rangertell examiner field trials

[Theseus]

"Can you describe the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world?"

Graham, when you get through with your ducking and dodging routine, I'll still be waiting for your answer.

There is no way I will waste a lot of valuable time placing a target up here, to then have you merely argue that it is worthless and unacceptable as proof "signal lines" do not exist. Do you think I was born yesterday and can't see through your little dance routine? (rhetorical)

Throw up all the straw men you want; but when you get tired, just remember the question above still needs an answer from you.

Speaking of delay tactics; what progress are you making towards completing the Examiner field trials?

[J_Player]

"Can you describe the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world?"

Graham, when you get through with your ducking and dodging routine, I'll still be waiting for your answer.

There is no way I will waste a lot of valuable time placing a target up here, to then have you merely argue that it is worthless and unacceptable as proof "signal lines" do not exist. Do you think I was born yesterday and can't see through your little dance routine? (rhetorical)

Throw up all the straw men you want; but when you get tired, just remember the question above still needs an answer from you.

Speaking of delay tactics; what progress are you making towards completing the Examiner field trials?

I already told you twice the answer. Scroll up and read it.
It is here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...&postcount=692
and here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...&postcount=705

I answered your question yesterday and repeated them today.
Still you consider you have no burden of proof?
Guess again!

They were your own words: "Try to remember, the burden of proof is on those making the claims..."
And it was also you who made the claim: "I conducted several tests, back in the 80s, to determine that "signal lines" were an imaginary entity"

So what happened to your burden of proof?
Would you like to modify your statement to say A) "The burden of proof is on those people other than me making the claims"?
Or maybe you want to modify your statement to say B) "I never made any tests in 1988 or any other time on signal lines, and this is the reason I cannot tell any details of a test I never did"

Have you chosen option-A to avoid being discovered as a fraud if you choose option B?
Or is there another reason?
Is it possible that you actually did perform some sort of test, but are afraid to tell any details of it because some readers may recognize the test incident and discover a secret identity which you don't wish to reveal?
Nah, I don't think that is likely. Everyone knows you, they love you, they can't live without you. The most probable scenario in my opinion is you didn't perform any tests on signal lines.

You already had my answers for two days now. Any weird ideas that your burden of proof is contingent on what I think, say or do is mistaken. Only the test evidence has any importance in determining proof, not peoples opinion about a test. But you knew that because you read what Carl had to say about it. You are just wasting time making excuses for what? So you don't have to admit you never did a test?
Did you?
Prove it.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

I don't want to enter into this "discussion" ... but only to say that the burden of proof is on the person(s) who are claiming that signal lines exist, not on everyone else to disprove it. Someone waving a couple of sticks around in the air, and stating that they can feel the force, does not constitute proof.

Some time ago I used an analogy where I stated that there was a tea tray in orbit around the Earth, and challenged others to disprove it. If that sounds silly ... well, it is! But the same concept applies to signal lines. The most you could ever hope to prove is that someone claiming they can feel the signal line should be tested using doubled-blind methods. Even if the (inevitable) result shows that the person being tested cannot detect the lines, it does not prove their non-existence. It only proves that they were not detected.

This is why the burden of proof is on the claimant. Otherwise you could keep scanning Earth's orbit for the tea tray, only to be told, "Keep searching, it's definitely there. You're just not looking in the right place".

[J_Player]

This is why the burden of proof is on the claimant. Otherwise you could keep scanning Earth's orbit for the tea tray, only to be told, "Keep searching, it's definitely there. You're just not looking in the right place".

I agree. This is a basic principle that is used in the legal system of every civilized country. In this case we see someone coming around boasting about how he made tests that show proof, yet is not able to describe what kind of tests for the reason "it takes too much time". When he learned it is not necessary to retrieve documents and scan them, but to simply describe the test, we heard a new reason why he no longer had the burden to prove his claim that he conducted tests: He is afraid his tests would not be convincing to skeptics! (You recall I answered him "In short, any test report that would convince Carl-NC that you ran a test that proves signal lines are imaginary" is satisfactory). So he is afraid his testing would not convince Carl-NC he conducted a test that proves signal lines are imaginary?

This sounds similar to an excuse an LRL promoter uses to typically avoid proving he conducted tests to demonstrate his scientific discoveries. We are expected to believe his alleged tests took place and therefore he also has the scientific discoveries which he keeps secret for his own use. So we must believe that he is the only person who has actually tested and proved these discoveries, without providing any details or proof that he made these tests. His latest excuse was "I have absolutely no interest whasoever in discussing it or convincing anyone about it. But even if I did have... no, I beleive I would not be able to convince you or some skeptics here and I doubt it that I would ever be".

Now Theseus has copied this exact same excuse used by the LRL promoter to evade showing that he actually did testing on signal lines and arrived at a determination, when it seems obvious he did not. He brags about how he made tests to determine that signal lines are imaginary, yet cannot even describe these tests. The issue is not whether the test results were convincing. It is whether any tests were done at all!

What makes more sense?
Does Theseus also have a secret bunker where he and his team perform tests that are so secret they cannot be talked about?
Or did he simply make up the story of conducting tests of signal lines?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

The title of this thread is "Rangertell Examiner Field Trials". I mention it in passing, wondering what the latest status (excuses) are at this point in time..... and the silence was deafening. Shhhhhhhhhhh........

But going off topic again; "The issue is not whether the tests were actually conducted, because they were. Rather, the issue is having you tell me.... "the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world?"

I can repeat that request just as many times as you want, Graham.

ps:.... the tea tray fell out of orbit last week and is buried in my back yard.

[J_Player]

I can repeat that request just as many times as you want...

Sure you can repeat your request. You can also continue to pretend I didn't answer it. But what you can't do is describe the alleged testing you claimed to do.
As a reminder, here is the answer:

Any test that the owner of this forum would describe as a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary is satisfactory. As far as presentation, the protocol should be described, along with any controls that were used, a list of the data observed in the test results, and any other pertinent information you want to include. In short, any test report that would convince Carl-NC that you ran a test that proves signal lines are imaginary.

So far, my predictions are correct:

Here is my prediction:
You will not tell any details of your alleged testing to determine signal lines are imaginary.
Instead you will produce excuses, and raise hurdles that others must first pass before you will consider describing the details of your tests.
In the end you will never show test details.
Yet you will attempt to maintain you have conducted tests while failing to show any real evidence you conducted tests.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Whenever you can verbalize the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world, ....just let me know, so I format my data accordingly.

Since you refuse to do that, in the meantime.... what about the subject of this thread?

RangerTell Examiner Field Trials -- What's the latest status, excuses related to this topic?

You are the one who claimed you would test and report on this item. "Try to remember, the burden of proof is on those making the claims..."

[J_Player]

Whenever you can verbalize the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world, ....just let me know, so I format my data accordingly.

Sure, here it is typed out the fourth time: "Any test that the owner of this forum would describe as a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary is satisfactory. As far as presentation, the protocol should be described, along with any controls that were used, a list of the data observed in the test results, and any other pertinent information you want to include. In short, any test report that would convince Carl-NC that you ran a test that proves signal lines are imaginary".

In case your intellect doesn't have the resolving power to understand what it means, I can diagram what it means in precise detail:
1. You can format the data in any type or content you want provided Carl-NC can read it and identify it as a scientific test you ran that proves signal lines are imaginary. This includes all types, contents, and formats that you may want to use, provided they are acceptable to Carl-NC. (Of course, this is easy for you, as you have shown you generally follow the types and formats that Carl-NC uses).
2. Your test report should describe the protocol and any controls you used for the tests.
3. Your test report should include the test result data you observed.
4. You may (at your option) include any additional information that you consider pertinent.

As you can see I placed no limitations on the type, content or format for the data other than Carl-NC can read it and identify it as a scientific test you ran that proves signal lines are imaginary. This would of necessity rule out making a test report in chinese symbols, or printing white type over a white background. Since we know Carl is reasonable, we know he accepts any reasonable test types and data formats that do not violate the rules of testing. And since there are unlimited ways to format any type or content of valid tests, I don't see a reason to rule any of them out.

Now you have your answer the fourth time. You know what type, content and format is acceptable. Basically there are no restrictions on the type, content or formatting of the data as long as they don't invalidate the test or make it illegible or otherwise obscure the data. The fact is I don't care about the formatting as long as it is comprehensible and the data can be understood by a casual reader. I care more about the content. That is the reason I summed up what is acceptable by saying: "In short, any test report that would convince Carl-NC that you ran a test that proves signal lines are imaginary". Why not use the type and content you used for the tests you ran in 1988?

Carl's concept of testing theory is more similar to mine than what I find from most other forum members. So if what you present as a test convinces Carl-NC you ran tests that proved signal lines are imaginary, then you will have no problem convincing me as well. And even if he doesn't consider your tests to be conclusive proof, they still may be very good evidence.

Take note: A test you ran in 1988 is a test from outside sources I did not observe, so your question is answered.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

Hi.
Can you give me the protocol that i must keep to, so to prove that the signal lines there are??
Of course it is not so often phenomenon but i saw it some times. If the protocol that you talk is easy, then next time that i will see it i could take a video.

Regards

[Theseus]

Nice duck and dodge, Graham.

1. You can format the data.....
2. Your test report should describe.....
3. Your test report should include.....
4. You may (at your option) include any.....

Contrary to you, I have been designing, conducting and overseeing experimental test procedures (specifically electronic instrumentation) for probably longer than you have been on this planet. Your points above (1 thru 4) are the most elementary, and obvious, that even the most novice engineers and test technicians are aware of as basic requirements. (There are several others you've not included, but I'm assuming that's because you are covering ground that is totally foreign to you.)

Iterating the obvious, as a smoke screen to avoid what I asked for, may fool some here; but it does not satisfy my original request.

Further, I am very aware that; "Any test that the owner of this forum would describe as a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary is satisfactory."


Now, what I need from you is for you to verbalize the actual explanation you would accept as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world.

Once I see that; we can quit playing your circular delay tactic game, I can evaluate if my test protocol and results will be accepted by you and will be worth my time and effort to transcribe it to this forum. Alternatively, if I determine my test results are not something that will "cause you to believe" - than I'm not wasting my time putting it up here.

BTW, why do you keep ignoring my question about the current status of the RangerTell Examiner Field Trials?

[J_Player]

"....just let me know, so I format my data accordingly".

You have your answer regardless of whether you choose to ignore the details I gave.

Here are the details you omitted from my post that verbalized the actual type and content of the data I would accept:
...format the data in any type or content you want provided Carl-NC can read it and identify it as a scientific test you ran that proves signal lines are imaginary.
...describe the protocol and any controls you used for the tests.
...include the test result data you observed.
...include any additional information that you consider pertinent.

What more information is necessary when you have been told that you can format the data any way you want?
Are you afraid Carl-NC will not be convinced you performed a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary?

If you really believe you no longer have the burdon of proof for your claim unless I specify a specific type and content, then I choose the type and content that you used in your alleged tests in the 80s to determine signal lines are imaginary.

Of course I cannot guess the exact type and content you used in your alleged tests, as there are unlimited types and content for tests. Any excuse that I didn't name the type and content you used won't work, because you never told what type or content appears in the alleged tests. The only smoke screen I see is the fact you can produce no information to substantiate that you conducted tests that prove signal lines are imaginary.
You can produce no information of type or content, no protocol, no controls, and no data.
It looks like you got nothing.

Did you actually perform any tests?
It seems obvious you did no testing of signal lines.
Did you also make up the story about testing LRLs?

Why should anyone believe you ever did testing, or that you really know any factual information about LRLs?
Isn't it true that everything you have to say about LRLs is selected secondhand information that you collected from others?
You have demonstrated that you are as credible as Dr. Hung when you copied his same excuses for why you can't substantiate your claims.


By the way, I don't feel compelled to pay attention to your request for a status report. You can scroll up and read the information about current testing status in my recent posts, and peruse some photos of actual signals I measured. Or you can scroll back farther to where you already decided the testing of the Examiner is permanently closed: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...&postcount=509
If you feel you are entited to have details of on-going testing forwarded to you, maybe you can explain on what basis you have earned this entitlement.


Best wishes,
J_P

[goldfinder]

What is proof?

I don't want to enter into this "discussion" ... but only to say that the burden of proof is on the person(s) who are claiming that signal lines exist, not on everyone else to disprove it. Someone waving a couple of sticks around in the air, and stating that they can feel the force, does not constitute proof.

Some time ago I used an analogy where I stated that there was a tea tray in orbit around the Earth, and challenged others to disprove it. If that sounds silly ... well, it is! But the same concept applies to signal lines. The most you could ever hope to prove is that someone claiming they can feel the signal line should be tested using doubled-blind methods. Even if the (inevitable) result shows that the person being tested cannot detect the lines, it does not prove their non-existence. It only proves that they were not detected.

This is why the burden of proof is on the claimant. Otherwise you could keep scanning Earth's orbit for the tea tray, only to be told, "Keep searching, it's definitely there. You're just not looking in the right place".

When you get down to the very basics, all proof at some level is a matter of faith. Faith in instrumentation, faith in yours or others test results, etc.

For example, saying I can feel the force or energies could very well be proof for me but obviously not for you. for myself - I am not interested in "proving" anything to anyone. I personally don't give a crap in your beliefs or what constitutes proof to you. If I or anyone else can find gold, treasure, or whatever methods or equipment they use to find it, GREAT, let them have at it. I don't operate in a mode that I have to justify any of my beliefs or existing operating methods as. My little world in not shook up by whatever someone else believes in so that I have to "disprove" them or their methods.

I also feel that if I have something that might help others I will pass it on. In my own researches I have been most grateful to some hint that someone passed to me that enabled me to operate in a better mode.

If someone wants to share some methodology they use I feel free to examine it, perhaps test it, and if useful, I'll incorporate it into my toolkit. If it doesn't seem worthwhile at any point I don't have to tear down the person or device.

So all these "proof" arguments. demands, etc. and critical bashing of someone else's methods is really a waste of time. Why don't we all just let whomever tell what methods, equipment, etc. they use and if interesting, get some details and quit all this bashing. It really wastes all our time to have to wade through a lot of BS to find a grain of truth. A simple "I tried it out and it doesn't work for me" is usually sufficient. You can't protect the morons. They have to learn it for themselves.

Goldifinder

[Theseus]

I must admit Graham, I can't figure out if you are really as dense as you portray yourself to be; or perhaps it's just an act.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. You seem to be hung up on how I "format" my test data and protocol definition, and what I include in my details.

...format the data in any type or content you want provided Carl-NC can read it and identify it as a scientific test you ran that proves signal lines are imaginary.
...describe the protocol and any controls you used for the tests.
...include the test result data you observed.
...include any additional information that you consider pertinent.

Now, for the very last time, Graham... it is not how I format the information, or how I describe it, or what I include in it; that I am concerned about. Trust me, I have been conducting tests, reducing data, drawing conclusions and putting my results in very readable report formats since before you found out the ASA rating of Panatomic X could be doubled with the proper mix of D-76, time and temperature adjustments.

My ONLY concern is what you would accept as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world.

If you can't or don't wish to verbalize that kind of information; just say so. I sense the readership is tiring of this "back and forth".... and I am too.



BTW, if this thread, Rangertell Examiner Field Trials, is in your mind closed because you have decided not to test the Examiner, might I suggest you request an Admin to close and lock the thread.

[J_Player]

I must admit Graham, I can't figure out if you are really as dense as you portray yourself to be; or perhaps it's just an act.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. You seem to be hung up on how I "format" my test data and protocol definition, and what I include in my details.

...format the data in any type or content you want provided Carl-NC can read it and identify it as a scientific test you ran that proves signal lines are imaginary.
...describe the protocol and any controls you used for the tests.
...include the test result data you observed.
...include any additional information that you consider pertinent.

Now, for the very last time, Graham... it is not how I format the information, or how I describe it, or what I include in it; that I am concerned about. Trust me, I have been conducting tests, reducing data, drawing conclusions and putting my results in very readable report formats since before you found out the ASA rating of Panatomic X could be doubled with the proper mix of D-76, time and temperature adjustments...

Wrong again!
I was never hung up on what format you used. You are the one who posted you wanted to know how to format your data.
Scroll up and read your words: " ....just let me know, so I format my data accordingly". If you didn't want to know how to format your data, then why did you post that?
And why attempt to blame me for answering?
This wouldn't be another trick to direct attention away from the fact you have no evidence of testing signal lines to present, would it?

My ONLY concern is what you would accept as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world.

Also scroll up and see the answer several times. I will accept any test you made in any format with any data types that will convince Carl-NC that you conducted a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary. Take note: "any test you made" is what I would accept as valid. The only condition is that Carl is convinced.

There it is verbalized in words again.
Are you still afraid Carl-NC won't be convinced you conducted a test that proves signal lines are imaginary?

You realize of course, if Carl is not convinced, I probably won't be either.
But then you have nothing to lose.
After seeing what you posted so far instead of supporting evidence, it looks like you never ran any tests that prove signal lines are imaginary.
It seems to me you just made it all up.
Hmmmm... maybe you made up the stories about testing LRLs too.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

When you get down to the very basics, all proof at some level is a matter of faith. Faith in instrumentation, faith in yours or others test results, etc.

For example, saying I can feel the force or energies could very well be proof for me but obviously not for you. for myself - I am not interested in "proving" anything to anyone. I personally don't give a crap in your beliefs or what constitutes proof to you. If I or anyone else can find gold, treasure, or whatever methods or equipment they use to find it, GREAT, let them have at it. I don't operate in a mode that I have to justify any of my beliefs or existing operating methods as. My little world in not shook up by whatever someone else believes in so that I have to "disprove" them or their methods.

I also feel that if I have something that might help others I will pass it on. In my own researches I have been most grateful to some hint that someone passed to me that enabled me to operate in a better mode.

If someone wants to share some methodology they use I feel free to examine it, perhaps test it, and if useful, I'll incorporate it into my toolkit. If it doesn't seem worthwhile at any point I don't have to tear down the person or device.

So all these "proof" arguments. demands, etc. and critical bashing of someone else's methods is really a waste of time. Why don't we all just let whomever tell what methods, equipment, etc. they use and if interesting, get some details and quit all this bashing. It really wastes all our time to have to wade through a lot of BS to find a grain of truth. A simple "I tried it out and it doesn't work for me" is usually sufficient. You can't protect the morons. They have to learn it for themselves.

Goldifinder

Hi Goldfinder,
I am skeptical about a lot of things. I generally don't subscribe to methods related to dowsing. All this BS from Theseus is just that. In my opinion, he never ran any tests on signal lines or LRLs. He can't even describe the kind of tests he allegedly ran. The notion that a double blind test is the only kind of valid test is not a fact. It is only the opinion of some people. Can you remember a double blind test ever being conducted on a metal detector? I can't. Yet I ran some simple non-scientific tests to determine what metal detectors I wanted to buy. And I found them to be very suitable for my purposes.

The simple tests I ran on the Examiner did not help me to find treasure. So I decided not to buy any Examiners. Can I prove the examiner won't pass a scientific test? Not so far. At least not until someone can get it to work well enough with known targets to perform a randomized test. But my non-scientific testing was enough to convince me I don't want to spend any money to buy one. For others, maybe they will find success in their non-scientific testing. In their cases, they may want to buy an Examiner. I am not stupid enough to say I have scientific proof it can't work, because I don't have that proof. I can safely say Theseus does not have that scientific proof either.

Qiaozhi was right -- it is impossible to prove there is no tea tray in orbit, just as it is impossible to prove there are no signal lines. The best any skeptic has been able to do is to conduct tests that provide evidence it is statistically unlikely for LRL/dowsing to work. As a substitute to proving LRL/dowsing can't work, people have run tests to show a collection of LRL user/dowsers are not able pass a statistical test to locate a target. And even this test does not prove dowsing doesn't work. It only shows evidence that a particular collection of people can't pass the test. They can open LRL contraptions and show the circuitry does not make sense. This can show evidence of fraud from the manufacturer, but it still does not prove that signal lines don't exist.

But most people aren't interested in testing. They are ordinary treasure hunters who are looking for something that helps them find treasure. Like you, they don't care to prove anything, nor do they wish to perform tests. They rely on what they hear from their friends or read about that helps to find treasures.

Think about it:
If you were to find a chicken that squalked whenever you got near treasures, then I think you would simply use the chicken to locate treasures. You wouldn't stop to conduct double blind tests, or any tests at all on this chicken. You would go treasure hunting. And when the chicken couldn't find the treasure any more, then you would stop taking it on the treasure hunts.
If a testing fanatic got hold of your chicken, it would probably undergo several weeks of testing before they performed an autopsy. And you would lose your treasure finding chicken!

If self-professed testing experts insist they have scientific proof signal lines are imaginary, then let them spin their wheels. They will never be able to convince anyone familiar with testing theory that they have any proof. Sure this forum has ameteur "experts", but the people who run this forum are wise enough to know what can be proved and what cannot. You won't see Qiaozhi or Carl claiming they conducted a scientific test that proved signal lines don't exist.

I have seen some of your circuits posted on other sites. Good luck with your treasure hunting.

Best wishes,
J_P