The deceitfulness of the LRLs

[werleibr]

It is a Professional service. Others in this business have charged $10,000 a day + expenses and even a percentage of the finds. My rates are only half that. Dell

Only difference is that there is no service being provided during a test. In one way it could be classified as a sales pitch (if test prove your story on LRL) and could be used for advertising, in which case the person who set up the test should be paid. You don't go anyplace and get paid to take a test (unless someone is trying to sell you what they are testing on you), you pay for the testing services.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Dell Winders]

Not True! I am not the one wanting to have the Scientific tests conducted. If you want to conduct Scientific tests it's your expense, not mine. If you want me as an operator, then that is the fee for my Professional services. Dell

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

And slooooooowly the subject drifts awaaaaaaay into something entirely different.


The point is this: When any company has a product that actually works, they will be happy to have it Scientifically tested by a reputable organization, and prove it out. But no LRL has been able to prove to the World that it can find anything.

Obviously, if any LRL company or promoter would spend only 1% of the time they do verbalizing about their alleged accomplishments, to perform some simple Scientific tests with real Scientific controls and administered by unbiased organizations, then there wouldn't be all these endless debates about whether they work or not.

As it stands, the only conclusion that can be drawn from all the talk on this forum is that LRLs simply don't work. That is supported by evidence from high level government testing organizations and courts, plus the lack of willingness for LRL makers and promoters to have their units properly tested, and many other factors which have been reported on this forum.

So I will ask this question for the fourth time...How many of the 100 plus LRL manufactures have told you that they have not had testing done by a reputable organization?

Common sense tells us that if anything is a scam, the scammers would avoid professional public scrutiny, at any cost. For LRL, this would mean real Scientific testing, Which they do avoid like the plague. That bit of logic is fully and continually predictable, and is thus Scientifically significant and irrefutable.

Please answer the question above.

With so much evidence against their argument, the benefits which would be gained by the LRL makers and promoters, by simply proving their claims Scientifically, are so absolutely huge, that not to do so would be totally unthinkable, unless they just don't work.

What evidence are you now claiming to have?

It also stands to reason that if LRLs were a scam, that the LRL makers and promoters would try to substitute gigantic amounts of verbage, for simple authentic proof. And since they do continually attempt this type of substitute, that is further indication of their falseness.

It stands to reason that if all LRL’s are a scam that you would be able to find a lot of court case where juries have found them guilty of fraud...Same old claims from your dead threads...Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~

Only difference is that there is no service being provided during a test. In one way it could be classified as a sales pitch (if test prove your story on LRL) and could be used for advertising, in which case the person who set up the test should be paid. You don't go anyplace and get paid to take a test (unless someone is trying to sell you what they are testing on you), you pay for the testing services.

Where have you been hiding?...Many Companies pay people who participate in testing...Heck..I just saw an ad for Laser Eye Surgery..Half price for participating in a new procedure...Art

 

[EE THr]

I remember when Lanny Anderson offered to pay any of the Skeptics $10,000 if he was unable to find 10 ozs, of Gold, they buried on a football field within 1 hour with a MFD/LRL. There were never any takers, or excuses offered for not accepting a legitimate offer.

As the Skeptic group already knows I have offered numerous times to operate any, or all of the LRL devices they wish to conduct Scientific testing on. Just pay for my services and expenses.

EE, You have no excuse for not conducting your own legitimate Scientific testing if that's what you demand.

Nope, all all you want is to sit here and complain, and whine on the internet and make demands of others. I can't fix prejudice, or hypocrisy. Dell

It is a Professional service. Others in this business have charged $10,000 a day + expenses and even a percentage of the finds. My rates are only half that. Dell

Ah yes---the old "pay me to take a test" substitution for getting your own equipment tested.

My post, to which you were replying, stated how disingenuous it is for the LRL makers to keep trying every angle known to man, to try and convince people that their stuff works---except for the one way which would work, which is actual valid Scientific testing. Your Straw Man argument is just more silly diversion in the onslaught of worthless verbage typical of all LRL makers and promoters.

Your Lanny Anderson (whoever that is) story lacks many details. Why a football field? Show some documentation of this offer, if it ever really existed.

Also, you are trying to say that someone is demanding that LRL makers or promoters do a test. I could care less whether you take a test or not---that is entirely your problem. I have no need to try and solve your problems for you.

As it stands, LRLs just don't work, by a preponderance of evidence, as previously stated.

The ball is in your court. Unfortunately, your court is an imaginary one....

 

[EddieR]

I remember when Lanny Anderson offered to pay any of the Skeptics $10,000 if he was unable to find 10 ozs, of Gold, they buried on a football field within 1 hour with a MFD/LRL. There were never any takers, or excuses offered for not accepting a legitimate offer.

As the Skeptic group already knows I have offered numerous times to operate any, or all of the LRL devices they wish to conduct Scientific testing on. Just pay for my services and expenses.

EE, You have no excuse for not conducting your own legitimate Scientific testing if that's what you demand.

Nope, all all you want is to sit here and complain, and whine on the internet and make demands of others. I can't fix prejudice, or hypocrisy. Dell

It is a Professional service. Others in this business have charged $10,000 a day + expenses and even a percentage of the finds. My rates are only half that. Dell

Ah yes---the old "pay me to take a test" substitution for getting your own equipment tested.

My post, to which you were replying, stated how disingenuous it is for the LRL makers to keep trying every angle known to man, to try and convince people that their stuff works---except for the one way which would work, which is actual valid Scientific testing. Your Straw Man argument is just more silly diversion in the onslaught of worthless verbage typical of all LRL makers and promoters.

Your Lanny Anderson (whoever that is) story lacks many details. Why a football field? Show some documentation of this offer, if it ever really existed.

Also, you are trying to say that someone is demanding that LRL makers or promoters do a test. I could care less whether you take a test or not---that is entirely your problem. I have no need to try and solve your problems for you.

As it stands, LRLs just don't work, by a preponderance of evidence, as previously stated.

The ball is in your court. Unfortunately, your court is an imaginary one....

Could care less?? That seems to be all you care about, based on the amount of whining and blubbering you do about it. Go ahead and deny it if you want, but the number of posts you have made calling for tests will refute your denial.

Or is that bad ol' selective memory syndrome rearing it's head again?

 

[aarthrj3811]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deceitfulness
deceitfulness (uncountable)
1. The state or quality of being deceitful.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deceit
de•ceit (d -s t )
n.
1. The act or practice of deceiving; deception.
2. A stratagem; a trick.
3. The quality of being deceitful; falseness.

The deceitfulness of the LRLs
Posted Jan 17, 2012, 07:52:07 AM

How can a simple tool possible be deceitful?...art

 

[GuyinWH]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deceitfulness
deceitfulness (uncountable)
1. The state or quality of being deceitful.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deceit
de•ceit (d -s t )
n.
1. The act or practice of deceiving; deception.
2. A stratagem; a trick.
3. The quality of being deceitful; falseness.

The deceitfulness of the LRLs
Posted Jan 17, 2012, 07:52:07 AM

How can a simple tool possible be deceitful?...art

When it, and the concepts it tries to abuse have been proven to be a fraud (ie... LRLs).

Regarding the lists of scams and people... i have those.
Names addresses products they're pushing and IP addresses.
Don't bother asking me for any of it.

 

[Dell Winders]

Hi neighbor, am I on your list? Dell

 

[EE THr]

Could care less?? That seems to be all you care about, based on the amount of whining and blubbering you do about it. Go ahead and deny it if you want, but the number of posts you have made calling for tests will refute your denial.

Or is that bad ol' selective memory syndrome rearing it's head again?

Wrong again, Eddie. I never called for tests. I only point out that no LRL on the market has ever been able to pass a properly administered, unbiased, Scientific test.

Get your story straight.

 

[pronghorn]

If I'm so smart, how come I'm not rich? eh Dell

 

[pronghorn]

It is a Professional service. Others in this business have charged $10,000 a day + expenses and even a percentage of the finds. My rates are only half that. Dell

$5000 + expenses + percentage of finds

If I'm so smart, how come I'm not rich? eh Dell

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Wrong again, Eddie. I never called for tests. I only point out that no LRL on the market has ever to pass a properly administered, unbiased, Scientific test.

Get your story straight.

3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a random double-blind test, even with rewards offered of one million dollars to prove they work, and twenty five thousand dollars for scoring only 70% success. They usually claim that the tests are biased or crooked, yet none have accepted the suggestion of A Scientific Test for LRLs, either!
Scientific tests for LRLs are necessary, because LRL promoters use only verbage, as lame attempts at Social Proof, because they can never produce any Real Proof.

But there actually are many Known Facts About LRLs, which they always ignore. Yet they continually demand proof from debunkers, while also ignoring A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud, even though they are fully aware that these points have never been rationally refuted.

I know what I need...

 

[EddieR]

Could care less?? That seems to be all you care about, based on the amount of whining and blubbering you do about it. Go ahead and deny it if you want, but the number of posts you have made calling for tests will refute your denial.

Or is that bad ol' selective memory syndrome rearing it's head again?

Wrong again, Eddie. I never called for tests. I only point out that no LRL on the market has ever been able to pass a properly administered, unbiased, Scientific test.

Get your story straight.

Like I said, your posts refute your denial.

You even DEVISED a test, remember? No, of course you don't.








at the demonstrations of selective memory syndrome

 

[EE THr]

Could care less?? That seems to be all you care about, based on the amount of whining and blubbering you do about it. Go ahead and deny it if you want, but the number of posts you have made calling for tests will refute your denial.

Or is that bad ol' selective memory syndrome rearing it's head again?

Wrong again, Eddie. I never called for tests. I only point out that no LRL on the market has ever been able to pass a properly administered, unbiased, Scientific test.

Get your story straight.

Like I said, your posts refute your denial.

You even DEVISED a test, remember? No, of course you don't.








at the demonstrations of selective memory syndrome

Ah Eddie, you have the same problem that Art has, as he claims, from time to time, that I have "begged" for tests.

My statement is that, "the only logical way to prove that LRLs work, is to actually have them scientifically tested by an unbiased party." "Proper Scientific test," is undeniably the random double blind test protocol. All this is just common sense, and is accepted throughout the scientific community.

I don't "demand" tests, as you stated. I could care less if any LRL maker or promoter takes a real test, or not. Proving their own products and claims, are as I have said many times before, is "entirely their own problem."

What I do also say, is that anyone who really had a working product, would want to have it impartially tested, rather than be avoiding Scientific testing like it was the plague, as the LRLers do! More common sense.

To conclude, the entire "LRL scam" stinks. LRLs don't work. Even Dell refuses to state that his stuff actually works!

You LRL promoters continually insist that Science is not valid, and fairy tales are proof.

Will you people never tire of making yourselves look like buffoons?







P.S. Your obsession with trying to invalidate me, is merely another attempt to divert attention away from the LRL devices, themselves, and away from the overwhelming evidence that they just don't work!

 

[werleibr]

P.S. Your obsession with trying to invalidate me, is merely another attempt to divert attention away from the LRL devices, themselves, and away from the overwhelming evidence that they just don't work!

This is called the Ad Hominem technique.

 

[EddieR]

Could care less?? That seems to be all you care about, based on the amount of whining and blubbering you do about it. Go ahead and deny it if you want, but the number of posts you have made calling for tests will refute your denial.

Or is that bad ol' selective memory syndrome rearing it's head again?

Wrong again, Eddie. I never called for tests. I only point out that no LRL on the market has ever been able to pass a properly administered, unbiased, Scientific test.

Get your story straight.

Like I said, your posts refute your denial.

You even DEVISED a test, remember? No, of course you don't.








at the demonstrations of selective memory syndrome

Ah Eddie, you have the same problem that Art has, as he claims, from time to time, that I have "begged" for tests.

My statement is that, "the only logical way to prove that LRLs work, is to actually have them scientifically tested by an unbiased party." "Proper Scientific test," is undeniably the random double blind test protocol. All this is just common sense, and is accepted throughout the scientific community.

I don't "demand" tests, as you stated. I could care less if any LRL maker or promoter takes a real test, or not. Proving their own products and claims, are as I have said many times before, "entirely their own problem."

What I do also say, is that anyone who really had a working product, would want to have it impartially tested, rather than be avoiding Scientific testing like it was the plague, as the LRLers do! More common sense.

To conclude, the entire "LRL scam" stinks. LRLs don't work. Even Dell refuses to state that his stuff actually works!

You LRL promoters continually insist that Science is not valid, and fairy tales are proof.

Will you people never tire of making yourselves look like buffoons?







P.S. Your obsession with trying to invalidate me, is merely another attempt to divert attention away from the LRL devices, themselves, and away from the overwhelming evidence that they just don't work!

You have done such a bang up job invalidating yourself, there is nothing left for me to invalidate. Good job!

What overwhelming evidence? YOUR posts? The ones that YOU created, and constantly whine about when wanting to steer people to read them? YOU have posted NOTHING worthy of being called proof, it is only your opinion, as I have pointed out several times (you seem to forget alot). If you were truly of a scientific bent, you would want to test the LRL's themselves, and not rely on others test results. But you aren't of a scientific bent, as you have proved ever since you started posting here.

 

[EE THr]

You have done such a bang up job invalidating yourself, there is nothing left for me to invalidate. Good job!

What overwhelming evidence? YOUR posts? The ones that YOU created, and constantly whine about when wanting to steer people to read them? YOU have posted NOTHING worthy of being called proof, it is only your opinion, as I have pointed out several times (you seem to forget alot). If you were truly of a scientific bent, you would want to test the LRL's themselves, and not rely on others test results. But you aren't of a scientific bent, as you have proved ever since you started posting here.

Is this opinion, or fact: "No LRL on the market as ever been Scientifically proven to the World to actually find anything at all."


If you claim that it is not the absolute truth, then post your documentation which would show otherwise.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Straw Man~

Is this opinion, or fact: "No LRL on the market as ever been scientifically proven to the World to actually find anything at all."

It is your claim...No you have not provided any facts so it is just an opinion..You have posted that claim 100’s of times and the fact is that if you post it 100’s more of times it will not become a fact..

 

[EE THr]

~Straw Man~

Is this opinion, or fact: "No LRL on the market as ever been scientifically proven to the World to actually find anything at all."

It is your claim...No you have not provided any facts so it is just an opinion..You have posted that claim 100’s of times and the fact is that if you post it 100’s more of times it will not become a fact..

Like I said, "If you claim that it is not the absolute truth, then post your documentation which would show otherwise."


Oh, that's right, you don't have anything to show otherwise, because it's never been done!