"There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

[aarthrj3811]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

~EE

Once again you try to say that LRLs are the same thing as treasure hunting. Very tricky, Art.

Are you now claiming that this is not a Treasure Hunting Web site?...Are you now trying to claim that we should talk about devices made for purposes other than for treasure hunting?

How does knowledge of treasure hunting affect the fact that LRLs are fake devices?

Are you claiming again the LRL’s are fake devices?

LRLs and MFDs have been proven to not be able to find anything.

Thank You for another claim..Can you post where this proof you claim can be found

But you scoff at real evidence, and try to push your silly fish stories---why?

Gee..We have saw no real evidence so what is there to scoff at? I told you before that I have not posted any fish stories

It appears that you have an axe to grind, or you wouldn't work so hard at your little hoax.

I no longer own an axe or the tools to grind it with...Yes I work hard but do not hoax anyone..art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Carl-NC]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

The skeptics are a fraud and a hoax, everything about them.

Mike, are you a hoax, or the Real Thing?

 

[woof!]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

I like to think of the way LRL's work sort of like one of those plasma globes. Your biofield is like the globe and when you hold your hand up to the globe the plasma is attracted to your hand. Of course this isn't exactly how it works, you should read the book on magnet healing and you will learn a lot about it.

Be assured that by imagining stuff, it becomes fact to you.

Of course the real world owes nothing to your fancies.

--Toto

 

[woof!]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

Howard Johnson
I doubt he is any relation to Dave J. aka Woof, Toto, and I suspect EE THr.

A person would have to be deeply sunk into wishful thinking (and obviously is!) to "suspect" that EE and I are the same person. It's the only way to get there: nobody who isn't stuck worshipping their own fantasies could possibly make that mistake.

To his credit, EE gets some stuff right. Stuff that LRL vendors can't refute because they ain't got a leg to stand on.

--Toto

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

~woof!~

To his credit, EE gets some stuff right. Stuff that LRL vendors can't refute because they ain't got a leg to stand on.

Is it your opinion that EE has got something right?...Please tell us just what that may be?...Art

 

[Carl-NC]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

Howard Johnson
I doubt he is any relation to Dave J. aka Woof, Toto, and I suspect EE THr.

Mike, we are all Sam. Everyone is Sam.

- Sam I Am

 

[signal_line]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

I don't read the skeptics' replies but I'm sure it goes something like this: "You have no credibility because all LRL's are pseudio science." It's a dirty lawyer's trick to claim a person has no credibility by claiming they have no proof or taking some statement out of context and a dumbed-down jury might likely agree. When a person believes an LRL can't possibly work, there is no amount of proof that is good enough. Just like when Dell Winders beat the odds big time right in front of James Randi, the skeptics claimed it was not good enough. That's B.S. but that's how they operate. No amount of proof is good enough.

I would never question some metal detector designer's credibility because I don't know enough about it. But just because someone knows electronics does not give them ANY credibilty about LRL's especially when they have stated they can't possibly work. You come on my side of the street and you don't have any credibility, period.

 

[EE THr]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

Just like when Dell Winders beat the odds big time right in front of James Randi....

Please post the documents which show that.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

~EE~

Please post the documents which show that.

Gee EE..Your tell us that you missed that movie?..Art

 

[EE THr]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

~EE~

Please post the documents which show that.

Gee EE..Your tell us that you missed that movie?..Art

Why do you ask?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

~EE~

Please post the documents which show that.

Gee EE..Your tell us that you missed that movie?..Art

Why do you ask?

Just answering your request...Art

 

[EE THr]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

~EE~

Please post the documents which show that.

Gee EE..Your tell us that you missed that movie?..Art

Why do you ask?

Just answering your request...Art

Your answer is non-responsive. Post the video (if there really is one).

I vaguely remember some kind of claim like this a few months ago, and it turned out to not be anything like what was claimed---there was no LRL success at all.

Talk is cheap.

 

[woof!]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

~woof!~

To his credit, EE gets some stuff right. Stuff that LRL vendors can't refute because they ain't got a leg to stand on.

Is it your opinion that EE has got something right?...Please tell us just what that may be?...Art

After something like two years of you yourself quoting EE's posts, if you don't know by now, your light bulb is burned out, nothing I say can turn it on for you.

--Toto

 

[signal_line]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

I have not been reading these posts but I read some a while back on the dowsing forum. The skeptic argument is: "MFD's don't do anything and it's just dowsing." Well don't you think these skeptics know that it is difficult to prove a negative? The concensus is "You can't prove a negative." Yet these skeptics insist on the LRL users doing so. That's more hogwash--intentional deception. Why don't they play fair? Because they think you are not smart enough to catch this. They are are elitist (can't use the word but it rhymes with Saabs).

The reason it is difficult to prove a negative is the dirty lawyers will find fault in anything you do. It doesn't matter if you find the gold, just like with Dell in front of James Randi. Once a person believes it is not possible, there is no amount of proof that is good enough.

 

[werleibr]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

I have not been reading these posts but I read some a while back on the dowsing forum. The skeptic argument is: "MFD's don't do anything and it's just dowsing." Well don't you think these skeptics know that it is difficult to prove a negative? The concensus is "You can't prove a negative." Yet these skeptics insist on the LRL users doing so. That's more hogwash--intentional deception. Why don't they play fair? Because they think you are not smart enough to catch this. They are are elitist (can't use the word but it rhymes with Saabs).

The reason it is difficult to prove a negative is the dirty lawyers will find fault in anything you do. It doesn't matter if you find the gold, just like with Dell in front of James Randi. Once a person believes it is not possible, there is no amount of proof that is good enough.

Your statement "You can't prove a negative" is a faulty statement. Here is why so if I could prove the statment is true, then the statement wouldn’t be true! Any claim can be expressed as a negative using the rule of double negation.
Example some one state as a fact that the sun will not rise tomorrow morning. Can we prove that person is correct at this time. No we cannot because we cannot see into the future. But we do know from our experiences that yes the sun will raise tomorrow and I will prove it tomorrow when it does rise. You know we base our logic off of past experiences. Here is another example using a chicken from Bertrand Russell (gotta give credit to the person who thought of it). A chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer approaching, since that is what had always happened in the past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner, he becomes dinner.But if the chicken had rejected inductive reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmer would be a surprise.
People like to us the "You can't prove a negative" as a skape goat to continue to beleive in what they want and gives them reason to dismiss any and all evidence, no matter how great, that contradicts what they beleive.

 

[EE THr]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

...just because someone knows electronics does not give them ANY credibilty about LRL's especially when they have stated they can't possibly work.

This tells me that you have no real knowledge of electronics. But even then, to say that Electrical Engineers don't have any credibility in evaluating an allegedly electronic locating device, is total propaganda, and absolute false logic. You are intentionally trying to mislead people with that obviously wrong "conclusion."


P.S. I'm still waiting for you to post documentation or a video, showing that Dell got an LRL or MFD to work, in front of Randi. Where is it? Talk is cheap!

 

[EddieR]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

I have not been reading these posts but I read some a while back on the dowsing forum. The skeptic argument is: "MFD's don't do anything and it's just dowsing." Well don't you think these skeptics know that it is difficult to prove a negative? The concensus is "You can't prove a negative." Yet these skeptics insist on the LRL users doing so. That's more hogwash--intentional deception. Why don't they play fair? Because they think you are not smart enough to catch this. They are are elitist (can't use the word but it rhymes with Saabs).

The reason it is difficult to prove a negative is the dirty lawyers will find fault in anything you do. It doesn't matter if you find the gold, just like with Dell in front of James Randi. Once a person believes it is not possible, there is no amount of proof that is good enough.

Your statement "You can't prove a negative" is a faulty statement. Here is why so if I could prove the statment is true, then the statement wouldn’t be true! Any claim can be expressed as a negative using the rule of double negation.
Example some one state as a fact that the sun will not rise tomorrow morning. Can we prove that person is correct at this time. No we cannot because we cannot see into the future. But we do know from our experiences that yes the sun will raise tomorrow and I will prove it tomorrow when it does rise. You know we base our logic off of past experiences. Here is another example using a chicken from Bertrand Russell (gotta give credit to the person who thought of it). A chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer approaching, since that is what had always happened in the past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner, he becomes dinner.But if the chicken had rejected inductive reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmer would be a surprise.
People like to us the "You can't prove a negative" as a skape goat to continue to beleive in what they want and gives them reason to dismiss any and all evidence, no matter how great, that contradicts what they beleive.

I totally agree with you here! If you will look back through the posts of the last 1-2 years, you will see the "anti'LRL'ers" like to use that one a lot.

 

[werleibr]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

I have not been reading these posts but I read some a while back on the dowsing forum. The skeptic argument is: "MFD's don't do anything and it's just dowsing." Well don't you think these skeptics know that it is difficult to prove a negative? The concensus is "You can't prove a negative." Yet these skeptics insist on the LRL users doing so. That's more hogwash--intentional deception. Why don't they play fair? Because they think you are not smart enough to catch this. They are are elitist (can't use the word but it rhymes with Saabs).

The reason it is difficult to prove a negative is the dirty lawyers will find fault in anything you do. It doesn't matter if you find the gold, just like with Dell in front of James Randi. Once a person believes it is not possible, there is no amount of proof that is good enough.

Your statement "You can't prove a negative" is a faulty statement. Here is why so if I could prove the statment is true, then the statement wouldn’t be true! Any claim can be expressed as a negative using the rule of double negation.
Example some one state as a fact that the sun will not rise tomorrow morning. Can we prove that person is correct at this time. No we cannot because we cannot see into the future. But we do know from our experiences that yes the sun will raise tomorrow and I will prove it tomorrow when it does rise. You know we base our logic off of past experiences. Here is another example using a chicken from Bertrand Russell (gotta give credit to the person who thought of it). A chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer approaching, since that is what had always happened in the past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner, he becomes dinner.But if the chicken had rejected inductive reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmer would be a surprise.
People like to us the "You can't prove a negative" as a skape goat to continue to beleive in what they want and gives them reason to dismiss any and all evidence, no matter how great, that contradicts what they beleive.

I totally agree with you here! If you will look back through the posts of the last 1-2 years, you will see the "anti'LRL'ers" like to use that one a lot.

Oh man is the end comming...We agreed on something Eddie.. Have a good weekend

 

[EE THr]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

I totally agree with you here! If you will look back through the posts of the last 1-2 years, you will see the "anti'LRL'ers" like to use that one a lot.

You make it sound like anyone who sees the actual facts, like LRLs being proven fraudulent, as merely being "anti," as in political movements. That is another instance of you showing your bias, along with complaining about their statements.

You don't seem to mind the illogic of the LRL promoters making the original claim that their devices will find treasure, then refusing to participate in legitimate unbiased testing. That doen't bother you at all, even though you admitted that Carl's was a good test. All the goofy reason that the LRL promoters have given for refusing to be tested, have never gotten a questioning comment from you. You think that's all just fine and dandy.

But when the LRL promoters insist that debunkers "prove the negative," by somehow proving that LRLs don't work, you whine about that, instead.

And when the LRL promoters ridiculously say that our proof (as requested by them, that LRLs are fraudulent devices), like the DOJ report, is phony, not a word is heard from you against their sillyness.

Just more exposure that your denial of bias is false.



P.S. Still waiting for you to post some verifiable on-topic contribution to this Section of the forum....

 

[EddieR]

Re: "There are about 200 or so distinct magnetic effects.

I totally agree with you here! If you will look back through the posts of the last 1-2 years, you will see the "anti'LRL'ers" like to use that one a lot.

You make it sound like anyone who sees the actual facts, like LRLs being proven fraudulent, as merely being "anti," as in political movements. That is another instance of you showing your bias, along with complaining about their statements.

You don't seem to mind the illogic of the LRL promoters making the original claim that their devices will find treasure, then refusing to participate in legitimate unbiased testing. That doen't bother you at all, even though you admitted that Carl's was a good test. All the goofy reason that the LRL promoters have given for refusing to be tested, have never gotten a questioning comment from you. You think that's all just fine and dandy.

But when the LRL promoters insist that debunkers "prove the negative," by somehow proving that LRLs don't work, you whine about that, instead.

And when the LRL promoters ridiculously say that our proof (as requested by them, that LRLs are fraudulent devices), like the DOJ report, is phony, not a word is heard from you against their sillyness.

Just more exposure that your denial of bias is false.



P.S. Still waiting for you to post some verifiable on-topic contribution to this Section of the forum....

Oh for crying out loud, EE! I didn't want to use the term "skeptic" because it gets your panties in a wad. The term "anti-LRL'er was not meant to be derogatory.

What encompassing term am I to use that includes all who oppose LRL's without using word "skeptic"?

Your post is just more proof that you are here just to instigate and agitate, not educate.