rangertell examiner field trials

[Theseus]

I have not been suckered into thinking signal lines do exist or do not exist. I prefer to decide what to think about them after I conduct some tests that produce data I can base a decision on. Thank you for posting your hope.

Best wishes,
J_P

Do you have an "active" schedule for conducting those tests, or might they be delayed for as long as the Examiner testing? "Hope" you get time to work them in your schedule.

I conducted several tests, back in the 80s, to determine that "signal lines" were an imaginary entitiy, invented strictly to fool the technically-challenged.

"Hope" you can catch up soon.

[J_Player]

Do you have an "active" schedule for conducting those tests, or might they be delayed for as long as the Examiner testing? "Hope" you get time to work them in your schedule.

I conducted several tests, back in the 80s, to determine that "signal lines" were an imaginary entitiy, invented strictly to fool the technically-challenged.

"Hope" you can catch up soon.

I haven't made a schedule to test signal lines. I don't currently own the correct test equipment needed to detect the kind of signal that was described to be a signal line. Quite a few other tests are ongoing, which I have not decided to post in Geotech at this time. Perhaps if you posted a detailed report showing the tests you completed to determine signal lines don't exist, it would help to enlighten forum readers for the time being. I, for one would like to see definitive proof that signal lines do or don't exist instead of opinions.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

I haven't made a schedule to test signal lines. I don't currently own the correct test equipment needed to detect the kind of signal that was described to be a signal line. Quite a few other tests are ongoing, which I have not decided to post in Geotech at this time. Perhaps if you posted a detailed report showing the tests you completed to determine signal lines don't exist, it would help to enlighten forum readers for the time being. I, for one would like to see definitive proof that signal lines do or don't exist instead of opinions.

Best wishes,
J_P

Do you have the same "neutral" view about Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy as you do about Signal Lines?

Have you gathered the "correct" test equipment and scheduled the tests so you can come to an informed decision about Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy; and until you do, will you be "on the fence about their existence"?

Try to remember, the burden of proof is on those making the claims for Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy and Signal Lines. No credible evidence has ever been shown for any of those things, and it is not up to the rest of the world to prove a negative. Plain and simple.

[hung]

I conducted several tests, back in the 80s, to determine that "signal lines" were an imaginary entitiy, invented strictly to fool the technically-challenged.

Sam, you must be very, very stupid into thinking you can fool people in this forum about your tests.

Do you really think there are retardeds here?

You actually proved nothing. You found nothing about signal lines, specially in the 80's with no right equipment to measure its existence.
Well unless you were using one of Raudive's Spiricom...

Let's talk about 1981.
What kind of equipment in existence at the time, could be used to measure or display any signals when the gifted children in the Telekinetics experiment in China, teleported the objects from one place to another employing quantum psi waves, other than cameras and radio receivers to confirm the teleportation?

Time goes, time returns... Still no inteligent life signals from skepthics here.

[Theseus]

You actually proved nothing. You found nothing about signal lines, specially in the 80's with no right equipment to measure its existence.

Sam? As you are on a great many topics you like to expound on; you must be seriously confused.

Time goes and time returns, and still Hung produces no valid evidence for his claims.

"Signal Lines" are nothing more than a concoction of lies from LRL/MFD salesmen like yourself.

Your time has come and gone... and still you remain empty-handed in your little pseudo-scientific world. What a waste.

[J_Player]

Do you have the same "neutral" view about Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy as you do about Signal Lines?

Have you gathered the "correct" test equipment and scheduled the tests so you can come to an informed decision about Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy; and until you do, will you be "on the fence about their existence"?

Try to remember, the burden of proof is on those making the claims for Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy and Signal Lines. No credible evidence has ever been shown for any of those things, and it is not up to the rest of the world to prove a negative. Plain and simple.

Hi Theseus,
You failed to describe the test you made to prove signal lines don't exist.

If you recall, I asked
"...How scientific was your test?
What did you use for a control? ..."

I also asked to see a detailed report of the test you performed that proved signal lines are imaginary. If the burden of proof is on a person making a claim, then let's see your proof.

Or is it possible you never ran any scientific tests to prove what you are claiming?
Could this be simply more made up BS you are using to try to waste other people's time, or bully them into doing scientific testing that you never did?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Sooooo.... you do believe in Santa Claus and the The Tooth Fairy. (I'm not surprised)

Do you also work for Hung and R-T on a commission basis?

Might I remind you; some of the truth in this world is self-evident and really doesn't require buying test equipment and rearranging your busy schedule to test for it.

[Qiaozhi]

Let's talk about 1981.
What kind of equipment in existence at the time, could be used to measure or display any signals when the gifted children in the Telekinetics experiment in China, teleported the objects from one place to another employing quantum psi waves, other than cameras and radio receivers to confirm the teleportation?

Time goes, time returns... Still no inteligent life signals from skepthics here.

That's one of your best!

No comment needed.

[hung]

Sam? As you are on a great many topics you like to expound on; you must be seriously confused.

Time goes and time returns, and still Hung produces no valid evidence for his claims.

"Signal Lines" are nothing more than a concoction of lies from LRL/MFD salesmen like yourself.

Your time has come and gone... and still you remain empty-handed in your little pseudo-scientific world. What a waste.

First, I'm no LRL salesman. I'm a LRL user, Sam.

Second, I state again that your limited knowledge of science do not allow you to acknowledge what is happening and has already happened out there in terms of scientific events and due to that I know for a fact that you have never performed any tests on this subject simply because you have not or had not any realiable way to confirm or not a scientific observation.
So, stop being ridiculous.

Pal, I do not have the time nor feel like wasting my precious one arguing with types as yourself and also your skepthics peers here.

I am quite right you don't have the slightest idea of what I am talking about regarding the experiment performed in China.
So, before you write more BS on an alien subject to you, here's your chance to read about it and at least have a chance to write BS on something that you became aware before you get a punch right between your eyes from facts themselves.

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,327684.0.html

Take your time to read.
And then, please don't say you were not allowed the chance to free yourself from darkness later.

[J_Player]

Sooooo.... you do believe in Santa Claus and the The Tooth Fairy. (I'm not surprised)

Do you also work for Hung and R-T on a commission basis?

Might I remind you; some of the truth in this world is self-evident and really doesn't require buying test equipment and rearranging your busy schedule to test for it.

If you recall, I said nothing about Santa Clause or tooth fairies. Those are claims you did not succeed in putting in my post.
If you are capable of reading what was claimed, you can see your inquisition was on the topic of "signal lines" for which I said "I don't know" if they are being radiated or returned because I don't have the correct equipment to measure them.
However, you said you did test them and arrived at a determination to make a definite statement of fact about signal lines:

Statements you made:
"That claim is what I contend IS NOT HAPPENING, and if you think there is a possibility it could be happening (as claimed) you are sorely mistaken..."

Tests you said you made that prove your statement of fact:
"I conducted several tests, back in the 80s, to determine that "signal lines" were an imaginary entitiy".

As you stated, the burden of proof lies with a person making a claim.
So where is your proof? You failed at the second request to prove your claims.

There are plenty of skeptics and LRL enthusiasts who would like to see the data from the tests you conducted that show definitive prove signal lines are an imaginary entity.
So I ask again:

How scientific was your test?
What did you use for a control?

Let's see a detailed report that shows your proof so we can also read the data to determine whether signal lines are an imaginary entity or not.

Or is is possible you never really made any scientific tests?
Are you simply making up tests you never performed like some LRL enthusiasts are reputed to do?
Shall we presume your claims are fake, and you really did not perform any tests to support them?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

If you recall, I said nothing about Santa Clause or tooth fairies. Those are claims you did not succeed in putting in my post.
If you are capable of reading what was claimed, you can see your inquisition was on the topic of "signal lines" for which I said "I don't know" if they are being radiated or returned because I don't have the correct equipment to measure them.
However, you said you did test them and arrived at a determination to make a definite statement of fact about signal lines:

Statements you made:
"That claim is what I contend IS NOT HAPPENING, and if you think there is a possibility it could be happening (as claimed) you are sorely mistaken..."

Tests you said you made that prove your statement of fact:
"I conducted several tests, back in the 80s, to determine that "signal lines" were an imaginary entitiy".

As you stated, the burden of proof lies with a person making a claim.
So where is your proof? You failed at the second request to prove your claims.

There are plenty of skeptics and LRL enthusiasts who would like to see the data from the tests you conducted that show definitive prove signal lines are an imaginary entity.
So I ask again:

How scientific was your test?
What did you use for a control?

Let's see a detailed report that shows your proof so we can also read the data to determine whether signal lines are an imaginary entity or not.

Or is is possible you never really made any scientific tests?
Are you simply making up tests you never performed like some LRL enthusiasts are reputed to do?
Shall we presume your claims are fake, and you really did not perform any tests to support them?

Best wishes,
J_P

He doth protest too much, methinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lad...much,_methinks.

Couldn't resist it!

Regarding the so-called "signal lines", you can get the real story here:

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

[Theseus]

He doth protest too much, methinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lad...much,_methinks.

Couldn't resist it!

Regarding the so-called "signal lines", you can get the real story here:
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/page...rl_qa.dat&zoom

It appears most evident that J_P is not really interested in any sort of evidence why Signal Lines (LRL related) DO NOT exist.

From the reference you gave, it clearly states why they aren't real.

Q: Why do people believe signal lines exist?
A: MFDs are dowsing devices. As such, people who use them often experience the "dowsing response", which is usually a sensation that the device (or rods) is doing something on its own, such as moving or hesitating. Even though the real source of this sensation comes from the movement of the user's own hand, people assume that it is caused by an external influence. The appearance that the MFD responds as if there is an external influence, has manifested itself into a belief that the MFD is responding to an external influence. The belief of choice is the signal line.


Even if I had the time to scan and post all of my data and test protocol details, it would not be convincing to J_P. (and I don't have the time) He'd rather keep running around in proverbial circles, looking for the proper test equipment, locating volunteers, questioning the validity of his sample Examiner... and all other manner of stall tactics.

Why? I've asked myself. Is he that afraid of the outcome, such that avoiding the test altogether precludes ever having to face the reality of actually making a decision... and taking a firm stance.

Must be terribly uncomfortable, always straddling the fence he is perched on.

[J_Player]

He doth protest too much, methinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lad...much,_methinks.

Couldn't resist it!

Regarding the so-called "signal lines", you can get the real story here:
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/page...rl_qa.dat&zoom

Hi Qiaozhi,
I agree. I have the same general opinion about signal lines as most metal detectorists have until someone can demonstrate otherwise.

And now we finally have a forum member who says he actually performed tests to prove they are imaginary. He keeps protesting to drag Santa and tooth fairies into his inquisition, yet he cannot simply show the data from his alleged tests to prove his claims of testing. Isn't this valuable skeptic information that any skeptic would be anxious to show?

He still continues to make excuses for why he can't show his test data.
He uses the same methods as LRL promoters use to evade backing up his claims of testing.
So far, my opinion is he is he did no testing, and he will protest any request to prove he did.

But regardless of whether Theseus made up stories about his testing or not, I still won't spend any money to buy a gizmo that finds treasure from signal lines unless I can see it actually working to find hidden treasures first.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Qiaozhi,
And now we finally have a forum member who says he actually performed tests to prove they are imaginary. He keeps protesting to drag Santa and tooth fairies into his inquisition, yet he cannot simply show the data from his alleged tests to prove his claims of testing. Isn't this valuable skeptic information that any skeptic would be anxious to show?

J_P

Not sure how many times I need to repeat this.

It's not that I don't have the data, it's located in a collection of notes, yellow-grid engineering paper and small spiral notebooks. I simply do not have the desire or the time to dig into the source, rent time on a scanner and try to place it on a public forum. Not to mention the fact; I already know ahead of time, you would not be satisfied by it anyway since it is my data and you did not observe it being recorded.

I guess you'll just have to believe my data on faith. After all, if you are a theist, you believe and accept your beliefs on blind faith - so I guess that's what you'll have to do here, in regards to my test results and conclusions.

[J_Player]

Not sure how many times I need to repeat this.

It's not that I don't have the data, it's located in a collection of notes, yellow-grid engineering paper and small spiral notebooks. I simply do not have the desire or the time to dig into the source, rent time on a scanner and try to place it on a public forum. Not to mention the fact; I already know ahead of time, you would not be satisfied by it anyway since it is my data and you did not observe it being recorded.

I guess you'll just have to believe my data on faith. After all, if you are a theist, you believe and accept your beliefs on blind faith - so I guess that's what you'll have to do here, in regards to my test results and conclusions.

I never asked for scans of yellow grid paper and spiral notebooks. I only asked to see the evidence that you actually performed testing. Specifically, to tell us:

How scientific was your test?
What did you use for a control?

Let's see a detailed report that shows your proof so we can also read the data to determine whether signal lines are an imaginary entity or not.

No scanning is necessary, simply tell us how the test was conducted, what protocol, what controls, and the data from the results. Just type in the answers so we can see how your test proved that signal lines are imaginary. Then we can all know for sure instead of relying on hearsay and logical arguments that had no testing to support it. If this was a scientific test, then we skeptics will finally have indisputable proof when we tell people signal lines don't exist. It does not need to satisfy me, as long as the proof is there. Any skeptic will easily accept your scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary. Some LRL enthusiasts may change their views on "signal lines" after reading tour test report, and a lot of undecided treasure hunters could become convinced. And I will be happy to admit I was wrong to think you did not conduct any test.

My guess is you cannot tell us what protocol, controls and data because there was no protocol, controls, data, or test made at all. The brings to mind the time when hung insisted he made tests to find a signal from the Rangertell calculator, but after Carl-NC pointed out it is obvious he did not, he quickly got a cheap voltmeter and took some measurements so people wouldn't think he just made up the story of how he actually ran tests.

If you really did make tests that proved the signal line is imaginary, then I am surprised you never published the results to support your argument. This is the only information that can validate your claims that you ran tests. Yet you are still making excuses why you cannot disclose the details of this test. Shall we presume you never conducted this test, or do you actually have details you could describe?

Best wishes,
J_P