The Phenomenon

[Qiaozhi]

Dell, as you well know the skeptics are not trying to seek the truth, they are trying to suppress it in favor of their metal detectors. It's basically a near infinite bias that blinds them of the truth, really warps their brain. So it is arrogance and ignorance. Deep inside they know. Like the Chinese proverb, "If your heart is in it you will find a thousand ways to achieve your goal. If your heart is not in it you will find a thousand excuses." Truer words were never spoken.

Mike - are you also in denial over the results of double-blind testing?

[Dell Winders]

[QUOTE=Qiaozhi;146669]With so much wishful thinking, self-deception and selective memory going on in Dell's mind, it's very difficult for him to tell the difference between what is imaginary and what is real.
Even if he was to actually carry out a scientifically controlled double-blind test (which he has never done), he would still deny the results.
A Double-Blind Test for LRLs[/QUOTE

WOW! another prime example of WEIS

Qiaozhi, You show unbelievable ignorance of the subjects you pretend to know.

I thought this was an LRL forum? NOT a Dowsing forum. Are you intentionally trying to throw your viewers off track, or is it possible you really are that Stupid? Don't let your beliefs, or ego get in the way of accepting common knowledge, or using common sense.

Dowsing is a recognized Mental aptitude exercised by a Mental connection of the Mind to a controlled physical Ideomotor response. A huge difference between that and the applied physics utilized in the operation of an LRL. When you try to mix the two you only create confusion and failed experiments. Or, maybe that's your intention?

No, I have never conducted any DB tests on Dowsing. That would require instruments for the measuring Brain Wave activity. I am not equipped to do so. Are you?

Yes, since 1980, I have conducted hundreds of DB, and field tests with ground truthing, and comparison tests with other types of Geophysical instruments.

I have over 30 years experience in the testing, field use, and evaluation of MFD, HID, Gamma Scan, and other so called LRL types. That provides me more knowledge and expertise on the subject than you, Carl, or Randi, could ever pretend to know.

Wake Up Qiaozhi! As you can see, Worthy Experimenters and inventors have become disgusted with wasting their time trying to share ideas and experiments on this forum with those of the same interest because of a few Punk *****, know it all, scientific pretenders, yourself included, are permitted to heckle and ridicule those who try to share useful information and make this forum possible. Dell

[Qiaozhi]

Dowsing is a recognized Mental aptitude exercised by a Mental connection of the Mind to a controlled physical Ideomotor response. A huge difference between that and the applied physics utilized in the operation of an LRL. When you try to mix the two you only create confusion and failed experiments. Or, maybe that's your intention?

Was that your intention [to create confusion] when you designed, built and sold the VR-800 to your unfortunate customers? This device is clearly mixing some [somewhat dubious] electronics with a couple of bent coathangers in order to fool the technically challenged. However, it does not require a "controlled physical ideomotor response" to operate, but does require vast quantities of wishful thinking, self-deception and selective memory.

No, I have never conducted any DB tests on Dowsing. That would require instruments for the measuring Brain Wave activity. I am not equipped to do so. Are you?

Why? Are you frightened of the results?
Also, please go away and read the double-blind test for LRLs ->
A Double-Blind Test for LRLs
No - I mean really go away and read it, as you have no idea what a double-blind test involves.
Firstly, you will discover that it does not require instruments to measure Brain Wave Activity. Wherever did you get that idea from? Nor [just in case you also think this is the case] you are not at any time required to wear a blindfold.
Please try to get your facts right.

Yes, since 1980, I have conducted hundreds of DB, and field tests with ground truthing, and comparison tests with other types of Geophysical instruments.

I bet your method of double-blind testing bears no resemblance to a proper controlled scientific test? Because, if it did, all your comparison tests against geophysical instruments would have failed miserably.

I have over 30 years experience in the testing, field use, and evaluation of MFD, HID, Gamma Scan, and other so called LRL types. That provides me more knowledge and expertise on the subject than you, Carl, or Randi, could ever pretend to know.

Unfortunately that's 30 years of wasted time, attempting to prove something that does not exist. If you think Carl or Randi have less knowledge on this subject than you, then you are sadly mistaken. I do understand [after digging the same hole for 30 years] you're now in so deep that your belief system would suffer a catastrophic implosion if you were ever to discover it to be nothing but a trick of the mind.

Wake Up Qiaozhi! As you can see, Worthy Experimenters and inventors have become disgusted with wasting their time trying to share ideas and experiments on this forum with those of the same interest because of a few Punk *****, know it all, scientific pretenders, yourself included, are permitted to heckle and ridicule those who try to share useful information and make this forum possible. Dell

What you're really trying to say is that you want free rein [the freedom to do, and say what you want] without anyone putting their hand up and saying "With a minute Dell, you're talking nonsense". Sadly, for you, that's not the way the forum works. Both sides of the argument are allowed. The skeptics, however, have the advantage of having science on their side, and the ability to recognise tricks of the mind for what they are.

[Mike(Mont)]

While I have never been involved in an actual double blind test, I have probably done more testing than anyone. Just because someone uses the term "double blind" does not prove it is a true test of the equipment or the operator's skills. I have explained my procedure many times. I carefully toss the test target so I have no knowledge of it's location, then I search for it. I know that is not considered true double blind but I would suggest it is more accurate, more real. I've tried having someone else hide the target but this is not true long range locating, more like mental telepathy. I can't tell you how many tests I have done, but it's in the tens of thousands because I practice 300 days a year. I don't hit the target every single test. But it's a very high percentage, something above 90 percent. There are many factors, but wind is the most important, then my emotional state. I don't get out in the field all that much. I hope this changes someday. I do get out and I do find gold and silver. What I do is real, what you do is misapplied theory about something you do not understand, and that's not real. Consider yourself lucky I even made this reply. I have nothing further to say to you.

[Qiaozhi]

While I have never been involved in an actual double blind test, I have probably done more testing than anyone. Just because someone uses the term "double blind" does not prove it is a true test of the equipment or the operator's skills. I have explained my procedure many times. I carefully toss the test target so I have no knowledge of it's location, then I search for it. I know that is not considered true double blind but I would suggest it is more accurate, more real. I've tried having someone else hide the target but this is not true long range locating, more like mental telepathy. I can't tell you how many tests I have done, but it's in the tens of thousands because I practice 300 days a year. I don't hit the target every single test. But it's a very high percentage, something above 90 percent. There are many factors, but wind is the most important, then my emotional state. I don't get out in the field all that much. I hope this changes someday. I do get out and I do find gold and silver. What I do is real, what you do is misapplied theory about something you do not understand, and that's not real. Consider yourself lucky I even made this reply. I have nothing further to say to you.

What you are doing is reinforcing your belief system with non-scientific tests. Tossing a test target, and then trying to locate it, is not a blind test. And it is most certainly not "more accurate, more real" than a double-blind test. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
Like I said to Dell, go away and read the double-blind test procedure -> A Double-Blind Test for LRLs
Ultimately (of course) I'm wasting my time, as I know for a certainty that neither you nor Dell will ever study the requirements of the test, and neither will you perform the test. It would be too shocking to discover the truth.

[Mike(Mont)]

Anybody needs a reality check it is you. You really think a rabidly biased LRL skeptic can design a double blind test to fairly test an LRL when he can't even use one? I gave you more credit than that, but it doesn't surprise me. You wonder why Dell calls you guys a cult. You're so full of self deception you really think you are a scientist. That's pathological.

[Qiaozhi]

Anybody needs a reality check it is you. You really think a rabidly biased LRL skeptic can design a double blind test to fairly test an LRL when he can't even use one? I gave you more credit than that, but it doesn't surprise me. You wonder why Dell calls you guys a cult. You're so full of self deception you really think you are a scientist. That's pathological.

I was correct then.
You have no intention of either reading about or performing the double-blind test procedure, but instead prefer to remain ignorant of the horrible truth.

[Mike(Mont)]

You mean you think you were correct, but you are not. It's like you cannot comprehend what I posted. I know what double blind tests are and I've even read what Carl concocted. You cannot understand what I do is real and what you talk about is some man-made cluster &#@^ designed to make an LRL fail. You don't have a clue. Not only totally biased, but totally ignorant, totally blinded. I believe you are ignorant, but other skeptics are playing you with their deception. Sorry for being so blunt, but I seek the truth. I don't think you can understand that either.

[Dell Winders]

Was that your intention [to create confusion] when you designed, built and sold the VR-800 to your unfortunate customers? This device is clearly mixing some [somewhat dubious] electronics with a couple of bent coathangers in order to fool the technically challenged. However, it does not require a "controlled physical ideomotor response" to operate, but does require vast quantities of wishful thinking, self-deception and selective memory.


Why? Are you frightened of the results?
Also, please go away and read the double-blind test for LRLs ->
A Double-Blind Test for LRLs
No - I mean really go away and read it, as you have no idea what a double-blind test involves.
Firstly, you will discover that it does not require instruments to measure Brain Wave Activity. Wherever did you get that idea from? Nor [just in case you also think this is the case] you are not at any time required to wear a blindfold.
Please try to get your facts right.


I bet your method of double-blind testing bears no resemblance to a proper controlled scientific test? Because, if it did, all your comparison tests against geophysical instruments would have failed miserably.


Unfortunately that's 30 years of wasted time, attempting to prove something that does not exist. If you think Carl or Randi have less knowledge on this subject than you, then you are sadly mistaken. I do understand [after digging the same hole for 30 years] you're now in so deep that your belief system would suffer a catastrophic implosion if you were ever to discover it to be nothing but a trick of the mind.


What you're really trying to say is that you want free rein [the freedom to do, and say what you want] without anyone putting their hand up and saying "With a minute Dell, you're talking nonsense". Sadly, for you, that's not the way the forum works. Both sides of the argument are allowed. The skeptics, however, have the advantage of having science on their side, and the ability to recognise tricks of the mind for what they are.

Qiaozhi, from your constant rantings and irrational suppositions it appears you are Mentally challenged. A good reason why Carl, would choose you as a Moderator of his forum.

I suppose I should be more considerate of your limited mental ability. It's not your fault you are being taken advantage of. I wish you the best. Dell

[Qiaozhi]

You mean you think you were correct, but you are not. It's like you cannot comprehend what I posted. I know what double blind tests are and I've even read what Carl concocted. You cannot understand what I do is real and what you talk about is some man-made cluster &#@^ designed to make an LRL fail. You don't have a clue. Not only totally biased, but totally ignorant, totally blinded. I believe you are ignorant, but other skeptics are playing you with their deception. Sorry for being so blunt, but I seek the truth. I don't think you can understand that either.

Qiaozhi, from your constant rantings and irrational suppositions it appears you are Mentally challenged. A good reason why Carl, would choose you as a Moderator of his forum.

I suppose I should be more considerate of your limited mental ability. It's not your fault you are being taken advantage of. I wish you the best. Dell

As usual, when you cannot think of a suitable response, you [both] resort to personal insults. I hope you don't conduct your business in such a fashion.

Double-blind testing is not something that was specifically "made up" so that an LRL cannot pass the test. In fact, double-blind testing has been around since the late 1700s. Due to your extremely limited education, I suppose I'll now have to give you a summary.

Scientists regularly use double-blind testing, especially in medical trials, because they are well aware that experimenters and participants can consciously or unconsciously bias (or skew) the results. In this way you can obtain a true record of the experimental results, and not a record tainted by your own personal expectations. Double-blind testing is something that manufacturers of LRLs, such as yourself, consistently oppose for obvious reasons. Once you have 30 years of self-deception under your belt, there's no way you want to shatter the illusion and have your beliefs exposed as a complete sham.

As for being "taken advantage of", I don't remember ever buying an LRL, so I think I'm quite safe in that department.

Anyway Mike, whatever happened to your statement: "Consider yourself lucky I even made this reply. I have nothing further to say to you."?
You've made 2 more replies since then. Or is your selective memory working overtime?

[Mike(Mont)]

Dell, thanks for the chuckle on this most sad day for me. My mother died today. I've said before how thankful I am to you for all the locating info you have shared.

[Seden]

Mike

So sorry to hear about your Mothers passing. I lost mine in 2001.

Randy

[Dell Winders]

Dell, thanks for the chuckle on this most sad day for me. My mother died today. I've said before how thankful I am to you for all the locating info you have shared.

Mike, I am sorry for your loss. Please take heart in this poem. Dell

[Qiaozhi]

Hi Mike - sorry to hear the sad news about your mother. I wish you all the best.

[Mike(Mont)]

Thanks for your kindness and support. My mother was part saint to put up with me and never raised her voice. She had a heart attack and died the next day. Lived well into her nineties.