Carl's phony LRL report

[Mike(Mont)]

Just an update on dogs detecting MFD signal lines. A guy told me his dog rubs its face on the signal line. I'm no dog expert but that seems to me that the dog likes what it feels there. He also said one time the dog was laying on what he thought was the signal line and the instant he changed the frequency the dog jumped to get away from the spot. He later found out the dog had been laying right on the target. He also said sometimes the dog would move to a new place--to the correct line--, like possibly the signal line had shifted. And I repeat he said the dog was more accurate than he was, but only when it wanted to go for a walk and to chase squirrels.

[Qiaozhi]

BTW, what is it you can't understand about lotto picks? Haven't you ever heard the saying "History repeats itself"? You don't know squat.

Look, I'm not saying impotent people can't dowse. Remember the joke about the guy who took viagra expecting the wife to come home. She called and said her flight was delayed for five hours. He called the doctor and asked him what he should do. The doctor said "Why don't you entertain the maid?" He replied "I don't need that stuff for her!".

Look up The Great Yogic Breath. It deals with the nerve balance.

You guys are so uneducated about any of this.

Hypnotized and brainwashed by skeptics. What a pitiful bunch!
The devil (name withheld) is laughing as he wrings his hands.

I've told you guys too many times how even dogs can sense a signal line. Not to mention electronic receivers. I've even designed a cheap one of my own that is more sensitive. It doesn't work on highly conductive ground.

Yes, I know even LRL manufacturers cannot admit other LRL equipment works. I guess it's just human nature.

Just an update on dogs detecting MFD signal lines. A guy told me his dog rubs its face on the signal line. I'm no dog expert but that seems to me that the dog likes what it feels there. He also said one time the dog was laying on what he thought was the signal line and the instant he changed the frequency the dog jumped to get away from the spot. He later found out the dog had been laying right on the target. He also said sometimes the dog would move to a new place--to the correct line--, like possibly the signal line had shifted. And I repeat he said the dog was more accurate than he was, but only when it wanted to go for a walk and to chase squirrels.

My goodness!
You don't half believe some utter crap.

Where is the technical information here concerning treasure hunting technology?
Lotto, Yogic breath, nerve balance, signal lines and MFD.
The answer is ... none of the above.

[Mike(Mont)]

None of the above changes the fact that Carl's report does not reflect what is the truth. The report is deceptive. I read somewhere that someone claimed Carl is the most knowledgable LRL skeptic in the world. That might be true but if skeptic knowledge of LRL's was gasoline, it wouldn't be enough to drive a **** ant's go-kart around a cheerio.

I understand the mentality here. It is claimed the LRL proponents don't have the correct theory so therefore the skeptics can claim anything they want and feel legitimate about it. That's pathological. In case you don't know, that's why sam changes his alias identity over two hundred times. He once admitted that he couldn't dowse "any better than random chance". Then he had to eat his words because he tried to claim (like you) that LRL's are only dowsing. He knows full well he can't make that claim because he doesn't know--just like every other skeptic. You all got a chip on your shoulder--you feel threatened. You want people to believe that you profess the scientific truth, and that is totally bogus, totally deceptive, totally phony--and YOU KNOW IT!!! Someone fed Carl a plateful and he ate it. In the world of journalism he would have been kicked out on his rear for not checking his sources. Obviously the skeptica have no such standards.

[pelanj]

Next time I will get to a field, I will try to use a dowsing rod for where should I start metal detecting. Or maybe a pendulum. Seriously.

As I see it, the movement of the rods/pendulum is given by the subconscious mind - and that is supposed to use more "CPU power" than our conscious mind. So while I doubt I will "mentally see" the buried silver coins, my subsconcious "processor" might see a small drop or a strangely shaped group of trees where an old path lead in the past - and there should.

[pelanj]

One would most probably see these things normally after some conscious analysis as well

[Qiaozhi]

Next time I will get to a field, I will try to use a dowsing rod for where should I start metal detecting. Or maybe a pendulum. Seriously.

As I see it, the movement of the rods/pendulum is given by the subconscious mind - and that is supposed to use more "CPU power" than our conscious mind. So while I doubt I will "mentally see" the buried silver coins, my subsconcious "processor" might see a small drop or a strangely shaped group of trees where an old path lead in the past - and there should.

One would most probably see these things normally after some conscious analysis as well

Very good. This is exactly my point.

You arrive a a huge field, or group of fields ... but where do you start detecting? Some people like to walk around the perimeter, while others like to to head off into the distance and search in the furthest locations, or in the corners. Others search any slopes that lead down to a river, or any slope facing south. But most just wander about aimlessly, without keeping the coil parallel to the ground, completely missing anything of value.

Anyway, back to the point. Where do you start? One way to make a "decision" is to use a dowsing rod or some other device to subconsciously pick an area. Will this area be any better than one chosen by studying the landscape? Probably not; but at least you've made a decision. At the end of the day, your detector needs to be over the target to find it.

[J_Player]

Next time I will get to a field, I will try to use a dowsing rod for where should I start metal detecting. Or maybe a pendulum. Seriously.

As I see it, the movement of the rods/pendulum is given by the subconscious mind - and that is supposed to use more "CPU power" than our conscious mind. So while I doubt I will "mentally see" the buried silver coins, my subsconcious "processor" might see a small drop or a strangely shaped group of trees where an old path lead in the past - and there should.

Hi pelanj,

I know you have the right idea. I tried the dowsing rod several times when I was at the beach hunting for lost coins and jewelry.
It worked well for deciding which direction, but it could not pinpoint. So I used a metal detector to pinpoint.
And I found a lot of coins... maybe 20-30 coins in 2 hours that were worth about $1 US.
This proves dowsing works good for showing which direction to look, but not good for pinpointing.

Then one day I was at the beach and I did not have a dowsing rod. So I tried the "guess technique".
This "guess technique" is not the same as spinning a wheel to see where it points when it stops.
The "Guess technique" has all the power of subconscious "processor", but with the added intelligence of conscious thought.
This means you get the subconscious urge to look in a particular direction, but you also have the benefit of thinking, which could tell you that your urge to look in the sky is not the best choice....
Or that there are no coins worth recovering inside the police car... try a an urge to look in a different direction...

The results were simply amazing. I more than doubled my recoveries.
In an average 2 hour hunt I was easily finding 40-50 coins worth at least $2 US.
After discovering this spectacular technique, I was never again tempted to use dowsing rods.

Of course, even the "Guess technique" is not good for pinpointing.
When I get within 50 feet of the target, I need to make the final pinpoint with a metal detector.

Best wishes,
J_P

Note: The "Guess technique" is also helpful when making recoveries.
By simply guessing there might be more than one coin in a hole...
I often found 2, 3, or more coins that I would not have found without using the the amazing "Guess technique".

[Qiaozhi]

The results were simply amazing. I more than doubled my recoveries.

The added advantage of the "guess" technique, is that more worthwhile time can spent with a real metal detector, rather than being wasted with a set of useless dowsing rods.
Hence, also helping to increase your find rate.

[Carl-NC]

None of the above changes the fact that Carl's report does not reflect what is the truth. The report is deceptive.

Mike, are you calling me a liar? Let's explore this a little... exactly WHAT is untruthful or deceptive in my report? Perhaps you can start by addressing my post #8.

If you continue to call me a liar, and continue to refuse to respond to my invitation to discuss this, then I think it's fair that you cease posting on my forums.

- Carl

[hung]

Mike, are you calling me a liar? Let's explore this a little... exactly WHAT is untruthful or deceptive in my report? Perhaps you can start by addressing my post #8.

If you continue to call me a liar, and continue to refuse to respond to my invitation to discuss this, then I think it's fair that you cease posting on my forums.

- Carl

Well, I'm not Mike but as I see it, the only mistakes he comitted were grammar related, as I have also discussed this subject with you in another forum in the past.

He wrote:

None of the above changes the fact that Carl's report does not reflect what is the truth. The report is deceptive.

When it should read:
'None of the above changes the fact that Carl's reports do not reflect what is the truth. The reports are deceptive.'

You see, when you write some texts in the net infering your own opinions about something, then it becomes a personal view subject to criticism.

[Qiaozhi]

You see, when you write some texts in the net infering your own opinions about something, then it becomes a personal view subject to criticism.

Of which you have a lot of first-hand experience.

[Mike(Mont)]

Mike, are you calling me a liar? Let's explore this a little... exactly WHAT is untruthful or deceptive in my report? Perhaps you can start by addressing my post #8.

If you continue to call me a liar, and continue to refuse to respond to my invitation to discuss this, then I think it's fair that you cease posting on my forums.

- Carl

It's your forum. I have no say what you do and as I've said before I do not cater to skeptics. I didn't call you a liar. I admit I find it VERY hard to believe your report is anything more than a finely written piece of deception--but again I have given you the benefit of the doubt and suggested someone sent you a molested piece of equipment. I even said it might have been some LRL manufacturer. We are all sinners and if you can't eat with sinners you eat alone. If you can't use an LRL there is no way of knowing. I've made the analogy in the past about someone who can't golf and then writes a report on a set of used golf clubs. I don't doubt that you "reported" what you found, but even this aside it's not good reporting when you make all kinds of generalizations. If you really want to give the impression that you are being fair you should have at the very least put a disclaimer on the report saying you really don't know if the equipment is in good working order or not. But you haven't even after I pointed it out to you. That really makes you too biased to even do a report in the first place.

As for me posting the frequencies, like I told one guy "You are asking me to give something that is not mine to give." That's unethical. I also said that was my "politically correct" version. Yes, I realize everyone does it nowadays. I don't need any more bad Karma. http://debunkingskeptics.com

[homefire]

I'm I confused here or what?

Science says they don't work.

No One can show they Work.

Most contain a bunch on NonSense parts constructed in a fashion that could not and does not work.

What is the Problem Here?

Show me they work and I will be the next in line to buy one!

[J_Player]

...I don't need any more bad Karma. http://debunkingskeptics.com

What happened?
somebody's karma ran over your dogma... heh?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

I'm I confused here or what?

Science says they don't work.

No One can show they Work.

Most contain a bunch on NonSense parts constructed in a fashion that could not and does not work.

What is the Problem Here?

Show me they work and I will be the next in line to buy one!

How to show to you if you have your eyes closed????
There are a lot of true videos that you see but you don't remember