[J_Player]

Originally Posted by g-sani

Here is the problem Theseus.
If I tell you that my LRL is working then you won't beleive me.
If I tell you that I found many treasures whith it then you will never beleive me.
Most of the people accuse the ones that sell LRLs and say that if their products work then they shouldn't need to sell them.
No lets be fair, it is not like that.
This is like saying that someone that made a milion selling his LRL was never poor.Well he made his milion because he kept selling it.
If the man was out trying to spot the treasure whith his patented detector then he would still poor.Why?
Because treasure is not everywhere as everybody thinks.
The truth is that I used an rf tranceiver hunting for treasures and I never beleived that it was going to work.But it does.
It was an imitation of what Thortech.org is selling and it was the first time we were picking targets from a distance.And beleive me they are more than what you think but you never know it and how can you anyway.
You use to put down a transmitter sending frequencies into ground and air and after 15mins we were out searching for the target using an RF receiver.
Don't ask me about frequencies and staff like that because I know nothing.I was so amazed that I could find things from a distance that I didn't care at all how can that hapened.
We paid a lot of money for that and I know very well what the real cost is.But who cares?It was there working and I knew we were paid somebody else's idea and then it looked fair.
Once we picked up a bronze vase from 500 meters away.It was about 30cms high.
Most of the people stop talking as soon as they have something that usefull in their hands and this is why the truth doesn't come up.
Some of the electronic guys over here know that this kind of detectors work and I have read it in many of their posts but only a few beleive them.I think Alonso is one of them and he keeps saying it but then what? Who listens?
I revealed that myself in some other forums and sudenly everybody was against me and then I thought it is not worth it.
J_P does a great job testing RT for all of us and from what I read he knows what he is doing.
To tell you the truth I personally beleive that the principle behind RT is real but I can not say that it works in practice until I test it myself as well the way I beleive is right.
Once many years ago using an omnitron we were lucky to find something valueable but then I can tell you that in that area it was there hidden alone and that was the only reason we succeded.Apart from this we were never had any luck when digging other targets that the MFD picked up.
So we were lucky that day and all this was because the artifact was in an area that was clean from any other metalls otherwise I think it would be impossible to get.
Anyway I thing when you are able to go on target whith a receiver is completely different than when you use L rods.Dowsing goes aside so everybody can go on target the same way.
It doesn't say anything to me if some people say that this kind of LRLs don't work.Nobody knows better than myself and this is because it was me been everytime there.
This is were I advise you all electronic people to focus.

This is an interesting post.
There is one general flaw in the logic used by most skeptics:
Their basic theory is they have never seen any LRL perform in a tests set up to determine if it does what it is claimed to do. The few tests they have seen set up for this purpose resulted in failure of the LRL to perform as claimed it would.

Then the average skeptic uses inductive logic to conclude that since the only tests done show it does not work, and any tests they ran show it does not work, and there are no other tests results that show it does work, therefore it does not work. They bolster this logic with an analysis of the lack of known scientific principles and fatal errors in the explanations of how the particular LRL is said to work. Their logic is further supported by the fact that no LRL owner is willing to hold a demonstration of their LRL working. **(see below)

Yet there is another possibility: It is possible that if another test was done, a particular LRL could pass a test to show it does work. If this happened then it would indicate the logic used by the average skeptic was flawed. The fact is, we would need to test every LRL in every condition in order to determine whether it works or not with certainty. This was not done, and it is not possible for a number of practical reasons.

The next best method to determine if LRLs work is to make a lot of tests that are documented rather than just told as stories. Even if every LRL is not tested, we can generate some test data for any specific model of an LRL to see what results we get after a number of tests conducted. The value of this method is we can establish a database in which the results can be used to create a profile for that LRL. The profile can be subjected to statistical methods to see what the degree of confidence is for it's performance. In simple terms, if we see a particular LRL works most of the time, we can assume it is better to use it than use nothing when going into a field and deciding where to scan with a metal detector. Of course, there are unknown conditions that can influence the performance of any LRL that is said to utilise RF reception to locate treasure. We know that RF receptiion is influenced by atmospheric cycles that change during the day and over larger time periods. But with enough tests in the database, we can at least have an idea whether it works or not.

The problem with making tests and sending the results to a database is we must first establish a test procedure, then insure that the data collected conforms to the procedure. But no LRL enthusiast has ever agreed to conduct a test that had witnesses present to confirm the test was done according to any pre-set procedure. All we hear is stories from LRL enthusiasts who refuse to demonstrate their LRL working in front of people who watch them to report the results of the test. And so far, no test was ever performed and documented with witnesses to report results that it does work under standard test conditions. So the skeptics conclusions have not been proven to be wrong.

Don't expect to see any improvement in the credibility of LRLs. As long as LRL enthusiasts refuse to show what their LRLs can do in some kind of standard test with witnesses watching, most reasonable people will think there is something wrong with them. After all, most metal detectorists don't mind if watchers report how well their detectors work.



** Morgan demonstrated his LRL working in front of another forum member which resulted in the witness becoming convinced that his LRL works.


Best wishes,
J_P