Why skeptics doesnt show proof?

[architecad]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Arch;

He is kidding, just like me asking for the house keys. ( I was serious about the 1/2 bar and the detectors though) LOL

I know he's kidding. He knows LRL works and find gold, but he's frustrated.

Arch

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

` ~EE THr~

He never mentioned aluminum.
Do you intend to bring your own aluminum?
What are you talking about?v

So you admit that you have a serious lack of knowledge about the Treasure hunting devices that we use…Read the entire web site to get yourself up to speed about our hobby. See all the complaints about these perfect devices..
An entire thread saying that you will find about 200 pull tabs before locating a gold ring..Thirty years ago that is what happened to me…I see no progress in the discrimination of these devices..then you guys complain about the devices that we use based on misinformation…Art

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Artie---

You keep forgetting my opinion on these.

I don't contest that you find whatever you are looking for.

But it's simply dowsing.

Please keep that straight, or you make yourself look not so bright.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

~ EE THr`

You keep forgetting my opinion on these.
I don't contest that you find whatever you are looking for.
But it's simply dowsing.
Please keep that straight, or you make yourself look not so bright.

How could I forget your opinion ?

Yes I can find what I am looking for every time if the substance is in range

If it is Dowsing how come you can not answer the simple questions on this thread..

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,384052.0.html
Dowsing vs LRL’s
I am bright enough to understand what your agenda is..Art
It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Artie---

Ooh! Grouchy-grouchy!

Being antisocial doesn't help your credibility at all.

If you have no credibility, people won't give any thought to what you write.

If people don't think about what you write, you won't advance your ideas about LRLs.



Since you didn't answer my question about "no swivel mechanism," I must assume that there is one.

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Like an old wind vane, it is free to move on it's own. Putting a straw on the handle of a "dowsing" rod is the same.

It would be closer to say it has no attachment mechanism, rather free floating of a sort.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

~EE THr~

Ooh! Grouchy-grouchy!
Being antisocial doesn't help your credibility at all.
If you have no credibility, people won't give any thought to what you write.
If people don't think about what you write, you won't advance your ideas about LRLs.

Since you didn't answer my question about "no swivel mechanism," I must assume that there is one.

?



No sweat EE THr…every one can see what your agenda is..art

 

[woof!]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Art, what's his agenda?

(You never thought I'd ask your opinion, did you?!)

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Artie---

No sweat EE THr…every one can see what your agenda is..art

What is so revealing about that? I would hope so, since I have made a multitude of posts stating it.







Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

~EE THr~

What is so revealing about that? I would hope so, since I have made a multitude of posts stating it.

Yes we are aware of yiour opinion about LRL’s with handles…We have attempted to educate you about these devices and about Dowsing.

I even started a thread in hope that you could answer some of my questions.

Dowsing vs LRL’s
Posted Feb 20, 2011, 10:12:57 AM Quote Modify Remove

Dowsing vs LRL’s
We have been told by our expert non-treasure hunters many fairy tales in the last few months…They have admitted now that we can find treasure with our LRL’s but only because it is just Dowsing..The electronics have nothing to do with what we locate and recover. So as usual I have a few questions.
As a fair Dowser and also a LRL user I will tell you a few facts..I can locate a few flakes of Gold with a set of Dowsing Rods for a distance of @ 70 paces. A Gold Nugget which weights a little less than a ¼ oz for a little less than a ¼ mile. With all 4 of the MFD’s and LRL’s that I own I can find those same targets at a distance of 2 and 3 miles.

Could these experts please explain how this can occur if the electronics have nothing to do with the process ?..Art
But all the skeptics just keep on ducking and dodging the question..Art

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Artie---

Could these experts please explain how this can occur if the electronics have nothing to do with the process?

But all the skeptics just keep on ducking and dodging the question..Art

These topics do get dragged off course quickly, with all the arguing going on.

But I'll give you my answer to that right now.

While I don't "admit" that you find stuff, because I haven't been there; I do state that I personally have no reason to doubt, or contest, that you do find everything you are hunting for while using an LRL device of any type.

What I do have to say about it, is if you are using anything that swivels, and points, or nulls, to indicate the direction or location of a target, it is the same as dowsing. And that a person could do just as well with a willow branch or dowsing rod(s).

I also state that in my opinion, dowsing is a psychic ability, specifically one where the person is subconsciously aware of the target location, and also subconsciously moves his hands in a way that makes the swivel pointer behave in the indicative manner.

I don't have any real information about the few types which don't use some kind of swivel or pointing component, to form an opinion on them. However, I also don't have any reason to believe, from their advertisements, that they actually will find what is claimed in their ads.

I should add that all of the LRL ads that I have seen so far, of any type, contain explanations of their so-called "electronics functioning" which falls far short of indicating that they will actually work, by known electronics definitions.

I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

If anyone can correct me on my electronics deficiencies statement, go ahead, I'm all ears.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Yes you are right..As usual the only proof the Skeptics have is…their opinion..Art

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Oh, that's right, you asked for proof.


OK: Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud


Happy now?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

~EE THr~

The Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud.

1. There is no standard electronics explanation 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 double blind test.
4. The proponent's only rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-3. 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 finding stuff a total Straw Man fallacy, and thus void as responses to this list.

Ask and answered may times..Could it be that your opinions are not exactable ?

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Artie---

Like I said before, if you can disprove the list, go ahead---I'm all ears!

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Mr. Judy---

You have it backwards.

These are not refusals of evidence, they are statements of readily observable, and undisputed, facts.

Any evidence would be yours, if you wanted to try to prove them wrong.

The only limitations I have for your evidence is that it be facts, rather than the usual Science Fiction, or outright Fantasy, offered by the LRL makers and certain proponents.

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Mr. Judy---

Unlike you, I'm not here to advertise.













Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Mr. Judy---

Claiming that only one or more types of evidence are valid, to the exclusion of all other types, is a Multiple Choice Fallacy.

What the above refers to, is when, of the several types of evidence, someone only wants to accept one kind, which automatically indicates that all the others are invalid.

There is eye-witness evidence, audio and video recorded evidence, document evidence, other physical evidence, confessions, and circumstantial evidence.

An example of "only one type of evidence is valid" would be when something is so totally obvious that everyone http://knows that it was accomplished in a criminal manner, the guilt party will say, "You don't have any proof." They are saying that because there is no documentation (they were sure to not put anything in writing), and no eye-witnesses (they planned everything in private), and no recordings (they made sure not to use phones, and always met outdoors, where they couldn't be bugged), that these are the only types of acceptable evidence. And people fall for this all the time. But people have been convicted on strong circumstantial evidence, because it shows that it couldn't have happened any other way. Yet some people are never charged for certain crimes, even though there is not only enough evidence to arrest, but clearly enough to convice. Enforcement simply says, "Sorry, we had no proof." When actually they did.

I mention this type of fallacy statement when people try to limit the the type of evidence which should be considered valid. Some people fall for this fallacy easily, because it seems like it's pointing out a shortcoming to their claim. But not all types of evidence are necessary to prove something, depending if it's a "prove yes," or a "prove no." That is, if it is an inclusive proof (or claim), or an exclusive proof (or claim).

So, when something is obviously wrong, for several reasons; and the person, or group, accused singles out one type of evidence, and hammers on about it not existing, they are trying to invalidate all other types of evidence, even though they exist. It's a fallacy.




P.S. The Multiple Choice Fallacy is when someone gives two or more choices, none of which are optimal for the other person, yet claims that the person is being allowed their "free choice." Not true.

Another way it works is that the mere statement of the few choices, leads the other person to believe that there are no more possibilities, and so he doesn't even look for more. This is very popular with politicians.

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Mr. Judy---

Sorry; you snooze, you loose.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

~EE THr~
Artie---

You keep forgetting my opinion on these.
I don't contest that you find whatever you are looking for.
But it's simply dowsing.
Please keep that straight, or you make yourself look not so bright.
F-