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

[EE THr]

~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

Which post are you trying to say, provided verifiable information that LRLs actually work?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Which post are you trying to say, provided verifiable information that LRLs actually work?

I would guess that you need to ask your lord and master for a copy of the movie...art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Which post are you trying to say, provided verifiable information that LRLs actually work?

I would guess that you need to ask your lord and master for a copy of the movie...art

Wow, you don't usually try to use religion as a diversion. You must be getting desperate!

 

[signal_line]

You have to ask yourself what are the motives of someone who comes here and uses what I call 'dirty lawyer tactics' to try to pry infomation from LRL users. Like I said, when someone has the BELIEF SYSTEM that LRL's can't possibly work, no amount of proof is sufficient. So why do they ask for proof?

In case you don't understand, the dirty lawyer will bombard the accused with a dozen or so frivolous accusations in an attempt to overwhelm and hopefully trip them up somewhere on one slight detail. "See, he is lying." And the dumbed-down jury just might agree if their biases are in line with it.

I am speculating here, but it is possible this guy is preparing for some court case. Sending up his "trial balloons" to see what kind of response he gets and if it will be good enough to use in court. One thing is for certain, he is not here to learn how to use an LRL or to be "convinced" that they work. Funny thing is only a couple people here use LRL's and they aren't giving ANYTHING to an abusive hard-core skeptic. It's mostly dowsers here.

 

[werleibr]

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.

Below is the insult. I bolded and made it read for you so you can see it from your whole thread.

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.

Your numbers did not prove that signal_line was correct when he stated that at random, Dell could only find the coin once. If you would actually do the numbers you will see that Dell would have a greater probabilty to never find the coin (49.85%) compaired to finding the coin only once (36.26%) for 8 trials. This is what was being discussed as actually happening.

When signal line stated,

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

, He was correct that the probabilty for actually compleating the 12 trials, the probabilty would go up slightly from the 8 of finding the coin once (38.40%), while the probabiltiy of never finding a coin would drop significantly (35.20%), and finding the coin twice would be 19.2%.

His statment

That is nine times better than random chance.

was a misstatement when he was refering to finding the coin 6 out of 8 Trials. It is far larger. Signal line goes changes what he is talking about in each sentence.


But I will now state this, with the one sentence of "One in twelve performed twelve times means the odds are Dell should only have found the gold coin one time" was correct, but he was wrong associating the same odds for only 8 trials.

 

[signal_line]

The whole skeptic agenda is one of destruction. I don't know if any of you read on another forum I tried to trade an LRL to Carl. He declined then attacked me for all sorts of unrelated issues (the big distraction--watch what the other hand is doing). I was threatened by the moderators because I said he was whining. Then I refused to argue with him and was threatened again. He says he has 40 LRL's from "anonomous" donators. That smells a bit fishy to me. Yes, I am a big skeptic, too. I am skeptical where these came from. Do you suppose these are part of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are anonomously donated to the skeptics EACH YEAR? Do you suppose a skeptic purchased them then "donated" them (with a tax-write-off, of course) in an attempt to discredit the manufacturer? What I am left to believe is that someone did not want me to get the LRL. Wonder why?

 

[EE THr]

You have to ask yourself what are the motives of someone who comes here and uses what I call 'dirty lawyer tactics' to try to pry infomation from LRL users. Like I said, when someone has the BELIEF SYSTEM that LRL's can't possibly work, no amount of proof is sufficient. So why do they ask for proof?

In case you don't understand, the dirty lawyer will bombard the accused with a dozen or so frivolous accusations in an attempt to overwhelm and hopefully trip them up somewhere on one slight detail. "See, he is lying." And the dumbed-down jury just might agree if their biases are in line with it.

I am speculating here, but it is possible this guy is preparing for some court case. Sending up his "trial balloons" to see what kind of response he gets and if it will be good enough to use in court. One thing is for certain, he is not here to learn how to use an LRL or to be "convinced" that they work. Funny thing is only a couple people here use LRL's and they aren't giving ANYTHING to an abusive hard-core skeptic. It's mostly dowsers here.

I think it more likely that anyone would have to ask themselves why, since it has been proven both Scientifically, and Logically, that LRLs don't work, people would come on here and try to convince folks that they do?

You have never addressed either of these two proofs, but only tried to fumble around with lame non-related mumbo-jumbo, and insults to those who post verifiable proof that LRLs and MFDs are fraudulent.

Not only are you attempting to position those, who have knowledge of electronics and Reality, as lawyers, but you further insult them by continuing the LRL promoters Straw Man illusion, by referring to them as "skeptics." We are not skeptical about LRLs and MFDs. We simply recognize that they don't work, by our knowledge and observance of the above two proofs. Some have even given the con artists the benefit of the doubt, and tested the actual devices---and found them to be fake, and not able to "locate" anything, at any range.

And now, with only 27 posts on this entire forum, you are trying to tell everyone what's been going on here, and your "in depth" knowledge of all the players? Or are you another one of those LRL makers who changes his username more often than he changes his underwear?

All of your inferred points of contention are irrelevant to the fact that LRLs and MFDs just don't work.

If you, or anyone, can provide verifiable evidence that an LRL or MFD has been proven to work, in a random double-blind test, with an unbiased administrator, I will apologize right here on this board.

Until then, all I see from you is insults and un-verifiable information---so you can't even stay on the topic of the thread!

And the score is still---No verifiable information that shows LRLs work....

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Wow, you don't usually try to use religion as a diversion. You must be getting desperate!

Why do you say I am desperate?...You Cult leader has the proof that you keep begging for..He is just using you so he can make more money..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Wow, you don't usually try to use religion as a diversion. You must be getting desperate!

Why do you say I am desperate?...You Cult leader has the proof that you keep begging for..He is just using you so he can make more money..Art

Wow! Now I know you are desperate!

And you are waaaaay off topic. In fact, all of your posts in this thread are. You failed the test, Art---you shouldn't make it even worse by pretending that you don't know it....

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Wow! Now I know you are desperate!

Why do you claim that I am desperate?..I own a LRL and despite all your false claims I just keep on locating and recovering treasure...It seems to me that the treasure hunters are ahead of the game..

And you are waaaaay off topic. In fact, all of your posts in this thread are.

Wow...I just follow where you lead me...

You failed the test, Art

Which test would that be?

---you shouldn't make it even worse by pretending that you don't know it....

What am I pretending that I don’t know?

More questions for you to duck and dodge..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Wow! Now I know you are desperate!

Why do you claim that I am desperate?..I own a LRL and despite all your false claims I just keep on locating and recovering treasure...It seems to me that the treasure hunters are ahead of the game..

And you are waaaaay off topic. In fact, all of your posts in this thread are.

Wow...I just follow where you lead me...

You failed the test, Art

Which test would that be?

---you shouldn't make it even worse by pretending that you don't know it....

What am I pretending that I don’t know?

More questions for you to duck and dodge..Art

Well, Art, now you are at it again---going in circles, that is.

Boy...I thought I may have been in trouble for leading you around for the past few months

Leading people around in circles only proves that you can't back up your own claims with proper proof.

You have also stated many times that you do not intend to try and provide any proper proof. The only reason a person would take that stance, is if he knew all along that he can't.

You continually take that stance---so you can't.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Well, Art, now you are at it again---going in circles, that is.

~Art~

Why do you claim that I am desperate?..

So I am desperate because you claim I am going in circles.

Leading people around in circles only proves that you can't back up your own claims with proper proof.

~Art~

Wow...I just follow where you lead me..

.
I agree that you can not prove any of Your claims but you claim to be the leader.

You have also stated many times that you do not intend to try and provide any proper proof. The only reason a person would take that stance, is if he knew all along that he can't.

~Art~

Which test would that be?

Still does no answer the question.

You continually take that stance---so you can't.

~Art~

What am I pretending that I don’t know?

So what can’t I do ?
~Art~

More questions for you to duck and dodge..Art

 

[EE THr]

Wow...I just follow where you lead me..

...but you claim to be the leader.

You are the one that said it, Art, right here---

Boy...I thought I may have been in trouble for leading you around for the past few months

ref: Test.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

You are the one that said it, Art, right here---

~Art~
Quote from: aarthrj3811 on Jul 25, 2011, 07:37:44 pm

Boy...I thought I may have been in trouble for leading you around for the past few months

Yes I said that on July 25,2011..
~EE~

ref: Test.

Yes I hope everyone reads that...It will show them a test that would not be excepted by the Scientific Community...Art
the question was..So what can’t I do ?

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

You are the one that said it, Art, right here---

~Art~
Quote from: aarthrj3811 on Jul 25, 2011, 07:37:44 pm

Boy...I thought I may have been in trouble for leading you around for the past few months

Yes I said that on July 25,2011..
~EE~

ref: Test.

Yes I hope everyone reads that...It will show them a test that would not be excepted by the Scientific Community...Art
the question was..So what can’t I do ?

For one thing, you have never been able to spell "accepted," even after being told how a few times....





But, to really answer your question, you can't stop yourself from going in circles. You have made your above statement about Scientific tests over and over, and you have always been proven wrong. Then later, you just go back to the very same illogical statement. That is entirely your little problem---everyone else know what a random double-blind test is, and if they don't, they can easily look it up in Wikipedia or something.

You, on the other hand keep insisting that LRLs should be tested like drugs and food, on a group of people. What do you intend to do, shred an LRL and feed it to them?---and see if they puke or not? Your whole complaint against Scientific testing is just another cheap diversion. But if you want to tell the whole World that you are that type of person, then go ahead and continue with your nonsense (which you probably will, continuing to be your own best debunker).

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

For one thing, you have never been able to spell "accepted," even after being told how a few times....

But, to really answer your question, you can't stop yourself from going in circles. You have made your above statement about Scientific tests over and over, and you have always been proven wrong.

Where and by who?

Then later, you just go back to the very same illogical statement. That is entirely your little problem---

Not my problem

everyone else know what a random double-blind test is, and if they don't, they can easily look it up in Wikipedia or something.

Yes they can and it was posted on here many times

You, on the other hand keep insisting that LRLs should be tested like drugs and food, on a group of people.

Gee EE...that is correct and what the definitions say groups

What do you intend to do, shred an LRL and feed it to them?---and see if they puke or not?

Why tear up a perfectly good treasure hunting device..We will let the skeptic do that.

Your whole complaint against Scientific testing is just another cheap diversion.

No..It is a part of the skeptic agenda as been for most of the last 40 years

But if you want to tell the whole World that you are that type of person, then go ahead and continue with your nonsense (which you probably will, continuing to be your own best debunker).

Think you ..I will continue to teach you the real facts..
My movies can be found at http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,305970.0.html and
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=aarthrj3811..
They have been viewed by 1000’s of people and the only complains come from a few Skeptic Debunkers..Art

 

[EE THr]

Another day, and still no verifiable information from the LRL promoters.

Just irrelevant chatter, as an attempted substitute.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Another day, and still no verifiable information from the LRL promoters.
Just irrelevant chatter, as an attempted substitute.

Thank you for your irrelevant chatter.
~Art~
Think you ..I will continue to teach you the real facts..
My movies can be found at http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,305970.0.html and
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear..._type=&search_query=aarthrj3811..
They have been viewed by 1000’s of people and the only complains come from a few Skeptic Debunkers..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Another day, and still no verifiable information from the LRL promoters.
Just irrelevant chatter, as an attempted substitute.

Thank you for your irrelevant chatter.
~Art~
Think you ..I will continue to teach you the real facts..
My movies can be found at http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,305970.0.html and
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear..._type=&search_query=aarthrj3811..
They have been viewed by 1000’s of people and the only complains come from a few Skeptic Debunkers..Art

I can't decide which one I like better---the one with the Cherokee, where your "Long Range" Locator fails to locate either of the two coins on the first pass, at only three feet---even though you already knew where the coins were! Or the one with the dowsing rods where you step on the totally visable silver dollar. I guess it doesn't matter, because in both videos it can be seen that you are tilting your hands to get the pointers to move....

Good ol' Art. Never fails to amaze!

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

I can't decide which one I like better---the one with the Cherokee, where your "Long Range" Locator fails to locate either of the two coins on the first pass, at only three feet---even though you already knew where the coins were! Or the one with the dowsing rods where you step on the totally visable silver dollar. I guess it doesn't matter, because in both videos it can be seen that you are tilting your hands to get the pointers to move....

I would guess that this is another batch of excuses. Sorry that your eyeballs failed you again..I guess that your lack of knowledge of how things work and your lack of experience as a treasure hunter fails you..

Good ol' Art. Never fails to amaze!

I know it is amazing to find that your options’ are wrong...Art