rangertell examiner field trials

[WM6]

Hi hung,

that disclosed skamers proclaim Randi as greatest fraud is understandable.

That you get on chills because of skamer commission loss is also understandable.

However, that all your arguments were limited to insults, personal devaluation, and profanity, but it is not understandable.

If you denied scientifically established principles of testing extraordinary claims, you denied current science.

You can protect novice from current science, but you cannot protect they from yourself.

[J_Player]

May I suggest that you ask the man himself - James Randi ->
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ask all those who wish to claim the prize based upon their dowsing skills to first try a double-blind test of their abilities. We at the JREF can advise you how to design such a test protocol. You will find, I assure you, that the description above of the ideomotor effect will be proven valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above quote was taken from here -> http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/

Hi Qiaozhi,
I can see the reference you provided is for those who wish to claim the JREF prize based on their dowsing skills. I do not wish to claim the JREF prize based on my dowsing skills. I am not performing tests to satisfy Randi, nor do I have any dowsing skills that I know of.

The reason I asked you for a specific test protocol is so I can perform a test that will satisfy you.

You are the first person who told me a double blind test is the only way the Examiner can be tested.
I am ready to perform your test regardless of whether I believe there are other ways it can be tested or not.
All I need to know is the exact test protocol you require to satisfy you that the test was performed to your specifications, and to know exactly what attribute of the Examiner your test protocol is designed to test.

I am sure you are aware there are thousands of kinds of double blind tests that could be arranged to test an Examiner, each designed to test a different attribute of the Examiner. There is no possible way I can test the attribute you want tested, or set up the test protocol to conduct the test you have in mind unless you tell me what they are.

Are you able to provide instructions that I can use to arrange the specific test protocol you want, and provide a description of what attribute of the Examiner your protocol is designed to test?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

Hi Qiaozhi,
I can see the reference you provided is for those who wish to claim the JREF prize based on their dowsing skills. I do not wish to claim the JREF prize based on my dowsing skills. I am not performing tests to satisfy Randi, nor do I have amy dowsing skills that I know of.

The reason I asked you for a specific test protocol is so I can perform a test that will satisfy you.

You are the first person who told me a double blind test is the only way the Examiner can be tested. And I am ready to perform your test regardless of whether I believe there are other ways it can be tested or not. All I need to know is the exact test protocol you require to satisfy you that the test was performed to your specifications, and to know exactly what attribute of the Examiner your test protocol is designed to test.

I am sure you are aware there are thousands of kinds of double blind tests that could be arranged to test an Examiner, each designed to test a different attribute of the Examiiner. There is no possible way I can test the attribute you want tested, or set up the test protocol to conduct the test you have in mind unless you tell me what they are.

Are you able to provide instructions that I can use to arrange the specific test protocol you want, and provide a description of what attribute of the Examiner your protocol is designed to test?

Best wishes,
J_P

You should be able to understand the correct procedure from here -> http://www.skepdic.com/control.htm

However, if you are still struggling to understand it, then watch Randi on youtube -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOsCnX-TKIY
This is the way it should be done, with the addition of a third-party who places the target under one of the cups but does not attend the actual test.

[Qiaozhi]

Away for sometime and when I come back I face this...

Something in the previous posts seems to have rattled your cage.

It's more than clear that one of the reasons this RS forum in Carlland is of really bad quality can be blamed direct to Carl's choice to promote Qiaozhi as a moderator.

Actually I'm an Administrator, but I doubt that you can understand the difference.

He is completely ignorant on this subject and now he comes with the above pathetic post.

The skeptic dictionary which is at best a joke, and Randi, the GREATEST FRAUD all over internet!

Of course, you would say that, as it's clearly evident you will never shake your self-delusion concerning dowsing. Randi has clearly stated in the previous link (which no doubt you never bothered to even read) that not one dowser he has ever tested has accepted the fact that their ability to detect the target was no better than chance. Such is the power of selective memory and self-delusion.

Qiaozhi has given already enough evidence he is totally biased against LRL and dowsing subjects, again, through his complete ignorance on those matters.

If serious and minimally competent as moderator, the least expected from his moderating attitude would be an isent one and not biased as he is.
He is doing a terrible job. As dowsing ignorant, we all know of this already.
At least he could let the ones like g-sani express himself. And not try to interfere with his posts. Moderating is not try influencing others posts in favor of a particular belief.

I think he should either quit as moderator and restart his member only status when he is allowed to say all the mambo he is used to or assume another posture as a true moderator.

This is very bad to newbies who happen to land here and see his mentionings in his posts as source of reliable. This is grotesque.

Well, this is my opinion and Carl do what he wants in Ozzy's case... Tough I don't post here often anymore, might this one work to prevent newbies and unadvised people who happen to visit this forum.

Here some thread about Randi. Let people take their conclusions. Sorry for Geotech in the old days... Today is trully Geoskepth...
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.p...,235008.0.html

If this forum was as moderated as you claim, at least 50% of your posts would have been deleted for their inflammatory content. Luckily for you, we find your nonsense posts quite amusing.

[J_Player]

You should be able to understand the correct procedure from here -> http://www.skepdic.com/control.htm

However, if you are still struggling to understand it, then watch Randi on youtube -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOsCnX-TKIY
This is the way it should be done, with the addition of a third-party who places the target under one of the cups but does not attend the actual test.

Actually those references don't describe a protocol that can be used to test the Examiner or what attribute of the Examiner is being tested.
Rangertell has made no claims the examiner can locate people hiding behind crates, nor do I think it is able to do that.

I understand the principle of double blind testing very well. It generally involves three parties, where a proctor is used. But there are thousands of protocols that could be used. In order to perform the test procedure you want to see, I only need to know the specific protocol you want to see set up, and to know what attribute of the Examiner you want to test.

I am presuming you don't want to see if it can locate a person hiding behind a crate, but rather, some claim that Rangertell makes about the Examiner.

If you don't really know what attribute of the Examiner you want to test, or any details of the test protocol you want to see done, please say so, because I can't figure it out by guessing at other people's ideas to test different things than the Examiner I have for testing.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

with the addition of a third-party who places the target under one of the cups but does not attend the actual test.

What if third party is in connection with dowser? This option must be extracted in serious tests.

It is better to place real target and similar placebo targets (eg. made from glass) first from fourth person in small and exactly the same paper boxes filled with cotton to dumping target noise and sealed by sixth person. But then comes the third person who places the boxes under cups but does not attend the actual test. It is recommended that, between persons changing, boxes are mixed by second person.

[Theseus]

Actually those references don't describe a protocol that can be used to test the Examiner or what attribute of the Examiner is being tested.
Rangertell has made no claims the examiner can locate people hiding behind crates, nor do I think it is able to do that.

I understand the principle of double blind testing very well. It generally involves three parties, where a proctor is used. But there are thousands of protocols that could be used. In order to perform the test procedure you want to see, I only need to know the specific protocol you want to see set up, and to know what attribute of the Examiner you want to test.

I am presuming you don't want to see if it can locate a person hiding behind a crate, but rather, some claim that Rangertell makes about the Examiner.

If you don't really know what attribute of the Examiner you want to test, or any details of the test protocol you want to see done, please say so, because I can't figure it out by guessing at other people's ideas to test different things than the Examiner I have for testing.

Best wishes,
J_P

I don't know what Qiaozhi would like to see tested either, so I certainly wouldn't hazard a guess.

However, if you don't mind me sticking my nose in.....

I wouldn't mind seeing a DB test of the Examiner attempting to find some Gold (a nugget or a coin or a ring). Now if you have full knowledge of how a standard DB test should be conducted, then there is no sense in me describing that to you.

All I would like to see is a Pre-test of the device done on a valid target that is in plain sight of the operator, and in the same setup and area as the real test would be conducted.

Then do the DB test with a target(s) completely unknown to the operator.

Then do a Post-test, again using a valid target in plain sight and conducted as the Pre-test was done.

Does that seem reasonable? The attribute we are testing is to see if the Examiner will point towards a Gold item, and do it repeatedly so that a statistical calculation might be performed based on the number of Trials and the number of Hits, and the results would be considerably better than what one might expect from Chance Guessing.

Just my thoughts....

[Qiaozhi]

I wouldn't mind seeing a DB test of the Examiner attempting to find some Gold (a nugget or a coin or a ring). Now if you have full knowledge of how a standard DB test should be conducted, then there is no sense in me describing that to you.

All I would like to see is a Pre-test of the device done on a valid target that is in plain sight of the operator, and in the same setup and area as the real test would be conducted.

Then do the DB test with a target(s) completely unknown to the operator.

Then do a Post-test, again using a valid target in plain sight and conducted as the Pre-test was done.

Does that seem reasonable? The attribute we are testing is to see if the Examiner will point towards a Gold item, and do it repeatedly so that a statistical calculation might be performed based on the number of Trials and the number of Hits, and the results would be considerably better than what one might expect from Chance Guessing.

Just my thoughts....

You have more or less described the procedure that was shown in the Randi youtube link, and I totally agree with this method.

Perhaps we can now look forward to some results on the long awaited RT testing.

[J_Player]

I don't know what Qiaozhi would like to see tested either, so I certainly wouldn't hazard a guess.

However, if you don't mind me sticking my nose in.....

I wouldn't mind seeing a DB test of the Examiner attempting to find some Gold (a nugget or a coin or a ring). Now if you have full knowledge of how a standard DB test should be conducted, then there is no sense in me describing that to you.

All I would like to see is a Pre-test of the device done on a valid target that is in plain sight of the operator, and in the same setup and area as the real test would be conducted.

Then do the DB test with a target(s) completely unknown to the operator.

Then do a Post-test, again using a valid target in plain sight and conducted as the Pre-test was done.

Does that seem reasonable? The attribute we are testing is to see if the Examiner will point towards a Gold item, and do it repeatedly so that a statistical calculation might be performed based on the number of Trials and the number of Hits, and the results would be considerably better than what one might expect from Chance Guessing.

Just my thoughts....

Hi Theseus,
Thank you for the input.
I wouldn't hazard a guess at what protocol of double blind testing Qiaozhi wants to see done either.
I need to know the details of how he wants the test set up before I perform it.

For the test that you would like to see, I have a 14k gold man's ring that can be used for the test. Of course, I will want to see some pre-tests as well. I will allow the operator to make dry runs while he makes whatever adjustments to the Examiner controls he needs to find the best performance. Then, when the operator has satisfied himself that he has found the best adjustment, I will film a pre-test done with the gold ring in plain sight of the operator. After the pretest is done, I can film repeated runs of double blind testing with the location of the gold ring unknown to the operator. Then I can allow the operator to repeat the pre-run test where the location of the target is known.

There are only two missing element to the test you want to see. If you can provide the missing information, then I can perform the test.

1. Can you make a statement that describes what attribute of the Examiner this test is designed to test?

2. I know a lot about double blind testing. and I know that there are thousands of protocols that are used for double blind testing of this kind. In order to provide the degree of precision you want to see, I need to know the details of how you want the test set up. For example how many test runs, how the target is hidden from view of the operator, what distances, what kind of test field setting, etc. More details will make it more likely that you will see the kind of test you want to have done.

"Does it sound reasonable? "

For my purposes, it could be very reasonable depending on what attribute is being tested. Actually my own personal testing does not require double blind testing. I never performed a double blind test on any metal detector I bought, but I did test them out and read other people's reports about them. I was able to determine what detectors were suitable for me to purchase after trying out several competing models without a single scientific test. And I have always been happy with my purchases. I also have been happy with my choice not to buy detectors that did not seem suitable after trying them out (no scientific testing of my reject detectors either).

I have no need to perform a double blind test of the Examiner for myself. I can make my determination of it's treasure locating value by testing it the same way I test any other metal detector. The only reason I am performing other tests is because I am interested to see if certain claims are true, or to act as a proxy tester for other people who want to see some test that I don't have a need to see.

If I hear back from WesP, then we would only need to know the details of how you want the test protocol and the attribute you are looking to test before we can perform the test you have in mind.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,

1. Can you make a statement that describes what attribute of the Examiner this test is designed to test?
Best wishes,
J_P

You know... I'm frankly not certain what you mean by attribute here, but perhaps if you could give me some examples of what you believe are possible attributes, I'm sure I could choose one.

[J_Player]

You have more or less described the procedure that was shown in the Randi youtube link, and I totally agree with this method.

Perhaps we can now look forward to some results on the long awaited RT testing.

Hi Qiaozhi,
The Randi test procedure showed a methodology and a protocol. I cannot use his protocol because it is one of thousands that must be adapted in any of a number of ways before it can be applied to the Examiner.

Apparently you cannot describe the details of the protocol you want to see, or even describe what attribute of the Examiner you want to test. Unless you can tell the details of your protocol, I cannot follow it.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

You know... I'm frankly not certain what you mean by attribute here, but perhaps if you could give me some examples of what you believe are possible attributes, I'm sure I could choose one.

Sure, there are many claimed attributes of the Examiner.
You can read the Rangertell public information to see them at the links in above posts and others.

Here are a few examples:
The Examiner can discriminate different target materials.
The calculator sets various frequencies which the Examiner resonates at.
The calculator sends signals to the internal circuitry by induction.
The operator must be standing on the ground to complete a circuit that allows it to function.
Etc, etc, etc.

There are hundreds of them. Pick one that seems appropriate for your test.

Best wishes,
J_P

[g-sani]

......Actually my own personal testing does not require double blind testing. I never performed a double blind test on any metal detector I bought, but I did test them out and read other people's reports about them. I was able to determine what detectors were suitable for me to purchase after trying out several competing models without a single scientific test. And I have always been happy with my purchases. I also have been happy with my choice not to buy detectors that did not seem suitable after trying them out (no scientific testing of my reject detectors either).....

Thats how it should be for everybody.DB tests say nothing to me.
Telling to someone what the blind tests produced means nothing for the simple reason that he has to try something himself anyway before buying.
How can somebody ask for a DB test when he admits that he doesn't believe the word of others?

[Qiaozhi]

Sure, there are many claimed attributes of the Examiner.
You can read the Rangertell public information to see them at the links in above posts and others.

Here are a few examples:
The Examiner can discriminate different target materials.
The calculator sets various frequencies which the Examiner resonates at.
The calculator sends signals to the internal circuitry by induction.
The operator must be standing on the ground to complete a circuit that allows it to function.
Etc, etc, etc.

There are hundreds of them. Pick one that seems appropriate for your test.

Best wishes,
J_P

The requirements of the test are very simple. That is, can it detect a hidden target or not? If you are planning to use a gold ring for the testing, then put whatever secret numbers that VB supplied to you into the calculator and run the tests. Otherwise you will remain in a perpetual loop of getting ready to get ready.

Remember that procrastination is the thief of time.

[J_Player]

Thats how it should be for everybody.DB tests say nothing to me.
Telling to someone what the blind tests produced means nothing for the simple reason that he has to try something himself anyway before buying.
How can somebody ask for a DB test when he admits that he doesn't believe the word of others?

Hi g-sani,
I think you are correct. A double blind test does not prove anything. It only provides evidence. At best, the results can be used as a model to gain insight where other methods did not work to confirm a theory.

I think you are right. The only method that will convince an average user is to try it out and see if it is working for themselves. When you receive your Examiner, then I hope you will also invite others in your area to come and try it for themselves to see if it works for them. This is the best evidence that a person can see to determine if they think it is working.

But as long as I have an Examiner, I can easily perform scientific tests for people who describe how they want the tests done.
Maybe this will give them the information they want to know.

Best wishes,
J_P