rangertell examiner field trials

[WM6]

none of the people complaining went to where Morgan was testing and make their own tests

J_P

Hi J_P, Morgan recently buy expensive Nexus.

This fact tell us enough about real treasure finding capabilities of Alonso PD.

There was no need to buy Nexus if Alonso PD was working as seen on videos.

But fact is that Alonso PD is not working at all. They can only find known treasure like one in Fort Knox. Same as Rangertell can do.

Sorry J_P, but as it stands now to see (and as this also recalled by hipopp) by the fact that you agreed to the producer's tricks and scams, you become only a Rangertell marketing experimental rabbit. You (i hope) inadvertently agreed to the purposes of the manufacturer, which is certainly not to establish the reality of those new art construction comics.

At the end, best wishes to your test, we all need working LRL.

PS: I must pointed again on big test mistake which is also here to announce: Namely test LRL in form to find treasure hidden by yourself. Treasure hidden by myself I can find without any LRL only by my middle finger, but I am not a dowser. One test mistake necessarily lead to other test mistakes. What will be test protocols and propositions?

[J_Player]

Hi j player

proposal; test sample, a piece of copper for 1 kg or higher,
-Even the most novice person, can be easily detected.
-signal strength is directly proportional to weight.
-test area, excluding the signals may occur.

Best wishes
osman

Hi osman,
I have added your test request to the list of testing reqested.

The test will start with scanning a test location with metal detectors to make sure there is no detectable buried metal things, and then we will check with the Examiner to see if there are any stray signals that cause false readings before starting this test.

After checking for no false readings with the Examiner, we will place piece of copper 1 kg or more and test to see if the Examiner can locate it.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

Hi Geo,
I saw what happened after your testing of the Alonso PD. I helped to get those videos released and shown so anyone who wants can see them. I remember how most people had a strong opinion of whether they were good tests or not, but none of the people complaining went to where Morgan was testing and make their own tests except you.

Tell me Geo...
When you went to the Morgan demonstration and used the PD in your own hands, did you get the feeling that you know for sure how well the PD works?

Or do you think you can tell how well the PD works just as well from watching the video... and it was a waste of your time and money to go to try it out with your own hands?

Best wishes,
J_P

Hi J_P.
For me the try of the PD was NOT waste of time and money!!!! It was a good experience.
Until now i believe that the PD works. Especially at the second place with the foil we checked it from all directions , before and after that we found the foil. But i found mischievous critique. This is the reason for what i wrote to you.

Regards

[hipopp]

osman a cohort

osman is a agent of blanes or a paid associate. A member since not so long ago he knows all about everything, have a look at his past posts. No where in nature will you find 1 kg of pure copper so yout test parameters are unrealistic for a start. But...go ahead and try it...you will be able to locate it if you know where you buried it but not able to locate it if someone else, completely independant, buries it. Carl has quite a few thousand dollars to lose if you can accurately find a target every time. Why do you think Carl and his money are still together? go to the www.finders.com.au website and osman is ottoman or something like that there. He has dozens of aliases the creep.

[hipopp]

not real

Hi osman,
I have added your test request to the list of testing reqested.

The test will start with scanning a test location with metal detectors to make sure there is no detectable buried metal things, and then we will check with the Examiner to see if there are any stray signals that cause false readings before starting this test.

After checking for no false readings with the Examiner, we will place piece of copper 1 kg or more and test to see if the Examiner can locate it.

Best wishes,
J_P

JP copper is usually associated with gold in nature so all deposits are going to be tainted with so called stray signals...blaines tells us his calculator settings are specific for individual metals so stray signals amount to nought. You are well on the path to manipulation by the creep and his believers.

[Jim]

Hi osman,

After checking for no false readings with the Examiner, we will place piece of copper 1 kg or more and test to see if the Examiner can locate it.

J_P

Quick question...how can one tell the difference between a false reading, and a malfunctioning unit? A false reading would indicate, to me, that the gizmo is capable of making non-false readings...or correct readings.

[J_Player]

Yes, I'm speculating. And, I'm basing my speculations on past history and how VB thinks.

I'm not the only one here that is not as trusting of him, as you seem to be.

I'm all for giving him a chance, and giving the Examiner a fair chance too; but it's really hard to ignore what he's said, what he's lied about and where we've been before getting to this point.

Hi Theseus,
To begin, I don't know if I am dealing with Vincent Blanes or not. The person who I contact at Rangertell does not sign emails as Vincent Blanes, so I have no reason to conclude it is Vincent Blanes. But then I really don't care who the person behind the name is, as long is it is someone who provides an official response from the Rangertell factory.

Most of the stuff I have seen written about Vincent Blanes in this thread was never confirmed to be true. It was just assumed to be true and then taken for facts to use as a method to to prove a point. For examlpe "basing my speculations on past history and how VB thinks" is clouded with guessing how he thinks. Nobody knows how VB thinks except VB. You cannot observe VB's thinking, just as nobody can observe your thinking unless they are inside your head. You can only observe actions and events. Further, nobody knows for sure the person you are attributing "past history" to is VB.

I read posts here from several names that appear to come from the Rangertell factory, but I don't have any way to know if they are names used by VB or someone else. I only have accusations that I am expected to take for facts. Rather than speculate that every accusation is true, I declined to form a conclusion of what the identity of the person posting here as Rangertell is. Maybe you'r right, and every accusation is correct. Or maybe it is several people using the same computer. I don't care. It doesn't help me to conduct a test program if I know the identity or not.

The person I am trusting is whoever answers emails and is responsible for the Examiner arriving for me to test.
Is this the same person you are attributing "past history and how VB thinks"? I don't know.
Maybe, and maybe not. It certainly is not someone who represents himself as VB. But then I don't care who it is.

It is not my purpose to focus on possible disasters predicted for the future and publish speculative blame on people that I can't prove caused these disasters that didn't happen. My purpose is to take my time and make sure I have a good working sample, then proceed to make some tests. Sorry if you don't like that purpose.

What I do know is I can get a more accurate idea of what to expect from people if I observe thier actions, not the talk and words that are said. Whoever I am dealing with did exactly what they said they would do. And in the emails I exchanged so far, I saw nothing to suggest lies and trickery. But If I look back at your words in the forum, I can see they are not correct. The things you predicted did not happen as you predicted they would.
So what should I believe? Your future predictions?
Or should I believe the events I observed as historical facts since I began dealing with the person who sent emails to me?

Until I see the actions of the person I am dealing with give me a reason to believe your predictions are correct, then I will believe what I see happening, not a speculated prediction for the future. I am in no hurry. I really don't mind if it takes another month or year before I get to the point where I am ready to start testing. I have nothing to lose. Do you?

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

I don´t think this is rangertell decision, but more like J_P´s one to be sure his tests are valid.

Hi Fred,
I made an agreement with Rangertell that I would conduct no public testing or post test results for the public to read until we can confirm the Examiner I have is working correctly.

And you are also right to about I don't want to waste time testing a piece of equipment that could be defective. Any results from a defective unit would be considered invalid by scientific standards as well as by LRL enthusiasts.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Quick question...how can one tell the difference between a false reading, and a malfunctioning unit? A false reading would indicate, to me, that the gizmo is capable of making non-false readings...or correct readings.

Hi Jim,
The test for false readings will involve adjusting the Examiner to discriminate to only find copper, then to take it across the supposedly barren test field and see if it begins moving toward any particular location. In theory, if we get a response, it would indicate there is copper in the "barren" field. This would lead us to look at the location where points and dig a hole to see if there is some copper buried below where the metal detectors didn't find it. Then remove the copper and check again for a signal. When we see there is no signal from the field, then we can place the 1 kg copper target to test. If we can't get the "barren" field clear of signals that the Examiner responds to, then I guess we need to find a different test field that will work.

I wouldn't attempt this test until after I got a confirmation from Rangertell that the Examiner is working ok. At least this is the best way I figured to do it so far. Do you have any suggestions?

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

JP copper is usually associated with gold in nature so all deposits are going to be tainted with so called stray signals...blaines tells us his calculator settings are specific for individual metals so stray signals amount to nought. You are well on the path to manipulation by the creep and his believers.

Hi hipopp,
I will take into account your advice about copper deposits. In the test osman requested, we will be careful to use 1 kg of manufactured copper that was proccessed by smelters who extract the gold before their copper is sent off to manufacturers.

I don't feel like I am being manipulated. But then I have nothing to lose. I am neither a beleiver or a non-believer. I am only an observer who wants to see what it does in a real live test without taking somebody else's word for it.

From what I can see, it appears you still have your Examiner and have not sent it back or received a refund. Have you considered making some actual documented tests to show other people what it does in action? Maybe invite the local LRL enthusiasts to come and try it... and the local metal detectorists?

Until you show some kind of documentation, your statements are not substantiated any more than an LRL enthusiast who can claim he got great response with the Examiner. But if you take videos and photos of actual tests, I can post them on my website so the whole world can see some real proof instead of more claims and talk in a forum. Maybe this will help attract the TV programs you are hoping will become interested.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Dell Winders]

J Player, that is sound rational logic, and excellent unprejudiced reasoning. I like that attitude.

The cost for me travelling to California, may be impractical considering my physical inability to provide my full services to you? $5,000 would be the least I would consider.

My time is contingent on the number of orders I have ahead of me at the time prior to your test dates. Traditionally, business is slow from December to April, and I look forward to that lull. Surprisingly there have been three word of mouth inquires that have come in since Christmas, so I don't know what to expect this next year.

If you feel my presence is important to your project, I will make every effort to be there, and Thank you, for inviting me.

JIM, in my opinion "False" readings, or False signals, are not even a consideration and are usually used in the LRL industry as "Excuse".

There can be inaccurate interpretations of the Signals, a human error, or inaccuracies in the LRL's ability to Discriminate targets. A Signal is valid, whether it is correct, or incorrect, accurate, or inaccurate. As I have stated there are operating conditions which will render LRL's inaccurate. It's to the operators benefit to learn to recognize when these conditions are present.

Dell

[Jim]

Hi Jim,
The test for false readings will involve adjusting the Examiner to discriminate to only find copper, then to take it across the supposedly barren test field and see if it begins moving toward any particular location. In theory, if we get a response, it would indicate there is copper in the "barren" field. This would lead us to look at the location where points and dig a hole to see if there is some copper buried below where the metal detectors didn't find it. Then remove the copper and check again for a signal. When we see there is no signal from the field, then we can place the 1 kg copper target to test. If we can't get the "barren" field clear of signals that the Examiner responds to, then I guess we need to find a different test field that will work.

I wouldn't attempt this test until after I got a confirmation from Rangertell that the Examiner is working ok. At least this is the best way I figured to do it so far. Do you have any suggestions?

Best wishes,
J_P

Thanks for your reply. As I understand it...you are not talking about a false reading or signal. The scenario you have explained indicates the gadget located an item it was supposed to locate. Not false at all.

I understand you want to make sure the test site is void of copper targets, now that you have further explained the protocol

Thanks for clearing that up.

[J_Player]

J Player, that is sound rational logic, and excellent unprejudiced reasoning. I like that attitude.

The cost for me travelling to California, may be impractical considering my physical inability to provide my full services to you? $5,000 would be the least I would consider.

My time is contingent on the number of orders I have ahead of me at the time prior to your test dates. Traditionally, business is slow from December to April, and I look forward to that lull. Surprisingly there have been three word of mouth inquires that have come in since Christmas, so I don't know what to expect this next year.

If you feel my presence is important to your project, I will make every effort to be there, and Thank you, for inviting me...

...Dell

Hi Dell,
I have not requested your services. I invited you to come and try out the Examiner yourself, and try your other tools as well, and even offered to make videos of your tests if you want. This invitation was extended in order to give you the opportunity to try the Examiner for yourself, so you would no longer have to say you don't have experience with it, and so you can speak with authority when describing how it works. All other test program participants are volunteers who were invited or asked to come to events to be scheduled.

Actually there is no particular treasure we need to locate at present that requires hiring a consultant. But I will keep your fee and time schedule in mind in case the need arises in the near future. Just to clarify, $5000 is your firm fee for each day, not the whole trip, correct?

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Thanks for your reply. As I understand it...you are not talking about a false reading or signal. The scenario you have explained indicates the gadget located an item it was supposed to locate. Not false at all.

I understand you want to make sure the test site is void of copper targets, now that you have further explained the protocol

Thanks for clearing that up.

Exactly.
When I said false signal, I was referring to a signal from a false copper target, different than the one we are testing for. It would be the same as trying to eliminate a false target when you are testing a metal detector to see if it could find a penny you put in a hole, and then find that you dig up a copper washer that is buried a few inches to the side. That is what I want to eliminate.

There is one complication: From what I have read, there are a few circumstances when other metals can actually give a false signal. This kind of false signal can be compared to the scenario above looking for the copper coin with a metal detector, except buryng a gold ring, and finding a US nickel instead, which can register the same as gold on some detectors. As I recall from the literature, this doesn't happen often with the Examiner, and can be avoided if precautions are taken. The best precaution might be if we pick a test field that doesn't have any metal in it. Maybe somewhere in the desert.

But regardless of the source of "stray signals", I will consider any pre-existing signals that can't be removed from a field to be false (false = not from the copper target we want to test). I will be looking for a test field in which the Examiner is not responding to any particular location before we start a test with the 1kg copper target. I think that is what osman was asking us to do in his test request.

Best wishses,
J_P

[Dell Winders]

Hi Dell,
I have not requested your services. I invited you to come and try out the Examiner yourself, and try your other tools as well, and even offered to make videos of your tests if you want. This invitation was extended in order to give you the opportunity to try the Examiner for yourself, so you would no longer have to say you don't have experience with it, and so you can speak with authority when describing how it works. All other test program participants are volunteers who were invited or asked to come to events to be scheduled.

Actually there is no particular treasure we need to locate at present that requires hiring a consultant. But I will keep your fee and time schedule in mind in case the need arises in the near future. Just to clarify, $5000 is your firm fee for each day, not the whole trip, correct?

Best wishes,
J_P

No, it's not per day, it's to cover my expenses there, and back home for that period of time. In addition to having handicap requirements while I am there, I have to hire some one to help Trudy, and drive her to work on weekends. She is 85, and legally blind, but gets around better than I do.

I appreciate the invitation, but if I can't be of service, I am not earning my way. It would be cheaper, if it were of any interest to me, I would order the Ranger-Tell with the money back guarantee for $700, and conduct my own comparison tests under the adverse operating conditions in Central Florida.

I wish you the best. Dell