The deceitfulness of the LRLs

[EE THr]

More argumentative chatter, as usual.

You are the one bringing up the word "evil". Remember that.

Yes, I used that word. What significance do you imagine that has, in relation to the fact that LRLs are a scam?


And I agree with you about "convincing" people into "believing". So now we know why you try so hard to "convince" others into "believing".

I posted facts, like the DOJ report. People who read it can think for themselves.


I would say "keep up the good work", but...well...ya aint so swift at it yet.

You have established that insults are all you have, since there is no way to prove that your imaginary devices work.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

~EE~

More argumentative chatter, as usual.

Welcome to the world of internet posting

Obviously you think that is what this forum is for.

Your absolute refusal to even attempt to provide legitimate evidence that your imaginary devices actually work, is your downfall

I don’t see it that way...As you have refused to back up your Claims or even offer an explanation of them have cause treasure hunters and other skeptics to disappear.

How do you imagine that people who stop posting here, relates in any way to the fact that your phony devices have been proven to not work?

But you can't help that, because it's already been proven that they don't.

What are you talking about now?

Read, Art, read. Are you again trying to pretend that you haven't read that DOJ report?

So you're stuck with jibberish as your only support, and that's obviously just a wet noodle.

How does that work?..I have never used gibberish or a wet noodle to hunt for treasure.

No matter what you use to hunt for treasure, you'll not find any with your fraudulent devices, because they have been proven to not work!

Sorry. But it was your choice, to promote phony devices. So you'll just have to live with it.

Wow..Is this Claim # 20?...Art

It's just an observation, which anyone can verify by reading your posts.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Yes, I used that word. What significance do you imagine that has, in relation to the fact that LRLs are a scam?c

You must of thought it was important because you used it.

I posted facts, like the DOJ report. People who read it can think for themselves.

They have and found it lacking any substance

You have established that insults are all you have, since there is no way to prove that your imaginary devices work.

If asking questions about your claims is an insult I may be guilty..Have I counted that claim yet?

Obviously you think that is what this forum is for

.
Most people have friendly disagreements

How do you imagine that people who stop posting here, relates in any way to the fact that your phony devices have been proven to not work?

Claim # 21

Read, Art, read. Are you again trying to pretend that you haven't read that DOJ report?

I have read all three version of the DOJ report that we discussed..It is apparent that you have not.

No matter what you use to hunt for treasure, you'll not find any with your fraudulent devices, because they have been proven to not work!

Gee...I have no problem finding treasure with LRL’s..Are you on the right forum?

It's just an observation, which anyone can verify by reading your posts

.
I received close to 100 E-mails from my internet treasure hunters today so I will assumed that I am post the right information..Art

 

[EddieR]

More argumentative chatter, as usual.

You are the one bringing up the word "evil". Remember that.

Yes, I used that word. What significance do you imagine that has, in relation to the fact that LRLs are a scam?


And I agree with you about "convincing" people into "believing". So now we know why you try so hard to "convince" others into "believing".

I posted facts, like the DOJ report. People who read it can think for themselves.


I would say "keep up the good work", but...well...ya aint so swift at it yet.

You have established that insults are all you have, since there is no way to prove that your imaginary devices work.

The only reason I told you to remember that YOU used the word "evil" first is so you don't go trying to say somebody else said it.

No, I can't prove that MY "devices" work, because I don't have one. That is another fact that I have stated on here, several times. Read!!!

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EddieR~

The only reason I told you to remember that YOU used the word "evil" first is so you don't go trying to say somebody else said it.

No, I can't prove that MY "devices" work, because I don't have one. That is another fact that I have stated on here, several times. Read!!!

Now you have done it big time...You have insulted him again by telling the truth...Art

 

[EE THr]

No, I can't prove that MY "devices" work, because I don't have one.

So you don't have an LRL or MFD, and you aren't knowledgeable in electronics.

Yet you have decided that they work, and that anyone who posts documents of tests, by highly recognized Scientific organizations, which shows them to be totally fake devices, you should adamantly attack.

What's wrong with that picture?

 

[EddieR]

No, I can't prove that MY "devices" work, because I don't have one.

So you don't have an LRL or MFD, and you aren't knowledgeable in electronics.

Yet you have decided that they work, and that anyone who posts documents of tests, by highly recognized Scientific organizations, which shows them to be totally fake devices, you should adamantly attack.

What's wrong with that picture?

So now you claim that I have decided LRL's work? Care to substantiate that ?

Now, just so everyone can see the stunts you attempt to pull, go look at my post #146 in this thread. You see where I say the LRL didn't work? You see where I said I can't say whether any other LRL does or doesn't work since I haven't used them?

You should learn to get your facts straight, or at the very least, if you are going to make up fabrications, do it in a way that isn't so obvious.

(BTW, by your own admission, you have never personally tested an LRL, and yet you dismiss people's stories without even looking into them). What's wrong with your OWN picture?

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to make up all these stories about what others say? If your "evidence" is so cut and dried, surely it can speak for itself. Or maybe you doubt your own "evidence"?

 

[werleibr]

No, I can't prove that MY "devices" work, because I don't have one.

So you don't have an LRL or MFD, and you aren't knowledgeable in electronics.

Yet you have decided that they work, and that anyone who posts documents of tests, by highly recognized Scientific organizations, which shows them to be totally fake devices, you should adamantly attack.

What's wrong with that picture?

So now you claim that I have decided LRL's work? Care to substantiate that ?

Now, just so everyone can see the stunts you attempt to pull, go look at my post #146 in this thread. You see where I say the LRL didn't work? You see where I said I can't say whether any other LRL does or doesn't work since I haven't used them?

You should learn to get your facts straight, or at the very least, if you are going to make up fabrications, do it in a way that isn't so obvious.

(BTW, by your own admission, you have never personally tested an LRL, and yet you dismiss people's stories without even looking into them). What's wrong with your OWN picture?

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to make up all these stories about what others say? If your "evidence" is so cut and dried, surely it can speak for itself. Or maybe you doubt your own "evidence"?

Here it is some of the things EddieR has said in the past http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,289950.msg2082286.html#msg2082286
Posted Dec 24, 2009, 03:49:17 pm

Quote from: EddieR on Dec 24, 2009, 03:49:17 pm

Quote from: Yammy Elf on Dec 24, 2009, 03:03:23 pm

Quote from: EddieR on Dec 24, 2009, 02:57:34 pm

The reason that I believe in the "unconventional magical dowsing wand" is because I used one to find my wedding band when I lost it. I lost it in a field. I had no idea where to start looking, as I had been working for almost an hour when I realized it was missing from my finger. And yet, in less than 5 minutes, it was back on my finger. It's kinda hard for me to NOT believe that when I experienced it myself.

Now, do I believe that they work every time? I don't know. But with that said, I don't find something every time I go metal detecting even though detectors are known to work.

Now...the question remains. Once again, it wasn't answered. What about all the reports of things being found with these devices? I suppose we could claim that all these people who claim to have found something are just delusional. But to be fair, then we must claim that all people who say these devices don't work are delusional too.

Just in the order of fairness, of course .

I can only speak of my experiences with the LRL. I had success, but maybe it was because I was wearing tennis shoes.

I might have found my ring in less than a minute if I had put peanut butter on my shoes!

What kind of LRL did you utilize to find your lost wedding band?

Was it an LRL of an electronic design...or the more popular bent L-Rod or Y-shaped branch?

It was an electronic LRL...a Lectrasearch. Could I have used coat hangers or a forked stick? Probably. But the fact remains....I used a LRL. And I walked straight to my ring.

Some more of your words


http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,289950.msg2083585.html#msg2083585

Reply To This Topic #32 Posted Dec 25, 2009, 06:36:09 pm

Well....I didn't think it could happen, but some of the skeptics can twist a guys words around even better than my wife can .

You claim to want proof...and yet when I tell you the LRL worked for me, you casually dismiss it with a wave of your hand.

Carl, above you seemed to imply something about my earlier post....twisting the meaning of my words around. I said that I probably could have used dowsing methods to find my ring. I wrote that in reply to a question that was asked of me. Then you say "but you still attribute the success to a LRL". Well duh....that's what I used to find it. What was I supposed to say? I also could have gridded the entire field off and walked it using tiny steps and possibly found my ring with my eyes. Or I could have used a metal detector. I could have done a lot of things but the fact remains...I used a LRL.

Now once again.....if people are finding things with LRL's, how can a person with even a tiny little smidgen of intelligence claim that they don't work?

Oh....I guess we are all just liars, right?

December 29th 2009 you still owned the Lectra Search
>>>>http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,289950.msg2084394.html#msg2084394

Yes. I still have the Lectra Search. I'm not sure of the model number right off hand....I'm at work and my Lectra is at home. It's the model with a double antenna on the front.

As far as some of the examples given so far about why LRL's don't work....it's been stated that they do not have to work 100% of the time to determine they're bogus. So in essence, what you are saying is that even if they only work part of time they still don't work?

Geez...I went metal detecting with a buddy the other day. He was using a White's detector and I was using a little chinese 1023....and I whipped him 25 ways to Sunday in finds. So following the "logic" that has been stated above, I guess White's detectors don't work, right?

Now we all know that White's machines DO work, and work well. So that logic is flawed.

Big time.

I didn't find through out where you tested again the Lectra Search and said it was only a dowsing rod, so many pages.

But EE Thr has a point, why do you go after the people who are saying that LRL's do not work? You have said so yourself that at the least the Lectra Search does not. You get in a bind and want want want. You seem to be on here only to stir things up. An antagonist fits well to what you do most of the time now on here.

 

[EddieR]

No, I can't prove that MY "devices" work, because I don't have one.

So you don't have an LRL or MFD, and you aren't knowledgeable in electronics.

Yet you have decided that they work, and that anyone who posts documents of tests, by highly recognized Scientific organizations, which shows them to be totally fake devices, you should adamantly attack.

What's wrong with that picture?

So now you claim that I have decided LRL's work? Care to substantiate that ?

Now, just so everyone can see the stunts you attempt to pull, go look at my post #146 in this thread. You see where I say the LRL didn't work? You see where I said I can't say whether any other LRL does or doesn't work since I haven't used them?

You should learn to get your facts straight, or at the very least, if you are going to make up fabrications, do it in a way that isn't so obvious.

(BTW, by your own admission, you have never personally tested an LRL, and yet you dismiss people's stories without even looking into them). What's wrong with your OWN picture?

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to make up all these stories about what others say? If your "evidence" is so cut and dried, surely it can speak for itself. Or maybe you doubt your own "evidence"?

Here it is some of the things EddieR has said in the past http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,289950.msg2082286.html#msg2082286
Posted Dec 24, 2009, 03:49:17 pm

Quote from: EddieR on Dec 24, 2009, 03:49:17 pm

Quote from: Yammy Elf on Dec 24, 2009, 03:03:23 pm

Quote from: EddieR on Dec 24, 2009, 02:57:34 pm

The reason that I believe in the "unconventional magical dowsing wand" is because I used one to find my wedding band when I lost it. I lost it in a field. I had no idea where to start looking, as I had been working for almost an hour when I realized it was missing from my finger. And yet, in less than 5 minutes, it was back on my finger. It's kinda hard for me to NOT believe that when I experienced it myself.

Now, do I believe that they work every time? I don't know. But with that said, I don't find something every time I go metal detecting even though detectors are known to work.

Now...the question remains. Once again, it wasn't answered. What about all the reports of things being found with these devices? I suppose we could claim that all these people who claim to have found something are just delusional. But to be fair, then we must claim that all people who say these devices don't work are delusional too.

Just in the order of fairness, of course .

I can only speak of my experiences with the LRL. I had success, but maybe it was because I was wearing tennis shoes.

I might have found my ring in less than a minute if I had put peanut butter on my shoes!

What kind of LRL did you utilize to find your lost wedding band?

Was it an LRL of an electronic design...or the more popular bent L-Rod or Y-shaped branch?

It was an electronic LRL...a Lectrasearch. Could I have used coat hangers or a forked stick? Probably. But the fact remains....I used a LRL. And I walked straight to my ring.

Some more of your words


http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,289950.msg2083585.html#msg2083585

Reply To This Topic #32 Posted Dec 25, 2009, 06:36:09 pm

Well....I didn't think it could happen, but some of the skeptics can twist a guys words around even better than my wife can .

You claim to want proof...and yet when I tell you the LRL worked for me, you casually dismiss it with a wave of your hand.

Carl, above you seemed to imply something about my earlier post....twisting the meaning of my words around. I said that I probably could have used dowsing methods to find my ring. I wrote that in reply to a question that was asked of me. Then you say "but you still attribute the success to a LRL". Well duh....that's what I used to find it. What was I supposed to say? I also could have gridded the entire field off and walked it using tiny steps and possibly found my ring with my eyes. Or I could have used a metal detector. I could have done a lot of things but the fact remains...I used a LRL.

Now once again.....if people are finding things with LRL's, how can a person with even a tiny little smidgen of intelligence claim that they don't work?

Oh....I guess we are all just liars, right?

December 29th 2009 you still owned the Lectra Search
>>>>http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,289950.msg2084394.html#msg2084394

Yes. I still have the Lectra Search. I'm not sure of the model number right off hand....I'm at work and my Lectra is at home. It's the model with a double antenna on the front.

As far as some of the examples given so far about why LRL's don't work....it's been stated that they do not have to work 100% of the time to determine they're bogus. So in essence, what you are saying is that even if they only work part of time they still don't work?

Geez...I went metal detecting with a buddy the other day. He was using a White's detector and I was using a little chinese 1023....and I whipped him 25 ways to Sunday in finds. So following the "logic" that has been stated above, I guess White's detectors don't work, right?

Now we all know that White's machines DO work, and work well. So that logic is flawed.

Big time.

I didn't find through out where you tested again the Lectra Search and said it was only a dowsing rod, so many pages.

But EE Thr has a point, why do you go after the people who are saying that LRL's do not work? You have said so yourself that at the least the Lectra Search does not. You get in a bind and want want want. You seem to be on here only to stir things up. An antagonist fits well to what you do most of the time now on here.

So you admittedly bring up old posts, but you neglected to look for the updated ones? Looks to me like you are only here to stir things up yourself. Go do your research correctly, then feel free to quote me.

What do you mean by "get in a bind and want want want"? Please explain.

If you are talking about me asking questions, well this IS a forum, correct? Am I not allowed to ask questions?

Or should the questions only be asked by the skeptics and others of your ilk?

I don't "go after people that say LRL's do not work". I question their "evidence", not all of it, but some, but mostly I question their METHODS.

Your post above is a prime example of the methods I speak of. You "conveniently" left out the posts where I later retracted my statement of the LRL. Although you did make a passing reference to it, which is probably more that other pseudo skeptics would have done. But still, if you want to "tell a story" with "quotes", you should "quote" the "entire story". Unless you are just trying to lead others opinions in the direction YOU desire.......

 

[EE THr]

Eddie---

If you are truly unbiased, and only "interested in the phenomenon," then why to you get so mad when someone posts properly documented evidence that LRLs are a scam?

 

[EddieR]

Eddie---

If you are truly unbiased, and only "interested in the phenomenon," then why to you get so mad when someone posts properly documented evidence that LRLs are a scam?

Who's mad? Not me.


Why do you get mad when your shenanigans are brought out for the people to see?

***in this instance, I use the word "shenanigans" to describe the observed posting techniques such as leaving pertinent parts of others posts out in an effort to make them appear to say something other than what they meant originally, constantly making claims that, when countered, make yet another claim that there were no claims made (that one is just silly, but whatever), and flat out telling untruths, among others.

 

[werleibr]

I am going to pull an Art Style Quote here, but first I will quote the entire statement, then I will break it into its questions seperatly.

So you admittedly bring up old posts, but you neglected to look for the updated ones? Looks to me like you are only here to stir things up yourself. Go do your research correctly, then feel free to quote me.

What do you mean by "get in a bind and want want want"? Please explain.

If you are talking about me asking questions, well this IS a forum, correct? Am I not allowed to ask questions?

Or should the questions only be asked by the skeptics and others of your ilk?

I don't "go after people that say LRL's do not work". I question their "evidence", not all of it, but some, but mostly I question their METHODS.

Your post above is a prime example of the methods I speak of. You "conveniently" left out the posts where I later retracted my statement of the LRL. Although you did make a passing reference to it, which is probably more that other pseudo skeptics would have done. But still, if you want to "tell a story" with "quotes", you should "quote" the "entire story". Unless you are just trying to lead others opinions in the direction YOU desire.......

So you admittedly bring up old posts, but you neglected to look for the updated ones? Looks to me like you are only here to stir things up yourself. Go do your research correctly, then feel free to quote me.

Wow EddieR you are getting over excited about this are you not? You wanted "US" to go look for these posts and I did.I didn't find your ones about changing your mind on the lectra search because there are many pages to go through of your posts. Finding that you used one and thought it worked was easy, because that is why you started posting in the LRL forum. Finding where you admit that it does not work takes more time. When I had posted this, look at what time it was, now think what generally happens at that time, people leave for home. I had been looking your stuff up when I could and wrote it in MS Word so that i could come back to it during my breaks and posted this just before leaving the computer for the day.

I was giving documentation to your claims of that yes you had used an LRL where true and at one time you owned one.Here is the start of your want want want.

What do you mean by "get in a bind and want want want"? Please explain.

What do I mean when I say you want want want. Everytime you say you want something eventhough you have it already and could demonstrate it to everyone or we start to give you what you ask for, but it is not enough, you want more more more. Never satisfied.

If you are talking about me asking questions, well this IS a forum, correct? Am I not allowed to ask questions?
Or should the questions only be asked by the skeptics and others of your ilk
I don't "go after people that say LRL's do not work". I question their "evidence", not all of it, but some, but mostly I question their METHODS

Yes it is all good to ask questions, but that is all you do, you question and you only question one side. You blindly accept what the LRL promoters and giving as "evidence" never questioning them. Just because you are a Paranormal Investigator and your other hobby is one that is also a big topic of debate, you seem to find it necessary to Defend those of the LRL's.

Your post above is a prime example of the methods I speak of. You "conveniently" left out the posts where I later retracted my statement of the LRL. Although you did make a passing reference to it, which is probably more that other pseudo skeptics would have done. But still, if you want to "tell a story" with "quotes", you should "quote" the "entire story". Unless you are just trying to lead others opinions in the direction YOU desire.......

It was not conveniently left out. I had to leave for the day so I posted what I had found. I am still going through all your postings looking for when you admit the Lectra Search was not an LRL. And below will be it.



If you remember from my previous post Eddie Owned the Lectra Search December 29th 2009. Then on March 21st 2011 is the first time Eddie states that the LRL was owned by his neighbor. But still no admitting that the Lectra Search was not an LRL >>>http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,389662.msg2774923.html#msg2774923

When I found my ring, I had no idea what a LRL was. A neighbor had one and showed me how to use it. I found the ring.

Here is where Eddie first states that he would get inconsistant results from the LRL he used. This was April 25th 2011, a whole year and a half after his posting that he used one succesfully.
>>>http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,390641.msg2830464.html#msg2830464

I can't give a reliable answer for #4. I haven't used different LRL's like some of the others on here. But the one that I used was inconsistent, sometimes successful, sometimes not. So, at least in my case, the percentage was lower overall, I suppose. I don't keep records, but I can remember a find if it's unusual or "just plain awesome".

Here Eddie gets to use the lectra serch he used in the past. Eddie gave it to a friend sometime in the past. This was Oct 07, 2011.
>>>http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,389749.msg3048774.html#msg3048774

On a side note and off the subject: I got to borrow back the same LRL that I used in the past to find my ring (the story is posted on the forum).

Anyway, I only got to use it for a little while before I had to give it back (the friend that I gave it to was just passing through) but I got to run a couple of quick informal tests with it. I'll post the results in a little while.

Here is where Eddie says he is looking at his informal test results and find them interesting. This was Oct 15, 2011
>>>http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,289950.msg3058655.html#msg3058655

.... the results of the informal tests (I mentioned them a few days ago) I performed with the LRL I used to find my ring were .....interesting.

On Oct 18, 2011 at 10:36:10 pm Eddie Officially changes his view on the Lectra Search. Almost 2 years after he started talking about it.
>>>http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,428800.msg3063399.html#msg3063399

But, just for the record, due to some recent happenings....I've changed my position on the LectraSearch.

A day later, Oct 19, 2011, Eddie gives more insite to his test.
>>>http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,428800.msg3063620.html#msg3063620

The tests proved to my satisfaction that the LRL doesn't work as advertised. HOWEVER....the tests were not witnessed by anyone, were not reviewed by scientists, and were not double-blind. So maybe I'm wrong and it DOES work.....(that seems to be the criteria that is generally accepted for results to be accepted, right?)

So there you have it Eddie all the evidence that you wanted. It was not until 4 months ago that you changed your mind on the Lectra Search.

Also Eddie, parts of things don't make compleate sense so maybe you can clear things up.

First you stated that you owned the Lectra Search, Then you stated that it was a neighbors of yours and he showed you how to use it and let you borrow it, then you go and say you gave your Lectra Search to a friend. Can you clear up your ownership of said Lectra Search?

 

[EddieR]

I am going to pull an Art Style Quote here, but first I will quote the entire statement, then I will break it into its questions seperatly.

So you admittedly bring up old posts, but you neglected to look for the updated ones? Looks to me like you are only here to stir things up yourself. Go do your research correctly, then feel free to quote me.

What do you mean by "get in a bind and want want want"? Please explain.

If you are talking about me asking questions, well this IS a forum, correct? Am I not allowed to ask questions?

Or should the questions only be asked by the skeptics and others of your ilk?

I don't "go after people that say LRL's do not work". I question their "evidence", not all of it, but some, but mostly I question their METHODS.

Your post above is a prime example of the methods I speak of. You "conveniently" left out the posts where I later retracted my statement of the LRL. Although you did make a passing reference to it, which is probably more that other pseudo skeptics would have done. But still, if you want to "tell a story" with "quotes", you should "quote" the "entire story". Unless you are just trying to lead others opinions in the direction YOU desire.......

So you admittedly bring up old posts, but you neglected to look for the updated ones? Looks to me like you are only here to stir things up yourself. Go do your research correctly, then feel free to quote me.

Wow EddieR you are getting over excited about this are you not? You wanted "US" to go look for these posts and I did.I didn't find your ones about changing your mind on the lectra search because there are many pages to go through of your posts. Finding that you used one and thought it worked was easy, because that is why you started posting in the LRL forum. Finding where you admit that it does not work takes more time. When I had posted this, look at what time it was, now think what generally happens at that time, people leave for home. I had been looking your stuff up when I could and wrote it in MS Word so that i could come back to it during my breaks and posted this just before leaving the computer for the day.

I was giving documentation to your claims of that yes you had used an LRL where true and at one time you owned one.Here is the start of your want want want.

What do you mean by "get in a bind and want want want"? Please explain.

What do I mean when I say you want want want. Everytime you say you want something eventhough you have it already and could demonstrate it to everyone or we start to give you what you ask for, but it is not enough, you want more more more. Never satisfied.

If you are talking about me asking questions, well this IS a forum, correct? Am I not allowed to ask questions?
Or should the questions only be asked by the skeptics and others of your ilk
I don't "go after people that say LRL's do not work". I question their "evidence", not all of it, but some, but mostly I question their METHODS

Yes it is all good to ask questions, but that is all you do, you question and you only question one side. You blindly accept what the LRL promoters and giving as "evidence" never questioning them. Just because you are a Paranormal Investigator and your other hobby is one that is also a big topic of debate, you seem to find it necessary to Defend those of the LRL's.

Your post above is a prime example of the methods I speak of. You "conveniently" left out the posts where I later retracted my statement of the LRL. Although you did make a passing reference to it, which is probably more that other pseudo skeptics would have done. But still, if you want to "tell a story" with "quotes", you should "quote" the "entire story". Unless you are just trying to lead others opinions in the direction YOU desire.......

It was not conveniently left out. I had to leave for the day so I posted what I had found. I am still going through all your postings looking for when you admit the Lectra Search was not an LRL. And below will be it.



If you remember from my previous post Eddie Owned the Lectra Search December 29th 2009. Then on March 21st 2011 is the first time Eddie states that the LRL was owned by his neighbor. But still no admitting that the Lectra Search was not an LRL >>>http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,389662.msg2774923.html#msg2774923

When I found my ring, I had no idea what a LRL was. A neighbor had one and showed me how to use it. I found the ring.

Here is where Eddie first states that he would get inconsistant results from the LRL he used. This was April 25th 2011, a whole year and a half after his posting that he used one succesfully.
>>>http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,390641.msg2830464.html#msg2830464

I can't give a reliable answer for #4. I haven't used different LRL's like some of the others on here. But the one that I used was inconsistent, sometimes successful, sometimes not. So, at least in my case, the percentage was lower overall, I suppose. I don't keep records, but I can remember a find if it's unusual or "just plain awesome".

Here Eddie gets to use the lectra serch he used in the past. Eddie gave it to a friend sometime in the past. This was Oct 07, 2011.
>>>http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,389749.msg3048774.html#msg3048774

On a side note and off the subject: I got to borrow back the same LRL that I used in the past to find my ring (the story is posted on the forum).

Anyway, I only got to use it for a little while before I had to give it back (the friend that I gave it to was just passing through) but I got to run a couple of quick informal tests with it. I'll post the results in a little while.

Here is where Eddie says he is looking at his informal test results and find them interesting. This was Oct 15, 2011
>>>http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,289950.msg3058655.html#msg3058655

.... the results of the informal tests (I mentioned them a few days ago) I performed with the LRL I used to find my ring were .....interesting.

On Oct 18, 2011 at 10:36:10 pm Eddie Officially changes his view on the Lectra Search. Almost 2 years after he started talking about it.
>>>http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,428800.msg3063399.html#msg3063399

But, just for the record, due to some recent happenings....I've changed my position on the LectraSearch.

A day later, Oct 19, 2011, Eddie gives more insite to his test.
>>>http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,428800.msg3063620.html#msg3063620

The tests proved to my satisfaction that the LRL doesn't work as advertised. HOWEVER....the tests were not witnessed by anyone, were not reviewed by scientists, and were not double-blind. So maybe I'm wrong and it DOES work.....(that seems to be the criteria that is generally accepted for results to be accepted, right?)

So there you have it Eddie all the evidence that you wanted. It was not until 4 months ago that you changed your mind on the Lectra Search.

Also Eddie, parts of things don't make compleate sense so maybe you can clear things up.

First you stated that you owned the Lectra Search, Then you stated that it was a neighbors of yours and he showed you how to use it and let you borrow it, then you go and say you gave your Lectra Search to a friend. Can you clear up your ownership of said Lectra Search?

Okay, to begin with: Your "want" explanation leaves a lot to be desired. If you consider me asking questions "wanting", then yep, I "want". If someone posts what they perceive as truth, and I see something that may be a flaw in it, then I may question it.

Then you say I only question the ones against LRL's. True enough, to a point. Reason is, you guys are asking the questions of the LRL guys...I'm reading the answers. Why should I ask the same questions?
Also, you say I "accept" what the LRL'ers are giving as "proof". Where have I stated that I accept it as proof? If I accepted it as proof, don't you think I would be saying that LRL's work? But I never say that, because I don't know if they do or not, as I have only used one (and I posted here that it didn't work) and can't speak for any of the other devices. What you have done here is post your opinion about me accepting proof.

Now for ownership of the LRL I used: You have your facts above backward. When I told of my experience, I said that my neighbor showed me how to use it, and I found my ring. At some point, I'm not sure of the date, he gave it to me as he said he had derived enough from it and wanted to pass it on. I did the same later, but was able to borrow it again to really test it. I posted here that it did not perform as advertised. The reason that it was four months ago when I changed my mind is because that is when I tested it. I didn't read reports, look at schematics, watch a video, or take somebody's word for it. I tested it personally.

Here are some of the posts documenting the ownership:

Thread: Those Who Have Been Scammed post #48 & #50
Thread: The Question LRL'ers Refuse To Answer post #349
Thread: Discussion On The Various Possible Theories That May Be Applicable To LRL's post #375

 

[EE THr]

Eddie---

If you are truly unbiased, and only "interested in the phenomenon," then why to you get so mad when someone posts properly documented evidence that LRLs are a scam?

Who's mad? Not me.


Why do you get mad when your shenanigans are brought out for the people to see?

***in this instance, I use the word "shenanigans" to describe the observed posting techniques such as leaving pertinent parts of others posts out in an effort to make them appear to say something other than what they meant originally, constantly making claims that, when countered, make yet another claim that there were no claims made (that one is just silly, but whatever), and flat out telling untruths, among others.

To avoid misunderstanding, I sometimes quote only the part to which my reply pertains. (Duh!)

With a little more experience in participating in Internet forums, you might come to understand how they work.

 

[EE THr]

Yes it is all good to ask questions, but that is all you do, you question and you only question one side. You blindly accept what the LRL promoters and giving as "evidence" never questioning them.

I've mentioned this to Eddie before, but he tries to deny it by playing word games.

With his obvious bias, he is promoting LRLs, and the scam behind them. But he continues to try and pass of his actions as "only interested in the phenomenon." Every promoter on here has some major flaw in their story, from silly reasons for not wanting to be tested, to garbage pseudoscience explanations for how they imagine they work, to totally unnecessary insults to anyone posting actual verifiable facts showing LRLs to be fraudulent.

This is Eddie's flaw, and it's hilarious how he tries to side-step the obvious.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

To avoid misunderstanding, I sometimes quote only the part to which my reply pertains. (Duh!)
With a little more experience in participating in Internet forums, you might come to understand how they work.

Darn EddieR..He is telling you that you never gave him anything to spin and twist..You have to remember that all your posts have to give him information to twist and spin and duck and dodge..

I've mentioned this to Eddie before, but he tries to deny it by playing word games.

Gee EddieR...Now he is claiming that he does not understand what you are telling him

With his obvious bias, he is promoting LRLs, and the scam behind them. But he continues to try and pass of his actions as "only interested in the phenomenon." Every promoter on here has some major flaw in their story, from silly reasons for not wanting to be tested, to garbage pseudoscience explanations for how they imagine they work, to totally unnecessary insults to anyone posting actual verifiable facts showing LRLs to be fraudulent.

Darn..Then the insults begin..Just because he can not understand the subject..

This is Eddie's flaw, and it's hilarious how he tries to side-step the obvious

I see no flaws in EddieR’s posts or anything hilarious. I just see a treasure hunter stating his views...art

 

[EddieR]

Yes it is all good to ask questions, but that is all you do, you question and you only question one side. You blindly accept what the LRL promoters and giving as "evidence" never questioning them.

I've mentioned this to Eddie before, but he tries to deny it by playing word games.

With his obvious bias, he is promoting LRLs, and the scam behind them. But he continues to try and pass of his actions as "only interested in the phenomenon." Every promoter on here has some major flaw in their story, from silly reasons for not wanting to be tested, to garbage pseudoscience explanations for how they imagine they work, to totally unnecessary insults to anyone posting actual verifiable facts showing LRLs to be fraudulent.

This is Eddie's flaw, and it's hilarious how he tries to side-step the obvious.

Obviously you didn't read my reply to his post, or if you did, you didn't understand it. Well, I can't make you understand, that's up to you.

 

[EddieR]

Eddie---

If you are truly unbiased, and only "interested in the phenomenon," then why to you get so mad when someone posts properly documented evidence that LRLs are a scam?

Who's mad? Not me.


Why do you get mad when your shenanigans are brought out for the people to see?

***in this instance, I use the word "shenanigans" to describe the observed posting techniques such as leaving pertinent parts of others posts out in an effort to make them appear to say something other than what they meant originally, constantly making claims that, when countered, make yet another claim that there were no claims made (that one is just silly, but whatever), and flat out telling untruths, among others.

To avoid misunderstanding, I sometimes quote only the part to which my reply pertains. (Duh!)

With a little more experience in participating in Internet forums, you might come to understand how they work.

Which conveniently allows you to change the context of what was being said. I understand how they work, and I understand your way of thinking (?), that's why I post the entire conversation, so you cannot easily weasel out of your parody postings.

 

[EE THr]

This is Eddie's flaw, and it's hilarious how he tries to side-step the obvious

I see no flaws in EddieR’s posts or anything hilarious. I just see a treasure hunter stating his views...art

But Eddie claims that he is unbiased, and has no views. He has never mentioned finding treasure with LRLs.

Apparently, since you don't have any logical information to support your imaginary devices, you want to simply apply a "one size fits all" motive for promoting LRLs---even to those who claim they don't promote them.


See, Eddie---Even Art has observed that you favor the LRL scam.

 

[werleibr]

Okay, to begin with: Your "want" explanation leaves a lot to be desired. If you consider me asking questions "wanting", then yep, I "want". If someone posts what they perceive as truth, and I see something that may be a flaw in it, then I may question it.

Then you say I only question the ones against LRL's. True enough, to a point. Reason is, you guys are asking the questions of the LRL guys...I'm reading the answers. Why should I ask the same questions?
Also, you say I "accept" what the LRL'ers are giving as "proof". Where have I stated that I accept it as proof? If I accepted it as proof, don't you think I would be saying that LRL's work? But I never say that, because I don't know if they do or not, as I have only used one (and I posted here that it didn't work) and can't speak for any of the other devices. What you have done here is post your opinion about me accepting proof.

Now for ownership of the LRL I used: You have your facts above backward. When I told of my experience, I said that my neighbor showed me how to use it, and I found my ring. At some point, I'm not sure of the date, he gave it to me as he said he had derived enough from it and wanted to pass it on. I did the same later, but was able to borrow it again to really test it. I posted here that it did not perform as advertised. The reason that it was four months ago when I changed my mind is because that is when I tested it. I didn't read reports, look at schematics, watch a video, or take somebody's word for it. I tested it personally.

Here are some of the posts documenting the ownership:

Thread: Those Who Have Been Scammed post #48 & #50
Thread: The Question LRL'ers Refuse To Answer post #349
Thread: Discussion On The Various Possible Theories That May Be Applicable To LRL's post #375

Just wanted clarification on your ownership because it never was clearly stated. You had originally stated you used a LRL, then you said you still had it but you were at work and it was at home, then you said that it was your neighbors, then finally you said a friend passing threw had it. Look at my last posts.. I posted in chronological order.