H3Tec discussion

[Rudy]

New Technology being deployed by US Army to detect IEDs

RATS !

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11...ats/print.html

[Art3811]

~Theseus ~

Art likes keeping his head in the sand.... his whirly-gig rods work better for him that way. He can't find a spelling and grammar checker because he can't spell the words spelling and grammar.

Great words..as usual
~Qiaozhi~

The only reason you do these tests is to confirm your erroneous belief system. One thing is for sure, it is not to discover the truth. That would hurt too much

Gee…You can not complain about my blind test but you have to answer. I only speak for the 7 LRL’s and MFD’s that I have owned or used to locate and recover Gold. All 7 of these devices have passed this Blind Test by locating all the targets. Carl has tested all of these devices and found that none of them worked. My testing procedures must be a lot better than Carl’s…
Carl may want to erase the part of his challenge about “Waving a piece of Gold” in front of these devices. I know you guys cream your pants every time he says that but the real truth is that anyone who has ever tested these devices rolls on floor with laughter…Art

[Qiaozhi]

Gee…You can not complain about my blind test but you have to answer. I only speak for the 7 LRL’s and MFD’s that I have owned or used to locate and recover Gold. All 7 of these devices have passed this Blind Test by locating all the targets. Carl has tested all of these devices and found that none of them worked. My testing procedures must be a lot better than Carl’s…
Carl may want to erase the part of his challenge about “Waving a piece of Gold” in front of these devices. I know you guys cream your pants every time he says that but the real truth is that anyone who has ever tested these devices rolls on floor with laughter…Art

You obviously did not read my post very closely. I was indeed complaining about your blind test procedure. It is as full of holes as Swiss cheese. As for the comment: "My testing procedures must be a lot better than Carl’s…", that is certainly a cause for ROTFL.

[Art3811]

You obviously did not read my post very closely. I was indeed complaining about your blind test procedure. It is as full of holes as Swiss cheese. As for the comment: "My testing procedures must be a lot better than Carl’s…", that is certainly a cause for ROTFL.

My Blind Test has been on the internet for about 6 years now. All the “Scoobie-doo” investigators keep telling me that it is “full of holes”..So I keep asking them where the holes are?…as of yet no one has seen fit to answer that question…Art

[Theseus]

I only speak for the 7 LRL’s and MFD’s that I have owned or used to locate and recover Gold. All 7 of these devices have passed this Blind Test by locating all the targets. Carl has tested all of these devices and found that none of them worked.

That fact alone should tell you your test methods are obviously flawed. Carl is an Engineer and you are a high school dropout. Who do you suppose will be able to design a proper test procedure? (rhetorical)

(Just curious, do you ever read your postings before you hit the Submit Reply button?)

[Theseus]

My Blind Test has been on the internet for about 6 years now. All the “Scoobie-doo” investigators keep telling me that it is “full of holes”..So I keep asking them where the holes are?…as of yet no one has seen fit to answer that question…Art

Would you accept their answers if they gave them to you? A better question might be; Would you be capable of understanding the answers, such that you could then change your testing procedures so they wouldn't be "full of holes"?

I think we already know the answer to both those questions.

[Carl-NC]

...everyone knows there are clauses in his 'challenge', that simply can't be met.

Name one.

[Art3811]

That fact alone should tell you your test methods are obviously flawed. Carl is an Engineer and you are a high school dropout. Who do you suppose will be able to design a proper test procedure? (rhetorical)

Would you accept their answers if they gave them to you? A better question might be; Would you be capable of understanding the answers, such that you could then change your testing procedures so they wouldn't be "full of holes"?

I think we already know the answer to both those questions.
Thank You for the answers to my questions….Art

[WM6]

Name one.

Uncontrolled humidity, or not proper continent, or to much light, or swindling not allowed, or too much vibration, or bad taste, or negative skeptic impact on dowsing rod, or ........., or......, or....

[hung]

Name one.

From the legal perspective, your 'contract' is bad written, fragile, dubious and it is prone to inferences when it never should.

Assuming it was not you who wrote it, the attorney who did it, clearly has not much experience in writing legal contracts.
I don't know exactly how it works in USA, but in Brazil, for this writing, he would never get any job as contract writer either for public or private services. The paper you introduce is trully an example of 'ex-nunc' specimen.

Among many things, it does not provide legal protection to the claimant in which the proctor can cheat any time he wants. Example: If a MFD user is taking the 'test', the proctor might at anytime, including in the occasion he is hiding the target, also hide a transmitter device to jam the frequencies of the MFD, thus ruining the small intensity signal lines and make the claimant fail miserably.
Also, the clauses are incomplete, give margin to a lot of different exact meanings, and you state that you will only pay 10% of the prize, being the rest later (!), but no guarantee is assured to the claimant.
There are other problems, but the whole contract as I said is legally inconsistent and bad written.

No wonder Mike Tune told you about it years ago. He even proposed another in which among many things required Banking guarantees from your part.

Carl, there's not too many dumb people around as you might think.
You can 'sell your fish' as much as you want stating that to date none took your 'test'. Your BS might be getting further out of control even for you.

You can fool a lot of people including your 'brides' here who believe that you are defending the naive against scammers, you are smart, and blah,blah,blah.
But you do not fool me. And you also do not fool many serious LRL users. Art is right when he states he does not trust you. You are not trustable. Your 'contract' is an evidence of that.

But why are we discussing this thing anyway? I have always told you that this is just a mean of promotion for yourself and this BS will not get anywhere. Nobody with at least 2 neurons will be naive enough to embark your boat.

I could also someday create my own 'challenge' in which I would bury a single gold coin 5 feet deep. Do you think you would be able to find it with the toys that Whites, Garret, etc. Currently sell to the masses? Huh?

Your time is running out. H3Tec is coming snifling on your nape.
If I were you I would worry about other things now.

[Art3811]

[QUOTE]
Exactly ... "my version" ... which is clearly full of ways to either consciously or unconsciously bias the results.
[/QUOTE

]

Would you accept their answers if they gave them to you? A better question might be; Would you be capable of understanding the answers, such that you could then change your testing procedures so they wouldn't be "full of holes"?

</SPAN>Exactly what I expected. My test is full of holes but you can not tell me what holes are in it. If it is the hole of not having a Skeptic involvement you are wrong. I have made believers’ out of many skeptics. Hung is right about Carl’s test. I have witnessed the skeptics in action. Jamming and disruption is a way of live for you people…Art

[Saturna]

So now skeptics are jamming the signals ? ...hahahahaha.

I know the Big Book of Dowsing Excuses is as thick as a New York phone book, but this is a new one on me.

You guys really should listen to yourselves.

[J_Player]

So now skeptics are jamming the signals ? ...hahahahaha.

I know the Big Book of Dowsing Excuses is as thick as a New York phone book, but this is a new one on me.

You guys really should listen to yourselves.

jamming the signals? What signals?

Aren't the Geotech skeptics mostly electronic technicians and engineers who work with real signals, not pretend signals? Of course we can expect new excuses from the Tnet refugees. We can expect all manner of whining and excuses, as long as the excuses can provide a reason why they can't meet the challenges to prove what they say is true.

These Tnet refugees forget they are now squatting in Geotech, where the rule is to prepare to get challenged if you make an extraordinary claim. So the best preparation they could dream up for their challenges is to think of new reasons why they can't meet the challenge?

Think about it... You can buy a $150 Chinese metal detector that can pass Carl's test every time (10/10) to locate which piece of plywood he hid the silver dollar under. But the best Art can do to identify which piece of plywood he hid the silver dollar under is the same success rate as random guessing will get. Should we believe stories where Art and others tell us how they find objects that skeptics hide... "it happens all the time" ... or would it be more convincing to see them accept the challenge and actually find an object that a skeptic hides so we can see it instead of taking Art's word for it?

Bottom line... Art and the other dowsing refugees from Tnet can't meet the challenge. Their dowsing and LRLs are not good enough to perform like a metal detector can, or even better than random guessing can. They proved this by whining at the idea of taking a test in front of skeptical witnesses to show what they say is true. The best they can do is tell stories of their methods and great success that they will never show to be true in a real test that we can witness.

The sad thing is they came here to hose down Carl's report on his dealings with the H3Tec people. Now we get to read a lot of crappy stories of fake dowsing success that the dowsers can't prove when we come to read about the latest updates in the H3Tec news. Maybe Carl should make a special section for Tnet refugee whining and move these stupid stories of dowsing success there so we can get back to reading the H3Tec news and updates.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

As both Carl and Rudy have (or have had) one of these devices, they are the most qualified to answer the question. That is: Does the dog wag its own tail, or not?

Slight error ... that should (of course) have been Carl and Jim.

[color=black][font=Verdana]
Exactly ... "my version" ... which is clearly full of ways to either consciously or unconsciously bias the results.
[/QUOTE</SPAN>Exactly what I expected. My test is full of holes but you can not tell me what holes are in it. If it is the hole of not having a Skeptic involvement you are wrong. I have made believers’ out of many skeptics. Hung is right about Carl’s test. I have witnessed the skeptics in action. Jamming and disruption is a way of live for you people…Art

A husband and wife team does not constitute an unbiased test. Where is the third person to monitor the procedure? There are numerous methods that conjurers use to transmit information between the assistant and themselves, so consciously or unconsciously it is possible to leave signals or clues as to the location of the hidden target. Whether you do this intentionally or not is irrelevant. The fact remains, your so-called "blind test" is so full of holes that you could drive a bus through it. As for suggestions that skeptics would jam or disrupt the results is ludicrous. The whole purpose of the test is to remove any bias by the testers, even bias using trickery. Using your test procedure it is a simple matter to skew the results in the desired direction. I feel sorry for the skeptics who have been made believers ... or so you claim (which I doubt).

Also, while you are searching for a spellin and gramma checker, please also use the "quote" and "multi-quote" buttons which are clearly marked at the bottom right of each post. As you may have noticed, with your highly tuned paranormal abilities, your random cutting and pasting tends to create rather a jumbled mess at the start of each post.

[Art3811]

A husband and wife team does not constitute an unbiased test. Where is the third person to monitor the procedure? There are numerous methods that conjurers use to transmit information between the assistant and themselves, so consciously or unconsciously it is possible to leave signals or clues as to the location of the hidden target. Whether you do this intentionally or not is irrelevant. The fact remains, your so-called "blind test" is so full of holes that you could drive a bus through it. As for suggestions that skeptics would jam or disrupt the results is ludicrous. The whole purpose of the test is to remove any bias by the testers, even bias using trickery. Using your test procedure it is a simple matter to skew the results in the desired direction. I feel sorry for the skeptics who have been made believers ... or so you claim (which I doubt).
Also, while you are searching for a spellin and gramma checker, please also use the "quote" and "multi-quote" buttons which are clearly marked at the bottom right of each post. As you may have noticed, with your highly tuned paranormal abilities, your random cutting and pasting tends to create rather a jumbled mess at the start of each post.

Thank You for your answer. It is the same old junk replies. My simple test that requires no travel and no expenses works great. You guys have not read enough about me and my methods to make any kind of judgments’. I use “no” mental input in both Dowsing and use of LRL’s…If you try to use your Dowsing ability with a LRL you are doomed to failure.
Sorry you can not understand my post. I know simple true facts upset you making your mind fizzy about the real true facts that are presented….Art