rangertell examiner field trials

[J_Player]

Some Skeptics here don't care to hear the name Omnitron, associated with finding treasure, because that is the name I started in 1986 and is commonly associated with my products. The name Omnitron ,is banned from using on Treasure Net.

But to be fair, not all Omnitrons that have helped Treasure Hunters to find Treasure were my products. Omnitron, became a generic name that several manufacturers & sellers used to capitalize on.

It depends on who you bought your Omnitron, from as to who's product you were using. Regardless, I am happy that you found Treasure with the aid of an LRL and have the honesty, and guts to post a favorable comment about LRL on this forum. Dell

Hi Dell,
You are correct. Not all Omnitron products have helped treasure huntrers to find treasure.
In fact, even you agree that your Omnitron products are not proven to work, as you published on your products page:

"The PRO-4 has yet to prove it's merit with a recovery."

and

"As of August 2003 the X-SCAN has only been tested under the Ground & Atmospheric conditions of Central Florida, USA on a limited variety of targets.
At the moment I really don't know the extent of it's capabilities, or of it's limitations."

We see you claim the Pro-4 has never made a recovery, and after 6-1/2 years you still don't know the extent of the limitations and capabilities of the X-scan.

Of course, you refused to demonstrate either of these products you sell in front of witnesses who will report back here to tell what they see in a standard test. So we can safely assume the Pro-4 never made a treasure recovery, and you don't know what the X-scan will do to help us find treasure if we buy one. It's no wonder why TreasureNet banned using the name Omnitron in their forum. But don't worry about your products being banned at TreasureNet. I have the guts to post comments about your Omnitron products here.


Best wishes,
J_P

[g-sani]

J_P said above

.......Of course, there are unknown conditions that can influence the performance of any LRL that is said to utilise RF reception to locate treasure. We know that RF receptiion is influenced by atmospheric cycles that change during the day and over larger time periods. But with enough tests in the database, we can at least have an idea whether it works or not..........

I strongly agree whith the above statement from J_P and I also agree whith the following one

.... After all, most metal detectorists don't mind if watchers report how well their detectors work......

But I am not very proud to say that even myself belongs to that category as well.
Most of the time it was friends of mine there as well that now know what my LRL could do but again it can not be all of you having the same experience as them.
So I agree J_P that this comes up as a story but anyway is better than sitting there saying nothing anyway.
When you have something that does the job then it is much more difficult to spend time convincing others and especially when they ask you to test your LRL in a pre-set procedure.
It is like you are saying to everybody that my name is George and then they start calling you Nick.It upsets you, as simple as that.
And this is the main reason that nobody wants to prove anything to anybody.
There are Dowsers out there that they can convince skeptics just in a minute whith many different ways but they sit there and laugh.They are considering it as waste of time.
Skeptics are like nightbirds they can see certain things and only at nighttime.

Happy new year to everybody!

[J_Player]

J_P said above

.......Of course, there are unknown conditions that can influence the performance of any LRL that is said to utilise RF reception to locate treasure. We know that RF receptiion is influenced by atmospheric cycles that change during the day and over larger time periods. But with enough tests in the database, we can at least have an idea whether it works or not..........

I strongly agree whith the above statement from J_P and I also agree whith the following one

.... After all, most metal detectorists don't mind if watchers report how well their detectors work......

But I am not very proud to say that even myself belongs to that category as well.
Most of the time it was friends of mine there as well that now know what my LRL could do but again it can not be all of you having the same experience as them.
So I agree J_P that this comes up as a story but anyway is better than sitting there saying nothing anyway.
When you have something that does the job then it is much more difficult to spend time convincing others and especially when they ask you to test your LRL in a pre-set procedure.
It is like you are saying to everybody that my name is George and then they start calling you Nick.It upsets you, as simple as that.
And this is the main reason that nobody wants to prove anything to anybody.
There are Dowsers out there that they can convince skeptics just in a minute whith many different ways but they sit there and laugh.They are considering it as waste of time.
Skeptics are like nightbirds they can see certain things and only at nighttime.

Happy new year to everybody!

Here is something you can do that is easy to prove if you have a video camera.
The next time you find a location where your LRL is telling you there is a target, don't dig that target. Make a note where the location is. Then return home without disturbing anything in the target area. Get your video camera and a friend to go along with you. Bring others too if they want to come. When you return to the place where the LRL is giving a signal, begin some distance away from the target location and have someone hold the camera to film everything. Then let someone else use the LRL and watch where it points to. Make sure you get a video of the LRL moving toward the target that is unknown to the person using the LRL. When you arrive at the target location, then you can take out a metal detector to pinpoint it. Then begin digging and see what you found. This should make a good tests if it is done in a place where the ground was not disturbed by digging before making the video. It is a good idea to keep the camera running without stopping it, so we can see there was no chance to turn if off and make changes around the test area. When you are done you will recover your target the same as if you did not show the video, but the difference is you can put the video on youtube for other people to watch.


Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

Happy New Year to believers and skeptics alike.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f15PNrk94kg

[Esteban]

Here is the problem Theseus.
If I tell you that my LRL is working then you won't beleive me.
If I tell you that I found many treasures whith it then you will never beleive me.
Most of the people accuse the ones that sell LRLs and say that if their products work then they shouldn't need to sell them.
No lets be fair, it is not like that.
This is like saying that someone that made a milion selling his LRL was never poor.Well he made his milion because he kept selling it.
If the man was out trying to spot the treasure whith his patented detector then he would still poor.Why?
Because treasure is not everywhere as everybody thinks.
The truth is that I used an rf tranceiver hunting for treasures and I never beleived that it was going to work.But it does.
It was an imitation of what Thortech.org is selling and it was the first time we were picking targets from a distance.And beleive me they are more than what you think but you never know it and how can you anyway.
You use to put down a transmitter sending frequencies into ground and air and after 15mins we were out searching for the target using an RF receiver.
Don't ask me about frequencies and staff like that because I know nothing.I was so amazed that I could find things from a distance that I didn't care at all how can that hapened.
We paid a lot of money for that and I know very well what the real cost is.But who cares?It was there working and I knew we were paid somebody else's idea and then it looked fair.
Once we picked up a bronze vase from 500 meters away.It was about 30cms high.
Most of the people stop talking as soon as they have something that usefull in their hands and this is why the truth doesn't come up.
Some of the electronic guys over here know that this kind of detectors work and I have read it in many of their posts but only a few beleive them.I think Alonso is one of them and he keeps saying it but then what? Who listens?
I revealed that myself in some other forums and sudenly everybody was against me and then I thought it is not worth it.
J_P does a great job testing RT for all of us and from what I read he knows what he is doing.
To tell you the truth I personally beleive that the principle behind RT is real but I can not say that it works in practice until I test it myself as well the way I beleive is right.
Once many years ago using an omnitron we were lucky to find something valueable but then I can tell you that in that area it was there hidden alone and that was the only reason we succeded.Apart from this we were never had any luck when digging other targets that the MFD picked up.
So we were lucky that day and all this was because the artifact was in an area that was clean from any other metalls otherwise I think it would be impossible to get.
Anyway I thing when you are able to go on target whith a receiver is completely different than when you use L rods.Dowsing goes aside so everybody can go on target the same way.
It doesn't say anything to me if some people say that this kind of LRLs don't work.Nobody knows better than myself and this is because it was me been everytime there.
This is were I advise you all electronic people to focus.

I remember a German man who asure he is very able to using LRL rods. When asked if he prefer electronic instruments, was reluctance to the electronic apparatus. Manufacturer build these LRL rods instruments because the people want it and trust in it.

[g-sani]

Here is something you can do that is easy to prove if you have a video camera.
The next time you find a location where your LRL is telling you there is a target, don't dig that target. Make a note where the location is. Then return home without disturbing anything in the target area. Get your video camera and a friend to go along with you. Bring others too if they want to come. When you return to the place where the LRL is giving a signal, begin some distance away from the target location and have someone hold the camera to film everything. Then let someone else use the LRL and watch where it points to. Make sure you get a video of the LRL moving toward the target that is unknown to the person using the LRL. When you arrive at the target location, then you can take out a metal detector to pinpoint it. Then begin digging and see what you found. This should make a good tests if it is done in a place where the ground was not disturbed by digging before making the video. It is a good idea to keep the camera running without stopping it, so we can see there was no chance to turn if off and make changes around the test area. When you are done you will recover your target the same as if you did not show the video, but the difference is you can put the video on youtube for other people to watch.


Best wishes,
J_P

Ι will have this in mind J_P in my future searches.I do not promise, but I might do it because I am sure many people they will find it interesting.

[Theseus]

Here is the problem Theseus.
If I tell you that my LRL is working then you won't beleive me.
If I tell you that I found many treasures whith it then you will never beleive me.
Most of the people accuse the ones that sell LRLs and say that if their products work then they shouldn't need to sell them.
No lets be fair, it is not like that.
This is like saying that someone that made a milion selling his LRL was never poor.Well he made his milion because he kept selling it.
If the man was out trying to spot the treasure whith his patented detector then he would still poor.Why?
Because treasure is not everywhere as everybody thinks.
The truth is that I used an rf tranceiver hunting for treasures and I never beleived that it was going to work.But it does.
It was an imitation of what Thortech.org is selling and it was the first time we were picking targets from a distance.And beleive me they are more than what you think but you never know it and how can you anyway.
You use to put down a transmitter sending frequencies into ground and air and after 15mins we were out searching for the target using an RF receiver.
Don't ask me about frequencies and staff like that because I know nothing.I was so amazed that I could find things from a distance that I didn't care at all how can that hapened.
We paid a lot of money for that and I know very well what the real cost is.But who cares?It was there working and I knew we were paid somebody else's idea and then it looked fair.
Once we picked up a bronze vase from 500 meters away.It was about 30cms high.
Most of the people stop talking as soon as they have something that usefull in their hands and this is why the truth doesn't come up.
Some of the electronic guys over here know that this kind of detectors work and I have read it in many of their posts but only a few beleive them.I think Alonso is one of them and he keeps saying it but then what? Who listens?
I revealed that myself in some other forums and sudenly everybody was against me and then I thought it is not worth it.
J_P does a great job testing RT for all of us and from what I read he knows what he is doing.
To tell you the truth I personally beleive that the principle behind RT is real but I can not say that it works in practice until I test it myself as well the way I beleive is right.
Once many years ago using an omnitron we were lucky to find something valueable but then I can tell you that in that area it was there hidden alone and that was the only reason we succeded.Apart from this we were never had any luck when digging other targets that the MFD picked up.
So we were lucky that day and all this was because the artifact was in an area that was clean from any other metalls otherwise I think it would be impossible to get.
Anyway I thing when you are able to go on target whith a receiver is completely different than when you use L rods.Dowsing goes aside so everybody can go on target the same way.
It doesn't say anything to me if some people say that this kind of LRLs don't work.Nobody knows better than myself and this is because it was me been everytime there.
This is were I advise you all electronic people to focus.

Thanks for the details you provided above. Interesting.....

In reading your posting, I'm reminded of one very important truism when it comes to fairly evaluating the worth and merits of LRL devices; if you only use your LRL to search in areas where it is known that artifacts, treasure, precious metals or minerals exist - then it will always appear to work just fine.

In order to be properly validated in the scientific world, it (the LRL) must be tested in a controlled environment, using acceptable protocol and witnessed and documented by several disinterested observers. Luck or subjectivity have no place in this type of testing.

[g-sani]

I remember a German man who asure he is very able to using LRL rods. When asked if he prefer electronic instruments, was reluctance to the electronic apparatus. Manufacturer build these LRL rods instruments because the people want it and trust in it.

Hi Esteban, I am not surprised about the preference of the German guy.
You don't need anything if you are that good but the manufactures make them to make money and at the end there is nothing that has no believers at all.
Lets think anout something else.
Butties work as a sonar when they hunt at night.They send pulses and receive back the signal analysing what the target is.
Why do you think that such a thing is unbelievable to be acomplished from a human being? Is a butty more clever than a man?
An elephant walks in a desert and is really thirsty.All he has to do is dowsing for water when is wondering arround.Suddenly you see him stoping and by using his long nose is digging in the sand.
Oooooppps.. water comes up.
Is the elephant more clever than man?
Skeptics do not say anything for such things in nature they don't taking them in account at all.May be they never heard of them.
All that looks strange to them has to do only whith human.
May be because they will never be able to do something like that themselves.And do not offend me, this is only because they will never believe.
It looks like all of them are against human capacity and abillities and probably they consider animals more capable in using their brains or their bodies or whatever else.
Lets be fair to human race my friends.

[g-sani]

Thanks for the details you provided above. Interesting.....

In reading your posting, I'm reminded of one very important truism when it comes to fairly evaluating the worth and merits of LRL devices; if you only use your LRL to search in areas where it is known that artifacts, treasure, precious metals or minerals exist - then it will always appear to work just fine.

In order to be properly validated in the scientific world, it (the LRL) must be tested in a controlled environment, using acceptable protocol and witnessed and documented by several disinterested observers. Luck or subjectivity have no place in this type of testing.

May be you are right and I see your point Theseus but I think that when somebody is Treasure hunting he wants mainly to see their practical side of things and he doesn't like theories that can never put down in practice.
Trying to test an LRL by trying to imitate real conditions is very tricky.
Testing in a controlled environment makes a big limitation for the LRL to be used and the results it will be very poor in my opinion.
Just imagine all the different compinations or environments than we can have because of the endless parameters they exist when we are out in the real thing.
Go out by chance a few times to different places and not only Sundays.
Use the real thing that there is out there in places as in a usaully day out.This is where we will use our LRLs anyway.
May be I am wrong my friends but I think all test protocols for LRLs that we know up to now are trying to do exactly the same.
Imitate the real thing.

[Esteban]

Hi Esteban, I am not surprised about the preference of the German guy.
You don't need anything if you are that good but the manufactures make them to make money and at the end there is nothing that has no believers at all.
Lets think anout something else.
Butties work as a sonar when they hunt at night.They send pulses and receive back the signal analysing what the target is.
Why do you think that such a thing is unbelievable to be acomplished from a human being? Is a butty more clever than a man?
An elephant walks in a desert and is really thirsty.All he has to do is dowsing for water when is wondering arround.Suddenly you see him stoping and by using his long nose is digging in the sand.
Oooooppps.. water comes up.
Is the elephant more clever than man?
Skeptics do not say anything for such things in nature they don't taking them in account at all.May be they never heard of them.
All that looks strange to them has to do only whith human.
May be because they will never be able to do something like that themselves.And do not offend me, this is only because they will never believe.
It looks like all of them are against human capacity and abillities and probably they consider animals more capable in using their brains or their bodies or whatever else.
Lets be fair to human race my friends.

Once my team and I go in possible treasure site (the treasure doesn't exist, I confirm it hours ago). There are an extended hole in all dimensions... We check the site and the nearby into all the property and out the property... nothing. Later, one of the inhabitants show me a bronze plate with the supossed quantity of gold in the site. I ask him how was found, and the man told me: "during excavation". I ask him who found it. And he told me: "a man with metal detector who check the removed sand during excavation". I conclude without any error that the treasure hunter plant the plate. Mainly because in the plate appears words as "kilos" and "meters", in a supossed epoch that the uses was pounds and the distance was yards, and "codos" (Spanish) for depth, no meters, etc. I interrogated all the persons who live in the site and they told me that the man demmand money for to continue. Because he need to buy candles of different colors for to "liberate" the place. I warned them it was a hoax. But they continued paying for "special" candles at high prices...

[Theseus]

May be you are right and I see your point Theseus but I think that when somebody is Treasure hunting he wants mainly to see their practical side of things and he doesn't like theories that can never put down in practice.
Trying to test an LRL by trying to imitate real conditions is very tricky.
Testing in a controlled environment makes a big limitation for the LRL to be used and the results it will be very poor in my opinion.
Just imagine all the different compinations or environments than we can have because of the endless parameters they exist when we are out in the real thing.
Go out by chance a few times to different places and not only Sundays.
Use the real thing that there is out there in places as in a usaully day out.This is where we will use our LRLs anyway.
May be I am wrong my friends but I thing all test protocols for LRLs that we know up to now are trying to do exactly the same.
Imitate the real thing.

You said; "when somebody is Treasure hunting he wants mainly to see their practical side of things and he doesn't like theories that can never put down in practice."

Treasure hunting requires an expenditure of time and usually significant monetary resources. I'm not one who likes to waste either time or money. Therefore, before I go into the field, I only make sure I am using tools that have been tried and tested, and that I am confident will perform as claimed or advertised. If the tools used were never tested under controlled conditions, how could I know they were worth depending on in conditions that are not controlled? The answer is simple; I could not.

Actual projects in the field, under varying conditions is not the place to evaluate tools of any kind, especially LRL implements. Unless of course you are not concerned with real conclusions and only want to verify a theory of operation. In which case, conclusions and results reached in that manner have no value whatsoever to the serious treasure hunter.

[g-sani]

To prove how bad we think sometimes I will tell you this.
When somebody wants to test an LRL by following a standard protocol or procedure first of all(please tell me your opinion) he has to search the area whith the LRL and before anything is touched or hidden.Then and only then he could carry on whith the procedures to be made.
This is the question now.
Please tell me if anybody ever mentioned this or tell me if you think that this is not that important but you have to explain the reason as well.
This I believe is the most important thing somebody must first do when he wants to test an LRL no matter what test-protocol he is going to follow.
Well sorry, I haven't seen anybody doing it yet.
Well, as far as I know.

P.S. Just keep in mind that I am always talking about the majority of people and that there are always exceptions as in anything in life.

[Qiaozhi]

To understand how LRLs "work", you must first understand the superstitious pigeon experiment.

[Theseus]

To prove how bad we think sometimes I will tell you this.
When somebody wants to test an LRL by following a standard protocol or procedure first of all(please tell me your opinion) he has to search the area whith the LRL and before anything is touched or hidden.Then and only then he could carry on whith the procedures to be made.
This is the question now.
Please tell me if anybody ever mentioned this or tell me if you think that this is not that important but you have to explain the reason as well.
This I believe is the most important thing somebody must first do when he wants to test an LRL no matter what test-protocol he is going to follow.
Well sorry, I haven't seen anybody doing it yet.
Well, as far as I know.

P.S. Just keep in mind that I am always talking about the majority of people and that there are always exceptions as in anything in life.

Part of the requirements of testing in a controlled environment requires that there be a Pre-test and a Post-test using a target in plain sight, which of course the LRL is supposed to be able to locate.

The confines of the test area should be searched for possible targets, but NOT with the LRL itself. Naturally, any possible targets should be removed from the test area that might interfere with the LRL.

If the Pre-test is successful, then one can go ahead with the Real-test, which should be of a double-blind protocol. Following the Real-test, you then perform a Post-test. If the Post-test is successful, then you can be reasonably sure the results of the Real-test are valid and significant.

If you need more details, please see Carl's dissertation on testing LRLs under double-blind conditions.

http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=/info/dbtesting.dat

[g-sani]

You said; "when somebody is Treasure hunting he wants mainly to see their practical side of things and he doesn't like theories that can never put down in practice."

Treasure hunting requires an expenditure of time and usually significant monetary resources. I'm not one who likes to waste either time or money. Therefore, before I go into the field, I only make sure I am using tools that have been tried and tested, and that I am confident will perform as claimed or advertised. If the tools used were never tested under controlled conditions, how could I know they were worth depending on in conditions that are not controlled? The answer is simple; I could not.

Actual projects in the field, under varying conditions is not the place to evaluate tools of any kind, especially LRL implements. Unless of course you are not concerned with real conclusions and only want to verify a theory of operation. In which case, conclusions and results reached in that manner have no value whatsoever to the serious treasure hunter.

Of course if money was not involved then it would be no problem at all.
I spent much money myself buying detectors and I know very well how expensive this hobby is.
But from my experience up to now I can say that tests of LRLs differ from person to person and it is the very slightest difference in the way that somebody uses them that give the different results in the same tests.
This in turn brings up to the average mind the case that somebody writes in favour of something and then who you believe.
One thing is for sure the more somebody reads about the subject the more he learns.
So Keep talking.