if you are going to talk about probabilty do it correctly.

 

[EE THr]

The way I understand Randi's tests is that they first send someone to see if the claim of performance is worthwhile. This is kind of like American Idol, where they first hold auditions to eliminate thousands of wannabes who couldn't carry a note in a totebag.

So, to get to the actual test is kind of a big deal, and would be fully documented, most likely with a video.

So where is the documentation or video?

This is the third time I have asked---so where is it?




If it's as Earth shaking as you make it out to be, anyone with any common sense would have posted a link to it at their first mention of it. Why didn't you?

 

[aarthrj3811]

We know that you claim it is our fault that you have no proof. Randi’s fake test has been discussed all over the internet so it is old news to members of t-net..But please keep on begging as we all need the laughs..Art

 

[EddieR]

Just did a quick search online, not in depth....but it appears there is a video. The page isn't very well written, but it appears (at the time the piece was posted) that Randi had the video but couldn't locate it (as he mentions when the video is located, viewed, and summed up).

I would like to see the video, for sure.

http://www.randi.org/jr/200512/12025teslar.html

 

[EE THr]

Just did a quick search online, not in depth....but it appears there is a video. The page isn't very well written, but it appears (at the time the piece was posted) that Randi had the video but couldn't locate it (as he mentions when the video is located, viewed, and summed up).

I would like to see the video, for sure.

http://www.randi.org/jr/200512/12025teslar.html

I think the video being referred to there is the one with Randi on stage, showing an LRL sent to him by Carl. It was posted on here by someone, a few months ago.

 

[EE THr]

We know that you claim it is our fault that you have no proof. Randi’s fake test has been discussed all over the internet so it is old news to members of t-net..But please keep on begging as we all need the laughs..Art

And here you are with an entire post of nothing but insults.

You failed the test.

 

[EE THr]

Please do not avoid the question. Is there documentation of this test? If so where so I may look at it. And your talking about probabilty and odds is incorrect. I have shown you this in the past. But since you fail to remember them here it is again.

This is for the 8 trials that allegaly happend


Number Correct Probabilty Of happening
0 49.85%
1 36.26%
2 11.54%
3 2.10%
4 0.24%
5 0.02%
6 7.9*10-4%
7 2.0*10-5%
8 2.3*10-7%



So finding the coin 6 out of 8 trials yielded a probability of occuring of 7.9*10-4% otherwise seen as 0.00079%.

Now to let you know about how this probabilty works again. Each Test he had a probabilty of 1/12 or 8.33% chance of being correct. Each trial was indepent of the next so in each trial he had a probabilty of 8.33%. But when you find the probabilty that he got multiple trials correct you get a different formula and you come up with the answers above. As you can she he would have almost a 50% chance of never finding one during the 8 trials than anything else. If you need help interperating these numbers just say and I will elaberate more.

So please if you are going to talk about probabilty do it correctly.

So you have heard of this test before? Was it supposedly actually randomized?---That is, was the gold coin re-hidden in a random hole after each try?

Do you know if this test has been verified for authenticity? Or where any documentation of it can be found?

 

[EddieR]

Just did a quick search online, not in depth....but it appears there is a video. The page isn't very well written, but it appears (at the time the piece was posted) that Randi had the video but couldn't locate it (as he mentions when the video is located, viewed, and summed up).

I would like to see the video, for sure.

http://www.randi.org/jr/200512/12025teslar.html

I think the video being referred to there is the one with Randi on stage, showing an LRL sent to him by Carl. It was posted on here by someone, a few months ago.

I saw that one. I don't think that was it, though...the page the link goes to mentions a video of a test with Dell. I don't recall Dell being in the video that was posted a while back (I may be wrong though)

 

[EE THr]

Just did a quick search online, not in depth....but it appears there is a video. The page isn't very well written, but it appears (at the time the piece was posted) that Randi had the video but couldn't locate it (as he mentions when the video is located, viewed, and summed up).

I would like to see the video, for sure.

http://www.randi.org/jr/200512/12025teslar.html

I think the video being referred to there is the one with Randi on stage, showing an LRL sent to him by Carl. It was posted on here by someone, a few months ago.

I saw that one. I don't think that was it, though...the page the link goes to mentions a video of a test with Dell. I don't recall Dell being in the video that was posted a while back (I may be wrong though)

Good point. I don't think Dell was in that video.

I do think there would be some kind of a record of such a test, though. Certainly Dell would be posting about it the very next day, if it were true.

Still waiting for some kind of documentation. Seeing that Dell outright refuses to put in print that he claims his devices will locate gold, his credibility can't be rated at anything other than zero; so I can hardly just take his word for it---can you?

 

[EddieR]

Just did a quick search online, not in depth....but it appears there is a video. The page isn't very well written, but it appears (at the time the piece was posted) that Randi had the video but couldn't locate it (as he mentions when the video is located, viewed, and summed up).

I would like to see the video, for sure.

http://www.randi.org/jr/200512/12025teslar.html

I think the video being referred to there is the one with Randi on stage, showing an LRL sent to him by Carl. It was posted on here by someone, a few months ago.

I saw that one. I don't think that was it, though...the page the link goes to mentions a video of a test with Dell. I don't recall Dell being in the video that was posted a while back (I may be wrong though)

Good point. I don't think Dell was in that video.

I do think there would be some kind of a record of such a test, though. Certainly Dell would be posting about it the very next day, if it were true.

Still waiting for some kind of documentation. Seeing that Dell outright refuses to put in print that he claims his devices will locate gold, his credibility can't be rated at anything other than zero; so I can hardly just take his word for it---can you?

I never just take anyone's word for anything. I may not ask for more info if the subject (or claim) doesn't concern me personally (why bother?). But if the subject is something I'm interested in, then I will look at it more in depth.

You should see the amount of time I spend researching metal detectors when ever I decide to get one.

 

[werleibr]

Please do not avoid the question. Is there documentation of this test? If so where so I may look at it. And your talking about probabilty and odds is incorrect. I have shown you this in the past. But since you fail to remember them here it is again.

This is for the 8 trials that allegaly happend


Number Correct Probabilty Of happening
0 49.85%
1 36.26%
2 11.54%
3 2.10%
4 0.24%
5 0.02%
6 7.9*10-4%
7 2.0*10-5%
8 2.3*10-7%



So finding the coin 6 out of 8 trials yielded a probability of occuring of 7.9*10-4% otherwise seen as 0.00079%.

Now to let you know about how this probabilty works again. Each Test he had a probabilty of 1/12 or 8.33% chance of being correct. Each trial was indepent of the next so in each trial he had a probabilty of 8.33%. But when you find the probabilty that he got multiple trials correct you get a different formula and you come up with the answers above. As you can she he would have almost a 50% chance of never finding one during the 8 trials than anything else. If you need help interperating these numbers just say and I will elaberate more.

So please if you are going to talk about probabilty do it correctly.

So you have heard of this test before? Was it supposedly actually randomized?---That is, was the gold coin re-hidden in a random hole after each try?

Do you know if this test has been verified for authenticity? Or where any documentation of it can be found?

No to all your questions. I have not heard of test before, but one similar that kept being refered to in the past. I don't know about if it was sent to a different hole each trial. I don't know if it was verified or of any documentation. I was giving all stats from the description that Signal_line was giving. His understanding of stats is wrong and he was stating things incorrectly. If he would do it correctly he would see that it is greater than what he is claiming.

 

[aarthrj3811]

You should check this thread...http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,394624.0.html

 

[werleibr]

You should check this thread...http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,394624.0.html

That was for a trial of only one and had a 50% chance of finding. The numbers I presented were for the end of 8 trials and what the overall odds were of getting each result.

 

[EE THr]

No to all your questions. I have not heard of test before, but one similar that kept being refered to in the past. I don't know about if it was sent to a different hole each trial. I don't know if it was verified or of any documentation. I was giving all stats from the description that Signal_line was giving. His understanding of stats is wrong and he was stating things incorrectly. If he would do it correctly he would see that it is greater than what he is claiming.

I vaguely remember something about a test similar to this, but where the coin wasn't re-hidden after each guess. But now I realize that if he found the coin six times, it's only logical that it would have to be rehidden each time he found it.

That is, if the test ever really happened at all. From what I read a while back on Randi's or JREF's site, about the test procedures, it's doubtful that Randi would have attended Dell's "performance," unless Randi's representatives had already established that he was at least a contender, by witnessing Dell find something at least a few times, first.

That, and the lack of documentation or reference link, makes it look fishy to me. Well, then there is the fact that the so-called "LRLs" just don't work!

 

[hung]

To the airplane pilot above playing with probabilities.

Chances of Dell finding the coin by random chance:

E(x) = n.p
n = 12
p = 1/12 = 0.0833 (success)
q = 1-p = 0.9167 (failure)

E(x) = n.p = 12 x 0.0833 = 0.9996 = aproximately 1 trial in 12.

Signal_line said:

One in twelve performed twelve times means the odds are Dell should only have found the gold coin one time.

That's correct.

Now the probability that Dell would score exactly 6 random correct trials out of 8.

p = 1/12 = 0.0833 success
q = 11/12 = 0.9167 failure

[n,k] = (8,6) = 8!/6!(8-6)! = 28
P = (n,k)p^k x q^(n-k) = 28 x 0.0833^6 x 0.9167^2 = 0.0007858 %

Signal_line said:

Anyone who thinks that is not good enough is either stupid or dishonest, or both.

That's correct.