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

[EE THr]

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

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[woof!]

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.

Signal, the hoax is in the box. Surely you've seen the photographs! And in almost every case, the manufacturer's advertising is consistent with what's in the box. In its own peculiar way, it's "truth in advertising".

Every one of your own posts is a kind of advertisement. Anyone who can't "read the advertisement" should buy one of your units, or a more expensive one if they can afford it-- with their own money, of course. Thus does the Universe (substitute the G-word if you prefer) execute its/his justice. I openly tell people to buy the hoax if they want it-- that's how good I am for business, so stop complaining!

Art has said that a well constructed swivelly thingy is better for dowsing than a bent coat hanger, and I agree with him on that. There are a number of such available commercially for less than $100. If a person needs to deny that they're dowsing, well, that obsession with denial is what makes the LRL proponents on this forum so much more incoherent than the dowsers on the dowsing forum. It gets funnier: Art, who posts in both forums, is usually coherent on the dowsing forum. Yet on this forum he spams even his own threads with vast incoherent posts, doesn't even know what his own story is much less can he tell the same story twice, and gets caught in outright fabrications (that being a polite word). This is what LRL's do to poor Art, it's in plain view for the whole world to see.

To put it in plainer English, on the dowsing forum Art's posts wouldn't lead anyone to believe that the guy is suffering dementia. Which is good, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But to read his posts in this forum, one is constantly left to wonder if the poor guy is halfway to the grave with Alzheimer's. That difference exists for a reason, and that reason is the brain-scrambling that is part and parcel to what LRL's really are and why they exist in the first place.

A decade ago I watched the same thing happen to Vincent. The more he moved from dowsing into LRL's, the more he became all smoke and mirrors.

Anyone who wants that done to themselves, PM the LRL vendors who advertise here, and offer to pay the price. You, too, could be mistaken for an Alzheimer's victim.

--Toto

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Woof~

Art has said that a well constructed swivelly thingy is better for dowsing than a bent coat hanger, and I agree with him on that. There are a number of such available commercially for less than $100. If a person needs to deny that they're dowsing, well, that obsession with denial is what makes the LRL proponents on this forum so much more incoherent than the dowsers on the dowsing forum. It gets funnier: Art, who posts in both forums, is usually coherent on the dowsing forum. Yet on this forum he spams even his own threads with vast incoherent posts, doesn't even know what his own story is much less can he tell the same story twice, and gets caught in outright fabrications (that being a polite word). This is what LRL's do to poor Art, it's in plain view for the whole world to see.

Sorry that you do not comprehend the posts any better than EE...

I

would guess as a electronic buff you have not tested electronic device without rods and the coat hangers used by Dowsers...You should know that coat hanger dowsing rod are poor but work.. Some of the electronic device without rods will allow you to do much more..Like set the depth and distance of your search..Most will tell you the weight of the target...Some will tell you if the target is a coin, bar or a ring...Much more information than a set of dowsing rod will tell you... ART

 

[woof!]

I

would guess as a electronic buff you have not tested electronic device without rods and the coat hangers used by Dowsers...You should know that coat hanger dowsing rod are poor but work.. Some of the electronic device without rods will allow you to do much more..Like set the depth and distance of your search..Most will tell you the weight of the target...Some will tell you if the target is a coin, bar or a ring...Much more information than a set of dowsing rod will tell you... ART

Art, you subsequently denied knowing of any such apparatus. That's what screwing around with LRL's does to your brain.

--Toto

 

[woof!]

Long distance locators that actually do that, aren't referred to as "LRL's". They have specific designations that allow an interested person to identify their operating principle.

I personally own two long distance locators that aren't LRL's.

They can identify iron oxides, and even their valence state, by molecular frequency discrimination.

They can determine the distance of the object with rather considerable accuracy.

They can determine its direction with rather considerable accuracy.

They can provide a crude estimate of its mass.

* * * * * * *

The object is the planet Mars, the apparatus is eyeballs augmented by refraction error correction lenses, the distance determination is a matter of observing orbital period and applying the principle of equal time for equal area, and the crude estimate of its mass is based on reasonable assumptions regarding albedo together with knowledge of distance and comparison of brightness with stars of fixed magnitude.

Sorry, I can't sell you my eyeballs, but there are optometrists to sell you glasses. Heck, there are even telescopes if you're interested.

There is stuff that works and is not fraudulent. The label "LRL" is reserved for the bogus stuff. It doesn't even apply to dowsing rods of the sort that everyone can agree is a dowsing rod, regardless of their opinion of how useful dowsing is or is not. For good reason dowsing and LRL's have separate forums here, and because nearly everyone knows the difference, forum denizens are fairly good about knowing which forum to post in.

--Toto

 

[Carl-NC]

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... What I am left to believe is that someone did not want me to get the LRL. Wonder why?

Ya know, Mike, I told you on that other forum exactly what Toto has just told you on this forum... if you want a lesson in advertising, then purchase the lesson! Call up Fitz and pay full MSRP! And when you want a better lesson than that, call up Chuckie and get his religion! And this advice is an attack? Of course I want you to get the LRL... in fact, I want you buy lots of LRLs. Cause you deserve them.

I will disagree with Toto on one point... don't worry about whether you spend the family grocery money. The lesson will be far more poignant when the wife delivers a dope-slap, or you find your clothes in a pile on the sidewalk.

 

[woof!]

Y'know, Carl, you have a point there. I wouldn't wish the insanity on the wife and kids, but if that's what it takes for the divorce to finally happen, maybe in the long run everything works out better.

Still, although acknowledging that your point of view has some merit, I remain from the conservative "spend your own money, not someone else's" school.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

Well....It's been over two weeks now, since the original topic title question was posted.



And the answer is still "no."



Ho-hum....Business as usual....

 

[signal_line]

That's not right. I said you are going to have to pay for my time and travel expense. Dell Winders said the same thing.

You skeptics are a bunch of haters. Those phony LRL reports are nothing but hate speech. I've said it before you are going to end up bitter and I guess you want other people to be just as miserable as you are. And no phony test is going to prove one thing about whether LRL's work or not. Same with your demands for proof.

 

[woof!]

Mike, you're the one who insists on being paid for a phony test in which you admit you won't show squat. I've offered a plugged nickel to see your do-nothing demo as long as it doesn't last more than five minutes. So far I don't recall that anyone's outbid me. With nobody willing to pay for so much as taxi fare, guess you're gonna be stuck at home forever.

Do photographs of the guts of LRL's count as "hate speech"? Does reminding you of your own words count as "hate speech"? If so, it's a tough life you've chosen for yourself, constantly revealing what it is you know about the product you're selling, and then having to hate that you revealed it.

In contrast, Thomas has it a lot easier. It's obvious that he has a sense of humor about gullibillies, and doesn't pick public fights with people who agree with him on what his product really is. Even Chuckie, a guy whom we thought would never learn nuthin' about anything, is finally passing the LRL vendor's IQ test these days. That's the test that you flunk with every post.

--Toto

 

[Carl-NC]

Mike, are you still asking to be paid to fail? Really? I'll join Toto in offering you a plugged nickel to see that, so now you're up to a plugged dime. A few more takers, and you can buy that newspaper you've been saving up for. Besides, there ain't no travel on your part, I'll come to Bozeman. And, as I told you in the other thread... you make up the test... but heck, you can't even get that far.

So you still consider my suggestion that you buy an LRL, and pay full MSRP, to be "hate speech"?

Are we all on "Ignore"?

 

[woof!]

Carl, I think some clarification may be needed. The plugged nickel I offered, is to watch him do the nothing which he admits he will not-do, and which nobody ever doubted that he could not-do. That's not a test, that's conceptual performance art the outcome of which he already published on his playbill. "Waiting for Godot" would be more interesting, that's why I stipulate that if Mike's performance lasts more than 5 minutes, he gets nothing, not even the plugged nickel.

When you tell Mike "You make up the test", I presume that you are referring to a test of the ability of Mike's gadget to meet a potentially useful performance criterion that can't be met with ordinary everyday objects such as (for instance) your middle finger, something having to do with locating valuables the location of which is otherwise unknown to the person using the gadget. And I presume that the plugged nickel is for failure and that success is supposed to merit some more valuable reward which of course Mike can turn down if he prefers (and has already said he'd do!). Maybe I have misunderstood, but I sorta thunked that the deal was of that general sort. In other words, I'm presuming that you ain't going to Boz just to watch a "test" of a meaningless sort that Mike will call success even if it demonstrates nothing interesting whatsoever-- like for instance that it do the "Art Maneuver" of swinging this way or that when the user steps on a silver dollar he knows is there. (A maneuver you can replicate with your middle finger, no need for a gadget, not even Mike's, much less a real locating apparatus such as a $60 Bounty Hunter Junior.)

I predict that Mike cannot devise a "test" that actually demonstrates any interesting capability of his gadget, for the simple reason that it has no interesting capability to demonstrate.

Furthermore I predict that Mike cannot devise such a "test" that has any credibility, that is about the gadget and not just about posturing on forums trying to blame Carl (!!!) for the fact his gadget has no demonstrable usefulness. Of course the outcome of a "test" which Mike is making sure will never happen can be anything Mike wants, without fear of Reality contradicting him. Thus does the creature rely on fantasy to maintain homeostasis.

--Toto

 

[Carl-NC]

Yes, the plugged nickel was to watch failure. The $25,000 was to watch something truly interesting. For the Truly Interesting version, he gets to make up the test, so instead of Carl's Bogus Test it'll be Mike's Bogus Test. But like I said, he can't even do that. Heck, even Art has managed to get that far. If Mike ever takes us off Ignore, he can avoid the topic by telling us why all this amounts to hate speech.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Y'know, Carl, you have a point there. I wouldn't wish the insanity on the wife and kids, but if that's what it takes for the divorce to finally happen, maybe in the long run everything works out better.

Still, although acknowledging that your point of view has some merit, I remain from the conservative "spend your own money, not someone else's" school.

--Toto

I've been reading these posts with interest in what arguements would come out. So far, EVERYTHING seems to be circling around a single test by a single person which can't be verified.

Lets play devil's advocate and say the test did happen and Dell did locate the gold. SO WHAT?! Like the saying goes "even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while." What are all the other LRL users finding? There must be hundreds if not thousands of lrl buyers out there or they wouldn't have been for sale since the first treasure hunting magazines were published. There have been proponents of LRL posting in here so you surely must own one. What have YOU found with you device? Anything? Metal detectors use known science and you can even buy plans to make your own detector. The forums and magazines are filled with the finds made while using them. Where are the finds from LRL?

 

[woof!]

Well, Jason, last year there was a lot of bragging that some guy was LRL'ing and found a rock. Posted a lot in this forum but sorry, don't remember which threads. All excited that it was an extraordinarily rare meteorite worth likely hundreds of thousands of bucks, had iridium and this and that other elements in it. All confirmed by, you guessed it-- the imagination of the LRL'er. Not a peep about its having been examined by anyone who knew anything about meteorites. I finally offered twenty bucks for it, and explained that the guy really oughta take the offer because nobody on the planet was going to offer him more. I suppose he's still got it sitting on a shelf in the living room bragging about his amazing find.

The whole episode became known as the saga of "the stupid rock".

And that's the difference between a squirrel getting lucky and an LRL'er getting lucky. Squirrels don't get excited over a stupid rock: but when an LRL'er gets a lump of coal in his Christmas stocking, he goes bragging to the other kids in the neighborhood about his black gold and pouts when they ridicule him.

Everything you need to know about LRL's, you can learn from the people who use them. They tell the whole story. The creativity with which they confess failure while pretending it's success, never ceases to amaze us. As we often say, "we don't have to make this stuff up, the LRL'ers do it for us!"

Welcome to the forum, Jason, and have fun.

--Toto

 

[HangnMoss]

Ok, I've apparently wasted a couple hours of my life reading through hundreds of pages on dozens of posts related to LRLs.

I keep seeing the same questions asked over and over; where's the proof, where's the science, etc. Cz70pro asked the best question when he asked, "Have ANY of the 'today's finds' on this site ever been from LRL's?" That was asked two weeks ago without a single response. From what I've seen so far, all the questions that address the real meat of the matter get dismissed entirely or worse, spiral into a series of insults.

I can't believe any discussion can go on this long without real progress towards the truth, if the truth is that it really works, especially when its defended so aggressively. If its based on magnetism, then explain how it works on non-ferrous materials. If its based on EMF, gravity, bio-feedback, whatever, I want answers. I'm intrigued to the point of frustration, and there has to be a way to explain it. If its electronically-assisted dowsing, then just say so, because at this point that's what it appears (to an unbiased newby).

As for dowsing, I'm not a total skeptic, but I'm not totally onboard, either. I've seen dowsers used by old timers to point out the best place to drill a well. Two dowsers, two different locations, fairly far apart, but they were both in the same corner of the property - the same general corner a geologist suggested when he came out to survey for the drilling permit. The dowsers were supposed to narrow it down, but the family couldn't agree on which dowser to use, so they used two. I guess it was an underground lake, because they drilled in the center of the dowsed locations and got water. At least the dowsers agreed with the geologist on the general location, but they could've made the same educated guess that the he did.

 

[signal_line]

HangnMoss, you need to remember that the skeptics do not know how to use an LRL. At least two of them work for metal detector companies and they don't want no stinkin LRL's stealing their profits.


First off, the main distinction between dowsing and LRL's is discrimination. Dowsing uses mental discrimination. That means the person must be thinking about (either consciously or subconsciously) what they are searching for. This is strenuous and very prone to errors and lapses in concentration. The person can write down what they are searching for on a piece of paper or punch some code intoa calculator. Either way the idea is to impress the subconscious. The thought energy of the dowser travels to the target and excites it. The rod picks up these vibrations.


Now a true LRL uses physical discrimination. That might be a witness/sample that has an amplifier, or it might be a frequency generator that excites the target. Here again, there is sympathetic resonance, but the user does not need to put out any mental energy. This means it is less strenuous and more accurate. Again, the rod picks up the vibrations just like a guitar string vibrates when the right tone is present.


Skeptics seem to think the rod works like a compass needle or ferromagnetic. This is wrong. The user feels the resonance when the rod is aligned to the lines of force.


If you want proof, go out and learn for yourself.

 

[woof!]

Welcome to the forum, Moss. I see we're getting new folks posting now that the LRL forum has been pasted next to metal detectors rather than to dowsing. I suppose that was done because what distinguishes LRL's is their representation as functional electronic apparatus.

I've dabbled in dowsing both from actually doing it, and participating in the old (defunct) dowsing/LRL forum and (rarely) in the new dowsing forum. And applied critical and scientific reasoning to the whole thing. I say that it "works", in the sense that stuff can be located beyond any reasonable random probability. Don't have anything to "prove" about it. I'm fine with the assertion that under double-blinded contest conditions, it fails: in my opinion this is a clue as to how it works rather than proof that it doesn't. It's clear to me that the dowsing rod detects nothing but hand movement and gravity (that being their design principle): the "information" that results in a successful dowse (or the misinformation that results in a blown dowse) gets to the hands from between the ears. How good information gets between the ears under blinded conditions is a bit of a mystery, I have my theories but have no way to prove them, and little interest in arguing them. It's also clear to me that a lot of dowsers find nothing beyond chance, but like a gambler their reasoning skills are not up to the task of knowing the difference between winning and losing. So they stay in the game.

It's possible to manufacture a good dowsing rod and to advertise it honestly without any fraud. And some dowsing rods are advertised honestly. I've suggested to the boss that we make and sell dowsing rods, but he thinks that for us it would be a bad business idea and he's probably right about that.

Then, there's LRL's. They're dowsing rods with associated bogus electronics. The bogus electronics is why most of the critics are electrical engineers. An uninformed person might be fooled by the vendor pseudoscience surrounding the apparatus, but an electrical engineer recognizes it for what it really is-- a scam. Then when you study the advertising and the things LRL fans (esp. vendors) say in forums, it becomes evident that the vendors and the informed critics are actually in agreement that it's a scam. The disagreement is over whether scams of this sort are good, or bad.

In reading the reports of people who use LRL's versus those who do plain vanilla dowsing, I've come to the conclusion that the ones who use LRL's get results much inferior to plain vanilla dowsing. I attribute this to the amount of denial that goes along with LRL's, almost always including a denial that it's dowsing despite the fact there those dowsing rods...... To put it another way, getting suckered by the LRL scam is bad for your brain, and then defending what's happened to you is even worse for your brain. The smart thing to do is to admit that you got suckered for a huge chunk of money, throw the thing in the garbage, and get on with life. But people tend to defend bad decisions passionately rather than to simply write them off as screwups.

Someday there will be electronic apparatus which actually does something like the "long range locating" that LRL manufacturers want you to believe the apparatus can do. However, when it does exist, it will not be described as "LRL" and the LRL crowd will reject it. Everyone, even the LRL fans, recognizes that the phrase "LRL" refers to fraudulent apparatus and not to things that actually work as represented. ........Case in point: thermal imaging. The manufacturers thereof would never categorize it as "LRL" since it's not fraudulent; and LRL fans recognizing its non-fraudulent nature don't categorize it as "LRL" either.

--Toto

 

[woof!]

HangnMoss, you need to remember that the skeptics do not know how to use an LRL. At least two of them work for metal detector companies and they don't want no stinkin LRL's stealing their profits.

Skeptics seem to think the rod works like a compass needle or ferromagnetic. This is wrong. The user feels the resonance when the rod is aligned to the lines of force.


If you want proof, go out and learn for yourself.

You newbies, that's Mike. He makes debunking 'way too easy.

Electronic engineers who hang out in LRL forums know perfectly well how to build LRL's. Ain't no secret about it. If they worked, we'd be manufacturing and selling them! And even collecting Carl's $25K prize! Mike knows all this, he's just making up stuff trying to fool newbies. In another recent thread he came down real hard on skepticism, the opposite of being gullible. His business is based on gullibility.

Mike's assertion that "skeptics seem to think the rod works like a compass needle or ferromagnetic"--- Another Mike "made it up" statement. I don't know any "skeptic" that has ever said a thing like that, it's the "true believers" and uninformed speculators from whom we hear such pseudoscience statements! A compass? Get real! Compasses work like compasses! and you can't dowse with 'em because the effects necessary for L-rod type dowsing have been intentionally engineered out of 'em!

--Toto

 

[signal_line]

HangnMoss, if you want to believe someone who can't use an LRL, that is your choice. These guys learned their tricks from dirty lawyers like the ones that defended OJ.