deleted

I

I'd take a machine any day that could find a silver dollar at 100 yds.
Skeptics have already said they have seen things found, but was no better than random chance. That tells you that no matter how many things are found, at any distance, minds are already made up.

Every LRL is different….One will find the silver dollar at 60 feet deep and 8 miles….Another will find the silver dollar at 20 feet and ¼ mile…They are designed for different uses….Art

I see this test is not likely to prove anything one way or the other. It's unlikely to have any scientific protocol. For starters, the person who hides the silver should not be present as any body language can give away the target's location. Add to this the person who digs should be unbiased. The idea here is that person would not be palming some silver or removing some. The idea that the test is going to require 100% or nothing is not right. If the guy finds some silver you can't say it was a total failure. Even if all this was so and he finds the silver, I'm sure the skeptics will find some fault, claim one test is not enough, etc., etc. Even if they can't find fault they would never admit it was successful. And of course if he doesn't find it the skeptics will claim it's proof LRL's don't work. So this whole thing is basically for entertainment purposes only. I know it sounds like I am pouring cold water on this. I'm not trying to. I'm just trying to be realistic.

Mike I appreciate your concern over the "test procedures and protocols" I can assure you that everything will be in order, and strict standards and scientific methods will be followed. The details of which will be revealed to this forum after the test has been completed.

All we can do is post our results and reveal the protocols used in our evaluation. It will be up to the viewers whether to accept them as honest and unbiased.  

As I have said before I am not trying to convince skeptics or believers that LRL's work or don't work, only to see for myself If Curtis and his device can do what he says it will do, and then report the results to this forum.

I am not a scientist nor am I a professional de-bunker. I am just a TH'er checking out an alternative way for locating treasure.


Sincerely,
GG~

The GoodGuy is a straight shooter boys.  He will not mislead you.

I probably only recover gold in 20% of the places I get a pinpoint on, and that's usually always within 100 yards.

Have you actually recovered unknown, non-test gold? Or...are were you still referring to testing/practicing with the gizmo you manufacture? 

If you weren't a skeptic I might find your question humorous. As it is I find it idiotic and insulting. Reminds me of those stupid questions some lawyers ask.

You've mastered the side-step shuffle, that's for sure!

Is it unreasonable to say that you have not located any unknown valuables (gold/silver/diamonds) with the gizmo you've manufactured by your response?

If you weren't a skeptic I might find your question humorous. As it is I find it idiotic and insulting. Reminds me of those stupid questions some lawyers ask.

My finds in city parks might be higher if I spent more time, used a deeper metal detector. If I can't find it using discriminate I give up.

I guess what really matters is what the metal detector says. So it is with most LRL users.

Many times I have left a hot spot knowing there was some gold there, but I just couldn't find it without tearing the place up.

So do you consider this a "success"?

Everyone is susceptible to wishful thinking.

A-yup.

My finds in city parks might be higher if I spent more time, used a deeper metal detector. If I can't find it using discriminate I give up. So no doubt I have passed up some gold. Things like chains and broken jewelry and deep targets are hard to find with a MD. You almost have to dig every MD signal and that's not all that fun. And there's no guarantee you will find gold. Many times I have left a hot spot knowing there was some gold there, but I just couldn't find it without tearing the place up. Everyone is susceptible to wishful thinking. Some days it's worse than others. But when I have a good target I know it. I can feel it.   

So....you haven't found anything with the gizmo you manufacture and sell.

I guess my question wasn't as stupid, idiotic and insulting as you first thought. Your scathing reply was simply a cover for your lack of success.

For you who Dowse and use LRL’s….When following the signal line of a LRL you can encounter natural signal lines from objects…Sometimes this can become a problem….For me it is simple..The natural lines can be eliminate by standing on the signal line and raising one foot. The rods will open if it is a natural signal line. My 3 LRL’s when I raise my foot the rods remain closed…Hope this helps some of you..Art   

More stupid laywer questions. Leave it to a skeptic to misinterpret a simple statement--I said my recovery rate would be higher IF I searched more thoroughly. And yes. I use a metal detector AFTER I make the pinpoint. Either the target is there or it isn't. My skill with a metal detector is less accurate than my locating skills with the help of the MFD-type equipment. Nothing is perfect except a skeptic--NOT!

So basically...the gizmo you manufacture points to the swing-set, slide or park bench...then you metal detect the area and "find" the item.

Yeppers...I can see how that would increase your find/recover percentage   

Gee…This thread is called Silver dollar from a half mile?....Not how to twist and spin everything that is posted.….Art

tag post

And once more the skeptics step in to twist words around (and this time flat out add their own)....to try to make a story unbelievable....   and the great scientific method of reasoning continues...

And once more the skeptics step in to twist words around (and this time flat out add their own)....to try to make a story unbelievable....   and the great scientific method of reasoning continues...

So...a better scientific method to "prove" these gadgets works would be to use the gadget to locate the target and not a metal detector...am I not correct?

I can toss a peanut butter sandwich anywhere in a city park...whip out my trusty metal detector...find something made of metal in that general vicinity....and claim the sandwich actually located the target...i just used a metal detector to pinpoint.

And once more the skeptics step in to twist words around (and this time flat out add their own)....to try to make a story unbelievable....   and the great scientific method of reasoning continues...

So...a better scientific method to "prove" these gadgets works would be to use the gadget to locate the target and not a metal detector...am I not correct?

I can toss a peanut butter sandwich anywhere in a city park...whip out my trusty metal detector...find something made of metal in that general vicinity....and claim the sandwich actually located the target...i just used a metal detector to pinpoint.

So to follow this the scientific way...(I'm not gonna be very good at this 'cause I don't usually twist peoples words around)...well, here goes....since skeptics claim that dowsing, LRL's and the like can't POSSIBLY work because sometimes the users of said devices claim that they don't work all the time due to internal and external conditions which may or may not prohibit said device from working properly...then that means by scientific reasoning that if i go to the park with my metal detector and find silver at the park which was JUST HUNTED by another person, then that means that metal detectors can't POSSIBLY work because I just accomplished what the first person failed to do. Now I'll pick up my peanut butter sandwich, dust it off, and eat it.....

And once more the skeptics step in to twist words around (and this time flat out add their own)....to try to make a story unbelievable....   and the great scientific method of reasoning continues...

So...a better scientific method to "prove" these gadgets works would be to use the gadget to locate the target and not a metal detector...am I not correct?

I can toss a peanut butter sandwich anywhere in a city park...whip out my trusty metal detector...find something made of metal in that general vicinity....and claim the sandwich actually located the target...i just used a metal detector to pinpoint.

So to follow this the scientific way...(I'm not gonna be very good at this 'cause I don't usually twist peoples words around)...well, here goes....since skeptics claim that dowsing, LRL's and the like can't POSSIBLY work because sometimes the users of said devices claim that they don't work all the time due to internal and external conditions which may or may not prohibit said device from working properly...then that means by scientific reasoning that if i go to the park with my metal detector and find silver at the park which was JUST HUNTED by another person, then that means that metal detectors can't POSSIBLY work because I just accomplished what the first person failed to do. Now I'll pick up my peanut butter sandwich, dust it off, and eat it.....

You seem to be confused in regards to those who are skeptical about dowsing...and those who hold degrees in electronics saying it is impossible for these LRL contraptions to work.

There is no win/win discussion when it comes to dowsing with ordinary L-Rods, bent twigs and the like. And this section is not about dowsing.

HOWEVER....when it comes to electronics...there are ways to prove these devices work, or don't work. There is no way these contraptions can send a signal of any distance, and "bounce" back to the contraption, allowing the operator to find precious metals. It just ain't possible.

And once more the skeptics step in to twist words around (and this time flat out add their own)....to try to make a story unbelievable....   and the great scientific method of reasoning continues...

So...a better scientific method to "prove" these gadgets works would be to use the gadget to locate the target and not a metal detector...am I not correct?

I can toss a peanut butter sandwich anywhere in a city park...whip out my trusty metal detector...find something made of metal in that general vicinity....and claim the sandwich actually located the target...i just used a metal detector to pinpoint.

So to follow this the scientific way...(I'm not gonna be very good at this 'cause I don't usually twist peoples words around)...well, here goes....since skeptics claim that dowsing, LRL's and the like can't POSSIBLY work because sometimes the users of said devices claim that they don't work all the time due to internal and external conditions which may or may not prohibit said device from working properly...then that means by scientific reasoning that if i go to the park with my metal detector and find silver at the park which was JUST HUNTED by another person, then that means that metal detectors can't POSSIBLY work because I just accomplished what the first person failed to do. Now I'll pick up my peanut butter sandwich, dust it off, and eat it.....

You seem to be confused in regards to those who are skeptical about dowsing...and those who hold degrees in electronics saying it is impossible for these LRL contraptions to work.

There is no win/win discussion when it comes to dowsing with ordinary L-Rods, bent twigs and the like. And this section is not about dowsing.

HOWEVER....when it comes to electronics...there are ways to prove these devices work, or don't work. There is no way these contraptions can send a signal of any distance, and "bounce" back to the contraption, allowing the operator to find precious metals. It just ain't possible.

Naw, it aint possible....wish I had a Pepsi with my sandwich 

And once more the skeptics step in to twist words around (and this time flat out add their own)....to try to make a story unbelievable....   and the great scientific method of reasoning continues...

So...a better scientific method to "prove" these gadgets works would be to use the gadget to locate the target and not a metal detector...am I not correct?

I can toss a peanut butter sandwich anywhere in a city park...whip out my trusty metal detector...find something made of metal in that general vicinity....and claim the sandwich actually located the target...i just used a metal detector to pinpoint.

So to follow this the scientific way...(I'm not gonna be very good at this 'cause I don't usually twist peoples words around)...well, here goes....since skeptics claim that dowsing, LRL's and the like can't POSSIBLY work because sometimes the users of said devices claim that they don't work all the time due to internal and external conditions which may or may not prohibit said device from working properly...then that means by scientific reasoning that if i go to the park with my metal detector and find silver at the park which was JUST HUNTED by another person, then that means that metal detectors can't POSSIBLY work because I just accomplished what the first person failed to do. Now I'll pick up my peanut butter sandwich, dust it off, and eat it.....

You seem to be confused in regards to those who are skeptical about dowsing...and those who hold degrees in electronics saying it is impossible for these LRL contraptions to work.

There is no win/win discussion when it comes to dowsing with ordinary L-Rods, bent twigs and the like. And this section is not about dowsing.

HOWEVER....when it comes to electronics...there are ways to prove these devices work, or don't work. There is no way these contraptions can send a signal of any distance, and "bounce" back to the contraption, allowing the operator to find precious metals. It just ain't possible.

Naw, it aint possible....wish I had a Pepsi with my sandwich 

Whip out the ole witching wand and find ya a Pepsi   

And once more the skeptics step in to twist words around (and this time flat out add their own)....to try to make a story unbelievable....   and the great scientific method of reasoning continues...

So...a better scientific method to "prove" these gadgets works would be to use the gadget to locate the target and not a metal detector...am I not correct?

I can toss a peanut butter sandwich anywhere in a city park...whip out my trusty metal detector...find something made of metal in that general vicinity....and claim the sandwich actually located the target...i just used a metal detector to pinpoint.

So to follow this the scientific way...(I'm not gonna be very good at this 'cause I don't usually twist peoples words around)...well, here goes....since skeptics claim that dowsing, LRL's and the like can't POSSIBLY work because sometimes the users of said devices claim that they don't work all the time due to internal and external conditions which may or may not prohibit said device from working properly...then that means by scientific reasoning that if i go to the park with my metal detector and find silver at the park which was JUST HUNTED by another person, then that means that metal detectors can't POSSIBLY work because I just accomplished what the first person failed to do. Now I'll pick up my peanut butter sandwich, dust it off, and eat it.....

You seem to be confused in regards to those who are skeptical about dowsing...and those who hold degrees in electronics saying it is impossible for these LRL contraptions to work.

There is no win/win discussion when it comes to dowsing with ordinary L-Rods, bent twigs and the like. And this section is not about dowsing.

HOWEVER....when it comes to electronics...there are ways to prove these devices work, or don't work. There is no way these contraptions can send a signal of any distance, and "bounce" back to the contraption, allowing the operator to find precious metals. It just ain't possible.

Naw, it aint possible....wish I had a Pepsi with my sandwich 

Whip out the ole witching wand and find ya a Pepsi   

Found it!....200 yards out...in the Pepsi machine! LOL

And once more the skeptics step in to twist words around (and this time flat out add their own)....to try to make a story unbelievable....   and the great scientific method of reasoning continues...

So...a better scientific method to "prove" these gadgets works would be to use the gadget to locate the target and not a metal detector...am I not correct?

I can toss a peanut butter sandwich anywhere in a city park...whip out my trusty metal detector...find something made of metal in that general vicinity....and claim the sandwich actually located the target...i just used a metal detector to pinpoint.

So to follow this the scientific way...(I'm not gonna be very good at this 'cause I don't usually twist peoples words around)...well, here goes....since skeptics claim that dowsing, LRL's and the like can't POSSIBLY work because sometimes the users of said devices claim that they don't work all the time due to internal and external conditions which may or may not prohibit said device from working properly...then that means by scientific reasoning that if i go to the park with my metal detector and find silver at the park which was JUST HUNTED by another person, then that means that metal detectors can't POSSIBLY work because I just accomplished what the first person failed to do. Now I'll pick up my peanut butter sandwich, dust it off, and eat it.....

You seem to be confused in regards to those who are skeptical about dowsing...and those who hold degrees in electronics saying it is impossible for these LRL contraptions to work.

There is no win/win discussion when it comes to dowsing with ordinary L-Rods, bent twigs and the like. And this section is not about dowsing.

HOWEVER....when it comes to electronics...there are ways to prove these devices work, or don't work. There is no way these contraptions can send a signal of any distance, and "bounce" back to the contraption, allowing the operator to find precious metals. It just ain't possible.

Naw, it aint possible....wish I had a Pepsi with my sandwich 

Whip out the ole witching wand and find ya a Pepsi   

Found it!....200 yards out...in the Pepsi machine! LOL

Can't beat the electronics in those Pepsi machines 

Electrical engineering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electrical engineering, sometimes referred to as electrical and electronic engineering, is a field of engineering that deals with the study and application of electricity, electronics and electromagnetism. The field first became an identifiable occupation in the late nineteenth century after commercialization of the electric telegraph and electrical power supply. It now covers a range of subtopics including power, electronics, control systems, signal processing and telecommunications.

Electrical engineering may or may not include electronic engineering. Where a distinction is made, usually outside of the United States, electrical engineering is considered to deal with the problems associated with large-scale electrical systems such as power transmission and motor control, whereas electronic engineering deals with the study of small-scale electronic systems including computers and integrated circuits.[1] Alternatively, electrical engineers are usually concerned with using electricity to transmit energy, while electronic engineers are concerned with using electricity to transmit information.

Charlatan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In usage, a subtle difference is drawn between the charlatan and other kinds of confidence people. The charlatan is usually a salesperson. He does not try to create a personal relationship with his marks, or set up an elaborate hoax using roleplaying. Rather, the person called a charlatan is being accused of resorting to quackery, pseudoscience, or some knowingly employed bogus means of impressing people in order to swindle his victims by selling them worthless nostrums and similar goods or services that will not deliver on the promises made for them. The word calls forth the image of an old-time medicine show operator, who has long left town by the time the people who bought his snake oil tonic realize that it does not perform as advertised.

Hey Mike…He was right about the Micro Gold….It is everywhere….The Dowsing rods and LRL’s  love to lock onto them. I have found no perfect way  to eliminate them YET but I keep trying. People don’t realize that some of these Micro Gold deposits give off a very strong signal. They dig a hole and don’t see anything so they dump what they have dug. If they knew how to process it they would keep it. The process is time consuming but what are you doing in the winter time except getting cabin fevor..Art

I know some people don't want to hear what I say, but here it is anyway. Actually it belongs in on the dowsing page. As for mineralized ground, I read a book by Sam "Lobo" Wolfe (yes, it's that new age "garbage" the skeptics hate) and he talked about people who said they don't have any mineralized pockets in their area. His reply was if you have plants and trees, you have mineralized pockets. He claimed that almost all dowsing responses were due to mineralization/magnetic pockets. So basically he says you want to prove they are so and then look elsewhere. One of his big things was never to dowse for gold because it is confusing and there is a good chance there is some microscopic/natural gold. If you are looking for natural gold he said you want to look for veins, otherwise you want to look for something that was manmade, buried by a human.

Ol' Mr. Lobo has an interesting view on treasure hunting, eh?  Don't treasure hunt where there are plants and trees, and don't hunt for gold.  Wonder if that was written on the dust jacket of his book?   

Curious, how does one dowse for natural gold versus "manmade" gold?  What exactly is "manmade" gold, anyway?  Did Lobo finally prefect alchemy?

and even though I have had near 100% accuracy on a test target with my Revelation Locator Rod (RLR)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLLLL!!!!   
Yep, and I had near 100% accuracy in the tests I took in school that I already had the answers to.....

Tell us another one, Mike!! 



You know, I wonder how many posts you'd have to your name now if you didn't keep deleting them?  Why do you do that?

That's right, very near to 100% in my practice area. It's about 20 by 40 feet, but not all that gets used. It does depend on the weather--windy weather will definitely reduce the accuracy, same with cold temps but not quite as much problem. I attribute it to lots of practice and the Revelation Locator Rod I build. It is good. My accuracy went up after I started using it. I almost always use a frequency generator. What can I say? I love locating.

Sounds like you love locating things you have set out to locate.

Maybe one day you'll accidentally locate a stray wheat cent or silver dime and can post it in Today's Finds. Then...you will be King of the Dowsers!

Until then...continue locating things you have set out to locate.

With absolutely no word from anyone involved with this project, I have to wonder if my concerns were indeed accurate. Either that or two skeptics have been converted to LRL users and are keeping it secret.

Or, perhaps it's that the person offering to test his LRL has backed out of the deal?  Remember, just because you have an assumption doesn't mean the opposite cannot be true.

In 1997 I took a trip to Nevada and received a demonstration of a LRL. I paid the guy $250 for his invention. On the way home I was driving beside the South Fork of the American River. I stop and found  some placer gold and among this gold was 2..1/2 oz nuggets…My LRL was paid for that day.

In 2001 I came to T-Net with a simple request…I needed help to try and eliminate Micro-gold..I did not get much help but found Dowsing to be a pleasant  surprise…I started to slowly learn to Dowse. I went slow because I did not want to do anything that would interfere with the use of my LRL…I learned I could use both methods of Rod use and I still mix the two when in the field….Art
 

The silver dollar @ 1/2 mile test has been postponed until after the holidays, due to scheduling issues.

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,286947.0.html

In 1997 I took a trip to Nevada and received a demonstration of a LRL. I paid the guy $250 for his invention. On the way home I was driving beside the South Fork of the American River. I stop and found  some placer gold and among this gold was 2..1/2 oz nuggets…My LRL was paid for that day.

In 2001 I came to T-Net with a simple request…I needed help to try and eliminate Micro-gold..I did not get much help but found Dowsing to be a pleasant  surprise…I started to slowly learn to Dowse. I went slow because I did not want to do anything that would interfere with the use of my LRL…I learned I could use both methods of Rod use and I still mix the two when in the field….Art
 

How would learning how to dowse interfere with using a machine?  Did learning to dowse cause you to be unable to operate your vehicle?

How would learning how to dowse interfere with using a machine?  Did learning to dowse cause you to be unable to operate your vehicle?

No…I can do both at the same time…Art

You seem to be confused in regards to those who are skeptical about dowsing...and those who hold degrees in electronics saying it is impossible for these LRL contraptions to work.

Then please tell me my poorly informed friend, why is it that practically every LRL manufacturer in the world have electronic degrees   Look at the facts, and you will see it is members of the profession you are defending that is ripping off consumers with ridiculous high prices, and absurd claims.

Is an electronics degree supposed to indicate you  are smart, honest, and even have a clue what you are talking about?  Dell

How would learning how to dowse interfere with using a machine?  Did learning to dowse cause you to be unable to operate your vehicle?

No…I can do both at the same time…Art

Great!  So why would dowsing interfere with you using an LRL machine?

Looking for an old friend Bob T, He was inti this LRL stuff.
He seems to have drooped off the face of the earth, about
a year ago.
I won't say if I believe in the LRL stuff, or not. I just won't
let it be used on my projects.
Thanks for any help. info. on Bob T. 

           Clayton Ramey

Great!  So why would dowsing interfere with you using an LRL machine?

Your believes on how the rods move in both Dowsing and using a LRL are the same. If I believed like you do neither would work for me. ..Art

Great!  So why would dowsing interfere with you using an LRL machine?

Your believes on how the rods move in both Dowsing and using a LRL are the same. If I believed like you do neither would work for me. ..Art

So you have to believe in the machine in order for it to work?

Thanks for clearing that up.......

Then please tell me my poorly informed friend, why is it that practically every LRL manufacturer in the world have electronic degrees

To some people, an "electronic degree" might be considered the same as a "degree in electronics." To other people, an "electronic degree" is a degree you get by email. Usually for a hundred bucks or so. It's not clear what we are talking about.

If we are talking about the "degree in electronics" type, then there are varieties of this, ranging from a self-learned tech who took a 2-week correspondence course in Ohm's Law, to a real technician who got a 2-year degree from a vo-tech school, to an EE with a 4-year college degree, all the way to gen-u-wine Pee-Aich-Dee. All of these people can claim to have a "degree" in electronics.

So the question here is, what kind of degree do "practically every LRL manufacturer in the world" have? Do any of them have a 4-year engineering degree? Or all they all closer to the home correspondence end of the spectrum?

Dell, since you claim that "practically every LRL manufacturer in the world have electronic degrees," I'm sure you could give us a few examples. If you don't know, just say, "I don't know."

So you have to believe in the machine in order for it to work?

Twist and Spin….Your believe is in Ideomotor  Responds…Art 

I wonder which degree Einstein had. Thomas Edison.

BTW, that light bulb won't work. Give it up.

So you have to believe in the machine in order for it to work?

Twist and Spin….Your believe is in Ideomotor  Responds…Art 

Art, this is what you wrote.

Your believes on how the rods move in both Dowsing and using a LRL are the same.

Granted, the grammer is awful, but I understood what you are trying to say.

Do you honestly think that just writing "Twist and Spin" excuses you from what you yourself posted?  Really??

You said, you have to believe in how the LRL moves, and that is works the same as in dowsing.

Please, if you don't even remember what you wrote 30 minutes ago, go back and review before calling someone a liar.

I wonder which degree Einstein had. Thomas Edison.

BTW, that light bulb won't work. Give it up.

lol

I wonder which degree Einstein had. Thomas Edison.

BTW, that light bulb won't work. Give it up.

You think this is a good comparison, LRL's and lightbulbs?

One is an accepted and widely used technology, and the other is an LRL.   

I think what irks skeptics the most is the outrageous claims made by these manufacturers.  Half-an-ounce of silver and copper from 2,700 feet away?  Even an advanced radar system couldn't locate a target that small.  And, yes, I understand the technology is different, but the desired results are exactly the same, locate an object from a certain distance with the hope of tracking that target to it's source.

If these things worked as they claim then, as I've said before, there'd be no treasure left.  The metal detector companies would be out of business, and the gold and silver prices would plummet since there'd be be a massive influx of new precious metals on the market.

And, again as I've said before, if these things work as claimed, then there's be just as many "Today's Finds" posted by LRL users as there are from metal detectorists.  And you can't just blow that off by saying that "People who use LRL's just don't want to show their finds."  It's too broad of a statement and certainly can't apply to every person using one of these things out there.

can i say something... as a somewhat newbie (few weeks) on this site?  i find this information very helpful.  i have been looking into LRL's for a while, thinking of buying one when the time is right... but not before i first see them work and researched them and have played around with them in person.  if people are dumb enough to get on any site on the internet and believe everything they read and make a purchase without first trying any product themselves, that is their stupidity and they will get what they deserve when they get burned.

so my point: i dont understand the people who get on here and put down everyone else for what they are trying to share.  if you dont believe in LRL's, no problem... that is your right.  if you do believe in them, or even have interest in them, that is your right too.  but if you are not one of the people who think they work or who are trying to find out more information... why get on here and cause nothing but problems for the rest of us? you do nothing but waste your time as well as ours by giving us more to read... or try to skip over... when all we are trying to do is listen to other peoples opinions or experiences. 

from my experience, no one has got on here claiming you can find a coin buried 100 ft down from five states away. they are all pretty grounded and honest people, discussing limitations of them as well.  please stop wasting your time and ours as well, and just let us learn.  thx in advance

You think this is a good comparison, LRL's and lightbulbs?

One is an accepted and widely used technology, and the other is an LRL.   

I think what irks skeptics the most is the outrageous claims made by these manufacturers.  Half-an-ounce of silver and copper from 2,700 feet away?  Even an advanced radar system couldn't locate a target that small.  And, yes, I understand the technology is different, but the desired results are exactly the same, locate an object from a certain distance with the hope of tracking that target to it's source.

If these things worked as they claim then, as I've said before, there'd be no treasure left.  The metal detector companies would be out of business, and the gold and silver prices would plummet since there'd be be a massive influx of new precious metals on the market.

And, again as I've said before, if these things work as claimed, then there's be just as many "Today's Finds" posted by LRL users as there are from metal detectorists.  And you can't just blow that off by saying that "People who use LRL's just don't want to show their finds."  It's too broad of a statement and certainly can't apply to every person using one of these things out there.

You think this is a good comparison, LRL's and lightbulbs?

One is an accepted and widely used technology, and the other is an LRL.   

I really do think it's a good and fair comparison. The lightbulb is an accepted and widely used technology NOW, but that wasn't the case when Edison started out. And he started out believing against unbelief. Did it work? Absolutely NOT! Then he started over. Then did it work? NO! He probably looked like a big nut to the establishment. Nothing worked. The man was crazy, right? But wait a minute, something FINALLY did work. Was Edison right? I guess you could say he was wrong all those times it didn't work.

If these things worked as they claim then, as I've said before, there'd be no treasure left.  The metal detector companies would be out of business, and the gold and silver prices would plummet since there'd be be a massive influx of new precious metals on the market.

I have to stop here and say thank you for this explanation. You just answered almost every question the skeptics have brought up against LRL's. The main one is, if LRL's could be built, then why don't all the major manufacturers build them? You answered that quite nicely. I guess you also answered why the government don't pursue this. Again, Thanks.

can i say something... as a somewhat newbie (few weeks) on this site?  i find this information very helpful.  i have been looking into LRL's for a while, thinking of buying one when the time is right... but not before i first see them work and researched them and have played around with them in person.  if people are dumb enough to get on any site on the internet and believe everything they read and make a purchase without first trying any product themselves, that is their stupidity and they will get what they deserve when they get burned.

so my point: i dont understand the people who get on here and put down everyone else for what they are trying to share.  if you dont believe in LRL's, no problem... that is your right.  if you do believe in them, or even have interest in them, that is your right too.  but if you are not one of the people who think they work or who are trying to find out more information... why get on here and cause nothing but problems for the rest of us? you do nothing but waste your time as well as ours by giving us more to read... or try to skip over... when all we are trying to do is listen to other peoples opinions or experiences.  

from my experience, no one has got on here claiming you can find a coin buried 100 ft down from five states away. they are all pretty grounded and honest people, discussing limitations of them as well.  please stop wasting your time and ours as well, and just let us learn.  thx in advance

Your newbie is showing  
Believe me, the majority of the regular posters on T-net agree with you, however after trying to use reason, shame, guilt, and even insults, some people just cannot take a subtle or not so subtle hint that the tone of their posts is just not appreciated by the majority.  I believe they somehow feed off their own negativity, or are just too dense to comprehend how they are being viewed.

Anyway, good luck with your plea for decorum. The rest of us have pretty much given up, just consider the source, and put the usual bunch of culprits on mental ignore. Some have resorted to the use of the "ignore user button" to keep the troll's, space, and time wasting, posts completely out of their view.  

I have found it best not to respond to their tactics. That way they just look foolish for trying to provoke an argument that no one falls for.  

GG~

Hey GoodyGuy....You are 100% right...Art

can i say something... as a somewhat newbie (few weeks) on this site?  i find this information very helpful.  i have been looking into LRL's for a while, thinking of buying one when the time is right... but not before i first see them work and researched them and have played around with them in person.  if people are dumb enough to get on any site on the internet and believe everything they read and make a purchase without first trying any product themselves, that is their stupidity and they will get what they deserve when they get burned.

so my point: i dont understand the people who get on here and put down everyone else for what they are trying to share.  if you dont believe in LRL's, no problem... that is your right.  if you do believe in them, or even have interest in them, that is your right too.  but if you are not one of the people who think they work or who are trying to find out more information... why get on here and cause nothing but problems for the rest of us? you do nothing but waste your time as well as ours by giving us more to read... or try to skip over... when all we are trying to do is listen to other peoples opinions or experiences. 

from my experience, no one has got on here claiming you can find a coin buried 100 ft down from five states away. they are all pretty grounded and honest people, discussing limitations of them as well.  please stop wasting your time and ours as well, and just let us learn.  thx in advance

No problem being a newbie, but one thing you might want to do is research past posts before you start passing judgement on anyone.

Myself, I came to the dowsing area initially looking for information, just as you have.  I found, just my opinion, that I was getting a lot of conflicting information.  I was told many times how dowsing is a 5,000 year old practice, but yet couldn't seem to find out any solid information about it.  Everything actually seemed pretty flaky when you sat down and examined the data.

When I first started to read about LRLs, I was actually excited because it seemed to be a machine that, while more expensive than most metal detectors, was able to accomplish much more with less effort.  Like you, I did my research, and I'm still doing this research.  But what I found was far, far from convincing.  I was actually quite concerned as I continued to read claims of vast fortunes being found from great distances.  Then I found a particular site that offered photos and explanations of the inner workings of these machines, and it became clear pretty quickly that it was nothing but fluff. 

As for experiences and opinions, I've posted my own on here.  Perhaps you missed them?  Or is it that you're madly hoping that LRLs do exactly as they are advertised and don't wish to hear any opinion other than this?

As far as your experience as to the insane claims as to what these devices can do, you might want to read further.  There's a challenge afoot right now involving claims exactly like the one you've said don't exist here.  Perhaps not 5 states away, but 2,000 feet away, and 20 feet deep. 

Ask yourself this question before you bother posting again;

"Do I want to know if LRLs work, or do I wish for them to work?"

Looking for an old friend Bob T, He was inti this LRL stuff.
He seems to have drooped off the face of the earth, about
a year ago.
I won't say if I believe in the LRL stuff, or not. I just won't
let it be used on my projects.
Thanks for any help. info. on Bob T. 

           Clayton Ramey

Won't let it be used on your projects?  Why not?

Respectfully,
GG~

GoodGuy,

In 1996 my friend BOB T used he's equipment on a project we were working in
the Southwest. He assured me there was nothing there. We gave up on the project.
A few years later, someone did a search of the area. Using a two box detector, and
found the target.

If  Dowsing, LRL or what ever method anyone chooses to use seems to work for them.
Them I say use it. They are paying for it. It's their time involved.  And they are not
obligated to prove to anyone ( other than maybe an investor ) that these method's work.

Some of the equipment I use, would probably be challenged by others. If they knew what I used.

                                Clayton Ramey

You think this is a good comparison, LRL's and lightbulbs?

One is an accepted and widely used technology, and the other is an LRL.   

I really do think it's a good and fair comparison. The lightbulb is an accepted and widely used technology NOW, but that wasn't the case when Edison started out. And he started out believing against unbelief. Did it work? Absolutely NOT! Then he started over. Then did it work? NO! He probably looked like a big nut to the establishment. Nothing worked. The man was crazy, right? But wait a minute, something FINALLY did work. Was Edison right? I guess you could say he was wrong all those times it didn't work.

If these things worked as they claim then, as I've said before, there'd be no treasure left.  The metal detector companies would be out of business, and the gold and silver prices would plummet since there'd be be a massive influx of new precious metals on the market.

I have to stop here and say thank you for this explanation. You just answered almost every question the skeptics have brought up against LRL's. The main one is, if LRL's could be built, then why don't all the major manufacturers build them? You answered that quite nicely. I guess you also answered why the government don't pursue this. Again, Thanks.

Please note that Edison was far from the only person working on electric light in his time.  And, opposite of long-help beliefs held mainly by the "believers" here, most of his prior light-bulb attempts worked well, but didn't last long enough to be practical to a consumer market.  Let's be clear about something here.  Edison was well aware of electricity and what it was capable of, and tailored his bulb attempts to suit this. He was able to see the light, so to speak.  Read your history, unless you don't believe the writers??

How is this; If these things worked as they claim then, as I've said before, there'd be no treasure left.  The metal detector companies would be out of business, and the gold and silver prices would plummet since there'd be be a massive influx of new precious metals on the market. any kind of explanation?

Are you telling me that the manufacturers of LRLs somehow limit the number of these devices they will sell to the public?  Did the all get together and sort this out?  That if I went to an LRL site right now, they would only sell me a single LRL?  Good Lord, you really are delusional, aren't you?

As far as the government connection, you've offered nothing but air.  Why would the government not pursue a device that could net all the unfound and lost gold in the US and around the world to store deep in Fort Knox?  Do they not like financial security?  And where did I even mention the government in my questions to you?

So, to summarize, you believe LRL manufacturers are very concerned about the global precious metals market and the health of their competition.  Because of this, they've placed self-restrictions as to the number of LRLs they will sell to keep the price of gold high and make sure metal detector companies stay in business.

Of course, I'll be expecting you to provide proof (a internet link would suffice) as to where you think you've seen this information.

I swear, it just gets deeper and deeper in here....

GoodGuy,

In 1996 my friend BOB T used he's equipment on a project we were working in
the Southwest. He assured me there was nothing there. We gave up on the project.
A few years later, someone did a search of the area. Using a two box detector, and
found the target.

If  Dowsing, LRL or what ever method anyone chooses to use seems to work for them.
Them I say use it. They are paying for it. It's their time involved.  And they are not
obligated to prove to anyone ( other than maybe an investor ) that these method's work.

Some of the equipment I use, would probably be challenged by others. If they knew what I used.

                                Clayton Ramey

Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I was under the impression that if an LRL was used on a project it would be in addition to other detection devices, and not used exclusively.  

Akin to a doctor viewing an x-ray and then getting a second view by using MRI, sometimes one misses what the other sees.
Perhaps there are cases where a two box would miss the target that an LRL would find.  

GG~

How is this; If these things worked as they claim then, as I've said before, there'd be no treasure left.  The metal detector companies would be out of business, and the gold and silver prices would plummet since there'd be be a massive influx of new precious metals on the market. any kind of explanation?

The dry land mass of the world is 59,080,500 square miles..A very big job

Is it not funny that this statement always comes up  from the Skeptics…Then when they are finished with their long rant they ask us to prove them wrong…In the mean time they tell us they don’t have to prove anything because it is our hobby…Art

Please note that Edison was far from the only person working on electric light in his time.  And, opposite of long-help beliefs held mainly by the "believers" here, most of his prior light-bulb attempts worked well, but didn't last long enough to be practical to a consumer market.  Let's be clear about something here.  Edison was well aware of electricity and what it was capable of, and tailored his bulb attempts to suit this. He was able to see the light, so to speak.  Read your history, unless you don't believe the writers??

How is this; If these things worked as they claim then, as I've said before, there'd be no treasure left.  The metal detector companies would be out of business, and the gold and silver prices would plummet since there'd be be a massive influx of new precious metals on the market. any kind of explanation?

Are you telling me that the manufacturers of LRLs somehow limit the number of these devices they will sell to the public?  Did the all get together and sort this out?  That if I went to an LRL site right now, they would only sell me a single LRL?  Good Lord, you really are delusional, aren't you?

As far as the government connection, you've offered nothing but air.  Why would the government not pursue a device that could net all the unfound and lost gold in the US and around the world to store deep in Fort Knox?  Do they not like financial security?  And where did I even mention the government in my questions to you?

So, to summarize, you believe LRL manufacturers are very concerned about the global precious metals market and the health of their competition.  Because of this, they've placed self-restrictions as to the number of LRLs they will sell to keep the price of gold high and make sure metal detector companies stay in business.

Of course, I'll be expecting you to provide proof (a internet link would suffice) as to where you think you've seen this information.

I swear, it just gets deeper and deeper in here....

Other people working on the lightbulb has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about the establishment. I think you know what that means. Inventors are those who accomplish things, and they do it by stepping outside the box they are told to stay in.

How can you say that Edison's earliest attempts at the lightbulb was successful, and then make it a point to say that LRL's don't work AS ADVERTISED? If the early bulbs had been successful, why did he need to continue until he found what worked better? Yes, Edison was well aware of electricity and what it was capable of. But to make it useful, he had to try things out of the ordinary...things that probably made him look silly to some of his peers. And in his failures he said he hadn't failed, but had discovered many different ways that didn't work. Did you hear that? Many things Edison tried he said didn't work. Why did he keep going?

Are you telling me that the manufacturers of LRLs somehow limit the number of these devices they will sell to the public?  Did the all get together and sort this out?  That if I went to an LRL site right now, they would only sell me a single LRL?  Good Lord, you really are delusional, aren't you?


What? Am I telling YOU? I was referring to what YOU said. You said if LRL's work the way people say, then it would put detector salesmen out of business. I agree with you. Sounds like a good reason for them to not put such things on the market. It was you who said it. I was just agreeing with you.

As far as the government connection, you've offered nothing but air.  Why would the government not pursue a device that could net all the unfound and lost gold in the US and around the world to store deep in Fort Knox?  Do they not like financial security?  And where did I even mention the government in my questions to you?


So you think if we all had LRL's and was finding all the gold in the earth that all that gold would end up in Fort Knox? Are you sure it's me who is delusional? The government that I know gets nervous when they think you've made 5 bucks that they won't be able to get at. I don't think they'd trust us with all the gold in the ground. Besides, if THEY can develop the technology covertly, why would they want us out there in their way? So you think they want US to have the gold and cause the gold and silver prices to plummet?

So, to summarize, you believe LRL manufacturers are very concerned about the global precious metals market and the health of their competition.  Because of this, they've placed self-restrictions as to the number of LRLs they will sell to keep the price of gold high and make sure metal detector companies stay in business.

Again, it was YOU who said that.

I wonder which degree Einstein had. Thomas Edison.

Drat! You played the Einstein Card... foiled again!

Seriously though... Einstein had one of those Pee-Aich-Dees.

Because of the questions surrounding the efficacy (and even the very ethics) of LRLs, it is certainly fair to ask about the qualifications of the people who design and make them. They are building electronic circuits, so do they know anything about electronics, or do they simply lift a circuit from a Forrest Mims handbook? They claim to make devices that locate buried targets from long distances... do they know anything about signal processing or EM propagation or geophysics? If they really don't know anything about what they are claiming to do, then there is even less reason to believe their claims.

Also, it's fun to have conspiratorial thoughts about why detector companies don't build these things, but it's not because they're afraid of putting themselves out of business by making a far more capable product. Read that last sentence again. Do you see the fallacy? No, detector companies don't make them because they don't work. Don't believe me? Call them yourself, and ask. Then you won't need to believe.

i have been looking into LRL's for a while, thinking of buying one when the time is right... if people are dumb enough to get on any site on the internet and believe everything they read... they will get what they deserve when they get burned.

Sounds like you have the right frame of mind, and ready to accept your fate... go for it!

If you weren't a skeptic I might find your question humorous. As it is I find it idiotic and insulting. Reminds me of those stupid questions some lawyers ask.

So....Have you actually recovered unknown, non-test gold?

How can you say that Edison's earliest attempts at the lightbulb was successful, and then make it a point to say that LRL's don't work AS ADVERTISED?

What?!?  How is this even a comparison?  Edison made light, just as he wanted.  LRL's don't work as advertised.  In what world are these opposing statements??

Are you telling me that the manufacturers of LRLs somehow limit the number of these devices they will sell to the public?  Did the all get together and sort this out?  That if I went to an LRL site right now, they would only sell me a single LRL?  Good Lord, you really are delusional, aren't you?


What? Am I telling YOU? I was referring to what YOU said. You said if LRL's work the way people say, then it would put detector salesmen out of business. I agree with you. Sounds like a good reason for them to not put such things on the market. It was you who said it. I was just agreeing with you.

So, to summarize, you believe LRL manufacturers are very concerned about the global precious metals market and the health of their competition.  Because of this, they've placed self-restrictions as to the number of LRLs they will sell to keep the price of gold high and make sure metal detector companies stay in business.

Again, it was YOU who said that.

You just love the little word games, don't you?  Let's stop this now.  From what I can see from above, you agree with me that LRL's shoudln't be sold at all.  Done, period, and I agree, these pieces of garbage shouldn't be sold to anyone, even to those immature enough to believe they actually work.

Is this another trick lawyer question? You mean Is it possible I found it and did not know it? Or, Is it possible someone knew about it? Is it possible someone planted the gold there and psychically notified you? I suppose the legal answer could be "Yes" to all the above, Yes it is possible but I seriously doubt it.

A trick lawyer question?  You're getting wayyyy too paraniod, man.

Let's translate what Yammy asked.  "Have you ever found any gold that you didn't know was already there?"

Simple.

I find the question insulting.

Then you really should have said that, but you didn't. 

Please understand why SWR asked this, and don't feel insulted in any way because that isn't the point of this post.

Mike, you spend a lot of time talking about testing your inventions.  The keyword here is testing.  I've yet to see a post where you reported taking your device to a public or private piece of land, and using it to find things that you or a friend didn't bury yourselves.  You have to see how this looks from the other side.  You've been lauding the usefulness of this device, but you seem to base all of your successes on finding things, the location of which was already known.

I wonder which degree Einstein had. Thomas Edison.

Drat! You played the Einstein Card... foiled again!

Seriously though... Einstein had one of those Pee-Aich-Dees.

Because of the questions surrounding the efficacy (and even the very ethics) of LRLs, it is certainly fair to ask about the qualifications of the people who design and make them. They are building electronic circuits, so do they know anything about electronics, or do they simply lift a circuit from a Forrest Mims handbook? They claim to make devices that locate buried targets from long distances... do they know anything about signal processing or EM propagation or geophysics? If they really don't know anything about what they are claiming to do, then there is even less reason to believe their claims.

Also, it's fun to have conspiratorial thoughts about why detector companies don't build these things, but it's not because they're afraid of putting themselves out of business by making a far more capable product. Read that last sentence again. Do you see the fallacy? No, detector companies don't make them because they don't work. Don't believe me? Call them yourself, and ask. Then you won't need to believe.

I'm not a card player, but I know enough to play the cards I hold.
And why would you not want to play that card? Wait, I think I know.
And Edison?

I don't disagree that you should be concerned about people's qualifications.
But you automatically assume that those companies employ those with only correspondence course degrees. Why do you do that? You don't have some type of LONG RANGE knowledge skills, do you? Also, I guess you have told us that correspondence degrees are no good. Do you really think that?

Also, it's fun to have conspiratorial thoughts about why detector companies don't build these things, but it's not because they're afraid of putting themselves out of business by making a far more capable product. Read that last sentence again. Do you see the fallacy? No, detector companies don't make them because they don't work. Don't believe me? Call them yourself, and ask. Then you won't need to believe.


Interesting you say that to me. It wasn't me who said that. I was just agreeing with it. So, according to you, your little buddy (fellow skeptic) is conspiratorial. I wonder what he thinks about you saying that. I'm sure he'll be "forgiving."

So if I called those companies, I wouldn't need to believe what THEY told me? Think about it.

What?!?  How is this even a comparison?  Edison made light, just as he wanted.  LRL's don't work as advertised.  In what world are these opposing statements??

Edison didn't make light. Light always existed. Edison made the a bulb. And this bulb was useless until he finally, after many tries, got it right.
Now, you say LRL's don't work as advertised. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that LRL technology is still in the developmental stages, like the early lightbulb before it was finished. You don't have to commit, just consider the POSSIBILITY.

You just love the little word games, don't you?  Let's stop this now.  From what I can see from above, you agree with me that LRL's shouldn't be sold at all.  Done, period, and I agree, these pieces of garbage shouldn't be sold to anyone, even to those immature enough to believe they actually work.


Okay, but every time you want to stop things it just makes you look like you don't know where to go next. Also, you resort to one of the oldest tricks in the book. If you're opponent starts making sense, all you have to do is accuse him of playing word games or using "the card." Okay, but it makes you look bad.

And I didn't say LRL's shouldn't be sold. Where did you read that?

[do not work]

Interesting you say that to me. It wasn't me who said that. I was just agreeing with it. So, according to you, your little buddy (fellow skeptic) is conspiratorial. I wonder what he thinks about you saying that. I'm sure he'll be "forgiving."

And there you go again.  You need to get this straight, KK.  I never said anything resembling what you're trying to pin on me. 

My original feelings, and those I have now, are that "if LRL's worked as their manufacturers describe, then the precious metals market would bottom out and the metal detector companies would go out of business." 

Let's remind everyone since you seem so intent on muddying my words.

My point in making this statement is that LRL's do not work as their maker's describe, and my statement in red above is proof of this.

Perhaps, if all you can bring to the table is an intention to destroy any semblance of an actual conversation, you should excuse yourself from it.

My original feelings, and those I have now, are that "if LRL's worked as their manufacturers describe, then the precious metals market would bottom out and the metal detector companies would go out of business."

My point in making this statement is that LRL's do not work as their maker's describe, and my statement in red above is proof of this.

You make a statement…Then you say that the statement is proof??/..Art

[do not work]

Interesting you say that to me. It wasn't me who said that. I was just agreeing with it. So, according to you, your little buddy (fellow skeptic) is conspiratorial. I wonder what he thinks about you saying that. I'm sure he'll be "forgiving."

And there you go again.  You need to get this straight, KK.  I never said anything resembling what you're trying to pin on me.  

My original feelings, and those I have now, are that "if LRL's worked as their manufacturers describe, then the precious metals market would bottom out and the metal detector companies would go out of business."  

Let's remind everyone since you seem so intent on muddying my words.

My point in making this statement is that LRL's do not work as their maker's describe, and my statement in red above is proof of this.

Perhaps, if all you can bring to the table is an intention to destroy any semblance of an actual conversation, you should excuse yourself from it.

Af, perhaps you had better start qualifying your statements as personal opinion, and make specific exceptions as to who  you are,or are not  speaking about.

The products I build, & use, work exactly as I describe, including the stated limitations. I have been using LRL tools to aid in my Professional searches since 1980.  I DO NOT LIE. I am always totally honest based on my years of field experience with LRL's.

 I highly resent your inflamatory inference and untruthful characterization of me as a LRL manufacturer.

It is you that should excuse yourself from this forum for intentionally trying to be an agitator.   Dell

Now, you say LRL's don't work as advertised. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that LRL technology is still in the developmental stages, like the early lightbulb before it was finished. You don't have to commit, just consider the POSSIBILITY.

Hey KK...As a LRL user I have saw the technology get better in some of them and also some have been the same for 10 plus years.

The first metal detector I owned in the late 80’s found nothing but pull tabs..I see by reading posts  on T-Net that some of them still have this problem when  looking for gold..Are metal detectors better now than in the 80’s….Heck ya…but they still have problems….Art

My original feelings, and those I have now, are that "if LRL's worked as their manufacturers describe, then the precious metals market would bottom out and the metal detector companies would go out of business."

My point in making this statement is that LRL's do not work as their maker's describe, and my statement in red above is proof of this.

You make a statement…Then you say that the statement is proof??/..Art

Yep!  It's a matter of looking at the context of the situation.  I may not have used every LRL ever built, but because of the issues I've described above, it's easy to conclude that the sweeping statements these manufacturers make aren't realistic.

[do not work]

Interesting you say that to me. It wasn't me who said that. I was just agreeing with it. So, according to you, your little buddy (fellow skeptic) is conspiratorial. I wonder what he thinks about you saying that. I'm sure he'll be "forgiving."

And there you go again.  You need to get this straight, KK.  I never said anything resembling what you're trying to pin on me.  

My original feelings, and those I have now, are that "if LRL's worked as their manufacturers describe, then the precious metals market would bottom out and the metal detector companies would go out of business."  

Let's remind everyone since you seem so intent on muddying my words.

My point in making this statement is that LRL's do not work as their maker's describe, and my statement in red above is proof of this.

Perhaps, if all you can bring to the table is an intention to destroy any semblance of an actual conversation, you should excuse yourself from it.

Af, perhaps you had better start qualifying your statements as personal opinion, and make specific exceptions as to who  you are,or are not  speaking about.

The products I build, & use, work exactly as I describe, including the stated limitations. I have been using LRL tools to aid in my Professional searches since 1980.  I DO NOT LIE. I am always totally honest based on my years of field experience with LRL's.

 I highly resent your inflamatory inference and untruthful characterization of me as a LRL manufacturer.

It is you that should excuse yourself from this forum for intentionally trying to be an agitator.   Dell

Very well, Dell, perhaps you'd lke to share what the "limitations" of your machines are with the rest of us?  What's the exact wording you put together in your advertisements?  And don't try to say I'm doing something to get you banned, I'm not asking you to post your ads here, just the "fine print."

As far as your character goes, you don't have a problem calling me or anyone else that doesn't agree with you a liar. 

And my presence here is just as accepted as yours is.  I'm attempted to discuss LRL's, and KK is doing everything he can to twist my words.  You should be defending my attempt to keep the discussion on course but, naturally, you only seem to care about the people that agree with you when it comes to freedom of speech.

But, and read this part!!!  I find it quite amusing that KK appears to agree with everything I've written, yet you don't seem offended by his remarks at all.  Why is that?

Ye

p!  It's a matter of looking at the context of the situation.  I may not have used every LRL ever built, but because of the issues I've described above, it's easy to conclude that the sweeping statements these manufacturers make aren't realistic.

Please tell us what sweeping statements these manufacturers make aren't realistic?

Ye

p!  It's a matter of looking at the context of the situation.  I may not have used every LRL ever built, but because of the issues I've described above, it's easy to conclude that the sweeping statements these manufacturers make aren't realistic.

Please tell us what sweeping statements these manufacturers make aren't realistic?

Please Art, you've ignored so many of my questions up to this point, what makes you think I'm going to fall all over myself jumping to answer yours?

But I'll make you a deal, you go back through all these posts and answer just half of the questions you've ignored so far, and I'll put together all of the information you're asking for.  Sound good?

I don't disagree that you should be concerned about people's qualifications.
But you automatically assume that those companies employ those with only correspondence course degrees. Why do you do that?

I listed a range of experiences that would enable a person to say, "I have a degree in electronics." At the low end, I used an intentionally frivolous example of a "2-week correspondence course in Ohm's Law," which is enough to claim that coveted degree, but not enough to actually know anything about electronics.

The reason I question Dell's claim that "practically every LRL manufacturer in the world have electronic degrees" is because I've opened a lot of these LRLs and seen the insides. The people that built them are waaayyy on the low end of the spectrum of "electronic degrees."

Interesting you say that to me. It wasn't me who said that. I was just agreeing with it.

OK, maybe I misunderstood. AF said, "If these things worked as they claim ... The metal detector companies would be out of business..." I disagree with this; if they worked, metal detector companies would be making them. The reason metal detector companies don't make them, is because they don't work. Has nothing to do with a government conspiracy, or gold prices, or a fear of going out of business. In fact, with the gold rushes going on in Russia, Mongolia, Sudan, and the Congo, detector companies could be cashing in big time.

So if I called those companies, I wouldn't need to believe what THEY told me? Think about it.

Sure, but you won't need to believe me. And if every one of them gives you the same answer as to why they don't make LRLs, would you continue to believe otherwise?

Try it, see what happens!

Sure, but you won't need to believe me. And if every one of them gives you the same answer as to why they don't make LRLs, would you continue to believe otherwise?

Try it, see what happens!

And why should I believe them over all others?

Af, you made the statement, and now you are backpeddling. To me, you have lost all credibility.

Sure, but you won't need to believe me. And if every one of them gives you the same answer as to why they don't make LRLs, would you continue to believe otherwise?

Try it, see what happens!

And why should I believe them over all others?

Af, you made the statement, and now you are backpeddling. To me, you have lost all credibility.

Who's backpedaling on what?  Show me where I've changed my story.

Sure, but you won't need to believe me. And if every one of them gives you the same answer as to why they don't make LRLs, would you continue to believe otherwise?

Try it, see what happens!

And why should I believe them over all others?

Af, you made the statement, and now you are backpeddling. To me, you have lost all credibility.

Who's backpedaling on what?  Show me where I've changed my story.

You said that if LRL's worked, they would put detector salesmen out of business. Then you try to say you didn't mean it that way. Which is it, left or right. Make a choice and take a stand.

Carl, if you  dared to go against your own, as you have me, I think you will find a number of high degreed EE's behind some of the LRL products manufactured throughout the world.  OKM, is the first to come to mind.

But, why would you be so vain, and egotistical as to think that only a high degreed EE, or electronics company would have the knowledge, or experience to manufacture a working LRL?

I am admittedly a 6th grade, country educated, Kentucky Hillbilly, and I build LRL that work well for me in the field, and has helped others to even find Treasure, and make important discoveries.  Only pretend Science, or an unscrupulous agenda would attempt to deny and make light of facts.  

We all know where your limited field  experience,  imagination, and Skeptic  agenda  stand on the subject.  You don't have a legitimate Scientific leg to stand on.   You can wail on for another 15 years supporting a lost cause. Dell

Sure, but you won't need to believe me. And if every one of them gives you the same answer as to why they don't make LRLs, would you continue to believe otherwise?

Try it, see what happens!

And why should I believe them over all others?

Af, you made the statement, and now you are backpeddling. To me, you have lost all credibility.

Who's backpedaling on what?  Show me where I've changed my story.

You said that if LRL's worked, they would put detector salesmen out of business. Then you try to say you didn't mean it that way. Which is it, left or right. Make a choice and take a stand.

Read each of my posts carefully.  And then read them again, and this time use some kind of comprehension.  I meant exactly what I wrote.  What you tried to twist it into was a defense of LRL's as amazing machines that can do amazing things.

These were my words:
If these things worked as they claim then, as I've said before, there'd be no treasure left.  The metal detector companies would be out of business, and the gold and silver prices would plummet since there'd be be a massive influx of new precious metals on the market.

And, again as I've said before, if these things work as claimed, then there's be just as many "Today's Finds" posted by LRL users as there are from metal detectorists.  And you can't just blow that off by saying that "People who use LRL's just don't want to show their finds."  It's too broad of a statement and certainly can't apply to every person using one of these things out there.

Now, as well as when I wrote the above, the meaning of my words is the same.  All of the above things would be occurring right now if LRL's worked as advertised.

Please note that I didn't write, "I'm amazed all of these things aren't happening since LRL's do such an amazing job."  I never said this, and no matter how you choose to misinterpret it, this will never be the case.

Carl, if you  dared to go against your own, as you have me, I think you will find a number of high degreed EE's behind some of the LRL products manufactured throughout the world.  OKM, is the first to come to mind.

But, why would you be so vain, and egotistical as to think that only a high degreed EE, or electronics company would have the knowledge, or experience to manufacture a working LRL?

I am admittedly a 6th grade, country educated, Kentucky Hillbilly, and I build LRL that work well for me in the field, and has helped others to even find Treasure, and make important discoveries.  Only pretend Science, or an unscrupulous agenda would attempt to deny and make light of facts.  

We all know where your limited field  experience,  imagination, and Skeptic  agenda  stand on the subject.  You don't have a legitimate Scientific leg to stand on.   You can wail on for another 15 years supporting a lost cause. Dell

You really do seem to enjoy bringing up your 6th grade education, don't you Dell?  Why is that?  Is it because you believe you perform feats of high intelligence on a daily basis? 

Any progress on gathering a list of your machine's "limitations" to share with us?  I'd go to your site and bring them over myself, but then you'd accuse me of plagerism or some such nonsense.  You know, you should be more than willing to post those limitations here.  You claim to care so much about honesty, I imagine you'd want to be completely up front about these "limitations."

[I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE GET RIPPED OFF (defrauded) by people selling so-called "long range locators" (devices, that supposedly, can find precious metals at a distance)]

You really do seem to enjoy bringing up your 6th grade education, don't you Dell?  Why is that?  Is it because you believe you perform feats of high intelligence on a daily basis? 

Any progress on gathering a list of your machine's "limitations" to share with us?  I'd go to your site and bring them over myself, but then you'd accuse me of plagerism or some such nonsense.  You know, you should be more than willing to post those limitations here.  You claim to care so much about honesty, I imagine you'd want to be completely up front about these "limitations."

That just might have something to do with Marc's opening statement:

I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE GET RIPPED OFF (defrauded) by people selling so-called "long range locators" (devices, that supposedly, can find precious metals at a distance)

[The metal detector companies would be out of business]

Read each of my posts carefully.  And then read them again, and this time use some kind of comprehension.  I meant exactly what I wrote.  What you tried to twist it into was a defense of LRL's as amazing machines that can do amazing things.

These were my words:
If these things worked as they claim then, as I've said before, there'd be no treasure left.  The metal detector companies would be out of business, and the gold and silver prices would plummet since there'd be be a massive influx of new precious metals on the market.

Why do you keep missing this? I put it in bold so you could see it better.

Please note that I didn't write, "I'm amazed all of these things aren't happening since LRL's do such an amazing job."  I never said this, and no matter how you choose to misinterpret it, this will never be the case.

No no, I didn't think you said anything like that. Just the words in bold.
You said those companies would be put out of business. Now, regardless of what point you were trying to make, "The metal detector companies would be out of business" only has ONE meaning.

I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE GET RIPPED OFF (defrauded) by people selling so-called "long range locators" (devices, that supposedly, can find precious metals at a distance)

Personally, I don't see the detection of a Silver Dollar, at 1/2 mile as being a practical, or viable test for an LRL.  Most LRL's I'm familiar with are Physics orientated applications, whether they incorporate the use of L-Rods, or electronics to meter the Signals.

The present Physics applications of LRL's  have limitations that need to be understood by the operator and should be used accordingly. Unfortunately, most manufacturers don't include these limitations in their advertising, or instruction manuals and the consumer is pretty much left to learn on their own.

The distance, in this test, in my opinion, is entirely impractical for LRL use.  Operating conditions can also impair range & detection of Physics based  LRL applications in their present stage of development. Even if operating conditions are favorable, I am not aware of any LRL Physics application that is going to distinguish similar sized targets that may also be within the half mile radius?

The most likely scenario in which this test can be accomplished successfully is that the operator physically (consciously or unconsciously) overrides the Rod's subtle reaction to external influences (physics) and manually forces the Rods to react to a mental application (Dowsing) which in my experience has far less limitations, if any.  If this is the case, credit cannot be given to the Physics application of an LRL, but sometimes credit is given  because Dowsing is done on a sub-conscious level and the operator may not be aware, or does not understand the distinction between the two applications of L- Rods.     Dell

[The metal detector companies would be out of business]

Read each of my posts carefully.  And then read them again, and this time use some kind of comprehension.  I meant exactly what I wrote.  What you tried to twist it into was a defense of LRL's as amazing machines that can do amazing things.

These were my words:
If these things worked as they claim then, as I've said before, there'd be no treasure left.  The metal detector companies would be out of business, and the gold and silver prices would plummet since there'd be be a massive influx of new precious metals on the market.

Why do you keep missing this? I put it in bold so you could see it better.

Please note that I didn't write, "I'm amazed all of these things aren't happening since LRL's do such an amazing job."  I never said this, and no matter how you choose to misinterpret it, this will never be the case.

No no, I didn't think you said anything like that. Just the words in bold.
You said those companies would be put out of business. Now, regardless of what point you were trying to make, "The metal detector companies would be out of business" only has ONE meaning.

That sentence alone has only one meaning, you're absolutely right, but that sentence isn't the only thing I wrote in relation to this post, as there was a leading qualifier that you seem to be forgetting.

I wrote that "If LRL's worked as described, they would have put metal detector companies out of business."  Metal detector companies still exist and are doing just fine, ergo LRL's must not work as described.

It's not my fault if you can't understand plain English, KK.

I wrote that "If LRL's worked as described, they would have put metal detector companies out of business."  Metal detector companies still exist and are doing just fine, ergo LRL's must not work as described.

A great Logical thinker…Art

I wrote that "If LRL's worked as described, they would have put metal detector companies out of business."  Metal detector companies still exist and are doing just fine, ergo LRL's must not work as described.

A great Logical thinker…Art

I agree with you, Art.

It is like how the big Marts shut down the Mom and Pop marts.

[If]

That sentence alone has only one meaning, you're absolutely right, but that sentence isn't the only thing I wrote in relation to this post, as there was a leading qualifier that you seem to be forgetting.

I wrote that "If LRL's worked as described, they would have put metal detector companies out of business."  Metal detector companies still exist and are doing just fine, ergo LRL's must not work as described.

It's not my fault if you can't understand plain English, KK.

Okay. I thought you were just trying to get away from what you said. I see now that you really don't understand that it means the same, no matter what other point you were going for. Other people can see it.

Isn't there other things (besides LRL'S) that could conceivably put our type of metal detectors out of business?  Like the device that you attach to a vehicle, all the gadgets that they use in small planes to detect mineralization and the like - but, the bottom line is, we use metal detectors (the hand-held type) differently than we would use LRL's (if they worked), and long term scanning.

I wouldn't give up the "swipe the ground" tactic of handheld metal detectors, even if I could, at any point, find something a half mile away.  The reason being - its not just the finding, but the looking - and I'd always wonder what I missed in between.  (just me and my opinion), but nothing can replace my md.

B

I wouldn't give up the "swipe the ground" tactic of handheld metal detectors, even if I could, at any point, find something a half mile away.  The reason being - its not just the finding, but the looking - and I'd always wonder what I missed in between.  (just me and my opinion), but nothing can replace my md.

Hey B...Another great post..It is your hobby...Whatever makes you happy is what we are all looking for....As I have aged I find that the looking is more important than finding and guess what...I am enjoying being in the woods and no longer have to find to survive...Art

[If]

That sentence alone has only one meaning, you're absolutely right, but that sentence isn't the only thing I wrote in relation to this post, as there was a leading qualifier that you seem to be forgetting.

I wrote that "If LRL's worked as described, they would have put metal detector companies out of business."  Metal detector companies still exist and are doing just fine, ergo LRL's must not work as described.

It's not my fault if you can't understand plain English, KK.

Okay. I thought you were just trying to get away from what you said. I see now that you really don't understand that it means the same, no matter what other point you were going for. Other people can see it.

It only means the same thing to you since you apparently don't understand what I was saying in the first place....  Again, your problem, not mine.

Isn't there other things (besides LRL'S) that could conceivably put our type of metal detectors out of business?  Like the device that you attach to a vehicle, all the gadgets that they use in small planes to detect mineralization and the like - but, the bottom line is, we use metal detectors (the hand-held type) differently than we would use LRL's (if they worked), and long term scanning.

True, but different tools for radically different uses. You wouldn't use an airborne geomagnetic survey to locate coins, and you wouldn't use a metal detector to map 100 square miles of ore deposits.

Per the claims of an LRL, and per the people who use them, they are much closer to being a "super metal detector" than something completely different: longer range, deeper depth, better discrimination, whether you're talking about a single coin or a huge cache. Again, this is exactly what metal detector companies would jump all over, if there were anything to jump all over.

this is exactly what metal detector companies would jump all over


Maybe - but I think there are diehards, like me, who want to know (and pick up) all those things inbetween me and a half mile away.  I love being out there, strolling around, especially with headphones so I cannot hear anyone, and I just think there are people like me.

For instance - we have lots of gadgets for gold, but, by golly, I still want my gold pan.  (even though companies HAVE jumped all over many, many devices.  (again - its jmo) - but I think there are other people who feel the same.

Its like hunting and fishing - I could drag a net, or use a fish finder and get a boat, or for hunting, go to one of those perserves who promise me a shot - but - its not my cup of tea.  I want to do the hunting or fishing - not necessarily the "catching".  IMO, thats why its called "detecting", fishing and hunting, and not "finding, catching and shooting".   

B

this is exactly what metal detector companies would jump all over


Maybe - but I think there are diehards, like me, who want to know (and pick up) all those things inbetween me and a half mile away.  I love being out there, strolling around, especially with headphones so I cannot hear anyone, and I just think there are people like me.

For instance - we have lots of gadgets for gold, but, by golly, I still want my gold pan.  (even though companies HAVE jumped all over many, many devices.  (again - its jmo) - but I think there are other people who feel the same.

Its like hunting and fishing - I could drag a net, or use a fish finder and get a boat, or for hunting, go to one of those perserves who promise me a shot - but - its not my cup of tea.  I want to do the hunting or fishing - not necessarily the "catching".  IMO, thats why its called "detecting", fishing and hunting, and not "finding, catching and shooting".  

B

Great post Mrs. O  

I personally do not own an electronic LRL, I also have not had any first hand experience with one, however, I would not rule out the use of one as an additional tool to aid in finding an elusive treasure.  God gave us 6 senses (some think only 5) to aid us in surviving and negotiating everyday live, so I will use them as well as any other tools at my disposal to aid in my quest for treasure.  My list of tools is getting longer all the time and I would be happy to add any others that stand up to my scrutiny, including, but not limited to, an electronic LRL where applicable.

GG~

this is exactly what metal detector companies would jump all over


Maybe - but I think there are diehards, like me, who want to know (and pick up) all those things inbetween me and a half mile away.  I love being out there, strolling around, especially with headphones so I cannot hear anyone, and I just think there are people like me.

For instance - we have lots of gadgets for gold, but, by golly, I still want my gold pan.  (even though companies HAVE jumped all over many, many devices.  (again - its jmo) - but I think there are other people who feel the same.

Its like hunting and fishing - I could drag a net, or use a fish finder and get a boat, or for hunting, go to one of those perserves who promise me a shot - but - its not my cup of tea.  I want to do the hunting or fishing - not necessarily the "catching".  IMO, thats why its called "detecting", fishing and hunting, and not "finding, catching and shooting".   

B

Nothing personal...just business.

Proponents of these gimmicks seem to have a hard time understanding presented logic. If these things truly worked EVERYBODY would be making them. Not just a select few.

Its like hunting and fishing - I could drag a net, or use a fish finder and get a boat, or for hunting, go to one of those perserves who promise me a shot - but - its not my cup of tea.  I want to do the hunting or fishing - not necessarily the "catching".  IMO, thats why its called "detecting", fishing and hunting, and not "finding, catching and shooting".  

Oh yeah...these are called locators...not detectors

Per the claims of an LRL, and per the people who use them, they are much closer to being a "super metal detector" than something completely different: longer range, deeper depth, better discrimination, whether you're talking about a single coin or a huge cache. Again, this is exactly what metal detector companies would jump all over, if there were anything to jump all over.

How do you know what the Metal Detector companies are doing..Heck…They even may have read some of your stuff….Maybe you have convinced them  it is a scam…Orrrrrrrrrrrr..they may just be waiting for the right time to come out with theirs…..Art

Per the claims of an LRL, and per the people who use them, they are much closer to being a "super metal detector" than something completely different: longer range, deeper depth, better discrimination, whether you're talking about a single coin or a huge cache. Again, this is exactly what metal detector companies would jump all over, if there were anything to jump all over.

How do you know what the Metal Detector companies are doing..Heck…They even may have read some of your stuff….Maybe you have convinced them  it is a scam…Orrrrrrrrrrrr..they may just be waiting for the right time to come out with theirs…..Art

We've already established Carl works for one of the largest, and well known Metal Detector companies in the US.

Its like hunting and fishing - I could drag a net, or use a fish finder and get a boat, or for hunting, go to one of those perserves who promise me a shot - but - its not my cup of tea.  I want to do the hunting or fishing - not necessarily the "catching".  IMO, thats why its called "detecting", fishing and hunting, and not "finding, catching and shooting".  

Oh yeah...these are called locators...not detectors

I wonder how a fish locator can find a fish without detecting it. 

GG~

How do you know what the Metal Detector companies are doing..Heck…They even may have read some of your stuff….Maybe you have convinced them  it is a scam…

They all knew long before I became involved.

Some people DO make them. But any company would rather sell 1 million detectors, than 40 LRL's.

And have the skeptics badmouth them with their phony logic.

Are you referring to those who are skeptical that dowsing really works......or

Are you referring to those who are knowledgeable and skilled in electronics and can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the electronics are fraudulent and cannot work as advertised?

There is a difference, and you keep lumping them all together

Nothing personal...just business.

Proponents of these gimmicks seem to have a hard time understanding presented logic. If these things truly worked EVERYBODY would be making them. Not just a select few.

Just business.....OK....hard time understanding presented logic....Did it ever ocur to you that you maybe the one with logic problem......

. If these things truly worked EVERYBODY would be making them  Not just a select few. ....

My present logic is that their are  already to many Manufactures ...Art

Some people DO make them. But any company would rather sell 1 million detectors, than 40 LRL's.

First, if LRLs worked, then detector companies would be selling them by the thousands, not 40. Second, it is generally better to sell fewer high-margin products than a boatload of products with razor-thin margins. Third, detector companies would still be selling metal detectors, so they would be selling BOTH products.