rangertell examiner field trials

[Jim]

I have done all the testing I am permitted to do until I see green. If I were to continue when only yellow, then all testing would be claimed invalid, and a waste of time. I have better things to do than making invalid tests, so I do important things like coding web pages, polishing gold statues, studying science and making Geotech forum posts.
(No watching TV, no checking football scores, no nose-picking).

Best wishes,
J_P

With all due respect...your tests will be claimed invalid if the results are not in favor of this gimmick...regardless if you follow scientific protocol or not.

That's just my opinion, of course

[J_Player]

With all due respect...your tests will be claimed invalid if the results are not in favor of this gimmick...regardless if you follow scientific protocol or not.

That's just my opinion, of course

You might be right about that. I don't know because I haven't done any real tests yet. So far there have only been a couple of preliminary unofficial tests. I have also done a couple of electronic bench tests I can make public when I have confirmation the Examiner is working ok.

But I plan to avoid making lots of invalid field tests. I will only be making a very few test of my own. I basically will try it out, and if I get the feeling it is helping me find treasures, I will buy it. Most of the real testing will be done by other people who volunteer to try out the Examiner. This will give us a good cross section of a lot of different people with different backgrounds to check the performance of the Examiner. There won't be any one person who does all the testing to invalidate it.

From the preliminary unofficial tests, I observed others do better than me at locating gold so far. So I figure I should stay in the background as an observer who records the results rather than exposing the Examiner to my poor performance compared to others. This will leave me free to make close observations and record how the LRL is performing, while practicing up on breathing exercizes that Mike(Mont) recommends to get better performance. Maybe I will become as good as others using the Examiner after observating their methods, and after enough practice with breathing exercizes.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

...From the preliminary unofficial tests, I observed others do better than me at locating gold so far...

Best wishes,
J_P

I think, from your statement above, you have just released some unofficial results.

Apparently, someone, other than yourself, WAS successful at getting the Examiner to point to the exact location of some type of hidden gold target. Further, the inference is that these operators were successful at doing this under strict double-blind protocol (if not D-B, than why not?), which means their success rate was significantly better than what could be expected from Chance Guessing.

Wow!!!!

If this is not what happened or this is not what you meant to infer, please clarify what you observed and how it was conducted.

Also, I thought the Examiner worked on principles that totally eliminated operator characteristics and traits. Why then would you not be able to obtain the same results as some other operator or operators, when fairly tested?

[WM6]

. Iif I get the feeling it is helping me find treasures, I will buy it.

I hope that once you have accumulated gold with rangertell, you will not forget us poor forum man's.

[Qiaozhi]

I hope that once you have accumulated gold with rangertell, you will not forget us poor forum man's.

Good idea!

I can accept payment by Paypal, or you can transfer directly into my bank account.

[J_Player]

I think, from your statement above, you have just released some unofficial results.

Apparently, someone, other than yourself, WAS successful at getting the Examiner to point to the exact location of some type of hidden gold target. Further, the inference is that these operators were successful at doing this under strict double-blind protocol (if not D-B, than why not?), which means their success rate was significantly better than what could be expected from Chance Guessing.

Wow!!!!

If this is not what happened or this is not what you meant to infer, please clarify what you observed and how it was conducted.

Also, I thought the Examiner worked on principles that totally eliminated operator characteristics and traits. Why then would you not be able to obtain the same results as some other operator or operators, when fairly tested?

Hi Theseus,

I don't know the reason why I didn't get the same results as others. According to what is written in the product literature, it could be caused by a biological deficiency in body charge. Or if I go by Mike(Mont)'s posts instead, it could have to do with breathing practices and mind control. Bottom line... I don't know. It is only an observation I made.

I meant exactly what I said. Nothing more.
I made no inference. Only a reader can infer things I did not say. If we go by the inferences you made and typed in your post, we would get a distorted view of what happened so far. This can be expected because I intentionally did not tell the details of the preliminary test conditions, or the exact results.

These were preliminary tests that are unofficial. The preliminary tests that were performed were simple tests suggested by the manufacturer to help rule out damaged sample unit. They are not intended to prove anything about the performance of the product. They are intended only to help the manufacturer ascertain whether the sample he sent was damaged in shipment or not. The preliminary tests were not done in any controlled conditions other than making adjustments to the Examiner and setting the test stage according to the manufacturer's suggestions. The exact test procedure to check for a malfunctioning Examiner was done in conditions that would probably be considered unsuitable for proof by scientific testing standards. This is the reason they are unofficial. The tests were not intended for testing the accuracy of the Examiner or it's ability to pass any contest percentages.

When I say others did better than me, you can infer whatever you want to think it means about the test conditions or percentages. The facts are that it was observed to point to treasure at some times when I tried it as well as when others tried it. I think under the circumstances of the preliminary testing, anyone would be able to observe it point at treasure some of the time. I suppose you are wondering how much of the time more than random did it point to the target? This is what I won't say until the Examiner is confirmed to be functioning correctly. But regardless of what the answer is, it has little to do with what results will be seen when actual testing is conducted. The fact is there was no scientifically controlled test method used to determine the accuracy of the Examiner yet.

The reason why I am not performing double blind testing at this point is because the testing program has not started yet, and will not start until I have a confirmation from Rangertell that the sample he sent is functioning correctly. This was the agreement I made. It is also the reason I am not talking about the details of the preliminary tests we ran until I get an OK from Rangertell.

Instead of inferring test conditions and arriving at speculative conclusions that have not been shown to be true, I suggest you wait until the test program starts, and then come to watch the actual testing and even perform your own tests done in the ways you feel are impeccable to satisfy you that it is properly tested. If you are here to oversee the tests you want done, then there can be no inferences to draw, because your tests will be definitive.

I am not anxious to form conclusions about what the tests will show until all the testing program is done. I don't think I could make accurate field test observations if I prejudge the performance and have any particular expectations of what I will observe. I don't intend to prove it works or not. I will let others do that. If I see it doesn't work, then a large number of people will have proved it to me. But if I see it working and finding treasure, then others will prove that to me as well. This way, I can see the best of the skeptics show me how it does not work, and the best of the LRL enthusiasts show me how it does. There will also be a number of volunteers who have no opinion of whether it should be able to work or not. When the last test is done, then I can decide what I want to conclude.

And this is the reason why you are best to try it yourself, so you don't need to rely on secondhand information from someone who might have an axe to grind. The best we can do for people who do not make thier own tests live is to try to conduct tests according to the instructions we get. No guarantees it can be done exactly as you would do it in every way.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Dell Winders]

In my years of Field experience,I find that no LRL, of any manufacture works all the time. They only work when the target 'Strength of Field" is sufficient.

When Magnetic interference occurs, the target SOF, is diminished and the LRL will not respond accurately, or not at all. This is a fact. Dell

[J_Player]

In my years of Field experience,I find that no LRL, of any manufacture works all the time. They only work when the target 'Strength of Field" is sufficient.

When Magnetic interference occurs, the target SOF, is diminished and the LRL will not respond accurately, or not at all. This is a fact. Dell

Hi Dell,

You are invited to come and test out the Examiner and see for yourself. You can even bring some of your other treasure tools along and see how they compare. I can put it all on video if you want. But you will need to wait until I get the ok to start from Rangertell.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,

...The preliminary tests that were performed were simple tests suggested by the manufacturer to help rule out damaged sample unit. They are not intended to prove anything about the performance of the product.
Best wishes,
J_P

Okay. Got no problem with that.

You did not say that in your original post. You said; "a couple of preliminary unofficial tests". The reader is left to make their own inferences as to how they were conducted and why.

Just my opinion, but probably those sorts of "checks" should not have been called tests, and would no doubt have been better left unmentioned on this thread. That way there would be no confusion from us "readers" who are not privy to all the information you have, and can only go on what you are posting (or not posting).

I'm just guessing now... but I suppose the preliminary "checks" were not conclusive as to IF you have a faulty unit or not; and that is why you are waiting for Vincent (R-T) to give you the official go-ahead. Seems like he has had ample time to make that determination... but maybe not.

Yes, I really wish I could travel to your location and try the device for myself. However, my financial resources and time constraints will not allow me that luxury. I'll just have to rely on whatever information you make public; if and when that occurs.

[Theseus]

In my years of Field experience,I find that no LRL, of any manufacture works all the time. They only work when the target 'Strength of Field" is sufficient.

Dell

What an incredible convenient "backdoor" excuse for it not working.

And, exactly how are you measuring this target strength of field, so that you can reliably claim that the target strength of field is at fault, and not the LRL contraption?

Never mind... that was a rhetorical question.

[J_Player]

What an incredible convenient "backdoor" excuse for it not working.

And, exactly how are you measuring this target strength of field, so that you can reliably claim that the target strength of field is at fault, and not the LRL contraption?

Never mind... that was a rhetorical question.

Hi Theseus,

One good thing about trying several machines at the same test location is you can see how they perform at the same place under the same conditions of target "strength of field". If conditions are only average, then we can take a look to see how they all perform under the same average conditions. Then you don't need to guess if there was a changed condition between one machine tested and another.

...Same as they test cars on the same track with the same test conditions so there is no difference in the curves of the road, or weather that could skew the results between one car and another.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,

One good thing about trying several machines at the same test location is you can see how they perform at the same place under the same conditions of target "strength of field". If conditions are only average, then we can take a look to see how they all perform under the same average conditions. Then you don't need to guess if there was a changed condition between one machine tested and another.

...Same as they test cars on the same track with the same test conditions so there is no difference in the curves of the road, or weather that could skew the results between one car and another.

Best wishes,
J_P

When dealing with a large number of variables or parameters, and the desire is to still arrive at meaningful conclusions from fair testing procedures; about the only way to accomplish such a task is to incorporate BIBD (Balanced Incomplete Block Designs) and couple that with a good double-blind protocol.

Even if you do all that... as Jim has pointed out, there will still be criticism from one side of the fence or other - depending on the results published.

[hipopp]

more gobbledegook

In my years of Field experience,I find that no LRL, of any manufacture works all the time. They only work when the target 'Strength of Field" is sufficient.

When Magnetic interference occurs, the target SOF, is diminished and the LRL will not respond accurately, or not at all. This is a fact. Dell

So how far away from the object do you have to be? i can place a small nuggett 6 feet away on top of the ground and tell myself the nuggett is not there and the RT cannot pick it up...what is this gobbledegook about magnetic interference? at 6 feet in plain view on top of the ground? it is all in the head!!! no amount of scientific testing will bypass the fact that results are only achieved unless the operator "tells" the aerial to lock onto something. Target field of strength has absolutely nothing to do with it since i thought i found a quartz reef at 3-400 meters yet cannot find a simple nuggett or coin(s) six feet away. The last time i went back to relocate my quartz reef it was not there someone had obviously stolen it. My precious nuggett is still lost somewhere in my lounge room where the Mrs. cannot remember where she put it last(to be located by me) however i did find some coin and pins and buttons stuffed deep down in a couple of lounge chairs, found with my fingers not the RT by the way. JP is going to waste his time trying to replicate results he gets because the device does not do a thing. his head will be doing everything. Just remeber JP the early models came out without calculators stuck on top so according to Blanes they work quite well with no settings required. Now you are left with a snivelling swivelling aerial that you are going to watch going round and round and round and round and round while Blanes is laughing his head off in the comfort of his home, another sucker to lead by the nose because he knows the whole contraption is just so much Junk and his only aim is to protect his income and bank balance. 1300 RT's by average $600 equals $780,000. Rather good pocket money. There are two reasons why i have not published the results of 300 hours of testing on this site. Firstly they may be used in the future in legal proceedings. Secondly, I did not want obviously well educated persons on this site laughing at the absolute stupidity and gull;ibility that led me to buy such a ridiculously stupid device. Nothing can be proved with the device aother than it can do anything that your head allows it to do. Point it at a rock lock on...point it at a rock do not lock on, it does not lock on. point it at a mountainside tell it to lock on and it does..mountain must be full of emeralds and rubies from the Inca days. Tell it not to lock on and it does not...someone must have crept into the mountain while you were having a smoke and stole all the inca treasure. Garbage and drivel and more garbage this device is a product of a very sick mind...go back to the language that Blanes used in the past in the interests of customer service...he is very obviously a sick man, not just a con artist but a very sick paranoid. His help desk is where he invents ideas to keep you strung out till you give up...the device is not working because..the atmospherics , the ground, other minerals in the area, your body, calculator settings ..even your attitude!! he can string you out for longer than you as a rational person can handle it and you give up and he keeps your money, our money. His day has come he will be on national TV here in Australia it is just a matter of time. He is going to join all the other scam artists that lack normal human conscience and dwell in the realm of the animal kingdom.

[WM6]

Hi hipopp

Thank you, your experience is why non-believers are here: to support right of naive buyers to other opinion.

[J_Player]

So how far away from the object do you have to be? i can place a small nuggett 6 feet away on top of the ground and tell myself the nuggett is not there and the RT cannot pick it up...what is this gobbledegook about magnetic interference? at 6 feet in plain view on top of the ground? it is all in the head!!! no amount of scientific testing will bypass the fact that results are only achieved unless the operator "tells" the aerial to lock onto something. Target field of strength has absolutely nothing to do with it since i thought i found a quartz reef at 3-400 meters yet cannot find a simple nuggett or coin(s) six feet away. The last time i went back to relocate my quartz reef it was not there someone had obviously stolen it. My precious nuggett is still lost somewhere in my lounge room where the Mrs. cannot remember where she put it last(to be located by me) however i did find some coin and pins and buttons stuffed deep down in a couple of lounge chairs, found with my fingers not the RT by the way. JP is going to waste his time trying to replicate results he gets because the device does not do a thing. his head will be doing everything. Just remeber JP the early models came out without calculators stuck on top so according to Blanes they work quite well with no settings required. Now you are left with a snivelling swivelling aerial that you are going to watch going round and round and round and round and round while Blanes is laughing his head off in the comfort of his home, another sucker to lead by the nose because he knows the whole contraption is just so much Junk and his only aim is to protect his income and bank balance. 1300 RT's by average $600 equals $780,000. Rather good pocket money. There are two reasons why i have not published the results of 300 hours of testing on this site. Firstly they may be used in the future in legal proceedings. Secondly, I did not want obviously well educated persons on this site laughing at the absolute stupidity and gull;ibility that led me to buy such a ridiculously stupid device. Nothing can be proved with the device aother than it can do anything that your head allows it to do. Point it at a rock lock on...point it at a rock do not lock on, it does not lock on. point it at a mountainside tell it to lock on and it does..mountain must be full of emeralds and rubies from the Inca days. Tell it not to lock on and it does not...someone must have crept into the mountain while you were having a smoke and stole all the inca treasure. Garbage and drivel and more garbage this device is a product of a very sick mind...go back to the language that Blanes used in the past in the interests of customer service...he is very obviously a sick man, not just a con artist but a very sick paranoid. His help desk is where he invents ideas to keep you strung out till you give up...the device is not working because..the atmospherics , the ground, other minerals in the area, your body, calculator settings ..even your attitude!! he can string you out for longer than you as a rational person can handle it and you give up and he keeps your money, our money. His day has come he will be on national TV here in Australia it is just a matter of time. He is going to join all the other scam artists that lack normal human conscience and dwell in the realm of the animal kingdom.

Hi hipopp,
All of what you say might be true. And if it is, then why not test it out to see if it is true or not like you did?

Waste of time? I don't think so.
You are one of a few people who did some actual tests to see for yourself. But we also have others who did actual tests and report they got good results as well as bad. The only problem is nobody else has been able to watch these tests or see videos or photos, or even detailed reports to describe the exact tests that were done. So we have a lot of conflicting hearsay reports from people with strong opinions.

I intend to document what is observed when more than only one person tries it out to see if it works for them, and let others see what we see during live tests that are happening as we watch them. If all you say is true, then everyone will find the same response that you did. But we can't know that until we try it out. Suppose we observe some people can recover hidden treasures consistently as was reported here and other places. We won't know about this without trying it out. If it turns out there are people who consistently find hidden targets, I will report that data the same as tests that do not.

Isn't this something that a lot of people want to see?
For the people who have made up their mind about whether the Examiner works or not, they may not have an interest in seeing any more testing. But the undecided will be able to get some clues by watching what we see in real live tests. Then they will have at least some documented evidence to help decide whether they want to buy an Examiner or not.

I have no axe to grind with Rangertell. I received this Examiner without cost, so I have nothing to gain or lose if it is observed to work or not. The time I put into it will serve to tell me the answers to questions I have been asking all along first-hand, without needing to rely on what other people say. So the time is not wasted for me. Hopefully others watching the test program will consider it helpful too.

When the testing starts, you may want to suggest some specific tests we can perform to show what you would like done. You have a unique position because you have another Examiner that you can use to make identical tests in another continent to compare results. You can actually become part of the test program. If you invite local metal detectorists and LRL enthusiasts to go to the fields with you, then you can record test data that can be compared to the tests I conduct. This can only serve to enhance the test program by adding more data.

Has anyone wondered if the magnetic field Down Under has the same effect as it does in North America?
Or is the reverse coriolis effect moving the Examiner antenna differently?

Best wishes,
J_P