The deceitfulness of the LRLs

[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."

Are you saying that it is a fact and not your opinion?

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

It has already been done

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

I am sure glad that you know everything that has been done in the world...Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

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

It has already been done

No it hasn't.

If it had already been done, you would have posted a link to it. You post such an abundance of nonsensical links, that surely just one little link to something actually significant wouldn't be too much for you, now would it?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

No it hasn't.

If it had already been done, you would have posted a link to it. You post such an abundance of nonsensical links, that surely just one little link to something actually significant wouldn't be too much for you, now would it?

Gee EE...I am just a LRL owner/operator who posts on a Treasure Hunting forum. All I can post about is the 7 LRL’s and MFD’s that I have used. If you want the information that you keep begging for please ask the proper people. Just because we can not answer your illogical questions is not my problem...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

No it hasn't.

If it had already been done, you would have posted a link to it. You post such an abundance of nonsensical links, that surely just one little link to something actually significant wouldn't be too much for you, now would it?

Gee EE...I am just a LRL owner/operator who posts on a Treasure Hunting forum. All I can post about is the 7 LRL’s and MFD’s that I have used. If you want the information that you keep begging for please ask the proper people. Just because we can not answer your illogical questions is not my problem...Art

I'm not begging for anything at all. And what I said was a statement, not a question. You wanted to say that my statement was wrong, but you have no proof whatsoever. Too bad, then my statement stands.

So now you are saying that common sense is illogical. That figures. You are trying to convince people that your fairy tales are reality, so why would anyone be surprised that you think "proof" to be an illogical concept?

P.S. Say hello to the Tooth Fairy for me.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

I'm not begging for anything at all. And what I said was a statement, not a question. You wanted to say that my statement was wrong, but you have no proof whatsoever. Too bad, then my statement stands.

So now you are saying that common sense is illogical. That figures. You are trying to convince people that your fairy tales are reality, so why would anyone be surprised that you think "proof" to be an illogical concept?

P.S. Say hello to the Tooth Fairy for me.

I will say hello to the tooth fairy after he leaves your house if he comes by my place..I think he will be a no-show as I have no real teeth..Art

 

[EE THr]

...I have no real teeth..Art

Just like your fantasy claims about your LRLs!

 

[werleibr]

~EE~

No it hasn't.

If it had already been done, you would have posted a link to it. You post such an abundance of nonsensical links, that surely just one little link to something actually significant wouldn't be too much for you, now would it?

Gee EE...I am just a LRL owner/operator who posts on a Treasure Hunting forum. All I can post about is the 7 LRL’s and MFD’s that I have used. If you want the information that you keep begging for please ask the proper people. Just because we can not answer your illogical questions is not my problem...Art

If you cannot answer the questions... Why post anything at all?

 

[aarthrj3811]

If the questions are illogical why should we not answer to make a point?

 

[EddieR]

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.

I have no idea, for several reasons. One, I don't keep up with the industry (except what is posted here). Two, it can be a loooong time before scientific "fact" is published. Then, when it finally is made public, unless a person is keeping up on that particular subject, it may never be known to the general public for the simple fact that they do not look for it. Anybody that understands anything about the scientific method/testing should know this. Obviously you didn't know.

 

[EE THr]

I have no idea, for several reasons. One, I don't keep up with the industry (except what is posted here). Two, it can be a loooong time before scientific "fact" is published. Then, when it finally is made public, unless a person is keeping up on that particular subject, it may never be known to the general public for the simple fact that they do not look for it. Anybody that understands anything about the scientific method/testing should know this. Obviously you didn't know.

The Scientific Method has no bearing on how soon after completion of a test, that the results are published. That's just another good example of your disjointed "logic."

A manufacturer would race to publish good test results, because it would enhance sales sooner. Use a little common sense, Eddie.

 

[Dell Winders]

Not Me. I could care less. Dell

 

[EE THr]

Not Me. I could care less. Dell

Then why do you spend so much time and effort at trying to convice people that your LRLs actually work, when it would be much cheaper and quicker to simply have them properly tested and proven out?

Your own actions contradict your above statement, making your entire story self-contradicting.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Then why do you spend so much time and effort at trying to convice people that your LRL actually work, when it would be much cheaper and quicker to simply have them properly tested and proven out?

What are you talking about? Free...Let’s see now..I can post on t-net and it is a free site. I don’t have to take any time off from my Businesses..I don’t have to take any time from my treasure hunting hobby which is also free because all my tools have paid for themselves. To do what...You have told us that we have to find and setup the testers..We are to pay for all the time and expenses...And all because a few Skeptics want proof...Sorry EE..I am not going to spend the $350,000 needed to have a professional proper Double Blind Test When the people demanding the test would not understand the results..

It is much cheaper for us to keep telling you that you have a lack of knowledge about LRL’s and all your personal opinions are wrong...Art

 

[EddieR]

I have no idea, for several reasons. One, I don't keep up with the industry (except what is posted here). Two, it can be a loooong time before scientific "fact" is published. Then, when it finally is made public, unless a person is keeping up on that particular subject, it may never be known to the general public for the simple fact that they do not look for it. Anybody that understands anything about the scientific method/testing should know this. Obviously you didn't know.

The Scientific Method has no bearing on how soon after completion of a test, that the results are published. That's just another good example of your disjointed "logic."

A manufacturer would race to publish good test results, because it would enhance sales sooner. Use a little common sense, Eddie.

No, the method itself doesn't. But the people using it are another story. Plus, I said it CAN be a long time, not it WILL be a long time. Use a little reading comprehension, EE.

 

[werleibr]

~EE~

Then why do you spend so much time and effort at trying to convice people that your LRL actually work, when it would be much cheaper and quicker to simply have them properly tested and proven out?

What are you talking about? Free...Let’s see now..I can post on t-net and it is a free site. I don’t have to take any time off from my Businesses..I don’t have to take any time from my treasure hunting hobby which is also free because all my tools have paid for themselves. To do what...You have told us that we have to find and setup the testers..We are to pay for all the time and expenses...And all because a few Skeptics want proof...Sorry EE..I am not going to spend the $350,000 needed to have a professional proper Double Blind Test When the people demanding the test would not understand the results..

It is much cheaper for us to keep telling you that you have a lack of knowledge about LRL’s and all your personal opinions are wrong...Art

That is how a con artist works.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Then why do you spend so much time and effort at trying to convice people that your LRL actually work, when it would be much cheaper and quicker to simply have them properly tested and proven out?

What are you talking about? Free...Let’s see now..I can post on t-net and it is a free site. I don’t have to take any time off from my Businesses..I don’t have to take any time from my treasure hunting hobby which is also free because all my tools have paid for themselves. To do what...You have told us that we have to find and setup the testers..We are to pay for all the time and expenses...And all because a few Skeptics want proof...Sorry EE..I am not going to spend the $350,000 needed to have a professional proper Double Blind Test When the people demanding the test would not understand the results..

It is much cheaper for us to keep telling you that you have a lack of knowledge about LRL’s and all your personal opinions are wrong...Art

Well, you have asked me how you could test your LRLs before, Art, so I made an entire thread on A Scientific Test for LRLs, just for you. I know you have read it. Your statement of a test costing hundreds of thousands of dollars is totally bogus, which is typical of your style.

I know that it's all you can do, to try and attack any non-belivers by saying that they lack knowledge and that facts are only "opinions." But no matter how much you misrepresent, everyone can see the real truth. You are indeed your own best debunker, once again. Keep up the good work!

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Then why do you spend so much time and effort at trying to convice people that your LRL actually work, when it would be much cheaper and quicker to simply have them properly tested and proven out?

What are you talking about? Free...Let’s see now..I can post on t-net and it is a free site. I don’t have to take any time off from my Businesses..I don’t have to take any time from my treasure hunting hobby which is also free because all my tools have paid for themselves. To do what...You have told us that we have to find and setup the testers..We are to pay for all the time and expenses...And all because a few Skeptics want proof...Sorry EE..I am not going to spend the $350,000 needed to have a professional proper Double Blind Test When the people demanding the test would not understand the results..

It is much cheaper for us to keep telling you that you have a lack of knowledge about LRL’s and all your personal opinions are wrong...Art

That is how a con artist works.

Yeah, they just keep belching out the same old sales pitches, over and over, no matter what the facts are. Amazing!

 

[EE THr]

I have no idea, for several reasons. One, I don't keep up with the industry (except what is posted here). Two, it can be a loooong time before scientific "fact" is published. Then, when it finally is made public, unless a person is keeping up on that particular subject, it may never be known to the general public for the simple fact that they do not look for it. Anybody that understands anything about the scientific method/testing should know this. Obviously you didn't know.

The Scientific Method has no bearing on how soon after completion of a test, that the results are published. That's just another good example of your disjointed "logic."

A manufacturer would race to publish good test results, because it would enhance sales sooner. Use a little common sense, Eddie.

No, the method itself doesn't. But the people using it are another story. Plus, I said it CAN be a long time, not it WILL be a long time. Use a little reading comprehension, EE.

"The people using it"? I know that you, too, have read A Scientific Test for LRLs, so you are claiming to know all the possible people suggested in that thread? Your posts are straying farther and farther from reality, Eddie. Get help soon!

"CAN" or "WILL"? That argument doesn't even relate what I said! And you are trying to knock me for reading comprehension?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~
"

The people using it"? I know that you, too, have read A Scientific Test for LRLs, so you are claiming to know all the possible people suggested in that thread? Your posts are straying farther and farther from reality, Eddie. Get help soon!

Gee EE..You can suggest anything that you want to...I have contacted 3 people who have ran Double Blind Tests..I put all the information on this board. No I am not going to look for those posts..It seems that someone has saw fit to delete a large portion of my posts so it may not be there. Remember saying that a Double Blind Test should be done so as to be excepted by the Scientific Community..Well...None of your suggestions qulifiey..

 

[EE THr]

~EE~
"

The people using it"? I know that you, too, have read A Scientific Test for LRLs, so you are claiming to know all the possible people suggested in that thread? Your posts are straying farther and farther from reality, Eddie. Get help soon!

Gee EE..You can suggest anything that you want to...I have contacted 3 people who have ran Double Blind Tests..I put all the information on this board. No I am not going to look for those posts..It seems that someone has saw fit to delete a large portion of my posts so it may not be there. Remember saying that a Double Blind Test should be done so as to be excepted by the Scientific Community..Well...None of your suggestions qulifiey..

There you go again, trying to substitute allegory for Scientific proof.

But that's all you can do, when your devices can't really find anything. Aw---Too bad.

Well, that and your tired old "you're foo-foo" posts.

You are your own best debunker!