H3Tec discussion

[Qiaozhi]

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

Just the answer I was expecting. Typical head-in-sand approach.
There is one thing I definitely agree on ... that you use "no" mental input with your dowsng or LRLs. If you did, you would soon see the error of your ways.

Enough said; you are clearly a lost soul. But don't worry, Treasurenet will soon be resurrected, and you will be able to retreat to safe territory.

[Art3811]

~J Player~

I doubt H3Tec will hire an attorney to go after Carl.
I think H3Tec is scared to death to go to court where their equipment can be tested by an independent testing lab and the results published in newspapers, and maybe on TV.

~Qiaozhi!~

Just the answer I was expecting. Typical head-in-sand approach.
There is one thing I definitely agree on ... that you use "no" mental input with your dowsng or LRLs. If you did, you would soon see the error of your ways.

Gee player…The excuses are running wild around here….
Do you know if the H3Tec has every been tested by an Independent Testing Lab?
Qiaozhi….Why would I want to use mental input with my Dowsing Rods and my LRL’s? Both disciplines work perfect when I use no mental input. I do not make errors…I jut locate and recover gold…
Yes…I will return to T-Net….There are 48 owner/operators who under stand that these devices work as adverticed..Art

[Qiaozhi]

~J Player~
~Qiaozhi!~
Gee player…The excuses are running wild around here….
Do you know if the H3Tec has every been tested by an Independent Testing Lab?
Qiaozhi….Why would I want to use mental input with my Dowsing Rods and my LRL’s? Both disciplines work perfect when I use no mental input. I do not make errors…I jut locate and recover gold…
Yes…I will return to T-Net….There are 48 owner/operators who under stand that these devices work as adverticed..Art

You evidently do not understand a sarcastic comment when you read one. By "no" mental input, I was implying "not using your brains". If you were, you would not be promoting this nonsense.

I see that you still haven't figured out how to use the quote and multi-quote buttons.

[Art3811]

Gee…I have complained for months about the quality of the skeptics on T-net..I guess I was wrong…Same quality on this board…Art

[Art3811]

Keep on talking as the hole just keeps getting deeper. It seems that the H3Tec people may be the least problem for you. You may have Libeled a much greater group of people. Pack you bags as you maybe heading to Utah….Art

[Qiaozhi]

Gee…I have complained for months about the quality of the skeptics on T-net..I guess I was wrong…Same quality on this board…Art

Try asking the same question again and again, and keep repeating it until you get the answer that you want.

[Jim]

Try asking the same question again and again, and keep repeating it until you get the answer that you want.

I feel sorry for the admin/mod's as they cannot use the IGNORE feature. You guys are obligated to read each and every post. Every single post...:::shudders:::

[Carl-NC]

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

Most of your objections are vague and unspecific, so I can only address the specific examples:

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.

Since I don't believe any of this stuff works in the first place, I certainly don't believe that "jamming" an LRL is possible. In any case, Claimant is encouraged (and allowed) to check for interferers before the test, and at any time during the test. They are also free to propose any other precautions they want. I have nothing to hide.

Also, the clauses are incomplete...

Example?

...give margin to a lot of different exact meanings...

Example?

...and you state that you will only pay 10% of the prize, being the rest later (!), but no guarantee is assured to the claimant.

Actually, it's 20%, and there is a guarantee of remainder in the contract.

There are other problems...

Examples?

So that's it? I'm sure you realize that the contract is not rigid, and I fully encourage the claimant to make whatever changes to the challenge he deems necessary. I will gladly work with them to ensure a test that we both are confident is fair and properly tests the LRL claims.

[Art3811]

Re: Finally an Answer
Reply To This Topic #42 Posted Jan 27, 2010, 04:29:58 PM

Quote

Quote from: EddieR on Jan 27, 2010, 11:43:58 AM
I'm simply asking how the movement can be proven without a doubt to be ideomotor.
~Carl~
You can prove this with simple double-blind randomized tests.

Re: Finally an Answer
Reply To This Topic #43 Posted Jan 27, 2010, 05:01:05 PM

QuoteModifyRemove

Quote
You can prove this with simple double-blind randomized tests.

So that tells us that there is no proof…Art

~Carl~

Re: Finally an Answer
Reply To This Topic #44 Posted Jan 27, 2010, 05:39:37 PM

Quote

If you choose to ignore the results of the tests, or choose not to do the tests at all, then yes, there is no proof.

[Art3811]

~Carl~
With LRLs and dowsing, "random chance" applies to randomized blind tests, not to field use. A randomized blind test does 2 things that a field test cannot do. First, it eliminates outside influences that might alter performance results, such as observable clues. Second, it provides a baseline from which to compare results, namely guessing.

Despite intentional attempts to mislead people, random chance doesn't apply to field use. You can't ask, "What are the odds of digging 10 holes in a park and recovering a gold coin?" There is no way to calculate that, because there is not enough information*. But in a randomized blind test, it is quite easy to calculate the odds. Depending on the design of the test those odds can vary, so it is not a fixed number that applies to every test, but it's not a "moving target" either.

You are 100% correct! Use what you know to find treasure! Ferinstance, if you want to prospect, then use your knowledge of geology to assist in finding likely places to look. But here's the Big Question... do LRLs help in this effort beyond what knowledge and intuition offer? The only way to find out is to test the LRL under conditions in which knowledge and intuition are eliminated, and only LRL performance (or luck) remains. That's the purpose of randomized blind testing. And when LRLs are tested this way, they don't perform beyond luck. That is, they don't work.

[Art3811]

Results and Prize Award
The test is designed to eliminate the need to judge results. Because the target is placed in a discrete, marked location, a "hit" will only occur if the claimant selects the exact location of the target. Selections other than the correct one will not count as even partial credit. After 10 double-blind attempts are complete, the number of hits will be added. If the number of hits equals or exceeds 7 (for a 70% minimum success rate), the claimant will win the full prize amount.


Wow..What a great test. The only thing that this test will prove is …One man and his device can or can not win the money….It does not prove if the LRL is working or not…Art

[Qiaozhi]

Art - you still have no idea how to quote other people's posts in your replies. Putting this together with your poor grasp of the English language, one would wonder how you can ever have the remotest chance of understanding a double-blind test.
No wonder you are completely taken in by the ideomotor effect.

[Art3811]

Art - you still have no idea how to quote other people's posts in your replies. Putting this together with your poor grasp of the English language, one would wonder how you can ever have the remotest chance of understanding a double-blind test.
No wonder you are completely taken in by the ideomotor effect.

Pretty simple to understand what Carl has told us. I understand Carl’s so called Double Blind Test that will prove nothing. The 1852 definition of Ideomotor Effects has nothing to do with using a LRL or MFD. Most people can understand the definitions of the Ideomotor Effects as the Scientific Studies have proved in the past 100 plus years. I am going to the store and I hope I do not have to use my Trained Ideomotor Response to keep out of an accident…Art

[J_Player]

Pretty simple to understand what Carl has told us. I understand Carl’s so called Double Blind Test that will prove nothing. The 1852 definition of Ideomotor Effects has nothing to do with using a LRL or MFD. Most people can understand the definitions of the Ideomotor Effects as the Scientific Studies have proved in the past 100 plus years. I am going to the store and I hope I do not have to use my Trained Ideomotor Response to keep out of an accident…Art

Carl's test proves nothing? Are you sure?

I can pass Carl's test using a $69.95 toy metal detector. And you say your dowsing abilities will not pass the same test?

Isn't this the same kind of test Sandia Labs uses to determine if a locator works or not?
Why would this kind of test be considered to prove nothing when Sandia Labs uses it, the US government uses it, and it is required by the FDA before new drug products are placed on the market?

I think a double blind test can prove a $69.95 toy metal detector can locate which piece of plywood Carl hides a silver dollar under.
And I think it can prove that you can find the silver dollar by watching your rods cross when you step on the plywood where the silver is hidden under.
Do you really think your rods won't cross when you step on the plywood where Carl hides the silver dollar under?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Art3811]

~J Player~

Isn't this the same kind of test Sandia Labs uses to determine if a locator works or not?
Why would this kind of test be considered to prove nothing when Sandia Labs uses it, the US government uses it, and it is required by the FDA before new drug products are placed on the market?

A true Double Blind Study uses more than one person to compile the information for new drugs. I think testing one person would be a big waste of time. Read and learn something http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Double+Blind+Study+Costs&hl=en&as_sdt=0& as_vis=1&oi=scholart ….http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...+blind+studies
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=1&oq=double+blind+stu dy+&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4PCTC_enUS351US354&q=double+blind+study+de finition
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=3&oq=double+blind+&ie =UTF-8&rlz=1T4PCTC_enUS351US354&q=double+blind+study
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/double-blind+procedure