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

[aarthrj3811]

So EE THr and werleibr...We have been discussing your theory of Random chance for over 10 years now..We have learned that it is based on the art of flipping coins and everyones theory comes up with different odds..So tell us just what your theoy has to do with Dowsing and LRL’s? I have not saw any tests that have been done on dowsing, LRL’s or even a conventional metal detectors using this theory...Your theory still has not been proven to the Scientific community when it comes to dowsing and LRL’s..Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[EE THr]

So EE THr and werleibr...We have been discussing your theory of Random chance for over 10 years now..We have learned that it is based on the art of flipping coins and everyones theory comes up with different odds..So tell us just what your theoy has to do with Dowsing and LRL’s? I have not saw any tests that have been done on dowsing, LRL’s or even a conventional metal detectors using this theory...Your theory still has not been proven to the Scientific community when it comes to dowsing and LRL’s..Art

I can only guess that you haven't noticed that all the talk about odds was started by Signal, when he claimed that Dell "beat the odds."

However, evidence that such test ever took place has not been posted, even though it has been asked for several times. Signal seems to be ignoring that question....

 

[EddieR]

According to the link I posted, it does appear that a test did take place, as Carl speaks of the video of the test that Randi has in his possession . He even states that he probably gave the video to Randi.

But then it gets confusing....as Carl states he would like to view the rest of the test, if it was taped, and the results.

Perhaps there were two videos?

But at any rate, it appears that Randi had/has the video of the test, unless he sent it to Carl, as he asked. Perhaps Carl can chime in on this.

 

[EE THr]

According to the link I posted, it does appear that a test did take place, as Carl speaks of the video of the test that Randi has in his possession . He even states that he probably gave the video to Randi.

But then it gets confusing....as Carl states he would like to view the rest of the test, if it was taped, and the results.

Perhaps there were two videos?

But at any rate, it appears that Randi had/has the video of the test, unless he sent it to Carl, as he asked. Perhaps Carl can chime in on this.

In re-reading the first paragraph of the email that Carl wrote (on the page you linked to), it seems that this is the kind of thing that is much easier to understand, for someone who knew what happened in the first place.

Here is the first paragraph from Carl's email---

"I see that you have pulled out the "Dell Systems VR800" I sent you a while back. The video you have of the test you did with Dell Winders probably came from me, as well. When I last asked, you did not recall the context of the video taping, but now you've possibly discovered that it was part of a documentary. If you can find out for certain, please let me know. In particular, I would like to view the remainder of the test, if it was taped, and would like to know the real results of the test. Dell has told me that he aborted the test after a few attempts because conditions had deteriorated, but insisted that he scored 6-of-8 times (not the 8-of-12 you reported) in a note from January 6, 1999...."

So it appears that Randi did do some kind of a test with Dell.

But it looks like Randi counted it as eight hits out of 12 tries, which would be only two out of three, rather than the three out of four that Dell allegedly claimed. (?)

If it was part of a documentary, it could have misleading editing, as has been found in other documentaries and reality shows, furthering the consfuion.

It appears that the documentary didn't include all of the test.

It also appears that the "real results" of the test have never been made public.

I would think that if Dell thought he could "beat the odds," that he would certainly have made a video tape himself, or would have been sure to have gotten one from the documentary producers somehow.

From time to time, someone will "beat the odds" at a casino, but that only means they got lucky. It doesn't mean they can do it on a reliable basis. The same thing with coin tossing---sometimes you can just randomly get lots of heads in a row, for instance. I guess that's why they call it "odds" or "chances," instead of "certainty." Obviously, if Dell or anyone else could get 6 out of 8 correct every time, they woudn't be shying away from properly administered random double-blind tests, they way they always have been.

At any rate, without some substantial evidence of the alleged test and it's results, it will remain as just talk....

I think that if Dell felt that the claimed test was significant, he would simply repeat the same test with unbaised administrators, in public, being sure to video record the whole thing.

But so far, not a peep from Dell, or any of the requested evidence from Signal. That doesn't make it look good.

...Just sayin....

 

[werleibr]

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.

Hey hung maybe you should read my entire post about the percentages. WE CAME UP WITH THE EXACT SAME ANSWER! You say 0.0007858% I said 0.00079% you round yours and you get mine.. OH MY goodness please save your insults. Want to see my post again I will quote it below.

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.

Here is my formula. This was a binomial experiment that consisted of n trials and results in x successes. If the probability of success on an individual trial is P, then the binomial probability is:
b(x; n, P) = nCx * Px * (1 - P)n - x

SO once again HUNG, Save you insults and actually read my post. Once you do you will see My answer is the same as your answer. You will also see I gave the probability that at the end of all 8 trials what were the odds of him finding the coin said number of times. So in my post he had a nearly 50% chance of going through all 8 trials and not finding the coin at all. So I ask you to retract you attempted insult at me. I have been so kind as to not use insults here for a good while, then you have to come in and post an insult when you don't even read the posting. This is just not acceptable.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~

I gave the probability that at the end of all 8 trials what were the odds of him finding the coin said number of times.

The probability is that Treasure Hunters who find and recover treasure with these LRL devices know that your odds are wrong..We do not deal in odds probability or random chance when in the field..We use research and hard work as our guide..We do testing to learn what our devices will do and how to use that information.
You keep begging for us to do some kind of testing for you skeptics..the reason we do not is real simple...We know we are finding treasure and see no reason why we should do a test that none of the skeptics or the Scientific community would except...a few of the owner/operators have put real tests on this board and not one skeptics will except their offers..Art

 

[EE THr]

~werleibr~

I gave the probability that at the end of all 8 trials what were the odds of him finding the coin said number of times.

The probability is that Treasure Hunters who find and recover treasure with these LRL devices know that your odds are wrong..We do not deal in odds probability or random chance when in the field..We use research and hard work as our guide..We do testing to learn what our devices will do and how to use that information.
You keep begging for us to do some kind of testing for you skeptics..the reason we do not is real simple...We know we are finding treasure and see no reason why we should do a test that none of the skeptics or the Scientific community would except...a few of the owner/operators have put real tests on this board and not one skeptics will except their offers..Art

Ah yes....The old "We know LRLs work, so we don't need to convince anybody" excuse.

Then you write all those posts, in which you are always trying to convince everybody that LRLs work.

As usual, your own self-contradiction proves you to be your own best debunker!

Congratulations, and keep up the good work, Art. You are preventing anyone from being scammed, because everyone can see your self-contradicting claims.






P.S. So far, your answer to the topic title question has been a resounding "no." You have posted zero verifiable information that LRLs work, and, in addition, have responded with more of your specialty: Insults instead of real proof.

 

[werleibr]

~werleibr~

I gave the probability that at the end of all 8 trials what were the odds of him finding the coin said number of times.

The probability is that Treasure Hunters who find and recover treasure with these LRL devices know that your odds are wrong..We do not deal in odds probability or random chance when in the field..We use research and hard work as our guide..We do testing to learn what our devices will do and how to use that information.
You keep begging for us to do some kind of testing for you skeptics..the reason we do not is real simple...We know we are finding treasure and see no reason why we should do a test that none of the skeptics or the Scientific community would except...a few of the owner/operators have put real tests on this board and not one skeptics will except their offers..Art

once again you failed to read the whole post. This probability was for a controlled experiment. Not the field.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~

once again you failed to read the whole post. This probability was for a controlled experiment. Not the field.

Darn..do you think that we do not know that?..Please tell us where these controlled experiments of LRL’s can be found?..Art

 

[werleibr]

~werleibr~

once again you failed to read the whole post. This probability was for a controlled experiment. Not the field.

Darn..do you think that we do not know that?..Please tell us where these controlled experiments of LRL’s can be found?..Art

Art I was using the information that signal line was giving.. Please read this entire thread to understand what is going on. So you want where these controlled experiments can be found. SO do we, that is why we keep asking for them. Signal line talks about them but does not have the full info. only hearsay.

 

[EE THr]

...So you want where these controlled experiments can be found. SO do we, that is why we keep asking for them. Signal line talks about them but does not have the full info. only hearsay.

And seeing as the topic title states "verifiable information," Signal failed miserably.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~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

Art I was using the information that signal line was giving.. Please read this entire thread to understand what is going on. So you want where these controlled experiments can be found. SO do we, that is why we keep asking for them. Signal line talks about them but does not have the full info. only hearsay.

~EE~

And seeing as the topic title states "verifiable information," Signal failed miserably.

When are you going to answer his post?...Art

 

[EddieR]

According to the link I posted, it does appear that a test did take place, as Carl speaks of the video of the test that Randi has in his possession . He even states that he probably gave the video to Randi.

But then it gets confusing....as Carl states he would like to view the rest of the test, if it was taped, and the results.

Perhaps there were two videos?

But at any rate, it appears that Randi had/has the video of the test, unless he sent it to Carl, as he asked. Perhaps Carl can chime in on this.

In re-reading the first paragraph of the email that Carl wrote (on the page you linked to), it seems that this is the kind of thing that is much easier to understand, for someone who knew what happened in the first place.

Here is the first paragraph from Carl's email---

"I see that you have pulled out the "Dell Systems VR800" I sent you a while back. The video you have of the test you did with Dell Winders probably came from me, as well. When I last asked, you did not recall the context of the video taping, but now you've possibly discovered that it was part of a documentary. If you can find out for certain, please let me know. In particular, I would like to view the remainder of the test, if it was taped, and would like to know the real results of the test. Dell has told me that he aborted the test after a few attempts because conditions had deteriorated, but insisted that he scored 6-of-8 times (not the 8-of-12 you reported) in a note from January 6, 1999...."

So it appears that Randi did do some kind of a test with Dell.

But it looks like Randi counted it as eight hits out of 12 tries, which would be only two out of three, rather than the three out of four that Dell allegedly claimed. (?)

If it was part of a documentary, it could have misleading editing, as has been found in other documentaries and reality shows, furthering the consfuion.

It appears that the documentary didn't include all of the test.

It also appears that the "real results" of the test have never been made public.

I would think that if Dell thought he could "beat the odds," that he would certainly have made a video tape himself, or would have been sure to have gotten one from the documentary producers somehow.

From time to time, someone will "beat the odds" at a casino, but that only means they got lucky. It doesn't mean they can do it on a reliable basis. The same thing with coin tossing---sometimes you can just randomly get lots of heads in a row, for instance. I guess that's why they call it "odds" or "chances," instead of "certainty." Obviously, if Dell or anyone else could get 6 out of 8 correct every time, they woudn't be shying away from properly administered random double-blind tests, they way they always have been.

At any rate, without some substantial evidence of the alleged test and it's results, it will remain as just talk....

I think that if Dell felt that the claimed test was significant, he would simply repeat the same test with unbaised administrators, in public, being sure to video record the whole thing.

But so far, not a peep from Dell, or any of the requested evidence from Signal. That doesn't make it look good.

...Just sayin....

Quite possible. However, it seems strange that Randi didn't post the results of the test as a failure. From what I have seen, he loves to "crow" when there is a failure.

Perhaps we can get Dell's and Carl's side of the story.

I don't know this for a fact, but there might be a clause in the rules of the test that any and all documentation belongs to Randi. And quite possibly only Randi's crew is allowed to video.

Maybe, maybe not...I don't know.

 

[Carl-NC]

Folks, there really was a meeting between Dell and Randi. I have the video. Supposedly there was a test. I can't say for sure, because the video shows a lot of preparatory stuff, then abruptly ends right where the testing begins. No one -- neither Dell nor Randi -- has ever come up with the remaining video. Nor can anyone say who filmed the event. Supposedly a local (Ft Lauderdale) TV crew.

Dell claims that he scored 6-of-8, then aborted the test.

Randi doesn't recall that Dell did anything but fail.

Neither one has any evidence to support their claim, so it's a tie. While this event happened in the early days of Randi's challenge (it was only $10,000) it is still sloppy for Randi not to have good records of the test. But it also makes no sense that Dell would have bailed if he was succeeding as well as he says.

My personal guess is this: Randi usually begins a challenge test with full-view (non-blind) warm-up trials in which the claimant typically scores 100%, so those results that don't count. I'm guessing Dell is counting those results. It's possible there were 6 warm-up trials which Dell easily aced, and after the first 2 double-blind trials resulted in failure, Dell bailed. He has denied this in the past, and I have no evidence, so it remains speculation. But it fits Occam's Razor.

- Carl

P.S. -- Anyone wanna make an easy $100? That's what I'll pay for the remaining video.

 

[EddieR]

Folks, there really was a meeting between Dell and Randi. I have the video. Supposedly there was a test. I can't say for sure, because the video shows a lot of preparatory stuff, then abruptly ends right where the testing begins. No one -- neither Dell nor Randi -- has ever come up with the remaining video. Nor can anyone say who filmed the event. Supposedly a local (Ft Lauderdale) TV crew.

Dell claims that he scored 6-of-8, then aborted the test.

Randi doesn't recall that Dell did anything but fail.

Neither one has any evidence to support their claim, so it's a tie. While this event happened in the early days of Randi's challenge (it was only $10,000) it is still sloppy for Randi not to have good records of the test. But it also makes no sense that Dell would have bailed if he was succeeding as well as he says.

My personal guess is this: Randi usually begins a challenge test with full-view (non-blind) warm-up trials in which the claimant typically scores 100%, so those results that don't count. I'm guessing Dell is counting those results. It's possible there were 6 warm-up trials which Dell easily aced, and after the first 2 double-blind trials resulted in failure, Dell bailed. He has denied this in the past, and I have no evidence, so it remains speculation. But it fits Occam's Razor.

- Carl

P.S. -- Anyone wanna make an easy $100? That's what I'll pay for the remaining video.

Pretty much a dead end till the video surfaces, other than speculation, as you said.

At least we have established that a video/test does/did exist.

Thanks Carl!



P.S. To be fair, I would still like to hear Dell's side of the story.

 

[Carl-NC]

P.S. To be fair, I would still like to hear Dell's side of the story.

Dell's side of the story is simple: he scored "6 out of 8." In court, this could likely meet "the truth" criterion, but probably not "the whole truth" nor "nothing but the truth." Same as the video.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

And seeing as the topic title states "verifiable information," Signal failed miserably.

When are you going to answer his post?...Art

I did, Art, right here---

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?

Since it's impossible to confirm the hit count, it's impossible to answer about it.


Learn to keep up, will you?

 

[hung]

SO once again HUNG, Save you insults and actually read my post. Once you do you will see My answer is the same as your answer. You will also see I gave the probability that at the end of all 8 trials what were the odds of him finding the coin said number of times. So in my post he had a nearly 50% chance of going through all 8 trials and not finding the coin at all. So I ask you to retract you attempted insult at me. I have been so kind as to not use insults here for a good while, then you have to come in and post an insult when you don't even read the posting. This is just not acceptable.

Point me any insult to you by me.
I don't see any.
I only proved that signal_line was correct when he stated that at random, Dell could only find the coin once.
Nevertheless, you told signal_line this:

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

This was an insult to him.

 

[EE THr]

Well, it's been four days since the Original Post on this thread, and so far no verifiable information that LRLs actually work. But plenty of insults from the LRL promoters.

I'd say they lost resoundingly!

It is what it is.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE!

Well, it's been four days since the Original Post on this thread, and so far no verifiable information that LRLs actually work. But plenty of insults from the LRL promoters.
I'd say they lost resoundingly!
It is what it is.

Yes it is..Please read and comprehend the posts...Art