rangertell examiner field trials

[J_Player]

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.

Hi Qiaozhi,
I am presuming the attribute of the Examiner you want to test is its ability to detect a hidden target.

So far, your double blind test protocol includes putting numbers into the calculator that are used to detect a gold ring.
This is not a double blind test protocol. Can you describe the details of the test protocol you want to see done?

For example, how do you want the ring hidden, what distances, how many locations, how many test runs, what kind of test field etc. I am not interested in wasting time guessing what you want, only to be told later that we didn't guess the test you wanted to see correctly. You only need to give the details so WesP and I will know what to set up before the test is performed.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

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'm sure the drug companies would not agree with you on that one.

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.

As I'm sure you're well aware, simply trying dowsing-based equipment for yourself, to decide if it is working, is a no-no. Dowsing rods are driven by the ideomotor effect, which is subject to selective memory and self-delusion. Therefore such testing methods are unreliable.

[g-sani]

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.

Of course I will ask other people to try it as well.
There is a friend of mine that whatever you give him he can make it work.
So I will exclude him from this as it is going to be too much for the skeptics.

[J_Player]

Of course I will ask other people to try it as well.
There is a friend of mine that whatever you give him he can make it work.
So I will exclude him from this as it is going to be too much for the skeptics.

Hahahaaaa...

If you find your Examiner is non-working, then you can take it to your friend to make it work.
So you have a second guarantee that others do not have.

By the way, I am skeptic about all LRL claims that I have not seen work in front of me with my own hands. But I don't have any problem reading stories told by people who say they find long range detection as long as I don't see them telling stories that are shown to be false information.
I like to read your stories of what you found with your detectors, and also your fish stories.
Did you send for your pocket fisherman yet?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

Hi Qiaozhi,
I am presuming the attribute of the Examiner you want to test is its ability to detect a hidden target.

Personally I do not find it necessary to test any aspect of the RangerTell Scaminer, but if you are asking for guidance, then it's ability or not to detect a hidden target seems an obvious choice.

So far, your double blind test protocol includes putting numbers into the calculator that are used to detect a gold ring.
This is not a double blind test protocol. Can you describe the details of the test protocol you want to see done?

Previously you said: "I know a lot about double blind testing".
Please pick whichever protocol that you think appropriate and go with that.

Whatever procedure you decide to use with be disputed by the dowsing fraternity anyway. Perhaps it's Hung you should be asking for an acceptable protocol, not the skeptics. We are already convinced that a cheap calculator, glued to a plastic box of do-nothing electronics, and fixed to a swivel handle can only detect treasure at the time of purchase. There have been many published tests which clearly demonstrate dowsing to be a trick of the mind. If dowsing really worked, despite many scientific tests that show otherwise, then Randi's wallet would be lighter to the tune of $1M ... and it is not.

[J_Player]

Personally I do not find it necessary to test any aspect of the RangerTell Scaminer, but if you are asking for guidance, then it's ability or not to detect a hidden target seems an obvious choice.


Previously you said: "I know a lot about double blind testing".
Please pick whichever protocol that you think appropriate and go with that.

Whatever procedure you decide to use with be disputed by the dowsing fraternity anyway. Perhaps it's Hung you should be asking for an acceptable protocol, not the skeptics. We are already convinced that a cheap calculator, glued to a plastic box of do-nothing electronics, and fixed to a swivel handle can only detect treasure at the time of purchase. There have been many published tests which clearly demonstrate dowsing to be a trick of the mind. If dowsing really worked, despite many scientific tests that show otherwise, then Randi's wallet would be lighter to the tune of $1M ... and it is not.

Hi Qiaozhi,
I never asked for guidance. I asked for a specific test protocol to use.

Without knowing what kind of test procedure you want to see, I can speculate that whatever procedure Theseus decides on will probably work to satisfy your requirements. I am guessing this because it seems he wants to test for a more specific version of detecting a hidden target where the target material is defined. After you see what Theseus requests for a tests protocol, then please make your comments that will let us know if this protocol is acceptable to you before we proceed. We can make a second test for you if the Theseus version is not acceptable.

I have no worries about hung or other LRL believers. None of them have asked for any double blind tests while refusing to define a test protocol to use for their double blind test. If the dowsing fraternity disputes my tests, I don't care. The can dispute all they want, but they can't stop me from following a test procedure that is requested.

It seems like you have a good idea to ask hung for a test protocol. Maybe the LRL enthusiasts have forgotten I am willing to perform tests for them since they can't be here to test this Examiner. All LRL believers are invited to post their requests for a test that they want to see done. This can be some simple test, or a double blind test, or any other kind of test. I already have collected a few requests, so those who already made their requests don't need to send it in again.

And here is a special invitation for hung to send any request for testing that he wants to see. I need to know the specific test protocol you want to see performed before we perform the test. We can perform your test if we know the details you want done. Keep in mind, we can only perform a test. We will not hiring consultants or going to extraordinary lengths to create some strange conditions that don't exist in the local area where we will be testing.

Best wishes,
J_P

[g-sani]

Hahahaaaa...

If you find your Examiner is non-working, then you can take it to your friend to make it work.
So you have a second guarantee that others do not have.

By the way, I am skeptic about all LRL claims that I have not seen work in front of me with my own hands. But I don't have any problem reading stories told by people who say they find long range detection as long as I don't see them telling stories that are shown to be false information.
I like to read your stories of what you found with your detectors, and also your fish stories.
Did you send for your pocket fisherman yet?

Best wishes,
J_P

Believe what you see whith your own eyes is the best you can do.
I said it before that I was not a strong believer as far as dowsing concerns.
Now I know and I am always studying more and more about the subject.
When we treasure hunting whith my friend first we go somewhere on a suitable day and check it out whith our LRLs or sometimes even whith plain rods.If there is a response at the first place then we try to spot the target and we use our detectors for verification.
It is difficult to say what you can do because you will have everybody after you especially when you live in a small country as Greece.
The same applies for photos.I will send you some in private to see by e-mail.You see the law over here is made from the politicians for themselves in order to get richer.
You want privacy more than anything as you get older and one thing that I hate to say is that you don't really want other people whith you except one or two good friends.Leting everybody know proved to be a silly thing to do.But this has nothing to do whith what I have said whith the LRL we are using.It is working as I said and whith the dowsing help you don't miss a target.I let a friend sometime ago to get the rods and try to go on target and he couldn't.But the meter was giving a reading and we knew that something silver was there.It took us 15minutes to unearth a very old silver fork.If it is something serious hidden then about always is put in a safe and difficult to reach place and we have to visit it many times.Most of these times it is impossible to get the treasure because they put it that way you need a very long time to get it out.They knew that this way it would be safe because it would be impossible for somebody to get it whithout somebody else see him.Some other times you need many people to work together and again you forget it.
You cannot dig in here as in some other country.You have to have your mouth shut and be very carefull when you are going to do it.
Pocket fisherman will soon have its own permanent place in my car.

[J_Player]

...Pocket fisherman will soon have its own permanent place in my car.

Yes, But you will have 2 pocket fishermen (2 for the price of one).
Will the other be in your pocket?

You cannot dig in here as in some other country.You have to have your mouth shut and be very carefull when you are going to do it.

Here is a way you can dig your treasure without people seeing what you recover:

[J_Player]

You cannot dig in here as in some other country.You have to have your mouth shut and be very carefull when you are going to do it.
Pocket fisherman will soon have its own permanent place in my car.

Hi g-sani...
I forgot to include details for recovery protocol.
See photo below for missing details.
Also, you need to take Pocket Fisherman in the water for recovering fish

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

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

Maybe the attribute I have in mind is simply an "inferred" one rather than a specific one that is written out anywhere.

From all the advertising I've seen (and read) and from what I've seen on eBay, I think it is at least "inferred" if not said in so many words; that the Examiner will pull towards or otherwise indicate a gold target at some distance away.

That is the attribute my test would be looking to validate.

Let's say there are 5 possible locations where a single target might be located.

The target could be any piece of gold or gold bearing object (nugget, coin, etc.) that would be deemed a logical target by R-T, and would have an appropriate Number to be plugged into the calculator.

Five different locations or hiding places would be spread out probably in a semi-circle.

Distance from the target locations to the operator should probably be at least 10 feet and maybe less than 30 feet. That gives you a good range, if need be.

The method of hiding could be inverted cups, under paper plates or any other method that insures the operator has no clue as to what might be under the hiding method, or not.

There will be 5 trials, during the DB portion of the test.

Whatever the method is for concealing the target, ALL 5 of the positions and the method for hiding MUST be disturbed prior to each of the 5 trials.

Standard DB protocol is assumed, and is described on Carl's DB testing page, if you are not familiar with who is involved in the hiding and recording of the results parts of the test.

Remember of course there is a Pre-test and a Post-test, both done on a target that is EITHER in plain sight of the operator OR the operator can SEE where the target was placed.

During the DB portion of the test, the specific hiding location should be determined by drawing a single number out of a hat (containing the numbers 1 to 5).

To be convincing, although not necessarily a Final Conclusion, I believe of the 5 trials, the Examiner should successfully locate the Gold target a minimum of 4 times and 5 would be even better.

Correctly locating the Gold target 4 times comes with a Odds of Occurring By Chance Alone of 1 in 156 times.

Correctly locating the Gold target 5 times comes with a Odds of Occurring By Chance Alone of 1 in 3125 times.

Let me know if there is anything else you need from me.

[J_Player]

Maybe the attribute I have in mind is simply an "inferred" one rather than a specific one that is written out anywhere.

From all the advertising I've seen (and read) and from what I've seen on eBay, I think it is at least "inferred" if not said in so many words; that the Examiner will pull towards or otherwise indicate a gold target at some distance away.

That is the attribute my test would be looking to validate.

Let's say there are 5 possible locations where a single target might be located.

The target could be any piece of gold or gold bearing object (nugget, coin, etc.) that would be deemed a logical target by R-T, and would have an appropriate Number to be plugged into the calculator.

Five different locations or hiding places would be spread out probably in a semi-circle.

Distance from the target locations to the operator should probably be at least 10 feet and maybe less than 30 feet. That gives you a good range, if need be.

The method of hiding could be inverted cups, under paper plates or any other method that insures the operator has no clue as to what might be under the hiding method, or not.

There will be 5 trials, during the DB portion of the test.

Whatever the method is for concealing the target, ALL 5 of the positions and the method for hiding MUST be disturbed prior to each of the 5 trials.

Standard DB protocol is assumed, and is described on Carl's DB testing page, if you are not familiar with who is involved in the hiding and recording of the results parts of the test.

Remember of course there is a Pre-test and a Post-test, both done on a target that is EITHER in plain sight of the operator OR the operator can SEE where the target was placed.

During the DB portion of the test, the specific hiding location should be determined by drawing a single number out of a hat (containing the numbers 1 to 5).

To be convincing, although not necessarily a Final Conclusion, I believe of the 5 trials, the Examiner should successfully locate the Gold target a minimum of 4 times and 5 would be even better.

Correctly locating the Gold target 4 times comes with a Odds of Occurring By Chance Alone of 1 in 156 times.

Correctly locating the Gold target 5 times comes with a Odds of Occurring By Chance Alone of 1 in 3125 times.

Let me know if there is anything else you need from me.

Hi Theseus,
What you posted looks to be a good description of the test you want to see performed. Your idea that the the Examiner characteristics are inferred is true for some of the claims, but many of them are made as actual statements. Regardless of the source of what you want to test, I can perform the test you request with the help of WesP since you have specified the exact protocol you want to see, and have even included some leeway to allow various conditions that will show the data you are looking for.

I will summarize your double blind test protocol so there is no confusion of what test will be performed:
1. The basic attribute of the Examiner that you want to see tested is it's tendency to "pull towards" or otherwise indicate a gold target at some distance away. This is well documented in the claims of Rangertell, as well as for other target materials. This seems like a good attribute to test.

2. For your test protocol, you want to designate five different locations that are separated from each other in a semicircle by at least 10 feet, but less than 30 feet distance from each other. The target sample will be hidden in one of these five locations during the double blind portion of the test. (I am assuming that the semicircle you requested is a half circle of 180 degrees, and having a radius of at least 10 feet and less than 30 feet, with possible target locations at any of the five equally spaced paper cups set at least 10 feet apart from each other, or up to 30 feet apart if a 30 foot radius is used).

3. The method for hiding the gold sample will to be to put it under a paper cup, or a paper plate, or any other convenient way that conceals the location from the operator of the Examiner. The acceptable substitute methods of concealing the location of the target may be used in place of the cups described in the protocol (2 above).

4. The double blind portion of the test will include exactly five trials.

5. There will be shown a trial before and after the five double blind tests. The trial before and after will be done when the operator of the Examiner can see the target in plain sight, or knows where it is located.

6. A hat will be used for drawing a number from 1 to 5 to determine which hiding location is used for the next trial in the five double blind trials.

7. There is one of your specifications that I don't understand completely:
"Whatever the method is for concealing the target, ALL 5 of the positions and the method for hiding MUST be disturbed prior to each of the 5 trials".
Does this mean that the target sample must be moved to a different one of the five locations after each of the trials? Or does it mean that it must be moved to a location that may be different, or may be the same? Or does it mean that some physical disturbance must be applied to all the possible target locations? Or does it mean something different than what I am asking?

For your information, there is no standard double blind test protocol. There are thousands of different double blind protocols. The protocol suggested on Carl's test to win his prize is only one suggestion, which he states he will modify to suit both him and the person applying for the challenge. The purpose for his test is not the same as yours, and his protocol is adjusted to assure he will see evidence to convince him he is getting his money's worth of a demonstration. In your case, you have no money at stake, or any monetary investment in your test as Carl does. I think even Carl will agree that there is no standard protocol for double blind testing. It is simply a methodology that can use any double blind protocol that a person decides to apply.

Thank you for actually stating what you want to see in this test, If you clarify the final point about disturbing the hiding method, I will have what we need to proceed as soon as WesP is ready for some testing.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

...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.

Originally posted by Qiaozhi
I'm sure the drug companies would not agree with you on that one.

Drug companies?
Hahahahaaaa....

In the USA, drug companies don't care about proof. They care about what they must do to convince the FDA to approve their new drug. They know that double blind testing is one method that they can get their FDA approval and begin making profits on new drugs, so they use it when necessary.

If you truly believe a double blind test or any other test constitutes proof, then you are mistaken. Testing only produces evidence. The proof is interpreted by the person who assesses the data from the test and formulates a conclusion.

I am a staunch skeptic.
I am skeptical about a lot of things I read in the remote sensing forum.
I am skeptical about Dr. hung's claim that gold DNA produces a substance that coats the metal to protect it from oxidation.
I am skeptical about the claim that some people make to suggest that gold does not corrode when it is buried in the ground.
I am skeptical about the claim that there are hand-held LRLs that can locate buried metals from a long distance.
I am skeptical that all popular drugs approved by the FDA are the best remedy to use for the most popular ailments.
I could go on with examples of my skepticism, but the only convincing proof I could find was to see for myself.
Second-hand reports are only a next best alternative to seeing for myself.

Why should I rely on somebody's test or double blind test?
Should I trust second-hand information to replace better information that I can see in my own hands right in front of me here and now?

Here is an example of how the FDA determines proof:
In the USA, there is an artificial sweetener called NutraSweet manufactured by the Monsanto chemical company. This sweetener is sanctioned for use in the USA for use in soft drinks like Diet Coke, and Diet Pepsi, as well as most other uses like coffee sweeteners. But if you go to Japan, you will find that Diet Coke is sweetened with a natural sweetener that works just as well called stevia. This sweetener is extracted from a plant that was determined to be unsuitable for use as a sweetener in the USA, and is only permitted to be used as a dietary supplement.

If you look into the background of this topic, you will find that there are some hazards involved with using the Monsanto version of a sweetener, and you will find there are millions of people who found no hazards with using the natural stevia alternative. You will also find that Monsanto has their own agenda to promote the use of their version of sweetener, to the tune of millions of dollars. And any normal-brained person who reads up on it may begin to think the reason why USA citizens are using the Monsanto version is because Monsanto used their influence to cause the testing and approval methods to be biased. In fact, you may find there were no double blind tests done to show any hazards involved with using the natural stevia extract that is used in Japan and many European countries as a sweetener.

My opinion is Monsanto, and drug producing companies do not have an interest in proof. Their interest is in making a profit. I think they will use any kind of test or study that is necessary to satisfy the governing agencies to allow them to make their profits.

But getting back to what does a double blind test show...
I think it shows evidence, not proof.
The proof is formulated in the mind of the person who interprets the evidence.

You are free to believe whatever you want to the contrary

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

I am a staunch skeptic.
I am skeptical about a lot of things I read in the remote sensing forum.
I am skeptical about Dr. hung's claim that gold DNA produces a substance that coats the metal to protect it from oxidation.
I am skeptical about the claim that some people make to suggest that gold does not corrode when it is buried in the ground.
I am skeptical about the claim that there are hand-held LRLs that can locate buried metals from a long distance.
I am skeptical that all popular drugs approved by the FDA are the best remedy to use for the most popular ailments.

But you are not skeptical that you are skeptical? How did you prove that? By single blind test?

[J_Player]

But you are not skeptical that you are skeptical? How did you prove that? By single blind test?

No, I saw for myself.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

But you are not skeptical that you are skeptical? How did you prove that? By single blind test?

No, I saw for myself.

Best wishes,
J_P

Maybe you interpreted the results incorrectly.