This a great forum for researching human nature.

But nobody is contesting that this detector will sense metals, and predictably perform the same every time.
Because it actually does. And for everyone.
Click to expand...

I am a nobody….I know that a metal detector will find metal if it is in the first foot of dirt and the detector is passed over it..You may want to read the thousands of post on t-net to see what some of the problems they actually have…I personally threw my Metal Detector in the Sacramento River after digging 200 straight Pull Tabs while using it in the Gold only mode..Art
 

Amazon Forum Fav đź‘Ť

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!
artie---

Too bad you didn't learn enough about what you were doing, to know that gold and aluminum have a similar level of conductivity.

And why would anyone be prospecting in a park, anyway? :icon_scratch:
 

Too bad you didn't learn enough about what you were doing, to know that gold and aluminum have a similar level of conductivity.
Click to expand...

Good ducking… Conductivity may refer to:
• Electrical conductivity, a measure of a material's ability to conduct an electric current
• Conductivity (electrolytic), a measurement of an electrolytic solution, such as water
• Ionic conductivity, a measure of the conductivity through ionic charge carriers
• Hydraulic conductivity, a property of a porous material's ability to transmit water
• Thermal conductivity, the intensive property of a material that indicates its ability to conduct heat

And why would anyone be prospecting in a park, anyway?
Click to expand...

The Sacramento River is an important watercourse of Northern and Central California in the United States. The largest river in California, it rises on the eastern slopes of the Klamath Mountains, and after a journey south of over 400 miles (640 km), empties into Suisun Bay, an arm of the San Francisco Bay, and thence to the Pacific Ocean. The river drains an area of about 27,000 square miles (70,000 km2) in the northern half of the state, mostly within a region bounded by the Coast Ranges and Sierra Nevada known as the Sacramento Valley. Its extensive watershed also reaches to the volcanic plateaus of Northeastern California, and a tiny portion of southern Oregon.

A really big Park..Art
 

artie---

Then your problem is that you don't know which definition of conductivity to apply!

How many gold mines have you located in the Sacramento River with your LRLs?


:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:
 

~EE THr~
Then your problem is that you don't know which definition of conductivity to apply!
Click to expand...
•
Electrical conductivity, a measure of a material's ability to conduct an electric current
• Conductivity (electrolytic), a measurement of an electrolytic solution, such as water
• Ionic conductivity, a measure of the conductivity through ionic charge carriers
• Hydraulic conductivity, a property of a porous material's ability to transmit water
• Thermal conductivity, the intensive property of a material that indicates its ability to conduct heat
How many gold mines have you located in the Sacramento River with your LRLs?
Click to expand...

None
Gold mining consists of the processes and techniques employed in the removal of gold from the ground. There are several techniques by which gold may be extracted from the earth.
 

RDT---

That's real nice, but for one thing, they're way late. Where were they 50 or 60 years ago? Or even before that?

For another thing, it doesn't mention that they plan to further study this effect, with the intention of implementing it in all levels of education, as well as other areas of life, like business. It sounds like they just said, "Well, look how great we are, what we did." And then just dropped it there. Think you'll ever hear of it again, beyond that article?

:sign13:
 

hmmm EE: you posted-->Where were they 50 or 60 years ago? Or even before that?
*************
as a matter of fact where was medicine or electonics in that period?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you posted -->For another thing, it doesn't mention that they plan to further study this effect, with the intention of implementing it in all levels of education, as well as other areas of life, like business. It sounds like they just said, "Well, look how great we are, what we did."
*****************
Unfortunately, this equally applies to any advancement, or as a matter of fact to any phase of so called science. It is an asumed fact.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted --> Think you'll ever hear of it again, beyond that article?
************
Of course, since according to you it is a money making scheme.

Don Jose de La Mancha
 

I said that helping people do better, in school and business, is a money making scheme?
Click to expand...

So if a psychologists helps people do better, in school and business it is a money making scheme…So what do you call the students and businesses that are helped ?..Art
 

Allo EE, aa:coffee2: :coffee2: :coffee2: or coke?

you posted -->I said that helping people do better, in school and business, is a money making scheme?

**********
nope, just that psychiatrists /. psychologists are involved and you have a low opinion of them.

Don Jose de La Mancha
 

RDT & artie---

I have a very low opinion of population reduction, by birth control chemicals and outright toxins introduced into the environment in various ways, and the same in vaccines; and the people who are forwarding these plans are the same who are eugenics proponents.

Eugenics is the real platform of Psychiatry, and their minion Psychology.

Their purpose is more than just sucking money out of everyone else. Read my signature line sometime.

As others have stated, there are a few good people around. This can be seen in the video I posted.

But the fact that the article reported what could be seen as a good thing, is negated by the fact that nobody plans to do much of anything with it. They will probably be defunded.



Does it mean that the overall planned physical population elimination is a good thing, just because there is no direct profit line visable in this particular story?



Be aware of the big picture.

Think for yourself.

:coffee2:
 

~EE THr~
RDT & artie---

I have a very low opinion of population reduction, by birth control chemicals and outright toxins introduced into the environment in various ways, and the same in vaccines; and the people who are forwarding these plans are the same who are eugenics proponents.

Eugenics is the real platform of Psychiatry, and their minion Psychology.

Their purpose is more than just sucking money out of everyone else. Read my signature line sometime.
Click to expand...

Thank You for clearing that up..Art
Skeptics
An evil group is comprised of the insane, who, out of fear, imagine that they must conspire to destroy those who are honest and able.
Treasure Hunters
A good group is made up of honest people, who could each survive on their own, yet work together openly for betterment for themselves and others.

Eugenics is the "applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population," usually referring to human populations.[2] Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century,[3] but by the late 20th century it had fallen into disfavor, having become associated with Nazi Germany. Both the public and some elements of the scientific community have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about the meaning of eugenics and its ethical and moral status in the modern era, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in eugenics
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03...hologists-minute-gpas-minority.html
But when black freshmen participated in an hour-long exercise designed by Stanford psychologists to show that everyone – no matter what their race or ethnicity – has a tough time adjusting to college right away, their grades went up and the minority achievement gap shrank by 52 percent. And years later, those students said they were happier and healthier than some of their black peers who didn't take part in the exercise.
 

artie---

Unfortunately, nothing in your previous post actually relates to rebutting what I said.

Acutally it all agrees with me, except your cute little childish neener-neener about my signature line. And you even messed that up, because I don't think there are any of your so-called "skeptics" participating on this board anymore.

You see, both SWR and I, have stated that we are not "skeptics."

Actually, you are the real Skeptic (note the capitalization), as defined in the dictionary.



But SWR and I have told you that we are not doubters of LRL promoters' claims. But rather we have no doubt that they are false.

So, if you want to address any thing to us, either use our handles, or the word "opponent" for SWR, as he has requested of you, and the term "Scientific Proof of Scientific Claims Advocate (SPSCA)" for me. Otherwise I don't know who you would be talking to, unless there are others here who would profess to being mere "skeptics."

I would assume that Carl is in the same category as SWR and I, but since he hasn't stated his own opinion about the term "skeptic," I won't try to speak for him.

To refer to SWR or I as "skeptics" would amount to name-calling, because it is has been proven to be not true, by our own statements of our positions, and therefore you would be trying to minimize our actual stated positions on this matter.

We have no doubts.

Thank you in advance.

:coffee2:
 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skeptic
1.a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2.
a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3.
a person who doubts the truth of a religion, especially christianity, or of important elements of it.
4.
( initial capital letter ) Philosophy .
a.
a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b.
any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.


http://www.skepdic.com/intro.html
The Skeptic’s Dictionary provides definitions, arguments, and essays on subjects supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. I use the term “occult” to refer to any and all of these subjects. The reader is forewarned that The Skeptic’s Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects. If anything, this book is a Davidian counterbalance to the Goliath of occult literature. I hope that an occasional missile hits its mark. Unlike David, however, I have little faith, and do not believe Goliath can be slain. Skeptics can give him a few bumps and bruises, but our words will never be lethal. Goliath cannot be taken down by evidence and arguments. However, many of the spectators may be swayed by our performance and recognize Goliath for what he often is: a false messiah. It is especially for the younger spectators that this book is written. I hope to expose Goliath’s weaknesses so that the reader will question his strength and doubt his promises.


Thank You
 

Acutally it all agrees with me, except your cute little childish neener-neener about my signature line. And you even messed that up, because I don't think there are any of your so-called "skeptics" participating on this board anymore.
You see, both SWR and I, have stated that we are not "skeptics."

Actually, you are the real Skeptic (note the capitalization), as defined in the dictionary.
But SWR and I have told you that we are not doubters of LRL promoters' claims. But rather we have no doubt that they are false.

So, if you want to address any thing to us, either use our handles, or the word "opponent" for SWR, as he has requested of you, and the term "Scientific Proof of Scientific Claims Advocate (SPSCA)" for me. Otherwise I don't know who you would be talking to, unless there are others here who would profess to being mere "skeptics."
To refer to SWR or I as "skeptics" would amount to name-calling, because it is has been proven to be not true, by our own statements of our positions, and therefore you would be trying to minimize our actual stated positions on this matter.
Click to expand...
Yes..This a great forum for researching human nature.
 

RDT---

More than just recently. Over and over and over. I have said that "I have no reason to doubt that dowsers are finding what they are looking for." But, also that I have never witnessed a successful dowse, that is, I've never seen one dig his dowse. Just saw a couple people fooling around, speculating where some water might be.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that LRLs do not do anything beyond what possibly could be done with simple dowsing. The only thing they might add is suggestability or greater confidence, whichever way you want to look at it.



P.S. Thanks for not getting goofy with the tildes.
 

Evening EE:you posted --> Does it mean that the overall planned physical population elimination is a good thing,
**************
Nah , no way, since I would be at the top of the Euthanasia program as being a non producer now days.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~< -- you mean these? Used to primarily separate paragraphs or statements.

Don Jose de La mancha
 

Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp said:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~< -- you mean these? Used to primarily separate paragraphs or statements.

Don Jose de La mancha
Click to expand...


Them's the rascals, all right.

Also used as the symbol for "about" or "approximately." As in "~5."

Referred to by blonds as "That little wiggly thingy."

:coffee2:
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Fake Explosives and Drugs Detectors

⬅️ Previous Thread

Dowsing vs LRL’s

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Latest Discussions

Back
Top