$100 in consulting fees???

The skeptics are as baised as anyone on this planet. I know. I am a recovering skeptic. They claim to be "scientific" and that's a sad joke. If you want to find out about golf you go to someone who knows how to golf. You don't go to someone who threw their clubs in the lake and pay them $100 to tell you about it. I will tell you from my heart that negativity is sinful and it's diametrically opposed to anyone who desires to become a treasure hunter. LRL's work. No, you almost certainly will never get to where you can use one with 100% accuracy. And you will need to practice a lot more than most people will admit (and even more if you are like me). I realize some people want it delivered to them on a silver platter. I think a lot of people find out that treasure hunting is the most difficult thing possible. That's why some people love it so much. And that's why some people hate it and LRL's. I think most successful people know that when they have a problem, they don't go looking for someone else to blame it on. They have learned to admit the problem is within themself. People who blame others never admit they have a problem and they never learn how to deal with it. Where there's a will, there's a way.   

The skeptics are as baised as anyone on this planet. I know. I am a recovering skeptic. They claim to be "scientific" and that's a sad joke. If you want to find out about golf you go to someone who knows how to golf. You don't go to someone who threw their clubs in the lake and pay them $100 to tell you about it. I will tell you from my heart that negativity is sinful and it's diametrically opposed to anyone who desires to become a treasure hunter. LRL's work. No, you almost certainly will never get to where you can use one with 100% accuracy. And you will need to practice a lot more than most people will admit (and even more if you are like me). I realize some people want it delivered to them on a silver platter. I think a lot of people find out that treasure hunting is the most difficult thing possible. That's why some people love it so much. And that's why some people hate it and LRL's. I think most successful people know that when they have a problem, they don't go looking for someone else to blame it on. They have learned to admit the problem is within themself. People who blame others never admit they have a problem and they never learn how to deal with it. Where there's a will, there's a way.   

 

Hey Mike…You and I agree on something…Practice, Traveling, and all the other stuff that make Treasure Hunting enjoyable…Art

The skeptics are as baised as anyone on this planet. I know. I am a recovering skeptic. They claim to be "scientific" and that's a sad joke. If you want to find out about golf you go to someone who knows how to golf. You don't go to someone who threw their clubs in the lake and pay them $100 to tell you about it. I will tell you from my heart that negativity is sinful and it's diametrically opposed to anyone who desires to become a treasure hunter. LRL's work. No, you almost certainly will never get to where you can use one with 100% accuracy. And you will need to practice a lot more than most people will admit (and even more if you are like me). I realize some people want it delivered to them on a silver platter. I think a lot of people find out that treasure hunting is the most difficult thing possible. That's why some people love it so much. And that's why some people hate it and LRL's. I think most successful people know that when they have a problem, they don't go looking for someone else to blame it on. They have learned to admit the problem is within themself. People who blame others never admit they have a problem and they never learn how to deal with it. Where there's a will, there's a way.   

Biased?

I have been reading your postings for several years now, my Friend. In that time frame, you have yet to find anything useful using these unconventional methods...according to your own posts. You seemed to have found inner-peace with yourself, as well as a niche for manufacturing your own line of dowsing gadgets. Your heart may convince you of unrealistic fantasies...but, your empty wallet is the reality.

it sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder.  don't hold back.  would you like to talk about it ?

it sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder.  don't hold back.  would you like to talk about it ?

Oh...don't worry about me, my Friend. Adult conversations with astute* observations happen.


*astute - Having or showing a clever awareness and resourcefulness in practical matters

it sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder.  don't hold back.  would you like to talk about it ?

Oh...don't worry about me, my Friend. Adult conversations with astute* observations happen.


*astute - Having or showing a clever awareness and resourcefulness in practical matters

When is this supposed to start? I wan't to see it.

it sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder.  don't hold back.  would you like to talk about it ?

Oh...don't worry about me, my Friend. Adult conversations with astute* observations happen.


*astute - Having or showing a clever awareness and resourcefulness in practical matters

When is this supposed to start? I wan't to see it.

 

Dear Mike (mont)
You wrote:
The skeptics are as baised as anyone on this planet. I know. I am a recovering skeptic. They claim to be "scientific" and that's a sad joke. If you want to find out about golf you go to someone who knows how to golf. You don't go to someone who threw their clubs in the lake and pay them $100 to tell you about it. I will tell you from my heart that negativity is sinful and it's diametrically opposed to anyone who desires to become a treasure hunter. LRL's work. No, you almost certainly will never get to where you can use one with 100% accuracy. And you will need to practice a lot more than most people will admit (and even more if you are like me). I realize some people want it delivered to them on a silver platter. I think a lot of people find out that treasure hunting is the most difficult thing possible. That's why some people love it so much. And that's why some people hate it and LRL's. I think most successful people know that when they have a problem, they don't go looking for someone else to blame it on. They have learned to admit the problem is within themself. People who blame others never admit they have a problem and they never learn how to deal with it. Where there's a will, there's a way.

OK, I'll play along with you for a minute, my friend. Let's assume that LRLs do in fact work. The only thing left for you to do is to prove that they actually do work. That should be simple enough for someone with such a deeply engrained notion that LRLs are in fact viable devices for locating treasures, among other things.

Lacking this, then at the very least you should be able to explain to us just exactly how an LRL works in the field. If you cannot explain how they work, then you cannot make a statement such as the one you made previously with any degree of accuracy, my friend. For example, if we had a time machine, we could load up an Apollo spacecraft and take it back in time one hundred years. Upon arrival we could claim that "this vehicle is capable of space travel to the moon and back." At that point there would be an awful lot of folks asking us to explain precisely how this is possible. Of course, we actually CAN explain because the technology exists and we would be able to give a detailed description of the entire process and in doing so we could explain it in such a way that scientists one hndred could grasp the concept with very little trouble.

Therefore I challenge you to either provide proof that LRLs work or to provide a reasonable explanation of what makes LRLs function.
Your friend;
LAMAR

I say - use what works for you.

I don't use LRL's, but, I don't understand why anyone has to prove anything to anybody.

There are lots of things in this world that are unexplainable, yet, we believe in them, and they work for some people.

Shall we discuss religion?


B


PS:  I know people who cannot make a metal detector work.

I don't use LRL's, but, I don't understand why anyone has to prove anything to anybody.

Because this is a forum, and when one makes extraordinary claims...the claims should be referenced and properly sourced.

Otherwise, you don't really have a forum...you simply have people making extraordinary claims

A comment on all the high tech things Lamar mentioned. The laws/principals that make those things work existed before those things were invented. And many inventions are crude at first, until they are further developed. But no matter how crude they were, they worked. Some of those things were stumbled upon by accident, and couldn't be explained at first, even by the scientists.
Point being, just because something has not been fully developed (maybe because it don't come through the "proper" channels) that doesn't mean it won't work.

The skeptics refuse to admit what Dell has talked about for years and years. The first MFD units did not use L-rods--they had an electronic receiver. Dell has photos of the units he has worked with. I have learned to feel the signal line without receiver or rods, but I still like to use them. Yes, I know Carl has an old model with electronic receiver VR2000 he bought used. He said it doesn't work. Maybe it's broken? Like Mrs. O. says, some people can't use a metal detector. And like I say, why aren't all those metal detectorists rich? Why are so many of them sitting in someone's closet collecting dust? I mean the skeptics wil tell you an MD works on scientific principles. And if you've seen the price of those imaging units. So you see the skeptics use phony logic, and yes, there are a few gullible people out there who want to believe them. I hope that someday they will see the light. 

And as for the rod I build, I don't expect to ever break even on it. I build them because I like them and I think they are worth it. I've said this before and if anyone tries to tell you differently, they know.       

The skeptics refuse to admit what Dell has talked about for years and years. The first MFD units did not use L-rods--they had an electronic receiver. Dell has photos of the units he has worked with. I have learned to feel the signal line without receiver or rods, but I still like to use them. Yes, I know Carl has an old model with electronic receiver VR2000 he bought used. He said it doesn't work. Maybe it's broken? Like Mrs. O. says, some people can't use a metal detector. And like I say, why aren't all those metal detectorists rich? Why are so many of them sitting in someone's closet collecting dust? I mean the skeptics wil tell you an MD works on scientific principles. And if you've seen the price of those imaging units. So you see the skeptics use phony logic, and yes, there are a few gullible people out there who want to believe them. I hope that someday they will see the light. 

And as for the rod I build, I don't expect to ever break even on it. I build them because I like them and I think they are worth it. I've said this before and if anyone tries to tell you differently, they know.       

Because you seem to patronize Dell's products, I have taken the liberty to post a picture of the insides and schematic of one of his products. Please to note the lack of "guts" and a over-abundance of glue. Take a good look at the schematic, and see what kind of logic it has.

See the light...great line for a snake-oil salesman.

Hey SWR…Did you open the box up and see this ? Have you ever used it in the field to see what it can do? Do you know how to follow a signal line? Do you know how to mark a target? Do you know how to determine a depth of the target? 
I have tested Dells unit…So I know exactly what it will do. If you can’t make it work that is your problem, not the manufacture……Art

Also, SWR, can you come up with your own plan of attack instead of taking someone else's (Carl)? Try being original for a change.

Hey SWR…Did you open the box up and see this ? Have you ever used it in the field to see what it can do? Do you know how to follow a signal line? Do you know how to mark a target? Do you know how to determine a depth of the target? 
I have tested Dells unit…So I know exactly what it will do. If you can’t make it work that is your problem, not the manufacture……Art

Ya know...I was going to reply to your questions...UNTIL....I read your thread about using a cell phone to locate buried gold. Dial 512 and lay it on the ground. If you can use a cell phone as a LRL...then you can use anything, including Dell's rig, to treasure hunt.

Yep...you know exactly what it will do

SWR and Lamar

Here we are again posting on a different thread...still the negative and I respect that...Wish you were near Ohio instead of Florida...i would turn you around...and then smile really big when you posted your acknowledgements that they work or at least mine does! Anyone interested in the previous discussin look back at the first thread at the end I accept the challenge and suddenly all is quiet.....hmmmm.

Seriously guys I live near Cincinnati, fly up here to Lunkin or Greater Cincinnati Airport, I'll pick you up and show you right outside the airport you can get back on the next flight back...won't take more than 1 hour to demo...I'll have to ask the inventor if you can bring your video camera so don't buy those sunglasses with the minicam in them yet! haha Lets do it --the technology is here (i was as skeptical as anyone would be until I used it!)all i want is for you guys to write a positive evaluation...after you witness it. I teach (CAD) at a two year college so i can not pay your way here. I am about to try this thing out for caches...been using it to find mines so far. I do have references for the ability to find ores, both gold and silver. One is on these forums. I am getting requests for services now and I'll post them with pics when done.

This is a GPS tracking device.

Not much guts, either.

Electronics do not have to be a clusterfu%k to work. 

I don't really know if they work - I know there is unreputable people - but then again, there is in every single thing, nowadays.

But, we have radar, we have sonics, we have fish finders, we have ultrasonics - all which bounce back signals - or wait - and so do metal detectors, and they are supposed to know the difference between a dime and a quarter.  If radar isn't long distance detecting, I don't know what is.

This is a GPS tracking device.

Not much guts, either.

Are you kidding me? That board is loaded with electronics   

   Not really - comparative to many simpler electronics  -- not to mention that it is home-made.

Point is, the amount of electronics is not necessarily indicative of what it is capable of.  Heck, there's more junk on my home-made CB.

I guess I am suspicious of the idea that something doesn't work when I haven't tried it to find out. (this does not only pertain to ldl's, of course).

For years and years, I dissed dowsing.  Until I saw someone do it - over and over and over - consistantly and sucessfully. (that doesn't mean I can do it, but, I know it can be done).

B

How does a fish-finder work?  And some of these major treasure hunters - who find things on the bottom of the ocean to search?

Dear group;
As is readily viewable from the replies, it seems that no one can either prove conclusively that LRLs work, and lacking that, neither can anyone explain the technology behind an LRL.  And the argument that most people do not know how metal detectors work is wholly invalid, simply because I do not need to KNOW how a metal detector works, even though I do know. All I need to do is have someone bury some pennies at depths of around 12 inches and I will happily detect and recover each and every one of them in short order. In short, I can PROVE that a metal detector works and I can do so without having to provide an explanation of the theory behind it.

Also, pointing to modern electronic gear such as GPS and fish finders will not work either, as the technologies were first developed then the practical uses of the technologies followed. With LRLs there exists neither any developed technologies nor working models. In other words, there exists no plausible explanation as to how a LRL possibly functions.

Taking this into consideration, we can therefore conclude that the entire discussion takes place from the vantage point of "argumentum ad ignor@ntiam" or "argument from ignor@nce" in English,  which is an argument which states that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or conversely, an argument is false only because it has not been proven true.

Simply because I, along with SWR, Carl and others do not subscribe to this line of logic does not make us skeptics, my friends. This is known as the *intelligent thought process*. We merely require proof of a technology before succombing to the premise of the technology beforehand. If a person is unable to provide proof or a viable explanation of the technology, then that person should cease al discussions forthwith immediately. In other words, the debate should halt right there and not proceed any further.

Also, using *faith* as a possible explanation of the technology behind LRLs and also to label us as skeptics is an invalid argument as well. The reason why is twofold.
A) I do not use a metal detector to find God, and
B) I do not use God to find hidden or buried treasures

Implying that faith in God and faith in LRLs are similiar is misleading and simply because I have no faith in LRLs does not mean that I have no faith in Our Lord. It merely means that I am able to keep spirituality in proper context, which should not label me as a skeptic.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
When SWR wrote :Are you kidding me? That board is loaded with electronics he was obviously referring to the integrated circuits which are housed within the microchips. If one were able to replicate the myriad of ICs which are housed within the chips in the photo you've posted using vintage technologies, such as external resistors, diodes and other controls and then hard-wiring everything together, the entire device would then be several times larger than an average house, area-wise. In light of this fact, what SWR stated was true, the circuit in the photo is literally, and I mean LITERALLY packed with electronics.
Your friend;
LAMAR

   Not really - comparative to many simpler electronics  -- not to mention that it is home-made.

Point is, the amount of electronics is not necessarily indicative of what it is capable of.  Heck, there's more junk on my home-made CB.

Point?

The picture you provided of the GPS is literally loaded with working electronics. The embedded board alone houses the bulk of the electronics. Your device also has the capability of doing what the manufacture advertises it will do.

The picture I supplied from Carl Moreland's website shows a 555 timer chip, a few potentiometers and a capacitor. It does not have the capability of doing what the manufacture advertises it will do.

Also notable, is your working device probably cost in the $$ range...whereas this device is in the $$$$ range

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
When SWR wrote :Are you kidding me? That board is loaded with electronics he was obviously referring to the integrated circuits which are housed within the microchips. If one were able to replicate the myriad of ICs which are housed within the chips in the photo you've posted using vintage technologies, such as external resistors, diodes and other controls and then hard-wiring everything together, the entire device would then be several times larger than an average house, area-wise. In light of this fact, what SWR stated was true, the circuit in the photo is literally, and I mean LITERALLY packed with electronics.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Absolutely. 

I don't know much about how the electronic receivers for MFD units work. The instructions on one say to turn on the transmitter and wait fifteen minutes. So whatever it is, it takes a while to develop enough of a signal line for the receiver to detect it. My own experience has shown that electrical interference can be a problem, even power cords will set off the reciever, and of course power lines and transformers. Even a cell phone if you get it close enough. I've even heard a power plant can cause problems from hundreds of yards away.

Dell was the first person to use L-rods to detect a signal line. I will be the first to admit it is easy to influence the rods one way or the other. That's why I put stabilizers on the rod I build. It is a thin line to walk, either influencing the rods due to wishful thinking or preventing them from moving when you are on the signal line. It take a lot of practice to learn to do it without thinking about it. Tilting the rods down can help but there is a point where too much tilt will prevent the rods from responding and this can vary from time to time. It is all-to-easy to get emotionally wrapped up in the process when you have gold fever or skepticitis. If you spend all your awareness on balancing the rods, a signal line could club you over the head and you wouldn't know it. One skeptic tried to influence people by saying anyone can learn to use L-rods in twenty minutes--meaning if you can't learn in that amount of time you never will. Plan aon a few weeks of daily practice. It would be faster if you could take lessons from an experienced operator, but unfortunately in many cases it is the blind leading the blind. I admit some people (some say the number is about 20%)  never will get over their emotional negativity. When you let your emotions control you, well, you aren't in control. It's sad but true that many of the control freaks fall into this category.

Even using the electronic receiver (or metal detector, too!) can have the same results. Like Clive Clynick says in one of his MD books, "When you are anxious to make a find, it's incredible what wishful thinking will do to your ears."  

I don't get it. The whole point of this forum on LRL's is to discuss them, not debate them. For crying out loud, if you don't believe in them that's fine, leave the people that use them alone so we can converse among ourselves. Geez, I don't come to your work and throw rocks at the Ronald McDonald statue.

I used a LRL to find my wedding band when I lost it in a field, so yes I know for a fact that they work. Interestingly, it is a device that is put down the most. How does it work? I dunno. That doesn't stop me from using it though.

And for the doubters that claim LRL processes have never been explained,.....good gosh....read a little bit! The explanations are all over this forum. Just because you don't AGREE with them doesn't make it so. Just because you don't UNDERSTAND them doesn't make them any less of a fact.

Doubters claim that no one posts finds made by LRL's. Once again, quit assuming and read a little....they have been posted. Of course, if finds are posted then the doubters claim they weren't REALLY found with an LRL. (Typical scientific method...ignore facts if they don't follow your line of reasoning).....................

I don't get it. The whole point of this forum on LRL's is to discuss them, not debate them. For crying out loud, if you don't believe in them that's fine, leave the people that use them alone so we can converse among ourselves. Geez, I don't come to your work and throw rocks at the Ronald McDonald statue.

Forum + discussion = debate        Hello?

I used a LRL to find my wedding band when I lost it in a field, so yes I know for a fact that they work. Interestingly, it is a device that is put down the most. How does it work? I dunno. That doesn't stop me from using it though.

Congratulations on successfully finding something you lost. Nobody in these threads are telling anybody not to use LRLs

And for the doubters that claim LRL processes have never been explained,.....good gosh....read a little bit! The explanations are all over this forum. Just because you don't AGREE with them doesn't make it so. Just because you don't UNDERSTAND them doesn't make them any less of a fact.

Oddly enough, I haven't seen any "doubters" claiming the LRL processes have never been explained, or they do not understand the alleged capabilities. However, Certified Electrical Engineers have posted the electronics will not work as advertised.

Doubters claim that no one posts finds made by LRL's. Once again, quit assuming and read a little....they have been posted. Of course, if finds are posted then the doubters claim they weren't REALLY found with an LRL. (Typical scientific method...ignore facts if they don't follow your line of reasoning).....................

Usually "facts" carry more validation if the device has a track record of passing basic testing patterns. Typical 'scientific method' would be a blind test....which ironically, nobody who owns a LRL can successfully pass. Shoot fire...even the manufactures of these devices will not submit them to scientific testing.


Well...except for that one guy who tried to sell some to the Government and got into a whole lot of trouble. 

And I repeat.........read more.

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
When SWR wrote :Are you kidding me? That board is loaded with electronics he was obviously referring to the integrated circuits which are housed within the microchips. If one were able to replicate the myriad of ICs which are housed within the chips in the photo you've posted using vintage technologies, such as external resistors, diodes and other controls and then hard-wiring everything together, the entire device would then be several times larger than an average house, area-wise. In light of this fact, what SWR stated was true, the circuit in the photo is literally, and I mean LITERALLY packed with electronics.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Absolutely. 

Now that's what I call a bailout.

Oddly enough, I haven't seen any "doubters" claiming the LRL processes have never been explained, or they do not understand the alleged capabilities. However, Certified Electrical Engineers have posted the electronics will not work as advertised.

Good first hand knowledge of the subject.

Usually "facts" carry more validation if the device has a track record of passing basic testing patterns. Typical 'scientific method' would be a blind test....which ironically, nobody who owns a LRL can successfully pass. Shoot fire...even the manufactures of these devices will not submit them to scientific testing.

Has been done many many times….Just not done for the skeptics….Art

My limited understanding of some LDL's, is that they are based, similarly, like fish finders - which you can build with limited electronics. (at least the couple that I've seen, anyway).

Which, to build your own fishfinder, you balance out the differences between water, air, and whatever elements are present.  It takes nothing but a thermometer, some copper wire, something to weight it, and something to measure distance (this is shorthanded, of course).

On the other hand, a manufacturing company can run an entire boxing/wrapping system, with 2 potentiometers, a couple of gears and one electric eye. (oh, a a piece of reflective tape).

Now, to those who are speaking to the "simple-minded" woman about electronics, I am absolutely positive that most of you have used electronics that I may have made, at one time or another.  I'm not simple minded about electronics, but, what I have noticed is that some of you seem to think that the bigger the mass of wires, and components, the better.  You might be reminded what computers of the 70's looked like compared to what they look like now.  Not to mention IPODS, Blackberries and the like.

Electronics, these days, are 1/10th of what they were 20 years ago - even 10 years ago.  One board with 5 components can get you talking to people across the world.

In that line - how many people who are against LRL's have actually used one?   (I haven't)

I'll take bets that you used your metal detectors without once making sure it had a lot of pretty electronics inside.  In fact, if you have an old White's detector - they had many more electronics in it than a new one on the shelf.  That's why the boxes are smaller, now.  The first ones were incredibly heavy. (at the box).

And, do you buy your metal detectors based on what the electronics in them are, or because one works better than another, in your opinion? In my opinion, my best metal detector is one of the simpler ones, in that, it doesn't have a pretty little LED or gauge that tells me what is in the ground, how deep, what its made of, etc.  In fact, I've tried those hugely expensive, does everything except raise your children detectors. And I sold it.  They do not work.  They are wrong most of the time at identification, so you pay 3 times the money for something that really does not have a good track record.

So - show of hands (or maybe I should start a vote).

How many of the people right here, who do not believe in or don't like LRL's have ever tried one?

If you try something, and it doesn't work, it doesn't matter what's in it, no more than, if you try something and it works does it matter what is in it.

However, if you have tried it - and have an opinion, it is certainly a better indicator of results than a diagram.

B

My limited understanding of some LDL's, is that they are based, similarly, like fish finders - which you can build with limited electronics. (at least the couple that I've seen, anyway).

Which, to build your own fishfinder, you balance out the differences between water, air, and whatever elements are present.  It takes nothing but a thermometer, some copper wire, something to weight it, and something to measure distance (this is shorthanded, of course).

On the other hand, a manufacturing company can run an entire boxing/wrapping system, with 2 potentiometers, a couple of gears and one electric eye. (oh, a a piece of reflective tape).

Your understanding is evidently limited if you believe the electronics in a LRL and a fish finder are similar. 

Now, to those who are speaking to the "simple-minded" woman about electronics, I am absolutely positive that most of you have used electronics that I may have made, at one time or another.  I'm not simple minded about electronics, but, what I have noticed is that some of you seem to think that the bigger the mass of wires, and components, the better.  You might be reminded what computers of the 70's looked like compared to what they look like now.  Not to mention IPODS, Blackberries and the like.

If you are not simple minded about electronics...you should not have a problem reading the schematic I posted earlier, and evaluating the capabilities of that device, with its limited components

Electronics, these days, are 1/10th of what they were 20 years ago - even 10 years ago.  One board with 5 components can get you talking to people across the world.

Those 5 components house microprocessors and various other microchips. They are not simple 15 cent components, like in the schematic/device posted

So, SWR - that's a "no" from you.

B

So, SWR - that's a "no" from you.

B

Sorry...I refuse to pay $$$$ (that is four digits, thousands) for $2.00 worth of components from a manufacture that has a reputation for not having the product(s) tested by independent laboratories.

I can read the schematics, and evaluate the capabilities of the product/device, as well

Goodness, SWR,

I didn't say BUY one, I said TRY one.

B

I don't use LRL's, but, I don't understand why anyone has to prove anything to anybody.

Generally I would agree, but in this case we have devices often costing $1000's, and they simply don't work. Furthermore, we have very vocal proponents trying to convince people that they work. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask for proof.

I own quite a few LRLs, and have exposed what's inside to be utter nonsense, absolutely incapable of doing what people claim they will do. On top of that, I've personally watched and tested numerous dowsers and LRL users, and every single one of them have failed to perform better than random guessing when the test goes blind. Yet they continue to claim otherwise. So, again, it is not unreasonable to ask for proof.

Consider this: suppose a new metal detector comes out... a few people begin touting its ability to detect single coins buried 2-3 feet deep, and to perfectly discriminate gold from everything else. Would it be unreasonable for others to be skeptical of those claims? Would it be unreasonable to say, "Show me!"? Now, suppose some of these skeptics obtain this new detector, and find out that it does not, under any circumstances, do what the proponents claim it will do. Should they be expected to remain silent, and allow the claims to continue unchallenged?

As a more realistic case, suppose a company is selling a dowsing device to Iraqi security forces, and claiming it will detect explosives. Suppose it does no such thing, and Iraqis are getting blown to bits because of this fraud. Should we remain silent?

PS:  I know people who cannot make a metal detector work.

I doubt that, unless a physical disability is involved. Anyone who can make a TV work can make a metal detector work. Maybe not all models, but at least a turn-on-and-go.

For years and years, I dissed dowsing.  Until I saw someone do it - over and over and over - consistantly and sucessfully. (that doesn't mean I can do it, but, I know it can be done).

Most likely, their dowsing skills are in appearance only, and not real. I've seen people who, under specific conditions of their choice, can appear to dowse. But when good, scientific test methods are applied, they fail consistently. As I've said, I've personally witnessed this many times.

Now, to those who are speaking to the "simple-minded" woman about electronics, I am absolutely positive that most of you have used electronics that I may have made, at one time or another.  I'm not simple minded about electronics, but, what I have noticed is that some of you seem to think that the bigger the mass of wires, and components, the better.  You might be reminded what computers of the 70's looked like compared to what they look like now.  Not to mention IPODS, Blackberries and the like.

Electronics, these days, are 1/10th of what they were 20 years ago - even 10 years ago.  One board with 5 components can get you talking to people across the world.

I'm not trying to be demeaning, but that really is a simple-minded view of electronics. Reality is, electronics today are 100-1000 times more complex than 10-20 years ago. I used to design integrated circuits. If you took an Ipod design and built it with components available 20 years ago, you would probably have a brief case full of circuitry that runs on a motorcycle battery. Massive integration and smaller transistor sizes have shrunk electronics and made them appear deceptively "simple". The opposite is true.

In that line - how many people who are against LRL's have actually used one?   (I haven't)

I own around 30 LRLs right now, and have tried them all. None of them work. At all. I will gladly give anyone a chance to prove me wrong, but I will insist on a proper randomized blind test.

- Carl

I

own quite a few LRLs, and have exposed what's inside to be utter nonsense, absolutely incapable of doing what people claim they will do. On top of that, I've personally watched and tested numerous dowsers and LRL users, and every single one of them have failed to perform better than random guessing when the test goes blind. Yet they continue to claim otherwise. So, again, it is not unreasonable to ask for proof.

I only know of one person that you tested

As a more realistic case, suppose a company is selling a dowsing device to Iraqi security forces, and claiming it will detect explosives. Suppose it does no such thing, and Iraqis are getting blown to bits because of this fraud. Should we remain silent?

Right ….If it looks like a L it is a Dowsing device….Art

Hey Curtis,

When I get a chance (within 30 days) I will drive up to Cincinnati to see your device in action. (I live within 100 miles)  I will bury a silver dollar before we meet, I will first mark it for positive identification, and give you it's location within a half mile radius and see if you can find it.

If you do find it, then I will be happy to write a testimony to that effect, however if you fail I will also write a post to that effect.

While I am not as skeptical as SWR, I am honest, and I will truthfully testify as to the results.
Anyone else on T-net who wishes, is invited to go with me as a witness, for corroboration.

Curtis, Let me know if this is satisfactory to you.

Sincerely,
GoodyGuy~

Carl,

If you own several types, and your official opinion is that they do not work - that is an opinion I would value.

My only question would be - Why did you buy so many if they don't work?

No - dowsing works.  This guy took what was at hand, on several occasions, with nothing pre-planned and was right on the mark every time.

I confess, I do not know why - but, in the middle of the woods, 1000 acres into a ranch, while herding cattle to an new place that we were finding by map - he was able to make it work. (good thing, too, I hate to be lost without water - even if I am horseback).  He also found my old septic lines - a well that nobody knew existed (not even in the courthouse or on maps), and if I handed him 2 welding rods at any given moment, he could find something. (if it existed)  Before Bill (our friend), I would have bet a gazillion bucks that it couldn't work. 

He witched a place where someone was going to build a house and put in a well, and he told the guy to put the house where he was going to put the well, and put the well where he was going to build the house.  The guy laughed (as I would have).  Unfortunately for the guy, his basement filled up overnight about a week after they dug it out, and the well went dry after a couple of months.  So much water in the basement (or what was going to be the basement) it called every frog around!  True story.  It was an artesian spot, or something, but, there is water there today. I have intentionally tested his abilities many, many times before I finally had to admit it.      Oh well.  I don't know if it works with metals.  When you are a rancher, you worry about finding water.

Once, when a neighbor (and I guess you have to realize that a neighbor ranch here can be 5-10 miles away), was trying to drill a well for his horse ranch - every single one came up with oil - which sounds great, but it is not.   Bill went and witched his place, and the next well hit water - not mixed with oil.  Believe me, drilling 10-11 water wells that are unusable is not good - it is very expensive, since the water in that area is 850+ feet deep, at best. (many being over 1200 feet).

Anyway - there are alot of things that are true, but I don't know why nor can I do them, but they are true, never the less.

My point in saying why does someone have to prove it is simply this:

If you don't have intentions of buying one, or using one, or have never tried it yourself, then, what is the point?  It seems like the point is only a notion of "one-up-manship" and a chance to discredit a person, rather than a device.

Also, sorry to say, there are people who cannot run a metal detector.  I don't mean they cannot turn it on, I mean they never get the hang of listening for differences in tone, never get the hang of discrimination or using "all-metal", can not figure out how to pinpoint - all factors in even the simplest of metal detectors.  Unfortunately, we have taken just such people out metal detecting.  It's infuriating sometimes.  I never even mentioned the set-ups in using a more complicated machine.   There is also the issue of patience - md-ing takes patience, too.


B

Just as an aside - if you think there is a difference between a fish finder and any other detecting medium - YOU are being too broad-minded.

The point of the article in question is to "bounce-back" signals - helping you to look for what you are looking for.

Much like the differences between a motorcycle and a car - they may be made differently, with different components, but the object is to get you driving down the highway.

B

Hey Curtis,

When I get a chance (within 30 days) I will drive up to Cincinnati to see your device in action. (I live within 100 miles)  I will bury a silver dollar before we meet, I will first mark it for positive identification, and give you it's location within a half mile radius and see if you can find it.

If you do find it, then I will be happy to write a testimony to that effect, however if you fail I will also write a post to that effect.

While I am not as skeptical as SWR, I am honest, and I will truthfully testify as to the results.
Anyone else on T-net who wishes, is invited to go with me as a witness, for corroboration.

Curtis, Let me know if this is satisfactory to you.

Sincerely,
GoodyGuy~

GoodGuy, I am willing to ride with you as a witness. 


Curtis, I expect you to respond to Goodguy's offer.  As a proponent of LRL's, you should be falling all over yourself to accept this challenge. 



Regards,



Buckleboy

If you own several types, and your official opinion is that they do not work - that is an opinion I would value.

My only question would be - Why did you buy so many if they don't work?

I get them for the purpose of debunking, so that potential customers will get to see what they are really buying. It's a free service I offer to treasure hunters. To my knowledge, no one else is providing this information.

No - dowsing works. ... Before Bill (our friend), I would have bet a gazillion bucks that it couldn't work.

I'll continue to bet it doesn't work. Might appear to under select conditions, but it's an illusion. Still, this is why a lot of folks believe in dowsing... they've "seen it work."

If you don't have intentions of buying one, or using one, or have never tried it yourself, then, what is the point?  It seems like the point is only a notion of "one-up-manship" and a chance to discredit a person, rather than a device.

With LRLs, I focus on the device (read my reports!). They don't work, and are often fraudulent in their contents (completely bogus electronics, etc). I realize that there are people who swear by these things, and I don't blame them at all for their self-deception... the dowsing "response" is very compelling when you don't understand that it's a mind trick. I do try to explain to them what is really happening, and how to properly test LRLs. If they want to ignore what I say and continue believing in pretend devices, that's OK with me.

Also, sorry to say, there are people who cannot run a metal detector.  I don't mean they cannot turn it on, I mean they never get the hang of listening for differences in tone, never get the hang of discrimination or using "all-metal", can not figure out how to pinpoint - all factors in even the simplest of metal detectors.

Sure, I agree with that. But anyone can fundamentally make a metal detector detect metal. That is, it really works, and works the same way regardless of who is using it. Yes, some users are much better at learning what the detector is saying, but it doesn't mean the detector is giving a different response for different users, or flat out doesn't work at all for some users.

There are those who argue that some people can dowse and some cannot; they then try to compare this to metal detectors, claiming that some people can use a detector and some cannot. This is a dishonest analogy... metal detectors work for anyone, and work according to well-known and provable principles of physics. It would be the same as saying some people can use a TV, and some cannot. Pretty silly, eh?

My limited understanding of some LDL's, is that they are based, similarly, like fish finders ... Just as an aside - if you think there is a difference between a fish finder and any other detecting medium - YOU are being too broad-minded.

No, LRLs are not like fish finders, at all. And, yes, fish finders are completely different than, say, metal detectors. They work on entirely different principles. It sounds like you are trying to say, "LRLs are used to find things, and so are fish finders; since fish finders work, LRLs must work, too."

- Carl

Carl,

I am definitely not trying to say that LRL's work, again, I will repeat, because apparently, the words I am using are of a foreign variety or not being read as I am meaning them.  What I am saying, is that there are people who live to belittle others - rather than sticking to the subject, which is:  do LRL's work.  I will disagree on one point - which of course, in my mind, will not change.  Most all devices (like fish finders, sonar, radar,  and your metal detector, are made with one point in mind - to penetrate a strata of some sort, whether water, soil, etc., and to return some sort of signal, either visual or by sound to identify an object that someone is seeking.  That is the general purpose of all those items - different modes, different parts, different ways of working, etc., but still has that same general idea - to find what we are looking for.  It's not complicated (the idea is simple, not necessarily the manner).

Me, I'm the type of person that wants to look close up and personal, so a metal detector and as much knowledge of geology, etc., is my main goal.  I've never been particularly interested in the idea of finding a signal a half hour away - especially not knowing what the signal is. 
So, I have never been interested in a Long Range anything. Though I have read many awful things about them - to be sure, I have also read some "we have been using it since 1986, and we invite you to try it" attitude from some.

I mean, it is obvious that ones like Rangertell puts out definitely looks like a single handed dowsing rod.

I am saying that it would seem that the possibility of having a working LRL SHOULD be possible.  If we can find fish at the bottom of a lake, or a shipwreck in the bottom of an ocean - or a reef or wall in Bimini, without ever touching hand to water, or detect lighting storms before they arrive - or detect the cop that is detecting your speed, or see your baby's face while it is still in your womb, or see a tumor buried deep in your brain, you would think someone could/would invent something that has some range.  All those items depend on "looking" at something and getting that signal back to you, to tell you what is there.  It doesn't seem like rocket science.

I DO see a problem with a controlled test.  If you put a half dollar 1/4 of a mile away, couldn't there be many, many more objects, large and small, in the ground that is detected long before you get to the half dollar? (like other money, other half dollars, a tractor part, an old car bumper, whatever.

I would think that THE test, would be more controlled than that.  It would have to be in an area absolutely devoid of anything else, guaranteed, to avoid that.

I would be definitely interested in seeing a test like that.

My other problem is that - how do we know you are using it correctly?   Is there no human factor in an LRL  There is in everything tool we use.


I will respectfully continue to disagree with you about dowsing. (at least for water).  We will have to leave that one at thaHave a good one.

B

There are those who argue that some people can dowse and some cannot; they then try to compare this to metal detectors, claiming that some people can use a detector and some cannot. This is a dishonest analogy... metal detectors work for anyone, and work according to well-known and provable principles of physics. It would be the same as saying some people can use a TV, and some cannot. Pretty silly, eh?

I have a brother who can't wear a wrist watch. It stops running.

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
You wrote:
I will respectfully continue to disagree with you about dowsing. (at least for water).  We will have to leave that one at thaHave a good one.
Anyone can find water. It happens to be pretty much everywhere underground and the problem is not finding it but getting down to it. Some strata is so tough that it takes a work-over rig to bust through, but that doesn't mean that the water is not down there. It only means that the time, money and effort is not worth the waterwell.
Your friend;
LAMAR

I DO see a problem with a controlled test.  If you put a half dollar 1/4 of a mile away, couldn't there be many, many more objects, large and small, in the ground that is detected long before you get to the half dollar? (like other money, other half dollars, a tractor part, an old car bumper, whatever.

I would think that THE test, would be more controlled than that.  It would have to be in an area absolutely devoid of anything else, guaranteed, to avoid that.

What you are describing is not part of a controlled test (blind test). It is part of a claim from a TreasureNet member, that they can locate a silver dollar, at an unknown location, from that distance. A controlled test (blind test) can be as close/far as the one being tested is comfortable with. With dowsing blind tests, the dowser is allowed to stand directly over the 'target'. However, being these devices are touted as "long distance"...the 'target' should be at least 8-10 foot away

I would be definitely interested in seeing a test like that.

Lots of inquiring minds are interested in seeing tests like that. Some are willing to pay one-million dollars, to see one of these devices pass a controlled test (blind test). But...alas, it just ain't happening.

GoodGuy, I am willing to ride with you as a witness.  

Curtis, I expect you to respond to Goodguy's offer.  As a proponent of LRL's, you should be falling all over yourself to accept this challenge.  

Regards,

Buckleboy

Thank You Buckleboy,

Even though our posts to one another at times have been disagreeable on certain subjects. (politics, religion) I look forward to meeting you and would be honored to have you along as a witness.  Due to your reputation here on T-Net as a person of integrity, your presence should add the utmost credibility to the test.

I am sure that the naysayers will never be satisfied no matter what. (unless the test fails)
But I don't really care what the hardcore skeptics think, I just want to see for myself if it will work. If it does, then I will hire him to follow up on some leads.

GG~

I don't really care what the hardcore skeptics think, I just want to see for myself if it will work. If it does, then I will hire him to follow up on some leads I have.

GG~

Absolutely.  Hopefully he will contact you.  If or when he does, write me a PM to shore up a day/time.

All Carl has said is HE can't use an LRL (actually none of his USED LRL's). Guess which side of the 20% line he is on. A scientist would never extrapolate that to say "No LRL's can possibly work." That's phony logic and it's not scientific. That hasn't stopped some gullible people from believing it.

I'm not a psychologist, but I can tell you most people have been brainwashed by their parents, school teachers, peers, culture, etc. I recall as a child that I wanted to pan for gold. My father said "All the gold is gone." I believed him.  I was raised a skeptic. All the reasons the skeptics give, like "People just want to believe." can be put right back in their face. Even with all the people using LRL's and even big metal detecting distributors selling them, there are some people who just want to believe they don't work. Carl thinks Minelab makes bogus claims, too.

A scientist would never extrapolate that to say "No LRL's can possibly work." That's phony logic and it's not scientific.

Hope you are not infering Carl N-C is some kind of scientist... Or you'll have the real ones on your back calling you bad names.

Dear Polart;
You wrote:
Hope you are not infering Carl N-C is some kind of scientist... Or you'll have the real ones on your back calling you bad names.

In my humble opinion, Carl N-C is as much of a scientist as someone who proclaims themselves as such. In all honsty, belittling someone for their stance on a certain subject in no way adds credibility to your own stance, which is something to bear in mind. I am quite certain that Carl N-C, SWR, myself and many others would be completely satisfied with proof that LRLs work, and lacking this, for a plausible explanation of the theory behind the success of LRLs. It's a rather simple test and one which a person who has the utmost faith and confidence in LRLs should pass with flying colors.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 Anyone can find water. It happens to be pretty much everywhere underground and the problem is not finding it but getting down to it. Some strata is so tough that it takes a work-over rig to bust through, but that doesn't mean that the water is not down there. It only means that the time, money and effort is not worth the waterwell.


That is a statement that is SOOOOO wrong, in so many ways.

I don't know where you have lived, but I have lived in places where nobody can find water, or it is so sparse and isolated, it's worth almost any money and/or time to have a useable deposit.

B

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
You wrote:
I don't know where you have lived, but I have lived in places where nobody can find water, or it is so sparse and isolated, it's worth almost any money and/or time to have a useable deposit.
Then I suppose that dowsing for water in those locales wouldn't work, now would it?
Your friend;
LAMAR

I am definitely not trying to say that LRL's work, again, I will repeat, because apparently, the words I am using are of a foreign variety or not being read as I am meaning them.  What I am saying, is that there are people who live to belittle others - rather than sticking to the subject, which is:  do LRL's work.

Yes, some people get personal about it, on both sides.

Most all devices (like fish finders, sonar, radar,  and your metal detector, are made with one point in mind - to penetrate a strata of some sort, whether water, soil, etc., and to return some sort of signal, either visual or by sound to identify an object that someone is seeking.  That is the general purpose of all those items - different modes, different parts, different ways of working, etc., but still has that same general idea - to find what we are looking for.  It's not complicated (the idea is simple, not necessarily the manner).

OK, that's really general. I suppose you could add the telescope, flashlight, and TV remote control to the list, among many other things.

I am saying that it would seem that the possibility of having a working LRL SHOULD be possible.  If we can find fish at the bottom of a lake, or a shipwreck in the bottom of an ocean - or a reef or wall in Bimini, without ever touching hand to water, or detect lighting storms before they arrive - or detect the cop that is detecting your speed, or see your baby's face while it is still in your womb, or see a tumor buried deep in your brain, you would think someone could/would invent something that has some range.  All those items depend on "looking" at something and getting that signal back to you, to tell you what is there.  It doesn't seem like rocket science.

Yes, with all these other working technologies, an LRL doesn't seem far-fetched, does it? And maybe one day, we'll get there. But we're not there, and the devices being sold as LRLs today are frauds.

So why can't we make existing technology work in ground? It's a dielectric boundary problem for radio, and an acoustic impedance problem for sound. When the transmission medium suddenly changes, radiowaves and sound waves reflect and scatter. That's why sonar detects fish and shipwrecks; the targets represent a different acoustic impedance than the surrounding water. But lift the transducer out of the water and see how it works; the sound waves won't penetrate the surface of the water. That's also why medical ultrasound has to use a gel to look into mum's tum, in order to get a good impedance match for sonar penetration. Even then, the greatly varying impedances of human fluids and tissues guarantees only a few inches of usable depth. (My last job at Maxim was a system design for medical ultrasound.)

On land, radar has the similar problems; fantastic distances through air and strong reflections off airborne targets. But point that radar toward the ground, and it just bounces off. (When getting my Master's, I initially focused in radar system design, until I switched over to chip design.) GPR, the closest thing we have ground imaging, requires putting the antennae right on the ground and transmitting a lot of energy, because most of it never penetrates the ground. What does penetrate is strongly attenuated by ground moisture, so it doesn't go very deep, and any dielectric change will create a target signal. And you are limited to search only directly under the antennae; if you try to angle the system to do a sort of "side scan" GPR, it won't work.

What about putting the GPR transducer in the ground, the way sonar transducers are put in water? Unlike water, the ground is not homogeneous, it's more like using ultrasound on human tissue... you won't get very far before clutter signals swamp out everything.

Metal detectors, of course, don't transmit radiowaves, they utilize a local magnetic field which, at VLF & LF bands, penetrate the ground pretty well but have no inherent distance ability. MRI is also strictly a local (near-field) effect, as are other methods of quadrupole resonance. There are "long distance" geophysical detectors that are used to map out large ore bodies and other geological anomalies from aircraft, but "large" is the operative word. They have about the same relative sensitivity as an ordinary metal detector; that is, a 1000' anomaly from a height of 5000', and you have to fly directly over the target.

So the end result is, all these wonderful detection technologies don't do squat for detecting buried land treasures a 1/4 mile away.

I DO see a problem with a controlled test.  If you put a half dollar 1/4 of a mile away, couldn't there be many, many more objects, large and small, in the ground that is detected long before you get to the half dollar? (like other money, other half dollars, a tractor part, an old car bumper, whatever.

I would think that THE test, would be more controlled than that.  It would have to be in an area absolutely devoid of anything else, guaranteed, to avoid that.

Yeah, that's not a very good test, and gives the dowser plenty of alibis when he fails. I prefer close-up tests that are randomized and repeated, to see if there is any skill beyond guessing. See my web site for a thorough test procedure. It includes allowing the dowser to check the test area first for any potential interference.

My other problem is that - how do we know you are using it correctly?   Is there no human factor in an LRL  There is in everything tool we use.

Absolutely! That's why I challenge the manufacturers and (supposedly) skilled users to demonstrate their LRLs to me. That way folks can't blame me when the device fails. So far, no one has ever been able to make an LRL work when I'm watching, and these are people who claim to use them all the time, including one manufacturer. Until recently, I offered a $25,000 reward to LRL manufacturers for a successful demonstration; in moving to Oregon, I had to suspend the prize because of the financial demands of moving. I hope to reinstate it soon.

 - Carl

Dear Monty(Mike);
You wrote;
The first requirement for a scientist is to be unbiased. Case closed.

As far as I am aware, Carl N-C has invested a lot of time and effort proving that LRLs do not work, however he is still permitting anyone who believes in the validity of LRLs to step forward and prove that they do work as advertised. Also, as far as I know, there actually has been some serious scientific research in the area of dowsing and LRLs in the past, with always the exact same results, those being that dowsing does not and neither does the premise of LRLs. CarlN-C has however remained open to the concept that permits anyone to be able to prove conclusively that LRLs work. As an aside, I do not see you volunteering to participate in any actual blind field testing. Case closed.
Your friend;
LAMAR

The first requirement for a scientist is to be unbiased. Case closed.

Scientists are very biased, especially toward their own theories. But overall, "science" is unbiased, and simply follows the evidence. It forces scientists to abandon their biases when they are wrong.

Take a look at this....http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,19834.0.html

Take a look at this....http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,19834.0.html

So Art...are you now claiming that Long Range Locators are just dowsing wands?

Well....being you want the participants of this Long Range Locator thread to review that dowsing link...I guess I answered my own question.

You talk about Dowsing and LRL’s  with the same kind of faulty logic. The test have been performed. You guys always have an an excuse why you were not there..Real fact seem to  confuse you….

I gave the people on t-net a chance to see if they can make a LRL work for them. You make a joke of it. Sorry Charlie....I hope evryone tries to use a cell phone with coat hanger rods...They will find out for their selfs that the theory works....Art

I DO see a problem with a controlled test.  If you put a half dollar 1/4 of a mile away, couldn't there be many, many more objects, large and small, in the ground that is detected long before you get to the half dollar? (like other money, other half dollars, a tractor part, an old car bumper, whatever.

I would think that THE test, would be more controlled than that.  It would have to be in an area absolutely devoid of anything else, guaranteed, to avoid that.

I would be definitely interested in seeing a test like that.

Yeah, that's not a very good test, and gives the dowser plenty of alibis when he fails. I prefer close-up tests that are randomized and repeated, to see if there is any skill beyond guessing. See my web site for a thorough test procedure. It includes allowing the dowser to check the test area first for any potential interference.

That is the whole point!
Treasure is not going to be conveniently located in an area with no other signals around.

If Curtis with his LRL can find the exact previously marked buried silver dollar after only being given the location within a one half mile radius. Then who could deny that it works?  That is the test that he himself proposed.

Sure if he fails then we all agree that it didn't work ......But what if he is successful? Then what could the skeptics say? He got lucky? He guessed right?

I for one would believe what I see and be ready to hire him on the spot. Or anyone else that could preform that test successfully, and I don't care what kind of magic wand they use....or care what makes it tick.  But then, I am also foolish enough to believe in a higher power that can't be seen or scientifically proven in a controlled test.

GG~

I DO see a problem with a controlled test.  If you put a half dollar 1/4 of a mile away, couldn't there be many, many more objects, large and small, in the ground that is detected long before you get to the half dollar? (like other money, other half dollars, a tractor part, an old car bumper, whatever.

I would think that THE test, would be more controlled than that.  It would have to be in an area absolutely devoid of anything else, guaranteed, to avoid that.

I would be definitely interested in seeing a test like that.

That is the whole point!

If Curtis with his LRL can find the exact previously marked buried silver dollar after only being given the location within a one half mile radius. Then who could deny that it works?  This is the test that he himself proposed.

Sure if he fails then we all agree that it didn't work ......But what if he is successful? Then what could the skeptics say? he got lucky? He guessed right?

I for one would believe what I see and be ready to hire him on the spot. Or anyone else that could preform that test successfully, and I don't care what kind of magic wand they use....or care what makes it tick.  But then, I am also foolish enough to believe in a higher power that can't be seen or scientifically proven in a controlled test.

GG~

What could they say? That has already been answered. What did they say to Mrs. O when she said dowsing for water was proved to her in the same way you just described? It doesn't matter what happens, doubters will doubt.

What could they say? That has already been answered. What did they say to Mrs. O when she said dowsing for water was proved to her in the same way you just described? It doesn't matter what happens, doubters will doubt.

You are absolutely correct KK, but I would be convinced and that's all I need.
I am not really out to change anyone's mind, only to see for myself and report the results, successful or not.

If successful, then Curtis, his newfangled gadget and I, will be out finding treasure, while the skeptics continue to be in denial.

GG~

What could they say? That has already been answered. What did they say to Mrs. O when she said dowsing for water was proved to her in the same way you just described? It doesn't matter what happens, doubters will doubt.

You are absolutely correct KK, but I would be convinced and that's all I need.
I am not really out to change anyone's mind, only to see for myself and report the results, good or bad.

GG~

I hear you. I hope this happens...I want to see too.

Hi Good Guy!

You are one of the few I would agree to do this with. I haven't met you but from other posts you seem objective. I don't mind you bringing others if you can speak for them.

Just let me know when its best for you...I want to do this so bad! Lets find a place where there isn't much traffic and not many people. I do not want to draw a crowd. Only doing this to prove it works. Two requests: 1. I will have to cover/disguise the device but the results will be very evident. 2. Since I still do not have permission to do it we cannot take video of it in action...maybe by the time we can do the test this will have changed. It will be good to meet you.

Hi Good Guy!

You are one of the few I would agree to do this with. I haven't met you but from other posts you seem objective. I don't mind you bringing others if you can speak for them.

Just let me know when its best for you...I want to do this so bad! Lets find a place where there isn't much traffic and not many people. I do not want to draw a crowd. Only doing this to prove it works. Two requests: 1. I will have to cover/disguise the device but the results will be very evident. 2. Since I still do not have permission to do it we cannot take video of it in action...maybe by the time we can do the test this will have changed. It will be good to meet you.

No problem, I will honor your requests. I have not met BuckleBoy in person but I believe I can speak to his integrity. He will definitely be an objective observer and has offered to accompany me and be an impartial witness.

I currently am working seven days a week and the holidays are upon us, so I am going to see if I can get a day off ASAP to drive up.
Will PM you after seeing what works for BuckleBoy.


Looking forward to meeting you as well.

Sincerely,
GG~

Posy by Buckle Boy just a few minutes ago.

LRL's are overpriced quack gizmos sold to folks who want desperately to believe that something they have spent $1000 of their hard-earned money on actually works.


-Buck

Are you sure this guy will be an honest, objective witness?

Posy by Buckle Boy just a few minutes ago.

LRL's are overpriced quack gizmos sold to folks who want desperately to believe that something they have spent $1000 of their hard-earned money on actually works.


-Buck

Are you sure this guy will be an honest, objective witness?

Hmmm......While it's apparent he definitely is a skeptic, (not impartial as I thought) I do believe him to be honest and would not lie about the results. Therefore making him even more desirable as a witness.

Of course if Curtis has any objections to him I will ask for another volunteer.

Thanks for calling this to my attention.
GG~

My reply to Kache Krazy from the other thread:

Your 1st paragraph is pretty much what LRL people say. As for the 2nd paragraph, you might be right. But are you sure you can be an objective witness for Curtis' test?

Absolutely.  Unlike the way I feel about you KK, I don't have it in for Curtis.    

I'm just a skeptic.  If he is able to find the silver dollar I will be the first to pat him on the back and want to know more about what he does. 

Until then, I haven't seen anything convincing.  So perhaps he can show me something convincing. 


Is my doubt about LRL's going to keep his device from operating properly?   

And what about you, KK--Do you just enjoy trying to sabotage anything you can?  Stirring the pot?  Are you a LRL salesman?  And what kind of stake do you have in the outcome of this test? 

If I wasn't curious about it, you can bet your bottom dollar I wouldn't be taking a day to ride 200 miles to see a planted silver dollar dug instead of dig up my own finds. 



-Buck

[2000]

I think you you would ride 2000 miles to see your name in lights. If you read this thread you'll know that Carl has seen much, but always finds a way to debunk it. It doesn't matter what is seen, a doubter has doubt in them, and that's that. Now, go prove me wrong.

[2000]

I think you you would ride 2000 miles to see your name in lights. If you read this thread you'll know that Carl has seen much, but always finds a way to debunk it. It doesn't matter what is seen, a doubter has doubt in them, and that's that. Now, go prove me wrong.

I don't need this crap from you, KK.  I have stayed out of this thread--and this entire section of the forum except to offer my assistance. 

 

Cool. We'll see how it goes.

[SWR]

SWR and Lamar

Here we are again posting on a different thread...still the negative and I respect that...Wish you were near Ohio instead of Florida...i would turn you around...and then smile really big when you posted your acknowledgements that they work or at least mine does! Anyone interested in the previous discussin look back at the first thread at the end I accept the challenge and suddenly all is quiet.....hmmmm.

Seriously guys I live near Cincinnati, fly up here to Lunkin or Greater Cincinnati Airport, I'll pick you up and show you right outside the airport you can get back on the next flight back...won't take more than 1 hour to demo...I'll have to ask the inventor if you can bring your video camera so don't buy those sunglasses with the minicam in them yet! haha Lets do it --the technology is here (i was as skeptical as anyone would be until I used it!)all i want is for you guys to write a positive evaluation...after you witness it. I teach (CAD) at a two year college so i can not pay your way here. I am about to try this thing out for caches...been using it to find mines so far. I do have references for the ability to find ores, both gold and silver. One is on these forums. I am getting requests for services now and I'll post them with pics when done.

Folks...this "challenge" is already running in another thread. I have already accepted the challenge, and working out the terms with Curtis.

The thread is next door....not here  http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,18038.msg2023373.html#msg2023373

[SWR]

SWR and Lamar

Here we are again posting on a different thread...still the negative and I respect that...Wish you were near Ohio instead of Florida...i would turn you around...and then smile really big when you posted your acknowledgements that they work or at least mine does! Anyone interested in the previous discussin look back at the first thread at the end I accept the challenge and suddenly all is quiet.....hmmmm.

Seriously guys I live near Cincinnati, fly up here to Lunkin or Greater Cincinnati Airport, I'll pick you up and show you right outside the airport you can get back on the next flight back...won't take more than 1 hour to demo...I'll have to ask the inventor if you can bring your video camera so don't buy those sunglasses with the minicam in them yet! haha Lets do it --the technology is here (i was as skeptical as anyone would be until I used it!)all i want is for you guys to write a positive evaluation...after you witness it. I teach (CAD) at a two year college so i can not pay your way here. I am about to try this thing out for caches...been using it to find mines so far. I do have references for the ability to find ores, both gold and silver. One is on these forums. I am getting requests for services now and I'll post them with pics when done.

Folks...this "challenge" is already running in another thread. I have already accepted the challenge, and working out the terms with Curtis.

The thread is next door....not here  http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,18038.msg2023373.html#msg2023373

Well....... BuckleBoy and I are going to Cincinnati in person in the next couple of weeks to meet with Curtis for the "TEST" you are welcome to come along to witness this in person if you wish.

We are not going to allow any so called de bunking professionals to skew our test.  
Of course whatever you work out with Curtis to satisfy your own agenda is fine, just do it separately from ours, and keeping the SWR "challenge" over on the thread next door....not here, is fine with me as well.

GG~

I suggest everyone here look up the "scientific method" and read it. What you will see is that when someone is biased they tend to misinterpret the results. The more biased they are the more room for misinterpretation. Also note that THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT EVER PROVE ANYTHING. All it can do is disprove a hypothesis. And remember a general consenses is not fact.

The skeptic MO reminds me of when I was on a jury. There wasn't enough evidence so the lawyers tried to sway the jury emotionally. Never mind who struck first. "Look at all that blood! He must be guilty!" A bloody nose can scare some people, and missing was any medical report. That's why they try to get "dumbed-down" juries. Don't let the skeptics sucker you into that garbage. They are playing you exactly the same way. They can't use a locator and they don't know. It really reminds me of the story of Cain and Abel. I think it's sinful.

Anyone with a brain and a nervous system can learn to use a locator. Some of these elitists want to believe they are so superior they can learn it in minutes. That delusional way of thinking just won't carry them in the real world. Most people know this, but some are able to get through most of their life hiding from the truth.  

I suggest everyone here look up the "scientific method" and read it. What you will see is that when someone is biased they tend to misinterpret the results. The more biased they are the more room for misinterpretation. Also note that THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT EVER PROVE ANYTHING. All it can do is disprove a hypothesis. And remember a general consenses is not fact.   

So are you saying that we should save ourselves the trip to Cinci because there is no way to test it?

We won't be repeating the test several times, double blind, or anything like that. 

We have discussed via PMs the method which we will use, Goodguy and I, and we will post that method along with the results when we return. 

The way I see it, if someone can find a silver dollar from half a mile away then I'm a believer.  I have it would be a needle in a haystack even With a metal detector.  I look forward to the trip.


-Buckles

Dear BuckleBoy;
You wrote:
So are you saying that we should save ourselves the trip to Cinci because there is no way to test it?

We won't be repeating the test several times, double blind, or anything like that.  

We have discussed via PMs the method which we will use, Goodguy and I, and we will post that method along with the results when we return.  

The way I see it, if someone can find a silver dollar from half a mile away then I'm a believer.  I have it would be a needle in a haystack even With a metal detector.  I look forward to the trip.


I think what he's saying is that he is skeered he will not be able to prove conclusively that LRLs work, therefore he has nothing to gain and everything to lose by submitting himself and his LRL to an impartial test. In others words, we are supposed to proceed on faith, and faith alone, whereas people such as himself can claim that all tests are skewed in our favor, therefore he will not submit to such a test.

I would not even dream of asking you or anyone else to part with a substantial part of your hard-earned cash by purchasing a Minelab Pulse Induction metal detector sight unseen and untested, yet we are supposed to take people such as Mike (mont) at their word and solely at their word. Mostly because of refusals to submit to comprehensive testing, the entire LRL scenario has attained the reputation of being one big scam, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

One other thing I want to object to. This idea that you will save "thousands" by paying $100 consulting fee is not realistic. Like I said almost all manufacturers will refund your money if you don't like it. Look, I'm not here to defend some of the high prices people charge for these units. Some of the prices are obscene. Let's face it--any geophysicist who can't use one of these units is going to take your $100 and tell you not to buy one. That's bogus.

Edit: I am not inferring that any geophysicist would take your money. I don't think the vast majority of them would do that. Like I said, if you can't use one, you don't know.

I think what he's saying is that he is skeered he will not be able to prove conclusively that LRLs work, therefore he has nothing to gain and everything to lose by submitting himself and his LRL to an impartial test. In others words, we are supposed to proceed on faith, and faith alone, whereas people such as himself can claim that all tests are skewed in our favor, therefore he will not submit to such a test.

I would not even dream of asking you or anyone else to part with a substantial part of your hard-earned cash by purchasing a Minelab Pulse Induction metal detector sight unseen and untested, yet we are supposed to take people such as Mike (mont) at their word and solely at their word. Mostly because of refusals to submit to comprehensive testing, the entire LRL scenario has attained the reputation of being one big scam, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

I think you have confused who is saying what. Mike is not the one proposing the tests.

I would not even dream of asking you or anyone else to part with a substantial part of your hard-earned cash by purchasing a Minelab Pulse Induction metal detector sight unseen and untested

So I guess Minelab Pulse Induction metal detectors don't work either, right? But since you're just talking about buying something sight unseen and untested, then you haven't really addressed the issue. Just more smoke.

My advice to anyone who wants to be a consultant should read and study the book "Supersensonics" by Christopher Hills. Like he says, you need to do the experiments, not just read about them. Plan on a year or two of work. Anything less is unethical.

I don't believe in the "no win" idea.

Anytime you have a fair, unbiased test, on anything, no matter how it turns out - you win - because you have real information.

Though I still would like an explanation of how you are discriminating out any other silver coins that might be in the ground by accident.

If the thing found 10 silver coins, but not the one marked - is that failure?

B

[as long as the marked silver dollar is also found]

I don't believe in the "no win" idea.

Anytime you have a fair, unbiased test, on anything, no matter how it turns out - you win - because you have real information.

Though I still would like an explanation of how you are discriminating out any other silver coins that might be in the ground by accident.

If the thing found 10 silver coins, but not the one marked - is that failure?

B

The test is to find the marked silver dollar, any other silver found during the test as long as the marked silver dollar is also found would not count against it.  In my opinion that would add even more credibility to the locator.

Curtis will not be informed as to the area of the test until after the coin has been planted, therefore eliminating any possibility of seeding the area by anyone in advance.

The complete details of precautions, how the test was conducted, and the results, will be posted after the conclusion.

GG~

Well, since this is a very interesting topic (imo), I will be looking for the results.  (a few pictures wouldn't hurt, either).

B

This thread is not about the silver dollar test. Please refer to that thread for my remarks.

You are quite right Mike, Sorry for hijacking this thread, I will start a new thread for those results.
Now back to the consulting topic!

GG~

My advice to anyone who wants to be a consultant should read and study the book "Supersensonics" by Christopher Hills. Like he says, you need to do the experiments, not just read about them. Plan on a year or two of work. Anything less is unethical.

I agree.....after all, what good is a consultant who has no working knowledge or thorough experience with the subject at hand?
That is why any potential client needs to do his due diligence before making his final selection regarding a consultant or consultants.

GG~

True, true, not really the main topic.

But, in line with the topic - I wouldn't pay anyone consulting fees, because I wouldn't hire anyone to do my work.

I have been known to occasionally agree to a partnership of one sort or another, but that is a different thing.

B

PS - Now I will have to find the other topic to follow the results!