[x] Welcome at THunting.com!

A fun place to talk about Metal Detecting, Treasure Hunting & Prospecting. Here you can share finds and experience with thousands of members from all over the world

Join us and Register Now - Its FREE & EASY

THunting.com
Treasure Hunting & Metal Detecting Community
   
Advanced Search
*
Welcome, Guest! Please login or register HERE - It is FREE and easy.
Only registered users can post and view images on our message boards.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
Or Login Using Social Network Account
2
News:
Pages:  1 2 3 4 5   Go Down
Print
Share this topic on FacebookShare this topic on Del.icio.usShare this topic on DiggShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on Twitter
Tags:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Offline Carl-NCTopic starter
Bronze Member
*

Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you1

Activity
0%

United States
Posts: 124
Referrals: 0

688.00 Gold
View Inventory

WWW Awards

~175 models
« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2006, 12:45:22 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Quote:Posted by Dell_Winders
"NO! In my opinion, the locators I sell DO NOT actually detect Gold."  Dell


There ya go, Dan... if you don't want to believe me, will you believe Dell?

Quote:Posted by {author}
Before, you have adamantly declared  that the use of LRL or MFD  devices is merely Dowsing, which by definition is a mental exercise that utilizes the ability of the  human mind/brain (Meta-Physics).


Intuition, yes.

Quote:Posted by {author}
Here you are saying that it is the LRL itself, a physical device (Physics) that you are testing which you seem to believe doesn't, or should  not, require the human equasion?


No, I'm testing the claim, or the implication (since manufacturers tend to dodge outright claims), that LRLs can detect gold. It doesn't matter if it's a physical effect, or a physiological effect. Does it work, when the user has NO KNOWLEDGE of the target location? Heck, as I've told folks before, you can even try to employ mind-reading if you want.

Quote:Posted by {author}
It appears to me that you are confused and unclear in your definitions, and thatyour DB tests are not scientificly designed to accurately evaluate the merits of either method.


There is nothing to define. It doesn't matter how LRLs are supposed to work. For the challenge, I don't ask, and I don't care. I only want to know, can a given LRL detect gold?

Quote:Posted by {author}
FACT: Statistics show that no Dowser, or no LRL user, has ever qualified to meet the requirements for taking your's, or Randi's, test challenge in 20 years.


Yes, tests have shown that when knowledge of the target is eliminated, dowsing & LRLs don't work. We agree on this.

Quote:Posted by {author}
Be honest with yourself Carl, accept the facts. These so called Challenges promoted by members of the  Skeptic society are nothing but self serving PUBLICITY GIMMICKS, to gain attention to your self. They are designed Not to be winnable by Dowsing, or LRL,  and only attract losers hoping to get lucky and beat the odds.  Your challenge gimmick, provides very  little scientific validity, if any.


They demonstrate that dowsing & LRLs don't really work.

Quote:Posted by {author}
So I'll take this opportunity to once again advise consumers who may be viewing this,  that the products  I build, use personally, or sell, do not meet the criteria for passing Carl Morland's or James Randi's, so called challenges. That's a fact!   


I agree. Your products don't work.

Quote:Posted by {author}
In my opinion, Carl, is absolutely correct, and justified in claiming that no LRL, no matter who is using it can pass his test. He should know better than anyone, he designed it.   Dell


Well, I can't say that. If someone came up with an LRL that Really Works, then I will lose my money.

- Carl


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,298.msg1341.html#msg1341




Logged
Offline Carl-NCTopic starter
Bronze Member
*

Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you1

Activity
0%

United States
Posts: 124
Referrals: 0

688.00 Gold
View Inventory

WWW Awards

~175 models
« Reply #21 on: September 10, 2006, 12:48:08 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Quote:Posted by art3811

The same concepts used in the Mfg of LRL's is being used in almost every industry in the world. Locating gold is a minor function. Today I am working on the frequency for Redwood. Yes Carl...there is a frequency that every thing will response to even live tissue inside a human. Your so called Double Blind Test will only prove how well one person can use his Rods. Nothing will change and the LRL's will still be sold. ....Art


No, I'm sorry, but redwood does not have its own "frequency". A DB test would be very useful in demonstrating the folly of this concept.


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,298.msg1342.html#msg1342




Logged
Offline art3811
Bronze Member
*

I love THunting
Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you1

Activity
0%
Posts: 276
Referrals: 0

1114.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards
« Reply #22 on: September 10, 2006, 03:00:13 pm »
Go Up Go Down

No, I'm sorry, but redwood does not have its own "frequency". A DB test would be very useful in demonstrating the folly of this concept

A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls.

Carl?You can call your test anything you want?You have no base line for your results. The only one that I know of that has taken your test was 0-60. So 1-60 would be a winner. The only odds chart I have saw was the odds of flipping coins. So give 300 or 400 people the test and get some kind of base line results.

Redwood does have it?s own ?frequency? and response very well to the Rods?Art


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,298.msg1343.html#msg1343




Logged
Offline Carl-NCTopic starter
Bronze Member
*

Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you1

Activity
0%

United States
Posts: 124
Referrals: 0

688.00 Gold
View Inventory

WWW Awards

~175 models
« Reply #23 on: September 10, 2006, 04:02:27 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Quote:Posted by art3811
A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls.


Yes, that's right. In my test, there are 10 locations. One is real, 9 are controls. During the dowsing phase, neither the dowser nor the observer knows which location is real, and which are the controls.

Quote:Posted by {author}
Carl?You can call your test anything you want?You have no base line for your results. The only one that I know of that has taken your test was 0-60. So 1-60 would be a winner.


The base line is well-established statistics. I covered this very thoroughly on TNet.

Have no idea what "0-60" you are talking about.

Quote:Posted by {author}
The only odds chart I have saw was the odds of flipping coins. So give 300 or 400 people the test and get some kind of base line results.


There's not much I can do if you don't understand basic statistics.

Quote:Posted by {author}
Redwood does have it?s own ?frequency? and response very well to the Rods?Art


Is it one frequency, or dozens of frequencies? The reason I ask, is because in all the frequency-type LRLs I own, no two use the same frequency for gold. Not even LRLs from the same manufacturer. It's as if everyone just made up their own frequency.

BTW, I will allow a sample of redwood for my challenge, should you wish to prove your claim, and walk away with my money.

- Carl


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,298.msg1344.html#msg1344




Logged
Offline dandequille
Bronze Member
*

I love THunting
Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you0

Activity
0%
Posts: 261
Referrals: 0

1472.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards
« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2006, 04:08:44 pm »
Go Up Go Down

     Carl, my question still stands too.  If you don't know how an LRL should look how can you imply how they shouldn't look?  I'm talking about all your tear downs of the machines on your web site.
   I agee that the proof of the pie is in the eating.  Much treasure has been found using LRL as a primary tool but you ignore these successes.  I guess by your logic any treasure recovery that is reported can not be trusted which would then negate this web site and all the others.

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,298.msg1347.html#msg1347




Logged
Offline Dell_Winders
Bronze Member
*

Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you0

Activity
0%
Male
Posts: 483
Referrals: 0

2355.00 Gold
View Inventory

WWW Awards
« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2006, 04:17:06 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Quote:Posted by {author}
NO! In my opinion, the locators I sell DO NOT actually detect Gold."  Dell


There ya go, Dan... if you don't want to believe me, will you believe Dell?

Carl, I have never built a locator for Dan. As far as I know He has no reason to believe either one of us about my products.

Quote:Posted by {author}
Before, you have adamantly declared  that the use of LRL or MFD  devices is merely Dowsing, which by definition is a mental exercise that utilizes the ability of the  human mind/brain (Meta-Physics).


Intuition, yes.
WRONG! There is a  considerable difference between intuition and controlled, selective  Dowsing. If you have experienced both, you will easily know the difference.

Quote:Posted by {author}
Here you are saying that it is the LRL itself, a physical device (Physics) that you are testing which you seem to believe doesn't, or should  not, require the human equasion?


No, I'm testing the claim, or the implication (since manufacturers tend to dodge outright claims), that LRLs can detect gold. It doesn't matter if it's a physical effect, or a physiological effect. Does it work, when the user has NO KNOWLEDGE of the target location? Heck, as I've told folks before, you can even try to employ mind-reading if you want.
When folks have reported to you what they have found with the use of LRL, MFD, or Dowsing, you have also told them if it works for them, use it. Then you turn around and tell folks they don't work, inferring those who are successful in their use are liars.  Are they?

Since Gold, and other elements have been reported as being found & recovered resulting from the use of LRL, Dowsing or Black box technology by at least hundreds of users, independent of one another,  it is a safe bet that Treasures have been found with these methods.  As an eye witness to the recoveries, I can vouch for at least a couple of them myself.  "What has been done, can be done".

On the other hand, I have yet to see any one pass Carl, or Randi's, Gimmick challenges in 20 years. Apparently, it's  just much easier to find  buried & lost Treasure, than to even qualify for a  Skeptic publicity Scam.


Quote:Posted by {author}
It appears to me that you are confused and unclear in your definitions, and that your DB tests are not scientificly designed to accurately evaluate the merits of either method.


There is nothing to define. It doesn't matter how LRLs are supposed to work. For the challenge, I don't ask, and I don't care. I only want to know, can a given LRL detect gold? With nothing defined, that blows away the Scientific aspects of your tests, and brings it back to being a self serving publicity gimmick.
With the many postive reports of finds from consumers, it would be fair to assume that LRL or  MFD have been a helpful tool in finding Gold. Unless of course, you believe that all the LRL, MFD, users, or Dowsers  are liars?

Quote:Posted by {author}
FACT: Statistics show that no Dowser, or no LRL user, has ever qualified to meet the requirements for taking your's, or Randi's, test challenge in 20 years.


Yes, tests have shown that when knowledge of the target is eliminated, dowsing & LRLs don't work. We agree on this.
NO! We do not agree on that. Professional Treasure Hunters don't have the luxury of searching  for known targets. That's a ridiculous statement.

Quote:Posted by {author}
Be honest with yourself Carl, accept the facts. These so called Challenges promoted by members of the  Skeptic society are nothing but self serving PUBLICITY GIMMICKS, to gain attention to your self. They are designed Not to be winnable by Dowsing, or LRL,  and only attract losers hoping to get lucky and beat the odds.  Your challenge gimmick, provides very  little scientific validity, if any.


They demonstrate that dowsing & LRLs don't really work.
It demonstrates that  my LRL, or Dowsing, can't pass the tests you have designed for it. nothing else.  I  still continue to use these tool successfully in the field, as my customers have also reported..

Quote:Posted by {author}
So I'll take this opportunity to once again advise consumers who may be viewing this,  that the products  I build, use personally, or sell, do not meet the criteria for passing Carl Morland's or James Randi's, so called challenges. That's a fact!   


I agree. Your products don't work.
Of course, I never said they didn't work as a helpful information gathering tool.  So, why do you and Randi, keep hounding me to take your tests. Sounds like you might have some doubt, or you are just trying to gain publicity for your self by attempting to discredit my honesty & integrity.  Which is it?

Quote:Posted by {author}
In my opinion, Carl, is absolutely correct, and justified in claiming that no LRL, no matter who is using it can pass his test. He should know better than anyone, he designed it.   Dell


Well, I can't say that. If someone came up with an LRL that Really Works, then I will lose my money.  - Carl[/quote]

Cheesy But Carl, you did say that.
Quote:Posted by {author}
none of the LRLs can actually detect gold*. If they could, the DB test would be a breeze. - Carl


Quote:Posted by {author}
No, I'm testing the claim, or the implication (since manufacturers tend to dodge outright claims), that LRLs can detect gold.

You say you are testing implications, because manufacturers won't claim their products will detect Gold??  WOW! I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic? It could raise questions regarding your mentality though.  Dell

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,298.msg1348.html#msg1348




Logged

"WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, CAN BE DONE"

Offline art3811
Bronze Member
*

I love THunting
Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you1

Activity
0%
Posts: 276
Referrals: 0

1114.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards
« Reply #26 on: September 10, 2006, 05:44:40 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Yes, test have shown that when knowledge of the target is eliminated, dowsing & LRLs don't work.

Can you give me a web site where I can get this information? Can I see the results from the people who have taken your test? We know what the results of Randi's Challenge is. In 20 years no one has taken his test.

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

Is it one frequency, or dozens of frequencies? The reason I ask, is because in all the frequency-type LRLs I own, no two use the same frequency for gold. Not even LRLs from the same manufacturer. It's as if everyone just made up their own frequency.

How would I know that? I found one that works. You are the big time tech guy. I have tested 4 different Freq for gold and found they all work. This winter I plan on finding more gold freq. as I think thats where the break throughts will be.  Could it be that these guy's all have a little different idea of what it takes. I can tell the difference between some of the signals. In fact one of them had 3 signals going to the target. ...Art

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,298.msg1350.html#msg1350




« Last Edit: September 10, 2006, 07:44:01 pm by art3811 »
Logged
Offline Carl-NCTopic starter
Bronze Member
*

Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you1

Activity
0%

United States
Posts: 124
Referrals: 0

688.00 Gold
View Inventory

WWW Awards

~175 models
« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2006, 08:44:53 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Quote:Posted by dandequille
     Carl, my question still stands too.  If you don't know how an LRL should look how can you imply how they shouldn't look?  I'm talking about all your tear downs of the machines on your web site.


All of the devices I've reported on, are based on dowsing, and fundamentally don't work. Well... I should say, they cannot detect gold... most of them make no claim of being able to detect gold, but that's the implication of the overall LRL industry, so that's what I test for.

Given that they don't work, I dissect them and report on what's inside. Quite often, it's pure nonsense. I have also done the same thing for metal detectors, which do work, and (so far) have never contained nonsense.

Quote:Posted by {author}
I agee that the proof of the pie is in the eating.  Much treasure has been found using LRL as a primary tool but you ignore these successes.  I guess by your logic any treasure recovery that is reported can not be trusted which would then negate this web site and all the others.


I've never denied that LRL users have actually found Good Stuff. Uncommon and sporadic, but it's happened. Did the LRL actually detect the Good Stuff? Probably not. How would you know? Test the LRL.

- Carl


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,298.msg1360.html#msg1360




Logged
Offline Carl-NCTopic starter
Bronze Member
*

Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you1

Activity
0%

United States
Posts: 124
Referrals: 0

688.00 Gold
View Inventory

WWW Awards

~175 models
« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2006, 08:46:55 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Quote:Posted by art3811
Yes, test have shown that when knowledge of the target is eliminated, dowsing & LRLs don't work.

Can you give me a web site where I can get this information? Can I see the results from the people who have taken your test? We know what the results of Randi's Challenge is. In 20 years no one has taken his test.

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login



I'm sorry, Art, but info on these dowsing tests have been posted a number of times, recently, I believe, on TNet. I just don't have time to keep re-posting information that you obviously are not reading.

- Carl


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,298.msg1361.html#msg1361




Logged
Offline art3811
Bronze Member
*

I love THunting
Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you1

Activity
0%
Posts: 276
Referrals: 0

1114.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards
« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2006, 09:34:20 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Just in case some one wants to know why I am trying to find Redwood Freq. I am having a sewer problem and the snake cutter came back with Redwood on it. So I have a Redwood root in my sewer. My grandson dug the spot and found the root. The tree is in the neigbors yard.  The root will be gone tomorrow....Art

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,298.msg1362.html#msg1362




Logged
Print
Pages:  1 2 3 4 5   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2005, Simple Machines | Sitemap
Copyright THunting.com