rangertell examiner field trials

[WM6]

It took me the total of 1 minute and 45 seconds to locate it, pinpoint it, dig it and recover it. All with the examiner.

Oh, almost forgot. It's a 20 centavos brazilian coin, 1970.

You forgot to say that you first took total 22 minutes to buried those mineoro centavos in your backyard.

[Fred]

It took me the total of 1 minute and 45 seconds to locate it, pinpoint it, dig it and recover it. All with the examiner.

Did you also use a regular MD to pinpoint it ? because i can´t see how you can hold the RT horizontal while pinpointing at a few cm distance...

[WM6]

Is this your request for a test to be performed, or is it a challenge against the test protocol that Theseus asked to see performed?

I agree with Theseus protocol, request is only on additional measure to prevent lack of for test validity decisive data.

[WM6]

because i can´t see how you can hold the RT horizontal while pinpointing at a few cm distance...

They convert it in RT Pistol.

You cannot see because it was done in seventh dimension of his back(yard) and then coming back to blackyard.

There was an unrepeatable phenomenon.

[Qiaozhi]

Humm... No moderating then. Now you are 'mr. administrator' whose only duties cover threats to members of getting their posts deleted...Situation is worse than I thought. And you infer that I'm subject to this for 'name callings'.

I do not recall "threatening" anyone. In fact we have been particularly lenient towards yourself. With the number of personal insults you have directed at Carl and others on this forum, I'm surprised Carl has not banned you a long time ago. Perhaps it is the amusement factor that weighs in your favor.

So, you have never had any 'name calling' post towards myself along all this time? Hilarious.

I do not indulge in name calling. If you cannot take the heat (i.e. criticism) then get out of the fire.

Anyway, this would never happened in our current LRL closed group forum. 'Types' as yourself would not even be allowed to join, much less getting posts deleted as you would not even get to this point.

I wouldn't expect anything different from your "LRL Closed Group Forum". It's the usual close-minded head-in-sand approach. Good luck in your current wild goose chase.

Hey mr. administrator, what contributions have you provided to the RS forum to date? Even Carl, your boss, gave some, like his MFD project. Frequencies are completely wrong, but he did contribute.
What about you, uh? Allow me to answer it for ya: you gave nothing. None, nada, nil.

That doesn't even make sense.

Well, except for that crap PD schematics full of mistakes that I had to retrace for the private email group at the time.

Considering the people who were involved in the PD back-engineering, the accuracy of the schematic is extremely high, and since the majority of the design was an exact copy of an ancient Heathkit T/R detector, the mistakes in that part are zero. The fake video you posted of your own PD only serves to show your desperation in promoting this nonsense.

Mirror Ivconic. Being a much more competent EE than you are, he is as much of a sekptical as you, but he had the guts to leave. But you...
Explain your big contradiction here to the forum. A self confessed skeptic who does not admit LRLs, yet insists in remaining here demanding people like Esteban for instance, to provide working schematics as 'proof', just to benefit from it. Just like a bloodsucking leech to get one's sweat and efforts for free...
Always wanted lunch for free, eh? What a shame...

You are very very confused. No-one here is "demanding" Esteban to provide a working schematic. On the contrary, the LRL proponents come to this forum of their own free will and post extraordinary claims. If you post such claims then you must be prepared to be challenged. Many times you and Esteban have been politely asked to supply a simple LRL design that can be replicated to confirm your claims. Many years later ... what do we find? ... Still nothing. Conclusion - LRLs do not work as advertised.

The PD is a different subject, and the details were supplied by another member. Have you already forgotten the panic attack you had when you discovered that skeptics were about to learn the "secret" of the Alonso PD? The "secret" was of course that it was copied from a detector kit designed in the 1970s.

[Qiaozhi]

Hey mr. Administrator, take a look at what your 'idemotor' effect has done to me this afternoon at my brother's backyard.
It took me the total of 1 minute and 45 seconds to locate it, pinpoint it, dig it and recover it. All with the examiner.

Now seriously... Go back to read what ideomotor is. You don't have a clue what it is. Hint, start by some german sites...

Oh, almost forgot. It's a 20 centavos brazilian coin, 1970.

That's funny!

This what I meant about the amusement factor.

[Jim]

Hey mr. Administrator, take a look at what your 'idemotor' effect has done to me this afternoon at my brother's backyard.
It took me the total of 1 minute and 45 seconds to locate it, pinpoint it, dig it and recover it. All with the examiner.

Now seriously... Go back to read what ideomotor is. You don't have a clue what it is. Hint, start by some german sites...

Oh, almost forgot. It's a 20 centavos brazilian coin, 1970.

Awww...you've started padding threads with staged photographs like your comrade Art.

Isn't that special

[J_Player]

....we have been particularly lenient towards yourself. With the number of personal insults you have directed at Carl and others on this forum, I'm surprised Carl has not banned you a long time ago. Perhaps it is the amusement factor that weighs in your favor.

Hey...
You are right about that. I like the amusement factor a lot.

From the time I learned the new hungScience where signal lines are shot and returned, and the secret gold DNA produced substance that coats gold to protect it from oxidation, I knew that Geotech would be a good place to look for amusement. And the stories I hear of great achievements from the secret team along with debunkering are enough to make me watch patiently for the next Dr. hung episode.

I guess I could sum up hung's contributions in a single image:
.

[WM6]

This what I meant about the amusement factor.

Hovever, maybe hung is right (see on his "coin finding" picture), because he has scientific HP calculator on his RT, not common Casio.

I am somewhat in doubt only because of the soil from flower pots on his brasilian coin.

[Theseus]

Wow! Your latest discussion (dissertation) in the area of the possible "halo effect" was most impressive...

Excerpt... "What we do know is that in some cases, a long-time buried metal object will give a larger than normal signal until after it is dug. Your source of information would have us believe the larger signal is caused by corroding metal ions creating a battery in the ground, with the help of water and natural acids and sulfur compounds that are rinsed into the soil when it is rainy."

....and must have taken some significant time to put together and pen.

With those kinds of resources available to you, I'm wondering if you have also had similar resources and time to devote to the rather "quiet" topic of Examiner testing?

What's been happening in that arena... now that the rains and mud are gone?

What happened with the GeoTech member who was coming to your location to try the device and run through a few tests?

Any videos up on the "special" website you were creating for the reporting of the test results?

Just kind of wondering what happened....

[J_Player]

Wow! Your latest discussion (dissertation) in the area of the possible "halo effect" was most impressive...

Excerpt... "What we do know is that in some cases, a long-time buried metal object will give a larger than normal signal until after it is dug. Your source of information would have us believe the larger signal is caused by corroding metal ions creating a battery in the ground, with the help of water and natural acids and sulfur compounds that are rinsed into the soil when it is rainy."

....and must have taken some significant time to put together and pen.

With those kinds of resources available to you, I'm wondering if you have also had similar resources and time to devote to the rather "quiet" topic of Examiner testing?

What's been happening in that arena... now that the rains and mud are gone?

What happened with the GeoTech member who was coming to your location to try the device and run through a few tests?

Any videos up on the "special" website you were creating for the reporting of the test results?

Just kind of wondering what happened....

Hi Theseus,
It takes a lot less resoruces than you might imagine when I have electronic tools at hand.

I don't generally conduct the kind of tests you want to see until after I establish a base line, which I haven't been able to do yet. However, I have spent considerable time making adjustments trying to establish a baseline, and arrived at a conclusion that I must be biologically impaired. Either that, or the Examiner is damaged in a way that prevents it from functioning as intended by the designer. The amount of time that passes before testing begins is more than most people realize when considering the scheduling and preparations that must be mobilized at a test site, and do not compare to the time to make a long forum post.

I was planning to send the Examiner back to the factory to exchange it for a replacement in order to see if a fresh one makes a difference in my ability to locate treasure. This would tend to confirm that I am biologically impaired or not, and remove all doubts that there is any damage that makes the Examiner non-functional. However, with the appearance of a volunteer, I decided to wait until he is ready to try to establish a base line with the examiner. I consider this much preferable to sending the Examiner back, because the response we see from another LRL operator may be able to show if I am biologically impaired, or if the Examiner simply needs replacement.

So I will hang onto the Examiner until the volunteer has had a chance to try the Examiner and see if we can establish a base line to perform tests with.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,
It takes a lot less resoruces than you might imagine when I have electronic tools at hand.

I don't generally conduct the kind of tests you want to see until after I establish a base line, which I haven't been able to do yet. However, I have spent considerable time making adjustments trying to establish a baseline, and arrived at a conclusion that I must be biologically impaired. Either that, or the Examiner is damaged in a way that prevents it from functioning as intended by the designer. The amount of time that passes before testing begins is more than most people realize when considering the scheduling and preparations that must be mobilized at a test site, and do not compare to the time to make a long forum post.

I was planning to send the Examiner back to the factory to exchange it for a replacement in order to see if a fresh one makes a difference in my ability to locate treasure. This would tend to confirm that I am biologically impaired or not, and remove all doubts that there is any damage that makes the Examiner non-functional. However, with the appearance of a volunteer, I decided to wait until he is ready to try to establish a base line with the examiner. I consider this much preferable to sending the Examiner back, because the response we see from another LRL operator may be able to show if I am biologically impaired, or if the Examiner simply needs replacement.

So I will hang onto the Examiner until the volunteer has had a chance to try the Examiner and see if we can establish a base line to perform tests with.

Best wishes,
J_P

I thought you had definitely determined, some time ago, that you were not personally going to be able to test the device.

At present, after trying to locate known targets with the Examiner adjusted at the factory settings, and re-adjusted to different settings, I have concluded that I am a person who is biologically impaired, and cannot perform a scientific test on an Examiner even if it is tuned perfectly.

Bringing in the volunteer should prove that what you suspect is actually true. On the other hand, if the volunteer at least gets a response from the device for targets in plain sight, but fails to get accurate results on targets that are unknown to him; might you still conclude the device is damaged and have to send it back?

I'm curious at what point, a conclusion may be drawn that in fact the device simply does not live up to the advertised claims? Seems like we could be chasing our tail here.... to infinity.

[J_Player]

I thought you had definitely determined, some time ago, that you were not personally going to be able to test the device.

You can spend your time reading my previous posts and look for the words you need to formulate what you want to think. My conclusion is that I am biologically impaired. Any uncertainty is a matter of degree of impairment, not a question of whether the impairment exists. Until I see some evidence that I am able to find a suitable response, I will consider myself to be a poor choice as an operator of the Examiner. However, I will be conducting tests if I see a base line can be established. I suspect you are aware that I am capable of conducting tests without being the operator of the Examiner.

Bringing in the volunteer should prove that what you suspect is actually true. On the other hand, if the volunteer at least gets a response from the device for targets in plain sight, but fails to get accurate results on targets that are unknown to him; might you still conclude the device is damaged and have to send it back?

Unless I see that that this Examiner is ready to perform a number of documented tests, I plan to send it back for a replacement. I leave the conclusions to others.

I'm curious at what point, a conclusion may be drawn that in fact the device simply does not live up to the advertised claims? Seems like we could be chasing our tail here.... to infinity.

For your purposes you may be wise to draw that conclusion now. In fact, it surprises me you even have an interest in any of my activities with the Examiner after reading your previous post where you stated:
"I will consider the once bally-whoed testing of the Examiner as permanently closed, and will promise to quit "bugging" you about getting on with it".


Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

You can spend your time reading my previous posts and look for the words you need to formulate what you want to think. My conclusion is that I am biologically impaired. Any uncertainty is a matter of degree of impairment, not a question of whether the impairment exists. Until I see some evidence that I am able to find a suitable response, I will consider myself to be a poor choice as an operator of the Examiner. However, I will be conducting tests if I see a base line can be established. I suspect you are aware that I am capable of conducting tests without being the operator of the Examiner.
Unless I see that that this Examiner is ready to perform a number of documented tests, I plan to send it back for a replacement. I leave the conclusions to others.
For your purposes you may be wise to draw that conclusion now. In fact, it surprises me you even have an interest in any of my activities with the Examiner after reading your previous post where you stated:
"I will consider the once bally-whoed testing of the Examiner as permanently closed, and will promise to quit "bugging" you about getting on with it".


Best wishes,
J_P

Well, I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but perhaps I'm wasting my time, and should simply (as you recommend) revert to my earlier conclusion: I will consider the once bally-whoed testing of the Examiner as permanently closed...

...especially in light of you not coming forward with a scheduled time frame for your volunteer(?) to arrive.

incredibly sad really, when you consider we are approaching 600 postings in this thread, and the readership is no closer today, to seeing test results, than we were when the thread was started.

(Incidentally, I'm not Ernie... perhaps your ref was simply in error.)

[J_Player]

(Incidentally, I'm not Ernie... perhaps your ref was simply in error.)

Yes, it was an error. Sorry.

Best wishes,
J_P