LRL questions.

[hung]

Carl,
First of all. Nobody wants to spank you. At least none that I know.
I said you would be 'spanked' by facts proving you're wrong about your claims of LRL's not being able to find gold. Such stupid and naive statements makes really hard to believe you still expect to fool anyone after all those years.

Now let's proceed.

No, I didn't back out, Michael Tune (Kelly Brown's partner) did. We had a contract ready to go, and he (not me) decided not to proceed. I will still follow through as soon as he is ready, but I doubt that will ever happen. You already know all this, but continue to make the same ol' false claims. I can't do anything about it when claimants won't follow through.

You know this is not true. Anybody who watched the thread about this subject in TNET forum at the time witnessed how you first accepted Kelly's conditions. Mike would make all arrangements in terms of expenses so you would not be in prejudice. But as time passed by and CLEARLY 'feeling the pressure' aproaching, you tried to twist Kelly's conditions to fit your own with a lot of demands that would make the test more and more complicated to happen with the clear objective of creating obstacles to it. Not to mention that apparently you declined in not giving any financial garantee Mike asked in order to prove you really had the 25,000 dollars amount.
In sum, what is clear for anyone who read all those threads is that you first accepted, buth then apprently you saw that you could not win, rethought your strategy and started to create all obstacles to avoid it.
Mike and Kelly got pissed off and never returned to you again, because they knew they would just loose their time with a challenge that's all 'make believe'.

If you have the original threads, show here for people to know and prove I'm telling any lie.

[quote]You've spent a lot of effort on this forum trying to counter my critique of LRLs. So why would you tell Mineoro I'm not worth their time? Are you as sure as I am that they will fail? Why would you NOT want someone to prove me wrong, to publically "spank" me?[/quote ]

Again, nobody cares to spank you, much less Mineoro. What for??
Do you think they really need it to?

You just have an agenda towards LRLs that is notorious and you have built some follow ups along the recent past. Only that it's completely outdated and specially now that you got what you wanted in working to a MD company.

It's funny how you guys would love to see that happen, but instead you do all you can to prevent it, and then blame me.

You know that your challenge is an utopia. You know pretty much this.
This has all been a marketing strategy on your side made to never happen.
Take Kelly's case for instance. Did it happen? It will always be like that. A lot of burocracy, twistings and blah blah blah. Just that.

You are the type of person (or pretend to be) that you could spot me with my PDC pointing to a buried gold location, you would hear the detector beep, we would go there, excavate it, you would see the gold vein but in the end you would deny seeing it. Of course you could make up millions excuses such as interference, coincidence, thunder lightings, and etc and etc. Something that you could 'scientifically' explain.

Mineoro's challenge is also still up. Did you or anybody here tried to prove them wrong to win $ 50,000?? C'mon, don't you claim they don't work? Go for it.

[hung]

Sometimes I wonder....
Why is it that nobody on earth who sells LRLs will demonstrate their LRL finding treasure in a double blind test?

Why is it that a credible test of an LRL is always declined and substituted with claims that the test is not fair? If these LRLs work, why not show us all how good they perform just like the people who sell metal detectors do? Do you suppose an LRL can pass a double blind test performing exactly as the advertising claims they perform?



Best wishes,
J_P

Well, after leting the dust set, finally a return.
Could you tell us why you told Morgan you had your PD working? Why you had to tell Morgan one story and the forum another?

Regards.

[J_Player]

Oh hung......

As I previously asked...
"Why is it that credible test of an LRL is always declined and substituted with claims that the test is not fair?"

What I see now is hung has decided to avoid the question and try to point his finger at the person who asked...
I think some of us are getting tired of your BS and false accusations against people who post in this forum. For one, I never knowingly made any false statements in this forum. If you read the one error I made, you will find I immediately made a retraction as soon as I discovered the error. But actually I don't care about the BS you might try to sling. And I doubt Carl cares a whole lot about your BS either. The international community who reads this forum is fairly well equipped to determine what garbage leaks out of Rio, and can separate it from the facts.

As far as Morgan is concerned, the appearance is he is concealing the exact details about winding coils. But after gaining further information that most people don't see, the appearance (to me) is that much what Morgan said was made up. Furthermore, I cannot discuss any details of these disclosures here because of prior agreements I made. So you will not see me responding to anything that was said under agreement of non-disclosure, in private messages, or in private emails.

If you ever decide to post information depicting me to be calling Dell Winders a liar in the geotech forums, you will probably find you are mistaken. I have often asked the question to him.. whether he told a lie, but I don't recall ever calling him a liar. When you decide to actually read the posts, you may find that Dell is the person who habitually calls people liars when they ask very specific questions in an attempt to learn the facts that surround his LRLs.

And this brings us back to what this thread is all about. "Do LRLs really work or is this a scam?"
So let's look at what Dell is currently selling: The X-scan.

On Dell's web page, we can see a photo of the X-Scan that is depicted to find all sorts of organic targets including hidden currency. My question was:
Why is it that nobody on earth who sells LRLs will demonstrate their LRL finding treasure in a double blind test?

Isn't the X-Scan another of the hundreds of LRLs for sale that the seller refuses to demonstrate working as it is depicted on his web page? Isn't Dell's web page another LRL scam to get people to send in orders for more junk to put in their LRL museum? Or is Dell actually willing to demonstrate the X-scan finding hidden dollars?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

Mineoro's challenge is also still up. Did you or anybody here tried to prove them wrong to win $ 50,000?? C'mon, don't you claim they don't work? Go for it.

We've been through this point before.
If I tell you that I believe there's a tea tray in orbit about the Earth, it's not up to you to prove me wrong. It's up to me to prove that there actually is a tea tray in orbit about the Earth.
In the same way - with the FG(whatever) - it's up to Mineoro to prove that it can find gold at the distances they claim, not the other way around.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

[hung]

Jplayer, you contribution to the PD forum was valuable. But this just don't mask your attitude of making believe to Morgan you had your PD working and posing to the forum as someone who had not a soldering iron. This is a shame and you will never recover of that in my opinion. You did not need to do this. You were cheating all the time. It did not work.

Regarding my discussion with Carl, please just stay out of it. You don't have the slightest idea of what we are talking about regarding the TNET episode. For this you are talking BS. Sorry.

Carl made a great contribution to all of us by starting the Geotech forum. I don't deny his good intention of keeping the Remote Sensing in his site when some of the top names in treasure forums declined.
But to date, I'm sure he had many evidences about LRLs. He just don't admit it. And never will. Instead of exposing HIS OPINION wheter LRLs don't work, he sells this as a plain truth. He never should do this. This is his biggest mistake. Or... he just need this marketing.

Regards.

[J_Player]

Regarding my discussion with Carl, please just stay out of it. You don't have the slightest idea of what we are talking about regarding the TNET episode. For this you are talking BS. Sorry.

On the contrary, I know everything you and Carl posted about it here and what was posted at TNET. Have you considered that you are posting in a public international forum - not a private conversation, and spectators are not prohibited from commenting? Why do I still smell the stink of Rio's garbage?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Fred]

We've been through this point before.
If I tell you that I believe there's a tea tray in orbit about the Earth, it's not up to you to prove me wrong. It's up to me to prove that there actually is a tea tray in orbit about the Earth...

Exactly, and this is also the interest of those devices manufacturer.To (seriously) prove that they work would bring them unconditional success forever.So i don´t understand why we don´t do it...
Fred.

[olympios]

Gentlemen.
I'm gonna jump in here... after all, I started this thread, lol.
Some of you believe that LRLs work as advertised. Some of you, don't. My own experience is this: I have personally seen dowsers locate water very accurately, several times. A friend of mine (electrician), he uses a piece of copper wire, bent in "L" shape, to locate wires in walls. Now, What puzzles me is the fact that all those dowsers were never able to lacate items, like jewelry, that I had hidden! So, I do believe that dowsing is possible and that some people do have this ability to find only certain things.
As for LRLs, based on my own experience with two different devices (Omnitron II and OmniRange), they do not work. They were tested by me and several other people and the results were negative. Also, reading in several forums, only the people that sell them insist that they work!!! There is, however, a possibility that they probably work only if the person is also a dowser, but I'm not a dowser so I can not confirm this.
These are my own experiences, based on what I have actually seen first hand and not hearsay. Now, what happened between Carl and those other guys, and who backed-off and who didn't, doesn't make any difference to me, and doesn't change the fact that LRLs do NOT work! They might work if you were a dowser but this is not what the manufacturers advertise. In fact, they claim that you don't have to be a dowser in order to have them work for you. Desides, I think it is too stupid to pay thousands of dollars for a hundred dollar device. They say that they sell technology!!!??? Technology where? In a device that doesn't even work? LOL, what a joke!!!

[Carl-NC]

I have personally seen dowsers locate water very accurately, several times. A friend of mine (electrician), he uses a piece of copper wire, bent in "L" shape, to locate wires in walls.

Water dowsing, pipe dowsing, and wire dowsing are all probability events. Water dowsing is extremely easy, most anyone can do it and be successful at it. It is not the least bit impressive.

For those who understand utilities and can read terrain, boxes, and meters, utility (pipes, etc) dowsing is not very difficult. As a teenager I worked for an irrigation company and saw dowsing used several times to find pipes, almost always where we figured the pipe would be anyway. But I also saw some spectacular failures, where dowsing was horribly wrong. (This started my skepticism!)

Same with locating wires in a wall. I did all my own wiring when I built my house, and I could probably figure out with pretty good accuracy how wires are routed in other houses. It's largely common sense, for those who know wiring.

What you may have seen are a few successes, but I expect there were also a lot of failures you never saw, where their intuition was just wrong. If you had your electrician friend do a simple test where he tried to locate a movable wire in a wall (or on the other side of a wall), you would find he is not as good at dowsing as you think, he is just a good electrician.

This is why scientific testing is so important. Our senses are easily fooled, and we have very selective memories. Dowsing doesn't hold up under scientific investigation, no matter if it's water, pipes, wires, or treasure.

- Carl

[Qiaozhi]

Exactly, and this is also the interest of those devices manufacturer.To (seriously) prove that they work would bring them unconditional success forever.So i don´t understand why we don´t do it...
Fred.

I do!