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

[EE THr]

~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

This topic was created for you to post verifiable information that LRLs worked.

Your home movies are, besides being obviously counter-Scientific, not verifiable even if they had been made better and looked even close to real.

So far all you have posted in this topic is more of your famous gobbledegook. I suggest you quit trying to fill up this thread with nonsense, and post your verifiable information if you have any.

If you don't understand what "verifiable information" is, then let someone else post theirs, instead.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

This topic was created for you to post verifiable information that LRLs worked.

WE have

Your home movies are, besides being obviously counter-Scientific,

http://itools.subhashbose.com/wordfind/details/counterscientific

not verifiable even if they had been made better and looked even close to real.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/verifiable
verifiable - capable of being verified; "a verifiable account of the incident"
nonsubjective, objective - undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"
verifiable - capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation
confirmable, falsifiable
empirical, empiric - derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known"
Your welcome to make your own movie

So far all you have posted in this topic is more of your famous gobbledegook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobbledygook
Gobbledygook or gobbledegook (sometimes gobbledegoo) is any text containing jargon or especially convoluted English that results in it being excessively hard to understand or even incomprehensible. "Bureaucratese" is one form of gobbledygook. There are two distinct and opposite cases. One is that incomprehensible material is actual gibberish. In the other some abtruse material is either ineptly presented or is subjectively perceived to be gibberish due to a lack of preparation. The SMOG statistic for gobbledygook for example yields an index in terms of years of required education.

I suggest you quit trying to fill up this thread with nonsense, and post your verifiable information if you have any.

I have now it is your turn.

If you don't understand what "verifiable information" is, then let someone else post theirs, instead.

Yes..Please post some...art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

This topic was created for you to post verifiable information that LRLs worked.

WE have

Your home movies are, besides being obviously counter-Scientific,

http://itools.subhashbose.com/wordfind/details/counterscientific

not verifiable even if they had been made better and looked even close to real.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/verifiable
verifiable - capable of being verified; "a verifiable account of the incident"
nonsubjective, objective - undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"
verifiable - capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation
confirmable, falsifiable
empirical, empiric - derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known"
Your welcome to make your own movie

So far all you have posted in this topic is more of your famous gobbledegook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobbledygook
Gobbledygook or gobbledegook (sometimes gobbledegoo) is any text containing jargon or especially convoluted English that results in it being excessively hard to understand or even incomprehensible. "Bureaucratese" is one form of gobbledygook. There are two distinct and opposite cases. One is that incomprehensible material is actual gibberish. In the other some abtruse material is either ineptly presented or is subjectively perceived to be gibberish due to a lack of preparation. The SMOG statistic for gobbledygook for example yields an index in terms of years of required education.

I suggest you quit trying to fill up this thread with nonsense, and post your verifiable information if you have any.

I have now it is your turn.

If you don't understand what "verifiable information" is, then let someone else post theirs, instead.

Yes..Please post some...art

Thanks for confirming that what I said about your mumbo-jumbo is true.

You are still your own best debunker.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Thanks for confirming that what I said about your mumbo-jumbo is true.

Thank you for confirming and Verifying my Information..Why else would the skeptics be so upset that they keep posting insult after insult..

You are still your own best debunker.

Do you think anyone is going to believe that I am a debunker?...After all they know that I am not skeptical about LRL’s..Art

 

[woof!]

Do you think anyone is going to believe that I am a debunker?...After all they know that I am not skeptical about LRL’s..Art

Art, that's precisely what makes you such a good debunker of LRL's. But these days Signal is getting 'way ahead of you.

--Toto

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Franklin~

In years past I have been on both sides of this LRL controversy. I enjoyed reading the story about Dell Winders and James Randi. That is something new to me. However, from everything I have ever read not a single person has taken James Randi's Test. Isn't there a preliminary test you have to pass before you can get to the test for the Million Dollars? Did Dell not pass the preliminary test or the actual test? Just a question no remarks.

You are correct...In over 20 years no one has taken the million dollar test..1,000 of people have applied for the test..

Randi agreed he might have to pay up someday. But Dawkins had a trick up his sleeve. If a “psychic” phenomenon turns out to be real, then by definition it is physical and therefore not really psychic after all, and thus Randi still shouldn’t have to pay.

 

[EE THr]

...Dawkins had a trick up his sleeve. If a “psychic” phenomenon turns out to be real, then by definition it is physical and therefore not really psychic after all, and thus Randi still shouldn’t have to pay.

Please post your source of that information (if there actually is one).

 

[signal_line]

In years past I have been on both sides of this LRL controversy. I enjoyed reading the story about Dell Winders and James Randi. That is something new to me. However, from everything I have ever read not a single person has taken James Randi's Test. Isn't there a preliminary test you have to pass before you can get to the test for the Million Dollars? Did Dell not pass the preliminary test or the actual test? Just a question no remarks.

I think this was before the million dollar hoax. Dell said he knew of no prize money, thought he was just giving a demo to the skeptic group. There was originally a $25k prize so the rules might have been different back then.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE!~

Please post your source of that information (if there actually is one).

Here you go EE..go find the reports from this meeting..I have the report so I know you can find it



The Amazing 3 Meeting - Las Vegas, January 13-16, 2005

 

[EE THr]

~EE!~

Please post your source of that information (if there actually is one).

Here you go EE..go find the reports from this meeting..I have the report so I know you can find it



The Amazing 3 Meeting - Las Vegas, January 13-16, 2005

You don't want to quote all that pertains to your little out-of-context garbage, because the very next sentence in that article totally negates what you are trying to infer.

It's obvious that misleading people is your game.

And you continue to be your own best debunker.

 

[EE THr]

In years past I have been on both sides of this LRL controversy. I enjoyed reading the story about Dell Winders and James Randi. That is something new to me. However, from everything I have ever read not a single person has taken James Randi's Test. Isn't there a preliminary test you have to pass before you can get to the test for the Million Dollars? Did Dell not pass the preliminary test or the actual test? Just a question no remarks.

I think this was before the million dollar hoax. Dell said he knew of no prize money, thought he was just giving a demo to the skeptic group. There was originally a $25k prize so the rules might have been different back then.

Let's see what we really have here....

We have a guy selling LRLs, who won't even put in print, a claim that his junk will detect gold, or anything else. And this same guy claims he "beat the odds," one time---yet it's reported that if it happened at all, it was probably during a routine practice session, where the target was visable.

There is no other person in the World, who is verifying his claimed results there. And there is no properly documented record, and no video of the test itself.

Is this correct?

So far, this appears to be just one more typical LRL stunt---another fantastic success story, with absolutely nothing to back it up. Accompanied on the thread by misleading statements by others.

And totally skipping the very obvious, which is that, if anyone could Scientifically prove to the World that LRLs actually worked, they certainly would have by now! And this conclusion is supported by the total silliness of the numerous excuses with which various LRL promoters attempt to refute it.

 

[EddieR]

In years past I have been on both sides of this LRL controversy. I enjoyed reading the story about Dell Winders and James Randi. That is something new to me. However, from everything I have ever read not a single person has taken James Randi's Test. Isn't there a preliminary test you have to pass before you can get to the test for the Million Dollars? Did Dell not pass the preliminary test or the actual test? Just a question no remarks.

I think this was before the million dollar hoax. Dell said he knew of no prize money, thought he was just giving a demo to the skeptic group. There was originally a $25k prize so the rules might have been different back then.

Let's see what we really have here....

We have a guy selling LRLs, who won't even put in print, a claim that his junk will detect gold, or anything else. And this same guy claims he "beat the odds," one time---yet it's reported that if it happened at all, it was probably during a routine practice session, where the target was visable.

There is no other person in the World, who is verifying his claimed results there. And there is no properly documented record, and no video of the test itself.

Is this correct?

So far, this appears to be just one more typical LRL stunt---another fantastic success story, with absolutely nothing to back it up. Accompanied on the thread by misleading statements by others.

And totally skipping the very obvious, which is that, if anyone could Scientifically prove to the World that LRLs actually worked, they certainly would have by now! And this conclusion is supported by the total silliness of the numerous excuses with which various LRL promoters attempt to refute it.

I think you are mistaken on a couple of points, EE. There IS a video, as evidenced by Carl asking Randi to produce it. However, Randi evidently hasn't produced it, as nobody has it. That fact alone has really got my curiosity on alert....if the test was a failure, why not produce the evidence of such? But....if it showed evidence of a scenario other than what Randi wanted,....then perhaps the video will never be found. If there is a video leading up to the test, then there must be a video OF the test. Why would they stop the camera at the most crucial part of the experiment?

Also, I thought Dell, found coins in holes? They would not be visible targets as such.

I'm not taking sides on this, I'm just commenting on the facts as we know them at this point.

 

[EE THr]

I think you are mistaken on a couple of points, EE. There IS a video, as evidenced by Carl asking Randi to produce it. However, Randi evidently hasn't produced it, as nobody has it. That fact alone has really got my curiosity on alert....if the test was a failure, why not produce the evidence of such? But....if it showed evidence of a scenario other than what Randi wanted,....then perhaps the video will never be found. If there is a video leading up to the test, then there must be a video OF the test. Why would they stop the camera at the most crucial part of the experiment?

Also, I thought Dell, found coins in holes? They would not be visible targets as such.

I'm not taking sides on this, I'm just commenting on the facts as we know them at this point.

No, I might be wrong, but I'm not mistaken (I don't think). So far we know that there is a video. But there is no evidence that there is a video of any actual test. In fact, there is no evidence that there even was an actual test.

I got the same idea that you did, that if the test was bad for Randi, that he might have, um...conveniently misplaced it?

But there is another possible scenerio. What if it went like the possibility which Carl mentioned? What if they set up the field for a test, and videotaped people setting it up, then stopped the taping while Dell did his "practice run," with the target visable, for six tries (and obvious successes)? This practice run business seems to be a valid concept, to allow the LRL operator to be sure there is no "interference" in the area, and generally that the setup is acceptable.

Then, they start the real test, taping it, and Dell quit after failing the first two times. They then call it a wash, and throw the incomplete tape away, because it had become useless since Dell neither succeeded nor failed---essentially, the (12-hole) test didn't happen, so there was nothing to show.

Then someone says that Dell "located" the target six times out of eight. Well, yes and no. See what I mean? Randi didn't need to keep the tape, because there was no real test on it, with only two failed tries instead of a 12-hole test, as planned.

I didn't notice any mention of the depth of the holes, but from the description of the "practice run" thing, I would say that either the holes were shallow enough to see the coin from a small distance, or you could just walk over and see it, and know where it was before doing the practice run.

That's how it could make sense.

What doesn't make sense is that if Dell had succeeded, why hasn't he ever done it again? Anywhere?

 

[EddieR]

I think you are mistaken on a couple of points, EE. There IS a video, as evidenced by Carl asking Randi to produce it. However, Randi evidently hasn't produced it, as nobody has it. That fact alone has really got my curiosity on alert....if the test was a failure, why not produce the evidence of such? But....if it showed evidence of a scenario other than what Randi wanted,....then perhaps the video will never be found. If there is a video leading up to the test, then there must be a video OF the test. Why would they stop the camera at the most crucial part of the experiment?

Also, I thought Dell, found coins in holes? They would not be visible targets as such.

I'm not taking sides on this, I'm just commenting on the facts as we know them at this point.

No, I might be wrong, but I'm not mistaken (I don't think). So far we know that there is a video. But there is no evidence that there is a video of any actual test. In fact, there is no evidence that there even was an actual test.

I got the same idea that you did, that if the test was bad for Randi, that he might have, um...conveniently misplaced it?

But there is another possible scenerio. What if it went like the possibility which Carl mentioned? What if they set up the field for a test, and videotaped people setting it up, then stopped the taping while Dell did his "practice run," with the target visable, for six tries (and obvious successes)? This practice run business seems to be a valid concept, to allow the LRL operator to be sure there is no "interference" in the area, and generally that the setup is acceptable.

Then, they start the real test, taping it, and Dell quit after failing the first two times. They then call it a wash, and throw the incomplete tape away, because it had become useless since Dell neither succeeded nor failed---essentially, the (12-hole) test didn't happen, so there was nothing to show.

Then someone says that Dell "located" the target six times out of eight. Well, yes and no. See what I mean? Randi didn't need to keep the tape, because there was no real test on it, with only two failed tries instead of a 12-hole test, as planned.

I didn't notice any mention of the depth of the holes, but from the description of the "practice run" thing, I would say that either the holes were shallow enough to see the coin from a small distance, or you could just walk over and see it, and know where it was before doing the practice run.

That's how it could make sense.

What doesn't make sense is that if Dell had succeeded, why hasn't he ever done it again? Anywhere?

That scenario is definitely a possibility.

But i just can't see Randi "missing his chance" to film his opponent possibly failing miserably, practice run or actual test. Plus, you would think that as high profile as Randi is/was, he would tape the whole thing just so nobody could later say "I did it but they stopped filming right before". I know I would tape the entire thing as "insurance".

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

You don't want to quote all that pertains to your little out-of-context garbage, because the very next sentence in that article totally negates what you are trying to infer.

Are you sure about that?

Dawkins’ sleight-of-hand notwithstanding, according to the rules of Randi’s competition, if a psychic ability is proven, he must pay up.
~ Dawkins’

Randi agreed he might have to pay up someday. But Dawkins had a trick up his sleeve. If a “psychic” phenomenon turns out to be real, then by definition it is physical and therefore not really psychic after all, and thus Randi still shouldn’t have to pay.

Randi stated to me that a preliminary test would have to yield a probability of one in a thousand that the results were due to chance. After passing the preliminary, the investigator could commence with the formal test, which would have to yield a probability against chance of one in a million. As Dr. Radin notes, a meta-analysis of all ganzfeld telepathy experiments up to 1997 revealed a probability of a million billion to one. So if Randi is true to his word, it ought to be possible to perform an experiment that would garner the prize. Of course, it would take a huge number of sessions to demonstrate such a high level of improbability. In the end, the million dollars might do nothing more than pay for the experiment. But it would be worth it for no other reason than to put an end to allegations that the unclaimed prize is itself evidence against psychic phenomena.
It's obvious that misleading people is your game.
Yes it is clear that is what you are all about..

And you continue to be your own best debunker

.
Is this just another way for skeptics to feel good?...art

 

[signal_line]

Everyone seems to forget the "catch-all" phrase that states the final decision to pay is up to their panel of judges. In other words they do not have to pay for ANY reason whatsoever. That's the rules. And how is anyone going to ever be able to prove ANYTHING is supernatural? Never going to happen. JASH--Just Another Skeptic Hoax. Reminds me of the garbage on this forum, SSDD.

 

[signal_line]

Not only do the skeptics require unattainable proof, but once it is not delivered they claim they have the right to label the person a fraud. They demand the proof but they don't have to offer any. Not any different on this forum. SSDD If it's skeptic, it's a hoax.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~signal_line~

Not only do the skeptics require unattainable proof, but once it is not delivered they claim they have the right to label the person a fraud. They demand the proof but they don't have to offer any. Not any different on this forum.

SSDD If it's skeptic, it's a hoax.

That is 100% correct..Art

 

[EE THr]

That scenario is definitely a possibility.

But i just can't see Randi "missing his chance" to film his opponent possibly failing miserably, practice run or actual test. Plus, you would think that as high profile as Randi is/was, he would tape the whole thing just so nobody could later say "I did it but they stopped filming right before". I know I would tape the entire thing as "insurance".

That is my thinking also.

But there is an indication that the filming was done by a local TV station. Maybe they figured that if the entire test wasn't completed, there is "no story," and as such it wasn't suitable for a show. It might be that either the station still has it, or they just threw it out, as unusable footage.

There is also speculation that this was an informal demonstration, and not an attempt at the prize. This might even have been before the prize was established, I don't know much about Randi or the history of the prize, other than I finally read the JREF rules on their site, a few months ago.

It might even have been set up by the TV station, as their own filming of a demonstration, so it was not any kind of official test. And they would own any footage they made. It could also be that someone else filmed the setting up of the course, and that's why that video remains.

 

[EddieR]

That scenario is definitely a possibility.

But i just can't see Randi "missing his chance" to film his opponent possibly failing miserably, practice run or actual test. Plus, you would think that as high profile as Randi is/was, he would tape the whole thing just so nobody could later say "I did it but they stopped filming right before". I know I would tape the entire thing as "insurance".

That is my thinking also.

But there is an indication that the filming was done by a local TV station. Maybe they figured that if the entire test wasn't completed, there is "no story," and as such it wasn't suitable for a show. It might be that either the station still has it, or they just threw it out, as unusable footage.

There is also speculation that this was an informal demonstration, and not an attempt at the prize. This might even have been before the prize was established, I don't know much about Randi or the history of the prize, other than I finally read the JREF rules on their site, a few months ago.

It might even have been set up by the TV station, as their own filming of a demonstration, so it was not any kind of official test. And they would own any footage they made. It could also be that someone else filmed the setting up of the course, and that's why that video remains.

Yep, on all the above. Maybe it will surface someday....until then,......we can only and