The Questions LRLers Refuse to Answer

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI EE two coffees for my friend and I please miss.

you posted --> Besides, I already know how objects obtain mass.

************
Interesting, would you care to explain? Also just what composes sunlight?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

HI EE two coffees for my friend and I please miss.

you posted --> Besides, I already know how objects obtain mass.

************
Interesting, would you care to explain? Also just what composes sunlight?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Light is energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. You know that.

 

[fenixdigger]

Oooh, did our little rabbit mention "frequencies"? Or wavelength?

 

[EE THr]

Oooh, did our little rabbit mention "frequencies"? Or wavelength?

Responding to posts that you haven't even read is considered to be just meaningless thread spamming, because it really doesn't relate to anything.

 

[EE THr]

OK, I guess it's unanimous, there are two more to add to the list of, "The Questions LRLers Refuse to Answer."

4. What average percentage of success do LRLs consistently and reliably have, under optimum conditions?

5. arties idea of a fair test is for 30 people, "like the drug companies." But he won't answer the following question: All 30 people searching for the same target at once, 10 at a time, 1 at a time; or all 30 searching for 30 targets all at once, or what?

These are simple questions, easy to understand, and easy to answer.

Why aren't they answered?

I don't know, but it makes me think there is something fishy going on!

 

[EE THr]

Out of the five questions, one LRLer has managed to rationally answer all three, and that was EddieR, who also admitted that he probably couldn't pass Carl's "70% success" test. One person, as listed below, has answered 1/2 of just number three. The rest: zero!

If you fellas can't answer simple, obvious questions, how do you expect to have any credibility at all on here?

I'll give everyone a second chance, though. Here they are again---



The Questions LRLers Refuse to Answer


1. Why don't you take Carl's test?

2. What do you feel is wrong with Carl's double-blind test?

3. What do you think is a fair test?

4. What average percentage of success do LRLs consistently and reliably have, under optimum conditions?

5. Art's idea of a fair test is for 30 people, "like the drug companies." But he won't answer the following question: All 30 people searching for the same target at once, 10 at a time, 1 at a time; or all 30 searching for 30 targets all at once, or what?


Number one leads to number two, and two leads to three.

Number four should be common knowledge, because the LRL promoters brag continuously.

The real LRL promoters won't, under any circumstances, fully answer number three; because then they would have to take that test which they described! Because if it were their idea, they can't disagree with it!

When asked #3, they immediately turn to insults or purely nonsensical posts about anything besides the subject at hand. So obvious!


But, here is their big chance [again], nonetheless....



ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

It's been four days, con-artie. Are you speechless?







Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

hi EE, yep, to explain in the most simplified way, but what range of frequencies? Also, just what is that elusive one for you, ELOPTIC?? You will be basically on your own there since wiki doesn't really clarify it. Yet it does exist to my satisfaction, since I successfully performed experiments and tests which were 100% repeatable.

Don Jose deLa Mancha

 

[EE THr]

hi EE, yep, to explain in the most simplified way, but what range of frequencies? Also, just what is that elusive one for you, ELOPTIC?? You will be basically on your own there since wiki doesn't really clarify it. Yet it does exist to my satisfaction, since I successfully performed experiments and tests which were 100% repeatable.

Don Jose deLa Mancha

I did a search engine check, and all of the first page seemed to refer to free energy kind of stuff, and didn't really seem to identify what your eloptic energy was or much about it at all.

If you want to give a quick overview of what you're talking about, it might help.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

afternoon EE; you posted--> If you want to give a quick overview of what you're talking about, it might help.

***********
Did, and even posted how to build a device to demonstrate it in recent past. Also have posted how to see the results of certain electromagnetic frequencies on health, such as in florescent lights, by using bio indicators.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

afternoon EE; you posted--> If you want to give a quick overview of what you're talking about, it might help.

***********
Did, and even posted how to build a device to demonstrate it in recent past. Also have posted how to see the results of certain electromagnetic frequencies on health, such as in florescent lights, by using bio indicators.

Don Jose de La Mancha

That must have been before I got here, or I just didn't see it.

Frankly, I'm losing all interest in it now. Sorry.

But if you can build an LRL with it, that can pass a double-blind test, I'll be all ears...

 

[aarthrj3811]

It's been over ten days since I last asked these questions, and none of the Con-Artists Shills have been able to answer.
Heck, they didn't even make their usual nonsense posts, to try and change the subject!
They just ignored them. They can't face them. And they sure can't answer them (without making liars out of themselves). But, just to bring things back on topic---

Backward logic at it’s best

 

[EE THr]

Backward logic at it’s best

[/quote]

It's been over ten days since I last asked these questions, and none of the Con-Artists Shills have been able to answer.

Thanks for the confirmation that you are a shill and a con artist!

This is just laughable!

You fall for it every time, con-artie.






Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EddieR]

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".

 

[EE THr]

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".

Eddie---

Thank's for answering in a rational manner.

 

[EE THr]

They just ignored them. They can't face them. And they sure can't answer them (without making liars out of themselves).

Only one LRL user, Eddie, has given rational answers to all the questions.

So, just to bring things back on topic, once again---


If you fellas can't answer simple, obvious questions, how do you expect to have any credibility at all on here?

I'll give everyone a second chance, though. Here they are again---



The Questions LRLers Refuse to Answer


1. Why don't you take Carl's test?

2. What do you feel is wrong with Carl's double-blind test?

3. What do you think is a fair test?

4. What average percentage of success do LRLs consistently and reliably have, under optimum conditions?

5. Art's idea of a fair test is for 30 people, "like the drug companies." But he won't answer the following question: All 30 people searching for the same target at once, 10 at a time, 1 at a time; or all 30 searching for 30 targets all at once, or what?


Number one leads to number two, and two leads to three.

Number four should be common knowledge, because the LRL promoters brag continuously.

The real LRL promoters won't, under any circumstances, fully answer number three; because then they would have to take that test which they described! Because if it were their idea, they can't disagree with it!

When asked #3, they immediately turn to insults or purely nonsensical posts about anything besides the subject at hand. So obvious!


But, here is their big chance [again], nonetheless....



ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Number one leads to number two, and two leads to three.
Number four should be common knowledge, because the LRL promoters brag continuously.
The real LRL promoters won't, under any circumstances, fully answer number three; because then they would have to take that test which they described! Because if it were their idea, they can't disagree with it!
When asked #3, they immediately turn to insults or purely nonsensical posts about anything besides the subject at hand. So obvious!
But, here is their big chance [again], nonetheless....

The skeptics are the ones Demanding a Test..We just want you to design a real Double Blind test that will prove that our tools will find treasure..Is that to simple for you to understand?...Art

 

[fenixdigger]

Art;

Without any hands on, how could they possibly know what would be the best way to proceed? I'm sure their response will only
show the need for this.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Wrong again, artie.

Don't make the claim, if you can't take the blame.

Just what am I to take the blame for?..Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

For being you, ya nut heheh

Don Jose de La Mancha