Tweet
Don't give up.
Hi Ivconic,
Don't give up yet.
The problem with this thread is that we have reached a stalemate situation.
This "yes it can", "no it can't", "yes it can", "no it can't" type of discussion is getting nowhere very fast. The critics are being accused of having closed minds, but sometimes an open mind can be so open that you fall inside and cannot see the real world anymore.
It is difficult to always be objective, and this is the reason for double-blind, randomized and repeatable tests. We may not like to admit it, but human beings are very good at finding new ways of self-deception.
I'm afraid that the onus is on the believers to prove their case, and to demonstrate a foolproof method of long-range location. Wouldn't it be wonderful if a small handheld device could really detect the presence of gold or precious metals from extreme distances? Unfortunately the basic laws of physics (according to our current understanding) do not have a mechanism whereby this can be achieved. We are waiting to be proved wrong, and my hat is standing by to be eaten.
Finally, there is no point is displaying pictures of the many treasures that have been found with LRLs. This is what I mean by subjective data. To turn this into objective data, you would also need to include all the other targets that did not result in treasure being found. Even then, it is easy to unconsciously filter the data to get a positive skew in the final results.
Let's get down to some real objective testing. Some of the posters on this forum have clearly built their own LRLs, with differing results. If we can ignore dowsing in this discussion, then things can be kept simple, as dowsing is something else altogether (IMHO) so let's not go there.
If you have any circuits, then please post them. This will give us all something objective to test. We have already seen the Baby Mineoro, which is essentially an electrostatic meter. If the Mineoro's are an extension of this principle, then let's try it. This way the believers can prove their case, or alternatively the skeptics can say "I told you so". Of course, some people may say that the commercial LRLs cannot be duplicated because they are based on some new scientific principle that no-one but the inventer is able to understand. This is nonsense. Any type of metal detector that really works can be back-engineered.
To the believers - please help us skeptics to understand the error of our ways. We are standing by...
Qiaozhi.
Originally posted by ivconic
Don't give up yet.
The problem with this thread is that we have reached a stalemate situation.
This "yes it can", "no it can't", "yes it can", "no it can't" type of discussion is getting nowhere very fast. The critics are being accused of having closed minds, but sometimes an open mind can be so open that you fall inside and cannot see the real world anymore.
It is difficult to always be objective, and this is the reason for double-blind, randomized and repeatable tests. We may not like to admit it, but human beings are very good at finding new ways of self-deception.
I'm afraid that the onus is on the believers to prove their case, and to demonstrate a foolproof method of long-range location. Wouldn't it be wonderful if a small handheld device could really detect the presence of gold or precious metals from extreme distances? Unfortunately the basic laws of physics (according to our current understanding) do not have a mechanism whereby this can be achieved. We are waiting to be proved wrong, and my hat is standing by to be eaten.
Finally, there is no point is displaying pictures of the many treasures that have been found with LRLs. This is what I mean by subjective data. To turn this into objective data, you would also need to include all the other targets that did not result in treasure being found. Even then, it is easy to unconsciously filter the data to get a positive skew in the final results.
Let's get down to some real objective testing. Some of the posters on this forum have clearly built their own LRLs, with differing results. If we can ignore dowsing in this discussion, then things can be kept simple, as dowsing is something else altogether (IMHO) so let's not go there.
If you have any circuits, then please post them. This will give us all something objective to test. We have already seen the Baby Mineoro, which is essentially an electrostatic meter. If the Mineoro's are an extension of this principle, then let's try it. This way the believers can prove their case, or alternatively the skeptics can say "I told you so". Of course, some people may say that the commercial LRLs cannot be duplicated because they are based on some new scientific principle that no-one but the inventer is able to understand. This is nonsense. Any type of metal detector that really works can be back-engineered.
To the believers - please help us skeptics to understand the error of our ways. We are standing by...
Qiaozhi.
"WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, CAN BE DONE"
Comment