The deceitfulness of the LRLs

[EE THr]

Show me some real facts from personal experience? Don't show me what you copy cat off the internet Dell

Telling about personal experience has no real value in a heated discussion about contraversial subjects.

Only real evidence, documented by highly recognized Scientific organizations, courts, and those who are truly knowledgeable in electronics, which can easily be verified by anyone reading it, is of any value whatsoever.

You specialize only in the former, while those who seek the truth are the ones posting the latter.

Your post is merely a lame attempt to invalidate real evidence, and promote, instead, your silly stories.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Dell Winders]

Perhaps silly to you, but nevertheless true stories. Dell

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Telling about personal experience has no real value in a heated discussion about contraversial subjects.

You should be grateful that you have been able to express your controversial Skeptic veiws

Only real evidence, documented by highly recognized Scientific organizations, courts, and those who are truly knowledgeable in electronics, which can easily be verified by anyone reading it, is of any value whatsoever.

Yes it would be of value if you had any.

You specialize only in the former, while those who seek the truth are the ones posting the latter.

I am not a specialist...I am just a treasure hunter who likes to peruse his hobby while using a LRL.

Your post is merely a lame attempt to invalidate real evidence, and promote, instead, your silly stories.

I like real stories but your lame attempts to discredit them sure is fun to read.

 

[EE THr]

Perhaps silly to you, but nevertheless true stories. Dell

The only true story is that you would rather waste your time telling fish stories, than to simply have a real unbiased Scientific test done for free, and get it over with.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

You are offering the illogic that just because you sell LRLs, that all "electronics people" are con artists?

What is illogical if "electronics people" manufactures his LRL’s?..If you say that all "electronics people" are con artists I will agree that all the people who claim to be "electronics people" who post here are skeptics..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

You are offering the illogic that just because you sell LRLs, that all "electronics people" are con artists?

What is illogical if "electronics people" manufactures his LRL’s?..If you say that all "electronics people" are con artists I will agree that all the people who claim to be "electronics people" who post here are skeptics..Art

From what I have seen, most LRLs are not made by people who are knowledgeable in electronics, because the circuits don't make any sense electronically.

The few electronic circuits that actually do anything at all, are the function generators. But these circuits can be merely copied from the chip manufacturers example schematics. And they do not produce any output powerful enough to actually "transmit," because they are not designed for that.

While there may be some Electrical Engineer who is crooked enough to intentionally be responsible for the design of some LRL or MFD somewhere, he would not be very good, or else he would be doing legitimate work on something real.

Since you admittedly know very little about electronics, your statement shows your eagerness to knowingly make false and misleading statements about the subject of LRLs and MFDs.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

From what I have seen, most LRLs are not made by people who are knowledgeable in electronics, because the circuits don't make any sense electronically.

Are you telling us that you have personally examined any LRL or have you examined them all?

The few electronic circuits that actually do anything at all, are the function generators. But these circuits can be merely copied from the chip manufacturers example schematics. And they do not produce any output powerful enough to actually "transmit," because they are not designed for that.

Could you please tell us which electronic circuits you have examined that work that way?

While there may be some Electrical Engineer who is crooked enough to intentionally be responsible for the design of some LRL or MFD somewhere, he would not be very good, or else he would be doing legitimate work on something real.

So now you have insulted Treasure Hunters, Those that have been successful at recovering treasure with LRL’s, Those that manufacture LRL’s and the Electrical Engineers who work for the 100 or so manufactures..Is there anyone who is safe from your insults?

Since you admittedly know very little about electronics, your statement shows your eagerness to knowingly make false and misleading statements about the subject of LRLs and MFDs.

Does it take any knowledge of Electronics for a person to find treasure with a LRL or MFD?..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

From what I have seen, most LRLs are not made by people who are knowledgeable in electronics, because the circuits don't make any sense electronically.

Are you telling us that you have personally examined any LRL or have you examined them all?

Like I have said before, posting personal experience on a forum isn't proof of anything, so why bother? I'm going by the test results of recognized legitimate Scientific organizations, the facts published by the Department of Justice, the courts, and several examples posted by other knowledgeable electronics people. None of which has ever been sucessfully refuted.

The few electronic circuits that actually do anything at all, are the function generators. But these circuits can be merely copied from the chip manufacturers example schematics. And they do not produce any output powerful enough to actually "transmit," because they are not designed for that.

Could you please tell us which electronic circuits you have examined that work that way?

My statement has never been contested by any Electrical Engineer.

While there may be some Electrical Engineer who is crooked enough to intentionally be responsible for the design of some LRL or MFD somewhere, he would not be very good, or else he would be doing legitimate work on something real.

So now you have insulted Treasure Hunters, Those that have been successful at recovering treasure with LRL’s, Those that manufacture LRL’s and the Electrical Engineers who work for the 100 or so manufactures..Is there anyone who is safe from your insults?

Nope. As usual, you are trying to say that real treasure hunters use LRL or MFDs. Sorry, they don't, and no example of any has ever been posted here, but only a few LRL makers or sellers who falsely claim to be "treasure hunters."

Can you provide any proof whatsoever that any Electrical Engineer actually works for any LRL or MFD maker? Of course not!

This sits right along side of your silly claim of the "thousands of LRL users," that you have been asked several times to prove, and never have! What nonsense!

Since you admittedly know very little about electronics, your statement shows your eagerness to knowingly make false and misleading statements about the subject of LRLs and MFDs.

Does it take any knowledge of Electronics for a person to find treasure with a LRL or MFD?..Art

That's a totally irrelevant response, showing that you have nothing to back up your position. My answer would be that nobody finds treasure with LRLs or MFDs, because they don't work.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~~EE~

Like I have said before, posting personal experience on a forum isn't proof of anything, so why bother? I'm going by the test results of recognized legitimate Scientific organizations, the facts published by the Department of Justice, the courts, and several examples posted by other knowledgeable electronics people. None of which has ever been sucessfully refuted.c

~ART~

Are you telling us that you have personally examined any LRL or have you examined them all?

Thank You EE for the answer...That tells us that you have not examined any LRL’s
~EE~

My statement has never been contested by any Electrical Engineer.

~Art~

Could you please tell us which electronic circuits you have examined that work that way?

Thank you...The fact that 1000’s of treasure hunters use them successfully means nothing to you
~EE~

Nope. As usual, you are trying to say that real treasure hunters use LRL or MFDs. Sorry, they don't, and no example of any has ever been posted here, but only a few LRL makers or sellers who falsely claim to be "treasure hunters."
Nope. As usual, you are trying to say that real treasure hunters use LRL or MFDs. Sorry, they don't, and no example of any has ever been posted here, but only a few LRL makers or sellers who falsely claim to be "treasure hunters."

Can you provide any proof whatsoever that any Electrical Engineer actually works for any LRL or MFD maker? Of course not!

This sits right along side of your silly claim of the "thousands of LRL users," that you have been asked several times to prove, and never have! What nonsense!

~Art~

So now you have insulted Treasure Hunters, Those that have been successful at recovering treasure with LRL’s, Those that manufacture LRL’s and the Electrical Engineers who work for the 100 or so manufactures..Is there anyone who is safe from your insults?

So you will keep insulting every one just like the Skeptics Bible tells you to..
~EE~

That's a totally irrelevant response, showing that you have nothing to back up your position. My answer would be that nobody finds treasure with LRLs or MFDs, because they don't work.

~Art~

Does it take any knowledge of Electronics for a person to find treasure with a LRL or MFD?..Art

Thank you for the great duck and dodge answers...Art

 

[EE THr]

~~EE~

Like I have said before, posting personal experience on a forum isn't proof of anything, so why bother? I'm going by the test results of recognized legitimate Scientific organizations, the facts published by the Department of Justice, the courts, and several examples posted by other knowledgeable electronics people. None of which has ever been sucessfully refuted.c

You are asking for personal anecdotes, which are worthless in this ongoing discussion, and trying to totally ignore those published Scientific facts which I listed in the quote above.

You have no real evidence that LRLs or MFDs actually work, so you are attempting to use nonsensical verbosity as a substitute. This is the typical pattern of a con artist.

As usual, you are your own best debunker.

Keep up the good work!

 

[EddieR]

Art, don't waste your time.

There are several possible reasons your questions aren't answered. One, the question is too hard for him to answer, because he actually has no idea what he's posting about. Two, and the most likely, he just wants to keep you riled up, so he makes nonsensical circular "answers" that don't make a lick of sense. And third, maybe the longer the "game" goes on, the bigger his paycheck gets.

Don't waste your time, as anything you post goes over his head like wind at a bean eating contest.

Notice how he makes all his claims, and when cornered, says that they aren't claims at all? That is typical pseudoskeptic diversionary tactics (according to sources online)...very amateurish, but still just tactics to try to scoot out of the corner.

 

[EE THr]

Art, don't waste your time.

There are several possible reasons your questions aren't answered. One, the question is too hard for him to answer, because he actually has no idea what he's posting about. Two, and the most likely, he just wants to keep you riled up, so he makes nonsensical circular "answers" that don't make a lick of sense. And third, maybe the longer the "game" goes on, the bigger his paycheck gets.

Don't waste your time, as anything you post goes over his head like wind at a bean eating contest.

Notice how he makes all his claims, and when cornered, says that they aren't claims at all? That is typical pseudoskeptic diversionary tactics (according to sources online)...very amateurish, but still just tactics to try to scoot out of the corner.

By the majority of your posts, you are much more interested in me, than you are in LRLs.

I guess that since you have lost the battle of trying to convince gullible prospects to buy LRLs, all you have left is to insult people. That's pretty sick.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EddieR~

Don't waste your time, as anything you post goes over his head like wind at a bean eating contest.

Notice how he makes all his claims, and when cornered, says that they aren't claims at all? That is typical pseudoskeptic diversionary tactics (according to sources online)...very amateurish, but still just tactics to try to scoot out of the corner.

By the tactics he attempts to us it is clear that he has no understanding of how to be a skeptic...
~EE

I guess that since you have lost the battle of trying to convince gullible prospects to buy LRLs, all you have left is to insult people. That's pretty sick.

We are not the one who almost won the LRL salesman of year award. Yes..you were in second place at last years convention..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EddieR~

Don't waste your time, as anything you post goes over his head like wind at a bean eating contest.

Notice how he makes all his claims, and when cornered, says that they aren't claims at all? That is typical pseudoskeptic diversionary tactics (according to sources online)...very amateurish, but still just tactics to try to scoot out of the corner.

By the tactics he attempts to us it is clear that he has no understanding of how to be a skeptic...
~EE

I guess that since you have lost the battle of trying to convince gullible prospects to buy LRLs, all you have left is to insult people. That's pretty sick.

We are not the one who almost won the LRL salesman of year award. Yes..you were in second place at last years convention..Art

And once again, I am the subject of your entire post. Your obsession with me is useless.

 

[EddieR]

~EddieR~

Don't waste your time, as anything you post goes over his head like wind at a bean eating contest.

Notice how he makes all his claims, and when cornered, says that they aren't claims at all? That is typical pseudoskeptic diversionary tactics (according to sources online)...very amateurish, but still just tactics to try to scoot out of the corner.

By the tactics he attempts to us it is clear that he has no understanding of how to be a skeptic...
~EE

I guess that since you have lost the battle of trying to convince gullible prospects to buy LRLs, all you have left is to insult people. That's pretty sick.

We are not the one who almost won the LRL salesman of year award. Yes..you were in second place at last years convention..Art

And once again, I am the subject of your entire post. Your obsession with me is useless.

Evidently you don't understand the content of your own posts either.

Look at your post #101...your subject is Dell. That is the subject of your post. Her, I'll repeat it for you in case you forgot already...Dell is the subject of post #101.

Look at post #112.... I am the subject of the post. I am the subject of your post #112.

Do you get it now Of course not. I am referring to you whining about others posting about people instead of LRL's. And then you turn around and do the same thing. The very logic that you use in your debates make you very unbelievable. You aren't a very convincing rhetor.

People might believe an occasional posting of yours if you weren't so hypocritical. But.....that is the role of pseudoskeptics, to sow discord and confusion (and boy are your posts confused). But hey, gotta earn that paycheck, eh?

 

[EddieR]

Art, don't waste your time.

There are several possible reasons your questions aren't answered. One, the question is too hard for him to answer, because he actually has no idea what he's posting about. Two, and the most likely, he just wants to keep you riled up, so he makes nonsensical circular "answers" that don't make a lick of sense. And third, maybe the longer the "game" goes on, the bigger his paycheck gets.

Don't waste your time, as anything you post goes over his head like wind at a bean eating contest.

Notice how he makes all his claims, and when cornered, says that they aren't claims at all? That is typical pseudoskeptic diversionary tactics (according to sources online)...very amateurish, but still just tactics to try to scoot out of the corner.

By the majority of your posts, you are much more interested in me, than you are in LRLs.

I guess that since you have lost the battle of trying to convince gullible prospects to buy LRLs, all you have left is to insult people. That's pretty sick.

Tell ya what. Why not show the posts where I "try to convince gullible prospects to buy LRL's" Put up or shut up, and stop telling lies. You know good and well I have never done that.

You show the posts.

If you do not show them, I will consider it an admission of your guilt that your statement is false. All ya gotta do is show ONE posting where I try to convince anyone to buy an LRL. Simple, eh?

The ball is in your court to prove whether you told the truth or not.

No run around rhetoric will be accepted, no dumb questions, no double speak. Only the postings I have made "trying to convince others to buy an LRL".

So...we will see. Did you tell the truth or not?

Waiting........

 

[aarthrj3811]

Who are the skeptics

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm

“We’re selling science.” From the get-go, the 500-plus participants at the conference, held at the Stardust Hotel in Las Vegas, were repeatedly reminded that it’s all about science. At the media workshop that kicked it off, magician Andrew Mayne defined the goal of skepticism as the use of the scientific process to understand the world. He added that this is the opposite of dogmatism. In his “points to remember,” he noted that skepticism is not cynicism and that skeptics must be open-minded. “If you have evidence,” he said, “bring it on.”

So it’s ironic that actual science was hardly touched on. Instead it was one speaker after another reinforcing the conceit, almost universal among conference participants, that they are the enlightened ones, that they are charged with the burden of defending sense against nonsense, that they alone can be counted on to stand their ground against the tide of irrationalism that threatens to engulf our civilization and undo all the gains that have been wrought in the name of Science. Even scientists themselves, it turns out, are no match for the diabolical paranormalists. Only skeptics, educated by James “Amazing” Randi and other magicians, are capable of spotting the tricks of the trade. “Scientists are easily fooled,” explained Randi, “because they think they know.” But only skeptics really know.

Communicating Skepticism to the Public, the manual handed out at the media workshop, contains a brief passage that illustrates the gulf between science and the skeptics. In part three, “The Media Skeptic: Encouraging a skeptical media attitude,” we learn how to become a media authority: “Becoming an expert is a pretty simple procedure; tell people you’re an expert. After you do that, all you have to do is maintain appearances and not give them a reason to believe you’re not.”

As we know, it works a little differently in science. You can’t just say you’re an expert in, say, paleoanthropology unless you’ve actually done the work, either at an accredited university or on your own. By contrast, a skeptic need only form a club with like-minded people. “As head of your local skeptic club, you’re entitled to call yourself an authority. If your other two members agree to it, you can be the spokesperson too.”

. I agree with the skeptics that those of us trying to slap our fellow citizens back to their senses can be forgiven for cutting a few corners now and then.

The tone of the conference was geared more toward ridiculing the enemy than engaging in thoughtful scientific discussion. Bad jokes about crackpot chiropractors got big laughs. In this environment a discussion of possible evidence in favor of chiropractic would have been inconceivable. Alternative medicine is a favored target of skeptics, despite the fact that no scientific discipline is ever perfect or complete and that we can expect at least some trends from the periphery of medical practice to be taken up eventually within the scientific mainstream. Granted, certain aspects of alternative medicine are obviously fraudulent, such as ear candling and magnetic bracelets, but to denounce anything at all that’s outside accepted, traditional medicine is to promote a view of science more akin to religion - with its unreflective, ossified dogmas - than science as it actually exists.

Two days later, Richard Dawkins said he was worried that Randi would eventually have to pay up. Dr. Dawkins had just delivered a truly fine lecture - the high point of the conference, in fact - and Randi had joined the famed author onstage for a public chat. “About the million dollar prize, I would be worried if I were you because of the fact that we have perinormal possibilities.” Dawkins had just introduced this neologism during his talk. An alleged phenomenon is perinormal (from the Greek “peri,” in the vicinity of) if it seems impossible but which, in contrast to the “paranormal,” turns out to be a 100% natural, skeptic-approved phenomenon. Electromagnetic fields, for instance, were once perinormal but eventually came to be recognized as real. The question, then, is which phenomena currently dismissed by skeptics as paranormal are actually perinormal. “I mean, what if somebody-what if there really is a perinormal phenomenon which is then embraced within science and will become normal, but at present is classified conventionally as paranormal?”

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]

~EddieR~

Don't waste your time, as anything you post goes over his head like wind at a bean eating contest.

Notice how he makes all his claims, and when cornered, says that they aren't claims at all? That is typical pseudoskeptic diversionary tactics (according to sources online)...very amateurish, but still just tactics to try to scoot out of the corner.

By the tactics he attempts to us it is clear that he has no understanding of how to be a skeptic...
~EE

I guess that since you have lost the battle of trying to convince gullible prospects to buy LRLs, all you have left is to insult people. That's pretty sick.

We are not the one who almost won the LRL salesman of year award. Yes..you were in second place at last years convention..Art

And once again, I am the subject of your entire post. Your obsession with me is useless.

Evidently you don't understand the content of your own posts either.

Look at your post #101...your subject is Dell. That is the subject of your post. Her, I'll repeat it for you in case you forgot already...Dell is the subject of post #101.

Look at post #112.... I am the subject of the post. I am the subject of your post #112.

Do you get it now Of course not. I am referring to you whining about others posting about people instead of LRL's. And then you turn around and do the same thing. The very logic that you use in your debates make you very unbelievable. You aren't a very convincing rhetor.

People might believe an occasional posting of yours if you weren't so hypocritical. But.....that is the role of pseudoskeptics, to sow discord and confusion (and boy are your posts confused). But hey, gotta earn that paycheck, eh?

My post #101 was a reply to Dell, where he brought up how I posted about certain subjects.

My post #112 was a reply to you, where you were posting about me.

This is the same pattern that I mentioned before, where you insult people, then whine when you get insulted back. Poor baby. Does it hamper your LRL promoting? Awwwwwwww....





P.S. Exactly who do you imagine would be paying me? (We know who would be paying the LRL promoters!)

 

[EE THr]

Art, don't waste your time.

There are several possible reasons your questions aren't answered. One, the question is too hard for him to answer, because he actually has no idea what he's posting about. Two, and the most likely, he just wants to keep you riled up, so he makes nonsensical circular "answers" that don't make a lick of sense. And third, maybe the longer the "game" goes on, the bigger his paycheck gets.

Don't waste your time, as anything you post goes over his head like wind at a bean eating contest.

Notice how he makes all his claims, and when cornered, says that they aren't claims at all? That is typical pseudoskeptic diversionary tactics (according to sources online)...very amateurish, but still just tactics to try to scoot out of the corner.

By the majority of your posts, you are much more interested in me, than you are in LRLs.

I guess that since you have lost the battle of trying to convince gullible prospects to buy LRLs, all you have left is to insult people. That's pretty sick.

Tell ya what. Why not show the posts where I "try to convince gullible prospects to buy LRL's" Put up or shut up, and stop telling lies. You know good and well I have never done that.

You show the posts.

If you do not show them, I will consider it an admission of your guilt that your statement is false. All ya gotta do is show ONE posting where I try to convince anyone to buy an LRL. Simple, eh?

The ball is in your court to prove whether you told the truth or not.

No run around rhetoric will be accepted, no dumb questions, no double speak. Only the postings I have made "trying to convince others to buy an LRL".

So...we will see. Did you tell the truth or not?

Waiting........

Sorry, Eddie....You cannot define your own criterion for facts.

The truth of the matter, as I have explained to you before (but which doesn't need to be explained to you, because you are fully aware that you are doing it, and is totally obvious to everyone else), is that you consistantly attack anyone who posts documented facts which show LRLs and MFDs to be fraudulent, and you continually agree with and encourage those who actively promote LRLs and MFDs. Yes, I realize that a couple of times you have disagreed with them, but that's just a show, to maintain your self professed image as "only interested in the phenomenon." Your overall performance is clearly with the intention of promoting LRLs and MFDs. You wrote the stuff, not me. So who's fault is that?

 

[EE THr]

“If you have evidence,” he said, “bring it on.”

The Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud

1. There is no explanation, using standard electronics, for the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a properly administered random double blind test.
4. LRL promoters refuse to approve of a credentialed professional organization at which to have their devices or schematics evaluated.

The proponent's only rebuttal is that they claim to find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-4. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. This makes their reports of allegedly finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list. Besides, just saying you found something, or publishing non-verifiable "testimonials," or easily alterable photos, or "set up" videos, is obviously not proof. A random double-blind test, fully documented by an unbiased observer, would be real proof.



This is an interesting Government document, from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service Website, at http://www.ncjrs.gov/, which is mostly about explosives detection equipment, but also mentions LRL Fraud, in the excerpt below, as indicated by the green font color---

"From time to time, there are new devices that enter the market. Most companies make reasonable claims, and their products are based on solid scientific principles. Claims for some other devices may seem unreasonable or may not appear to be based on solid scientific principles. An old truism that continues to offer good advise is “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is not true.” If there are any questions as to the validity of a device, caution should be used and thorough research must be performed before a purchase is made. Money can be wasted and even lives may be risked. Although there may be other types of nonoperational devices around, dowsing devices for explosives detection have emerged during the past couple of years. There is a rather large community of people around the world that believes in dowsing: the ancient practice of using forked sticks, swinging rods, and pendulums to look for underground water and other materials. These people believe that many types of materials can be located using a variety of dowsing methods. Dowsers claim that the dowsing device will respond to any buried anomalies, and years of practice are needed to use the device with discrimination (the ability to cause the device to respond to only those materials being sought). Modern dowsers have been developing various new methods to add discrimination to their devices. These new methods include molecular frequency discrimination (MFD) and harmonic induction discrimination (HID). MFD has taken the form of everything from placing a xerox copy of a Polaroid photograph of the desired material into the handle of the device, to using dowsing rods in conjunction with frequency generation electronics (function generators). None of these attempts to create devices that can detect specific materials such as explosives (or any materials for that matter) have been proven successful in controlled double-blind scientific tests. In fact, all testing of these inventions has shown these devices to perform no better than random chance.

"Mostly these devices are used to locate water and now are used extensively by treasure hunters looking for gold and silver. In recent years some makers of these dowsing devices have attempted to cross over from treasure hunting to the areas of contraband detection, search and rescue, and law enforcement. The Quadro Tracker is one notable example of this cross-over attempt. This device was advertised as being a serious technology with a realistic sounding description of how it worked (close examination showed serious errors in the scientific sounding description). Fortunately, the National Institute of Justice investigated this company and stopped the sale of this device for these purposes, but not before many law enforcement agencies and school districts wasted public funds on the purchase of these devices.

"Things to look for when dealing with “new technologies that may well be a dowsing device are words like molecular frequency discrimination, harmonic induction discrimination, and claims of detecting small objects at large distances. Many of these devices require no power to operate (most real technology requires power). Suspect any device that uses a swinging rod that is held nearly level, pivots freely and “indicates” the material being sought by pointing at it. Any device that uses a pendulum that swings in different shaped paths to indicate its response should also arouse suspicion. Advertisements that feature several testimonials by “satisfied users,” and statements about pending tests by scientific and regulatory agencies (but have just not happened yet) may be indications that the device has not been proven to work. Statements that the device must be held by a human to operate usually indicate dowsing devices. Statements that the device requires extensive training by the factory, the device is difficult to use, and not everyone can use the device, are often made to allow the manufacturer a way of blaming the operator for the device’s failure to work. Another often used diversion is that scientists and engineers cannot understand the operation of the device or the device operates on principles that have been lost or forgotten by the scientific community.

"In general, any legitimate manufacturer of contraband detection equipment will eagerly seek evaluation of their device’s performance by scientific and engineering laboratories. Any doubt that a device is legitimate can quickly be dispelled by making a call to any of the known agencies whose business it is to know about security-related technology."

ref: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178913-2.pdf
Credit: Originally found and posted by SWR.