rangertell examiner field trials

[J_Player]

What an incredible convenient "backdoor" excuse for it not working. :lol: :lol: :lol:

And, exactly how are you measuring this target strength of field, so that you can reliably claim that the target strength of field is at fault, and not the LRL contraption? :D :D :D

Never mind... that was a rhetorical question.Hi Theseus,

One good thing about trying several machines at the same test location is you can see how they perform at the same place under the same conditions of target "strength of field". If conditions are only average, then we can take a look to see how they all perform under the same average conditions. Then you don't need to guess if there was a changed condition between one machine tested and another.

...Same as they test cars on the same track with the same test conditions so there is no difference in the curves of the road, or weather that could skew the results between one car and another.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,

One good thing about trying several machines at the same test location is you can see how they perform at the same place under the same conditions of target "strength of field". If conditions are only average, then we can take a look to see how they all perform under the same average conditions. Then you don't need to guess if there was a changed condition between one machine tested and another.

...Same as they test cars on the same track with the same test conditions so there is no difference in the curves of the road, or weather that could skew the results between one car and another.

Best wishes,
J_P

When dealing with a large number of variables or parameters, and the desire is to still arrive at meaningful conclusions from fair testing procedures; about the only way to accomplish such a task is to incorporate BIBD (Balanced Incomplete Block Designs) and couple that with a good double-blind protocol.

Even if you do all that... as Jim has pointed out, there will still be criticism from one side of the fence or other - depending on the results published.

[hipopp]

In my years of Field experience,I find that no LRL, of any manufacture works all the time. They only work when the target 'Strength of Field" is sufficient.

When Magnetic interference occurs, the target SOF, is diminished and the LRL will not respond accurately, or not at all. This is a fact. Dell

So how far away from the object do you have to be? i can place a small nuggett 6 feet away on top of the ground and tell myself the nuggett is not there and the RT cannot pick it up...what is this gobbledegook about magnetic interference? at 6 feet in plain view on top of the ground? it is all in the head!!! no amount of scientific testing will bypass the fact that results are only achieved unless the operator "tells" the aerial to lock onto something. Target field of strength has absolutely nothing to do with it since i thought i found a quartz reef at 3-400 meters yet cannot find a simple nuggett or coin(s) six feet away. The last time i went back to relocate my quartz reef it was not there someone had obviously stolen it. My precious nuggett is still lost somewhere in my lounge room where the Mrs. cannot remember where she put it last(to be located by me) however i did find some coin and pins and buttons stuffed deep down in a couple of lounge chairs, found with my fingers not the RT by the way. JP is going to waste his time trying to replicate results he gets because the device does not do a thing. his head will be doing everything. Just remeber JP the early models came out without calculators stuck on top so according to Blanes they work quite well with no settings required. Now you are left with a snivelling swivelling aerial that you are going to watch going round and round and round and round and round while Blanes is laughing his head off in the comfort of his home, another sucker to lead by the nose because he knows the whole contraption is just so much Junk and his only aim is to protect his income and bank balance. 1300 RT's by average $600 equals $780,000. Rather good pocket money. There are two reasons why i have not published the results of 300 hours of testing on this site. Firstly they may be used in the future in legal proceedings. Secondly, I did not want obviously well educated persons on this site laughing at the absolute stupidity and gull;ibility that led me to buy such a ridiculously stupid device. Nothing can be proved with the device aother than it can do anything that your head allows it to do. Point it at a rock lock on...point it at a rock do not lock on, it does not lock on. point it at a mountainside tell it to lock on and it does..mountain must be full of emeralds and rubies from the Inca days. Tell it not to lock on and it does not...someone must have crept into the mountain while you were having a smoke and stole all the inca treasure. Garbage and drivel and more garbage this device is a product of a very sick mind...go back to the language that Blanes used in the past in the interests of customer service...he is very obviously a sick man, not just a con artist but a very sick paranoid. His help desk is where he invents ideas to keep you strung out till you give up...the device is not working because..the atmospherics , the ground, other minerals in the area, your body, calculator settings ..even your attitude!! he can string you out for longer than you as a rational person can handle it and you give up and he keeps your money, our money. His day has come he will be on national TV here in Australia it is just a matter of time. He is going to join all the other scam artists that lack normal human conscience and dwell in the realm of the animal kingdom.

[WM6]

Hi hipopp

Thank you, your experience is why non-believers are here: to support right of naive buyers to other opinion.

[J_Player]

So how far away from the object do you have to be? i can place a small nuggett 6 feet away on top of the ground and tell myself the nuggett is not there and the RT cannot pick it up...what is this gobbledegook about magnetic interference? at 6 feet in plain view on top of the ground? it is all in the head!!! no amount of scientific testing will bypass the fact that results are only achieved unless the operator "tells" the aerial to lock onto something. Target field of strength has absolutely nothing to do with it since i thought i found a quartz reef at 3-400 meters yet cannot find a simple nuggett or coin(s) six feet away. The last time i went back to relocate my quartz reef it was not there someone had obviously stolen it. My precious nuggett is still lost somewhere in my lounge room where the Mrs. cannot remember where she put it last(to be located by me) however i did find some coin and pins and buttons stuffed deep down in a couple of lounge chairs, found with my fingers not the RT by the way. JP is going to waste his time trying to replicate results he gets because the device does not do a thing. his head will be doing everything. Just remeber JP the early models came out without calculators stuck on top so according to Blanes they work quite well with no settings required. Now you are left with a snivelling swivelling aerial that you are going to watch going round and round and round and round and round while Blanes is laughing his head off in the comfort of his home, another sucker to lead by the nose because he knows the whole contraption is just so much Junk and his only aim is to protect his income and bank balance. 1300 RT's by average $600 equals $780,000. Rather good pocket money. There are two reasons why i have not published the results of 300 hours of testing on this site. Firstly they may be used in the future in legal proceedings. Secondly, I did not want obviously well educated persons on this site laughing at the absolute stupidity and gull;ibility that led me to buy such a ridiculously stupid device. Nothing can be proved with the device aother than it can do anything that your head allows it to do. Point it at a rock lock on...point it at a rock do not lock on, it does not lock on. point it at a mountainside tell it to lock on and it does..mountain must be full of emeralds and rubies from the Inca days. Tell it not to lock on and it does not...someone must have crept into the mountain while you were having a smoke and stole all the inca treasure. Garbage and drivel and more garbage this device is a product of a very sick mind...go back to the language that Blanes used in the past in the interests of customer service...he is very obviously a sick man, not just a con artist but a very sick paranoid. His help desk is where he invents ideas to keep you strung out till you give up...the device is not working because..the atmospherics , the ground, other minerals in the area, your body, calculator settings ..even your attitude!! he can string you out for longer than you as a rational person can handle it and you give up and he keeps your money, our money. His day has come he will be on national TV here in Australia it is just a matter of time. He is going to join all the other scam artists that lack normal human conscience and dwell in the realm of the animal kingdom.Hi hipopp,
All of what you say might be true. And if it is, then why not test it out to see if it is true or not like you did?

Waste of time? I don't think so.
You are one of a few people who did some actual tests to see for yourself. But we also have others who did actual tests and report they got good results as well as bad. The only problem is nobody else has been able to watch these tests or see videos or photos, or even detailed reports to describe the exact tests that were done. So we have a lot of conflicting hearsay reports from people with strong opinions.

I intend to document what is observed when more than only one person tries it out to see if it works for them, and let others see what we see during live tests that are happening as we watch them. If all you say is true, then everyone will find the same response that you did. But we can't know that until we try it out. Suppose we observe some people can recover hidden treasures consistently as was reported here and other places. We won't know about this without trying it out. If it turns out there are people who consistently find hidden targets, I will report that data the same as tests that do not.

Isn't this something that a lot of people want to see?
For the people who have made up their mind about whether the Examiner works or not, they may not have an interest in seeing any more testing. But the undecided will be able to get some clues by watching what we see in real live tests. Then they will have at least some documented evidence to help decide whether they want to buy an Examiner or not.

I have no axe to grind with Rangertell. I received this Examiner without cost, so I have nothing to gain or lose if it is observed to work or not. The time I put into it will serve to tell me the answers to questions I have been asking all along first-hand, without needing to rely on what other people say. So the time is not wasted for me. Hopefully others watching the test program will consider it helpful too.

When the testing starts, you may want to suggest some specific tests we can perform to show what you would like done. You have a unique position because you have another Examiner that you can use to make identical tests in another continent to compare results. You can actually become part of the test program. If you invite local metal detectorists and LRL enthusiasts to go to the fields with you, then you can record test data that can be compared to the tests I conduct. This can only serve to enhance the test program by adding more data.

Has anyone wondered if the magnetic field Down Under has the same effect as it does in North America?
Or is the reverse coriolis effect moving the Examiner antenna differently? :oh:

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

So how far away from the object do you have to be? i can place a small nuggett 6 feet away on top of the ground and tell myself the nuggett is not there and the RT cannot pick it up...what is this gobbledegook about magnetic interference? at 6 feet in plain view on top of the ground? it is all in the head!!! no amount of scientific testing will bypass the fact that results are only achieved unless the operator "tells" the aerial to lock onto something. Target field of strength has absolutely nothing to do with it since i thought i found a quartz reef at 3-400 meters yet cannot find a simple nuggett or coin(s) six feet away. The last time i went back to relocate my quartz reef it was not there someone had obviously stolen it. My precious nuggett is still lost somewhere in my lounge room where the Mrs. cannot remember where she put it last(to be located by me) however i did find some coin and pins and buttons stuffed deep down in a couple of lounge chairs, found with my fingers not the RT by the way. JP is going to waste his time trying to replicate results he gets because the device does not do a thing. his head will be doing everything. Just remeber JP the early models came out without calculators stuck on top so according to Blanes they work quite well with no settings required. Now you are left with a snivelling swivelling aerial that you are going to watch going round and round and round and round and round while Blanes is laughing his head off in the comfort of his home, another sucker to lead by the nose because he knows the whole contraption is just so much Junk and his only aim is to protect his income and bank balance. 1300 RT's by average $600 equals $780,000. Rather good pocket money. There are two reasons why i have not published the results of 300 hours of testing on this site. Firstly they may be used in the future in legal proceedings. Secondly, I did not want obviously well educated persons on this site laughing at the absolute stupidity and gull;ibility that led me to buy such a ridiculously stupid device. Nothing can be proved with the device aother than it can do anything that your head allows it to do. Point it at a rock lock on...point it at a rock do not lock on, it does not lock on. point it at a mountainside tell it to lock on and it does..mountain must be full of emeralds and rubies from the Inca days. Tell it not to lock on and it does not...someone must have crept into the mountain while you were having a smoke and stole all the inca treasure. Garbage and drivel and more garbage this device is a product of a very sick mind...go back to the language that Blanes used in the past in the interests of customer service...he is very obviously a sick man, not just a con artist but a very sick paranoid. His help desk is where he invents ideas to keep you strung out till you give up...the device is not working because..the atmospherics , the ground, other minerals in the area, your body, calculator settings ..even your attitude!! he can string you out for longer than you as a rational person can handle it and you give up and he keeps your money, our money. His day has come he will be on national TV here in Australia it is just a matter of time. He is going to join all the other scam artists that lack normal human conscience and dwell in the realm of the animal kingdom.

Once again, thank you for your experiences and honest feedback.

I have to wonder if the stringing along hasn't already begun, in the case of J_Player not able to begin formal testing until he gets the go-ahead that his Examiner is not faulty or damaged. I mean, if you think about it, Blanes could keep saying the unit is damaged or faulty and that it should be sent back to him for replacement; and he could keep doing this essentially forever. Or, at least to the point that J_P gets tired of sending them back and forth. Of course each time he sends them back, that eats up no doubt another month easy.

How many of these alleged customers do you suppose went to the trouble of checking first with Blanes to make sure their unit was not damaged or faulty? I'm guessing NONE!

Stay on this, Hipopp. Don't let him (V. Blanes) off the hook.

[J_Player]

Once again, thank you for your experiences and honest feedback.

I have to wonder if the stringing along hasn't already begun, in the case of J_Player not able to begin formal testing until he gets the go-ahead that his Examiner is not faulty or damaged. I mean, if you think about it, Blanes could keep saying the unit is damaged or faulty and that it should be sent back to him for replacement; and he could keep doing this essentially forever. Or, at least to the point that J_P gets tired of sending them back and forth. Of course each time he sends them back, that eats up no doubt another month easy.

How many of these alleged customers do you suppose went to the trouble of checking first with Blanes to make sure their unit was not damaged or faulty? I'm guessing NONE!

Stay on this, Hipopp. Don't let him (V. Blanes) off the hook.Hi Theseus,

"Stringing along"..?
So we must interject motives because there is a delay?
As I recall you were among several who decided Rangertell would not send a sample to test before it was sent. And now you are speculating that they could continue claiming replacements are faulty until until I get tired of sending them back and forth. I suppose they could, but why should I suspect that will happen? I don't even know if the one I have is faulty or not yet.

I have no reason to form opinions about Rangertell's motives. As I recall, your conclusions were incorrect about them in the past, and now you are making conclusions of what will happen in scenarios that do not exist at present. So far, Rangertell did not do what several skeptics predicted during his dealings with me.

The facts are Rangertell was notified one or two days before Christmas to look at some test results, and he was unable to download some large files to look at the results. After several failed attempts, I did not hear from them again (at least not yet). But then, we're in the middle of the season where most English-speaking people are busy with holiday activities, or on trips to visit friends and family, etc.

Before I speculate that there is any particular concealed motive other than "too busy to get to it at the moment", I am assuming the process will continue after holiday season is over and people are back to business. One thing I won't do is to be rushed. I have time invested into the test program that I watch closely to avoid wasting too much of it. I have plenty of things to keep me busy until I hear back from Ragertell. Timing will not become important to me until I set dates for actual test events. Then I will need to take measures to insure the schedule is kept.

But in the case of people who are simply watching, there is no investment of time or effort.
You can simply watch like you watch a TV program, or turn it off when there's nothing interesting happening.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Hi J_P

as I understand, you do not trust the instructions attached to Rangertell?

Or you do not trust your ability to understand instructions and taken it into account?

Would you also tested the eyeglasses in such way: that you would not dare to look through glasses, until your optical rangertell would not have acknowledged that you have read the instructions properly?

[J_Player]

Hi J_P

as I understand, you do not trust the instructions attached to Rangertell?

Or you do not trust your ability to understand instructions and taken it into account?

Would you also tested the eyeglasses in such way: that you would not dare to look through glasses, until your optical rangertell would not have acknowledged that you have read the instructions properly?Hi WM6,
I have no issues with trust for the Rangertell instructions. I see them as instructions that are suggested to get the best results when using the Examiner. It is true I do not understand all the concepts that are published in the Rangertell instructions. But this will not stop me from following these instructions.

I do not use eyeglasses, so I never read the instructions for eyeglasses, and I don't know how eyeglass instructions will impact the Examiner.
The times when I tried borrowed eyeglasses, I couldn't see very well.
The only exception is when I use sunglasses. I can see better when wearing sunglasses in the bright sunlight.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Dell Winders]

So how far away from the object do you have to be? i can place a small nuggett 6 feet away on top of the ground and tell myself the nuggett is not there and the RT cannot pick it up...what is this gobbledegook about magnetic interference? at 6 feet in plain view on top of the ground? it is all in the head!!! no amount of scientific testing will bypass the fact that results are only achieved unless the operator "tells" the aerial to lock onto something. Target field of strength has absolutely nothing to do with it since i thought i found a quartz reef at 3-400 meters yet cannot find a simple nuggett or coin(s) six feet away. The last time i went back to relocate my quartz reef it was not there someone had obviously stolen it. My precious nuggett is still lost somewhere in my lounge room where the Mrs. cannot remember where she put it last(to be located by me) however i did find some coin and pins and buttons stuffed deep down in a couple of lounge chairs, found with my fingers not the RT by the way. JP is going to waste his time trying to replicate results he gets because the device does not do a thing. his head will be doing everything. Just remeber JP the early models came out without calculators stuck on top so according to Blanes they work quite well with no settings required. Now you are left with a snivelling swivelling aerial that you are going to watch going round and round and round and round and round while Blanes is laughing his head off in the comfort of his home, another sucker to lead by the nose because he knows the whole contraption is just so much Junk and his only aim is to protect his income and bank balance. 1300 RT's by average $600 equals $780,000. Rather good pocket money. There are two reasons why i have not published the results of 300 hours of testing on this site. Firstly they may be used in the future in legal proceedings. Secondly, I did not want obviously well educated persons on this site laughing at the absolute stupidity and gull;ibility that led me to buy such a ridiculously stupid device. Nothing can be proved with the device aother than it can do anything that your head allows it to do. Point it at a rock lock on...point it at a rock do not lock on, it does not lock on. point it at a mountainside tell it to lock on and it does..mountain must be full of emeralds and rubies from the Inca days. Tell it not to lock on and it does not...someone must have crept into the mountain while you were having a smoke and stole all the inca treasure. Garbage and drivel and more garbage this device is a product of a very sick mind...go back to the language that Blanes used in the past in the interests of customer service...he is very obviously a sick man, not just a con artist but a very sick paranoid. His help desk is where he invents ideas to keep you strung out till you give up...the device is not working because..the atmospherics , the ground, other minerals in the area, your body, calculator settings ..even your attitude!! he can string you out for longer than you as a rational person can handle it and you give up and he keeps your money, our money. His day has come he will be on national TV here in Australia it is just a matter of time. He is going to join all the other scam artists that lack normal human conscience and dwell in the realm of the animal kingdom.

Hipopp, I cannot disagree with your assessment of the Ranger Tell Examiner. I have personally never used, or field tested one. If I were to evaluate the Examiner, I would probably be far less impartial than J Player is being only because I have had many years of Treasure Hunting Field experience and comparative testing of LRL's, so I already know the differences in performances, what to expect, how they should function, and the conditions and limitations in which they will, or will not function accurately, or at all.

I don't put much stock in advertising hype.

I can only speak from my own experience. First and foremost, is that LRL's are dumb, stupid, devices. They have no intelligence of their own. Any of them, including my own will only be as good as the intelligence, knowledge, experience, and sometimes luck of the person operating it.

My own products are totally dependent on the success, and satisfaction of my customers. Informing costumers of a products limitations, BEFORE they buy, so the consumer does not have Un-realistic expectations is all important. Apparently this didn't happen in your case, and for that I can sympathize with your predicament.

From the photo of the Examiner, and the swivel handle, I can see where it would be very easy to mentally influence the direction the Examiner points by tilting the hand one way , or other, via a sub-conscious ideomotor muscle response. This can take some learning to overcome, but it is not to say the examiner does not detect, or discriminate the "field" of a target. I don't know. I would have to conduct my own tests.

I can state with assurance, and from experience, there are conditions when any LRL, electronic, or non-electronic, will function poorly, or not at all, and that includes the ones I make. Always use a test target, and keep checking the strength of Field. It does not matter if you are checking from 1 foot away, or 30 feet away. If you don't detect the test target, you won't detect an unknown target.

You are already ahead of the Skeptics on this forum. They claim LRL operators will always detect a visible test target, but never a hidden or unknown target. It appears that has not been your experience, and it's certainly not mine.

I'm truly sorry your experience with the Ranger Tell company, or their product has been an unpleasant one. Dell

[J_Player]

...From the photo of the Examiner, and the swivel handle, I can see where it would be very easy to mentally influence the direction the Examiner points by tilting the hand one way , or other, via a sub-conscious ideomotor muscle response. This can take some learning to overcome, but it is not to say the examiner does not detect, or discriminate the "field" of a target. I don't know. I would have to conduct my own tests.Hi Dell,
Hung made a modification to his Examiner to improve it by stopping the swivelling action at the handle.
This is an easy modification to make in the field.

You are already ahead of the Skeptics on this forum. They claim LRL operators will always detect a visible test target, but never a hidden or unknown target. It appears that has not been your experience, and it's certainly not mine...This is your chance to show everyone that what you say is the truth with live videos instead of just talk. I have a new Examiner that you can use when we hide targets for you to locate. You can also locate them with your other tools that you have experience with. I am sure there will be some time during the day when we will find conditions are not deteriorated to make detection impossible.

Should I make arrangements for you to conduct LRL tests during the test program for the Rangertell Examiner?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

Hi Dell,

This is your chance to show everyone that what you say is the truth with live videos instead of just talk.
Best wishes,
J_P


Hi J_P.
What are you mean?????
To send a video....... and what with it???????
We know the rest :lol::lol:
Video is fraud:lol:.... there was magnet... or transmiter near the device:lol: signals was erratic etc..:razz:

I am sure you understand what i mean!!

Regards:)

[Dell Winders]

That sounds interesting, Does that mean that all expenses are paid, and some compensation for the pain I will have to endure to make a trip in my present condition? Dell

[J_Player]

Hi J_P.
What are you mean?????
To send a video....... and what with it???????
We know the rest :lol::lol:
Video is fraud:lol:.... there was magnet... or transmiter near the device:lol: signals was erratic etc..:razz:

I am sure you understand what i mean!!

Regards:)Hi Geo,
I saw what happened after your testing of the Alonso PD. I helped to get those videos released and shown so anyone who wants can see them. I remember how most people had a strong opinion of whether they were good tests or not, but none of the people complaining went to where Morgan was testing and make their own tests except you.

But I am not Morgan. I really don't care what people say about videos I make. If people say my videos prove nothing, that's find with me. My purpose is not to prove anything. It is only to show what I saw for people who could not be here. I strongly suggest that anyone who wants to see a particular test done with the Examiner should make arrangements to come to Southern California and test out this new Examiner. See for yourself... don't rely on somebody else's video of a test you did not see in person. Run your own test. Hold it in your hand. See for yourself if it finds treasure or not.

Tell me Geo...
When you went to the Morgan demonstration and used the PD in your own hands, did you get the feeling that you know for sure how well the PD works?

Or do you think you can tell how well the PD works just as well from watching the video... and it was a waste of your time and money to go to try it out with your own hands?



P.S. Anyone who wants to try out the Examiner can send me a PM and I will make arrangements.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

That sounds interesting, Does that mean that all expenses are paid, and some compensation for the pain I will have to endure to make a trip in my present condition? DellHi Dell,
I don't know if it means all that you said. Maybe I can give you an answer if you explain what is involved.

At present, I am taking time away from a profitable business and losing income to make tests as a public service with no compensation. This is my own decision to spend part of my time learning something in the field instead of earning money. I figure that as long as it doesn't cost anything extra, I can also share all that I see with others who aren't here to see what I see in the field tests.

But to answer your question about "all expenses paid "and "compensation for the pain", I would need to have some idea of how much money worth of pain you are talking about, and how much the expenses will total.

For example, if your pain is alleviated with a free lunch, I can handle that.

But I have no clue what expenses you are asking me to pay for. Does "all expenses" include a chauffeured limousine from Florida along with an extra emergency vehicle following with medical supplies to assist with whatever condition is causing the pain? Will I need to pay for hospital visits along the way and surgery?

Hmmm... Are you able to walk?
If not, then maybe it is not a good idea for you to attempt to test the Examiner. I read that health can be a factor in getting good results with the examiner. (You are right-handed, aren't you)?

If you can give me a dollar amount, I can give you a yes or no about paying your way.

Best wishes,
J_P

[g-sani]

One thing I cannot understand about all this is the behaviour from rangertell to ask J_P to wait them to confirm if the examiner used was a faulty one or not.
If I was a potential buyer many bad things could come up to my mind and as you understand not in favour of rangertell and their products.
It is like if they want to disadvertise their products the way they behave in such a situation.
In the other hand another thing suprises me in their favour this time.
It is so many people that bought their lrls but it is very difficult to find a secondhand one on sale in the web.

[hipopp]

rangertell (blanes) is on its best behaviour since finding out they will be on national TV here in australia. I suspect JPLAYER was sent a free to try RT to make them look good. look back over their sick responses to the general public on this forum and they haver undergone a massive change of heart. JPLAYER i am sure you will be strung out with the RT not being calibrated properly send it back trick or your body mass exudes onerous bi-frequencies interfering in the tri-frequencies fed back from the gravitational pull of Sirius on my Dog's hind quarters thus nullifying your testing protocols. And you can keep returning the device to swap for a better one untill your bank account cannot keep up with the postage. Mr. blanes has all the time in the world to fob you off. you have my support if you need it for tests to double check any findings. The reason you will not find any of these RT's on ebay second hand for sale is because the owners in all conscience would not dupe any unsuspecting purchaser like blanes does without conscience.

[Fred]

One thing I cannot understand about all this is the behaviour from rangertell to ask J_P to wait them to confirm if the examiner used was a faulty one or not.
I don´t think this is rangertell decision, but more like J_P´s one to be sure his tests are valid.

[osman]

Hi Geo,
I saw what happened after your testing of the Alonso PD. I helped to get those videos released and shown so anyone who wants can see them. I remember how most people had a strong opinion of whether they were good tests or not, but none of the people complaining went to where Morgan was testing and make their own tests except you.

But I am not Morgan. I really don't care what people say about videos I make. If people say my videos prove nothing, that's find with me. My purpose is not to prove anything. It is only to show what I saw for people who could not be here. I strongly suggest that anyone who wants to see a particular test done with the Examiner should make arrangements to come to Southern California and test out this new Examiner. See for yourself... don't rely on somebody else's video of a test you did not see in person. Run your own test. Hold it in your hand. See for yourself if it finds treasure or not.

Tell me Geo...
When you went to the Morgan demonstration and used the PD in your own hands, did you get the feeling that you know for sure how well the PD works?

Or do you think you can tell how well the PD works just as well from watching the video... and it was a waste of your time and money to go to try it out with your own hands?



P.S. Anyone who wants to try out the Examiner can send me a PM and I will make arrangements.

Best wishes,
J_P




Hi j player

proposal; test sample, a piece of copper for 1 kg or higher,
-Even the most novice person, can be easily detected.
-signal strength is directly proportional to weight.
-test area, excluding the signals may occur.

Best wishes
osman

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,

"Stringing along"..?
So we must interject motives because there is a delay?
As I recall you were among several who decided Rangertell would not send a sample to test before it was sent. And now you are speculating that they could continue claiming replacements are faulty until until I get tired of sending them back and forth. I suppose they could, but why should I suspect that will happen? I don't even know if the one I have is faulty or not yet.
<< stuff snipped>>

Best wishes,
J_P

Yes, I'm speculating. And, I'm basing my speculations on past history and how VB thinks.

I'm not the only one here that is not as trusting of him, as you seem to be.

I'm all for giving him a chance, and giving the Examiner a fair chance too; but it's really hard to ignore what he's said, what he's lied about and where we've been before getting to this point. :nono:

[WM6]

none of the people complaining went to where Morgan was testing and make their own tests

J_P

Hi J_P, Morgan recently buy expensive Nexus.

This fact tell us enough about real treasure finding capabilities of Alonso PD.

There was no need to buy Nexus if Alonso PD was working as seen on videos.

But fact is that Alonso PD is not working at all. They can only find known treasure like one in Fort Knox. Same as Rangertell can do.

Sorry J_P, but as it stands now to see (and as this also recalled by hipopp) by the fact that you agreed to the producer's tricks and scams, you become only a Rangertell marketing experimental rabbit. You (i hope) inadvertently agreed to the purposes of the manufacturer, which is certainly not to establish the reality of those new art construction comics.

At the end, best wishes to your test, we all need working LRL.

PS: I must pointed again on big test mistake which is also here to announce: Namely test LRL in form to find treasure hidden by yourself. Treasure hidden by myself I can find without any LRL only by my middle finger, but I am not a dowser. One test mistake necessarily lead to other test mistakes. What will be test protocols and propositions?

[J_Player]

Hi j player

proposal; test sample, a piece of copper for 1 kg or higher,
-Even the most novice person, can be easily detected.
-signal strength is directly proportional to weight.
-test area, excluding the signals may occur.

Best wishes
osmanHi osman,
I have added your test request to the list of testing reqested.

The test will start with scanning a test location with metal detectors to make sure there is no detectable buried metal things, and then we will check with the Examiner to see if there are any stray signals that cause false readings before starting this test.

After checking for no false readings with the Examiner, we will place piece of copper 1 kg or more and test to see if the Examiner can locate it.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

Hi Geo,
I saw what happened after your testing of the Alonso PD. I helped to get those videos released and shown so anyone who wants can see them. I remember how most people had a strong opinion of whether they were good tests or not, but none of the people complaining went to where Morgan was testing and make their own tests except you.

Tell me Geo...
When you went to the Morgan demonstration and used the PD in your own hands, did you get the feeling that you know for sure how well the PD works?

Or do you think you can tell how well the PD works just as well from watching the video... and it was a waste of your time and money to go to try it out with your own hands?

Best wishes,
J_P

Hi J_P.
For me the try of the PD was NOT waste of time and money!!!! It was a good experience.
Until now i believe that the PD works. Especially at the second place with the foil we checked it from all directions , before and after that we found the foil. But i found mischievous critique:frown:. This is the reason for what i wrote to you.

Regards:)

[hipopp]

osman is a agent of blanes or a paid associate. A member since not so long ago he knows all about everything, have a look at his past posts. No where in nature will you find 1 kg of pure copper so yout test parameters are unrealistic for a start. But...go ahead and try it...you will be able to locate it if you know where you buried it but not able to locate it if someone else, completely independant, buries it. Carl has quite a few thousand dollars to lose if you can accurately find a target every time. Why do you think Carl and his money are still together? go to the www.finders.com.au (http://www.finders.com.au) website and osman is ottoman or something like that there. He has dozens of aliases the creep.

[hipopp]

Hi osman,
I have added your test request to the list of testing reqested.

The test will start with scanning a test location with metal detectors to make sure there is no detectable buried metal things, and then we will check with the Examiner to see if there are any stray signals that cause false readings before starting this test.

After checking for no false readings with the Examiner, we will place piece of copper 1 kg or more and test to see if the Examiner can locate it.

Best wishes,
J_P
JP copper is usually associated with gold in nature so all deposits are going to be tainted with so called stray signals...blaines tells us his calculator settings are specific for individual metals so stray signals amount to nought. You are well on the path to manipulation by the creep and his believers.

[Jim]

Hi osman,

After checking for no false readings with the Examiner, we will place piece of copper 1 kg or more and test to see if the Examiner can locate it.

J_P

Quick question...how can one tell the difference between a false reading, and a malfunctioning unit? A false reading would indicate, to me, that the gizmo is capable of making non-false readings...or correct readings.

[J_Player]

Yes, I'm speculating. And, I'm basing my speculations on past history and how VB thinks.

I'm not the only one here that is not as trusting of him, as you seem to be.

I'm all for giving him a chance, and giving the Examiner a fair chance too; but it's really hard to ignore what he's said, what he's lied about and where we've been before getting to this point. :nono:Hi Theseus,
To begin, I don't know if I am dealing with Vincent Blanes or not. The person who I contact at Rangertell does not sign emails as Vincent Blanes, so I have no reason to conclude it is Vincent Blanes. But then I really don't care who the person behind the name is, as long is it is someone who provides an official response from the Rangertell factory.

Most of the stuff I have seen written about Vincent Blanes in this thread was never confirmed to be true. It was just assumed to be true and then taken for facts to use as a method to to prove a point. For examlpe "basing my speculations on past history and how VB thinks" is clouded with guessing how he thinks. Nobody knows how VB thinks except VB. You cannot observe VB's thinking, just as nobody can observe your thinking unless they are inside your head. You can only observe actions and events. Further, nobody knows for sure the person you are attributing "past history" to is VB.

I read posts here from several names that appear to come from the Rangertell factory, but I don't have any way to know if they are names used by VB or someone else. I only have accusations that I am expected to take for facts. Rather than speculate that every accusation is true, I declined to form a conclusion of what the identity of the person posting here as Rangertell is. Maybe you'r right, and every accusation is correct. Or maybe it is several people using the same computer. I don't care. It doesn't help me to conduct a test program if I know the identity or not.

The person I am trusting is whoever answers emails and is responsible for the Examiner arriving for me to test.
Is this the same person you are attributing "past history and how VB thinks"? I don't know.
Maybe, and maybe not. It certainly is not someone who represents himself as VB. But then I don't care who it is.

It is not my purpose to focus on possible disasters predicted for the future and publish speculative blame on people that I can't prove caused these disasters that didn't happen. My purpose is to take my time and make sure I have a good working sample, then proceed to make some tests. Sorry if you don't like that purpose.

What I do know is I can get a more accurate idea of what to expect from people if I observe thier actions, not the talk and words that are said. Whoever I am dealing with did exactly what they said they would do. And in the emails I exchanged so far, I saw nothing to suggest lies and trickery. But If I look back at your words in the forum, I can see they are not correct. The things you predicted did not happen as you predicted they would.
So what should I believe? Your future predictions?
Or should I believe the events I observed as historical facts since I began dealing with the person who sent emails to me?

Until I see the actions of the person I am dealing with give me a reason to believe your predictions are correct, then I will believe what I see happening, not a speculated prediction for the future. I am in no hurry. I really don't mind if it takes another month or year before I get to the point where I am ready to start testing. I have nothing to lose. Do you?

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

I don´t think this is rangertell decision, but more like J_P´s one to be sure his tests are valid.Hi Fred,
I made an agreement with Rangertell that I would conduct no public testing or post test results for the public to read until we can confirm the Examiner I have is working correctly.

And you are also right to about I don't want to waste time testing a piece of equipment that could be defective. Any results from a defective unit would be considered invalid by scientific standards as well as by LRL enthusiasts. :)

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Quick question...how can one tell the difference between a false reading, and a malfunctioning unit? A false reading would indicate, to me, that the gizmo is capable of making non-false readings...or correct readings.Hi Jim,
The test for false readings will involve adjusting the Examiner to discriminate to only find copper, then to take it across the supposedly barren test field and see if it begins moving toward any particular location. In theory, if we get a response, it would indicate there is copper in the "barren" field. This would lead us to look at the location where points and dig a hole to see if there is some copper buried below where the metal detectors didn't find it. Then remove the copper and check again for a signal. When we see there is no signal from the field, then we can place the 1 kg copper target to test. If we can't get the "barren" field clear of signals that the Examiner responds to, then I guess we need to find a different test field that will work.

I wouldn't attempt this test until after I got a confirmation from Rangertell that the Examiner is working ok. At least this is the best way I figured to do it so far. Do you have any suggestions?

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

JP copper is usually associated with gold in nature so all deposits are going to be tainted with so called stray signals...blaines tells us his calculator settings are specific for individual metals so stray signals amount to nought. You are well on the path to manipulation by the creep and his believers.Hi hipopp,
I will take into account your advice about copper deposits. In the test osman requested, we will be careful to use 1 kg of manufactured copper that was proccessed by smelters who extract the gold before their copper is sent off to manufacturers.

I don't feel like I am being manipulated. But then I have nothing to lose. I am neither a beleiver or a non-believer. I am only an observer who wants to see what it does in a real live test without taking somebody else's word for it.

From what I can see, it appears you still have your Examiner and have not sent it back or received a refund. Have you considered making some actual documented tests to show other people what it does in action? Maybe invite the local LRL enthusiasts to come and try it... and the local metal detectorists?

Until you show some kind of documentation, your statements are not substantiated any more than an LRL enthusiast who can claim he got great response with the Examiner. But if you take videos and photos of actual tests, I can post them on my website so the whole world can see some real proof instead of more claims and talk in a forum. Maybe this will help attract the TV programs you are hoping will become interested.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Dell Winders]

J Player, that is sound rational logic, and excellent unprejudiced reasoning. I like that attitude.

The cost for me travelling to California, may be impractical considering my physical inability to provide my full services to you? $5,000 would be the least I would consider.

My time is contingent on the number of orders I have ahead of me at the time prior to your test dates. Traditionally, business is slow from December to April, and I look forward to that lull. Surprisingly there have been three word of mouth inquires that have come in since Christmas, so I don't know what to expect this next year.

If you feel my presence is important to your project, I will make every effort to be there, and Thank you, for inviting me.

JIM, in my opinion "False" readings, or False signals, are not even a consideration and are usually used in the LRL industry as "Excuse".

There can be inaccurate interpretations of the Signals, a human error, or inaccuracies in the LRL's ability to Discriminate targets. A Signal is valid, whether it is correct, or incorrect, accurate, or inaccurate. As I have stated there are operating conditions which will render LRL's inaccurate. It's to the operators benefit to learn to recognize when these conditions are present.

Dell

[Jim]

Hi Jim,
The test for false readings will involve adjusting the Examiner to discriminate to only find copper, then to take it across the supposedly barren test field and see if it begins moving toward any particular location. In theory, if we get a response, it would indicate there is copper in the "barren" field. This would lead us to look at the location where points and dig a hole to see if there is some copper buried below where the metal detectors didn't find it. Then remove the copper and check again for a signal. When we see there is no signal from the field, then we can place the 1 kg copper target to test. If we can't get the "barren" field clear of signals that the Examiner responds to, then I guess we need to find a different test field that will work.

I wouldn't attempt this test until after I got a confirmation from Rangertell that the Examiner is working ok. At least this is the best way I figured to do it so far. Do you have any suggestions?

Best wishes,
J_P

Thanks for your reply. As I understand it...you are not talking about a false reading or signal. The scenario you have explained indicates the gadget located an item it was supposed to locate. Not false at all.

I understand you want to make sure the test site is void of copper targets, now that you have further explained the protocol

Thanks for clearing that up.

[J_Player]

J Player, that is sound rational logic, and excellent unprejudiced reasoning. I like that attitude.

The cost for me travelling to California, may be impractical considering my physical inability to provide my full services to you? $5,000 would be the least I would consider.

My time is contingent on the number of orders I have ahead of me at the time prior to your test dates. Traditionally, business is slow from December to April, and I look forward to that lull. Surprisingly there have been three word of mouth inquires that have come in since Christmas, so I don't know what to expect this next year.

If you feel my presence is important to your project, I will make every effort to be there, and Thank you, for inviting me...

...DellHi Dell,
I have not requested your services. I invited you to come and try out the Examiner yourself, and try your other tools as well, and even offered to make videos of your tests if you want. This invitation was extended in order to give you the opportunity to try the Examiner for yourself, so you would no longer have to say you don't have experience with it, and so you can speak with authority when describing how it works. All other test program participants are volunteers who were invited or asked to come to events to be scheduled.

Actually there is no particular treasure we need to locate at present that requires hiring a consultant. But I will keep your fee and time schedule in mind in case the need arises in the near future. Just to clarify, $5000 is your firm fee for each day, not the whole trip, correct?

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Thanks for your reply. As I understand it...you are not talking about a false reading or signal. The scenario you have explained indicates the gadget located an item it was supposed to locate. Not false at all.

I understand you want to make sure the test site is void of copper targets, now that you have further explained the protocol

Thanks for clearing that up.Exactly.
When I said false signal, I was referring to a signal from a false copper target, different than the one we are testing for. It would be the same as trying to eliminate a false target when you are testing a metal detector to see if it could find a penny you put in a hole, and then find that you dig up a copper washer that is buried a few inches to the side. That is what I want to eliminate.

There is one complication: From what I have read, there are a few circumstances when other metals can actually give a false signal. This kind of false signal can be compared to the scenario above looking for the copper coin with a metal detector, except buryng a gold ring, and finding a US nickel instead, which can register the same as gold on some detectors. As I recall from the literature, this doesn't happen often with the Examiner, and can be avoided if precautions are taken. The best precaution might be if we pick a test field that doesn't have any metal in it. Maybe somewhere in the desert.

But regardless of the source of "stray signals", I will consider any pre-existing signals that can't be removed from a field to be false (false = not from the copper target we want to test). I will be looking for a test field in which the Examiner is not responding to any particular location before we start a test with the 1kg copper target. I think that is what osman was asking us to do in his test request.

Best wishses,
J_P

[Dell Winders]

Hi Dell,
I have not requested your services. I invited you to come and try out the Examiner yourself, and try your other tools as well, and even offered to make videos of your tests if you want. This invitation was extended in order to give you the opportunity to try the Examiner for yourself, so you would no longer have to say you don't have experience with it, and so you can speak with authority when describing how it works. All other test program participants are volunteers who were invited or asked to come to events to be scheduled.

Actually there is no particular treasure we need to locate at present that requires hiring a consultant. But I will keep your fee and time schedule in mind in case the need arises in the near future. Just to clarify, $5000 is your firm fee for each day, not the whole trip, correct?

Best wishes,
J_P

No, it's not per day, it's to cover my expenses there, and back home for that period of time. In addition to having handicap requirements while I am there, I have to hire some one to help Trudy, and drive her to work on weekends. She is 85, and legally blind, but gets around better than I do.

I appreciate the invitation, but if I can't be of service, I am not earning my way. It would be cheaper, if it were of any interest to me, I would order the Ranger-Tell with the money back guarantee for $700, and conduct my own comparison tests under the adverse operating conditions in Central Florida.

I wish you the best. Dell

[J_Player]

No, it's not per day, it's to cover my expenses there, and back home for that period of time. In addition to having handicap requirements while I am there, I have to hire some one to help Trudy, and drive her to work on weekends. She is 85, and legally blind, but gets around better than I do.

I appreciate the invitation, but if I can't be of service, I am not earning my way. It would be cheaper, if it were of any interest to me, I would order the Ranger-Tell with the money back guarantee for $700, and conduct my own comparison tests under the adverse operating conditions in Central Florida.

I wish you the best. DellHi dell,
I think you have a good idea about ordering your own to test. Actually the RT Examiner T-G Ver 8.08B that I will be testing is shown on sale for $441 US on the Rangertell products page. If you decide not to buy one to try out yourself, you can ask me to perform specific tests. I will do my best to perform the test you request and report back the rusults.

Good luck with your activities in Florida,
J_P

[hipopp]

Hi hipopp,
I will take into account your advice about copper deposits. In the test osman requested, we will be careful to use 1 kg of manufactured copper that was proccessed by smelters who extract the gold before their copper is sent off to manufacturers.

I don't feel like I am being manipulated. But then I have nothing to lose. I am neither a beleiver or a non-believer. I am only an observer who wants to see what it does in a real live test without taking somebody else's word for it.

From what I can see, it appears you still have your Examiner and have not sent it back or received a refund. Have you considered making some actual documented tests to show other people what it does in action? Maybe invite the local LRL enthusiasts to come and try it... and the local metal detectorists?

Until you show some kind of documentation, your statements are not substantiated any more than an LRL enthusiast who can claim he got great response with the Examiner. But if you take videos and photos of actual tests, I can post them on my website so the whole world can see some real proof instead of more claims and talk in a forum. Maybe this will help attract the TV programs you are hoping will become interested.

Best wishes,
J_P

JPlayer....you obviously have not read all the claims made by Blanes about the RT...neither have you read all my posts...i say again...i have a conscience and would not sell my useless RT to a dog let alone another human being. I have spent 300 hours testing the useless fraudulent device and have been led up the garden path like most other folk who bought one. Examiner refuse to refund me my money even after the most exhaustive of tests proving conclusively the device is absolutely useless as a gem/metal/treasure/coin finding device ...to know where you are going you need to know where you have been...read all the posts including the disgusting posts by V. Blanes who cares nought for anyone but himself. The ultimate fraudster. He has all the time in the world to keep you changing methodology of testing, frequencies blah blah blah. It has already started with you , you have a delay in responses from him re the soundness of the device you have been sent. Expect one delay after another. I mean this guy thinks he is God. He claimed to be able to work out the correct calculator settings for finding Opal from 600 kilometers away in his office. The man is a deluded fool and the ultimate shyster. He is currently responding on the Finders Forum in Australia under another name so he is avoiding communicating with you re the soundness of your current device. Nothing wrong with your device it simply does not work, the same as mine and everyone elses. ALL RESULTS BY THE EXAMINER START AND FINISH IN THE OPERATORS HEAD. The device may as well be a bent wire coat hanger.

[Dell Winders]

Determining If Frequency Discrimination Works, or doesn't work is no longer a question. The precedent has been set over and over again. that it does.

A few of the question to be answered for consumers is, does the product live up to the advertising claims? what are the limitations? In comparison, which, Brands, and models are the most efficient, user friendly, and best for the money? Will it perform the task according to the consumers expectations? Is their a warranty? Is the seller a person of their word?

My tests as a Treasure Hunter, would only be comparison tests with other products, to choose a preference. It's unlikely that the subtle reactions of the Ranger Tell, would change my preference, so there is not much point in my testing it, if I am not going to use it. I have tested and compared more than 50 makes and models already.

One feature advertised on the Examiner, that intrigues me, is the claim that it can determine the depth of a target from a distance? Dell

[J_Player]

JPlayer....you obviously have not read all the claims made by Blanes about the RT...neither have you read all my posts...i say again...i have a conscience and would not sell my useless RT to a dog let alone another human being. I have spent 300 hours testing the useless fraudulent device and have been led up the garden path like most other folk who bought one. Examiner refuse to refund me my money even after the most exhaustive of tests proving conclusively the device is absolutely useless as a gem/metal/treasure/coin finding device ...to know where you are going you need to know where you have been...read all the posts including the disgusting posts by V. Blanes who cares nought for anyone but himself. The ultimate fraudster. He has all the time in the world to keep you changing methodology of testing, frequencies blah blah blah. It has already started with you , you have a delay in responses from him re the soundness of the device you have been sent. Expect one delay after another. I mean this guy thinks he is God. He claimed to be able to work out the correct calculator settings for finding Opal from 600 kilometers away in his office. The man is a deluded fool and the ultimate shyster. He is currently responding on the Finders Forum in Australia under another name so he is avoiding communicating with you re the soundness of your current device. Nothing wrong with your device it simply does not work, the same as mine and everyone elses. ALL RESULTS BY THE EXAMINER START AND FINISH IN THE OPERATORS HEAD. The device may as well be a bent wire coat hanger.Hi hipopp,
Actually I have read your posts and all the Rangertell posts as well as the Rangertell website, and a few other forums where there have been controversial posts about Rangertell.

I have read all your words. And that is all they are... words. For the purpose of proof, your words are only propaganda. You talk about all the long hours of testing you did that gave conclusive proof, but you have provided no test records or other credible documentation to support this proof as you claimed. You essentially proved it to yourself, nobody else. Then you began a propaganda campaign in hopes that everyone would have the same sentiments you do, and help you get your money back.

The style of your claims is surprisingly similar to what we hear from LRL enthusiasts who tell tales of finding great treasures after hours of experimenting until they got it just right. They have no photos to show their experiments, they have no witnessess who will post what they observed during these alleged great results. In fact nobody from this forum was ever given an opportunity to even see these alleged tests that proved how well the amazing LRLs work.**(see below)

In short, your rantings are no diffent than the rantings of LRL enthusiasts who claim LRLs do work. How can you expect a TV station to believe you if you made no records for people to see over the months you tested your Examiner? What TV program would want to put their reputation at risk for a person who makes claims he ran hundreds of tests, but has no records to prove it.... he only says "it didn't work for me ... Honest, it didn't!"

Aren't those stories a dime a dozen? Wouldn't a TV station be more interested in showing the story of Esteban demonstrating his LRL making sounds near metal? Or maybe a story about Morgan's LRLs that he did document and show videos? Arent those more newsworthy stories than the story of a person who has no documentation to show, but is running a propaganda campaign in hopes that he can get his money back?

You probably already noticed I am in favor of producing tangible documentation to back up what you claim is the truth. No, Rangertell has not convinced me of anything about whether the Examiner works or not. The fact is I still don't know if it works or not. My interest is not to get my money back, because I haven't spent any money. I could care less whether the examiner works or not. And I don't care if it takes a lot of time or not before I get to a point where I can begin a test program.

The only thing I really care about is to see what it does.

Just that.

To see with my own eyes instead of being expected to believe what other people tell me I should believe.
To see it work or not work in my own hands instead of taking somebody else's word for it.

And I have a feeling there are other people who would like to just see what it does instead of relying on the different versions of propaganda that they are expected to believe with no documentation to support them. That is the second thing that is important to me. I will make videos of what I see so others can see what I see from behind the camera, without any propaganda to go along with it.

In case you haven't understood what I am saying yet, my interest is two things:

1. To see what the Examiner does with my own hands and eyes.
2. To show others who are interested in seeing the things that I see.

If you are expecting me to stop caring about those two things, you will be disappointed. If you expect me to abandon those two things to jump into your propaganda campaign to get your money back, you will be dissapointed. But if you begin to put some credible documentation to support your rantings, then maybe you will see me exert energy to make it easier for you to go about making your documentation seen.

Hopefully you won't waste any more of your energy trying to convince me to cancel my plans. Think about it. You can continue to rant on and hope more people will care about it, or you can put some substance behind your claims, and people might start becoming interested.


Best wishes,
J_P


** There are a few exceptions such as Morgan, Geo and Esteban and maybe some others, who actually did produce some sort of evidence to support their claims.

[J_Player]

Determining If Frequency Discrimination Works, or doesn't work is no longer a question. The precedent has been set over and over again. that it does.

A few of the question to be answered for consumers is, does the product live up to the advertising claims? what are the limitations? In comparison, which, Brands, and models are the most efficient, user friendly, and best for the money? Will it perform the task according to the consumers expectations? Is their a warranty? Is the seller a person of their word?

My tests as a Treasure Hunter, would only be comparison tests with other products, to choose a preference. It's unlikely that the subtle reactions of the Ranger Tell, would change my preference, so there is not much point in my testing it, if I am not going to use it. I have tested and compared more than 50 makes and models already.

One feature advertised on the Examiner, that intrigues me, is the claim that it can determine the depth of a target from a distance? DellHi Dell,
I have never seen the precedent set to show frequency discrimination works for an MFD device that recovered buried treasure. Not over an over again, not even once. Nor do I know of any events that were held for the public to come and see an MFD set those precedents. As far as I know the precedents exist in the minds of people who believe them. Not in the facts that were demonstrated in front of witnesses here and now.

But I can answer your question about the depth and distance from the Examiner. The Examiner manual does give a method with several variations for determining depth and distance of a target. How well it works, I don't know. They also explain methods to determine other information about the target I have not seen advertised for other MFDs.

The manual says the advantage the Examiner has over other MFD devices is partly an advantage due to much greater percision in frequency, and I am thinking the sensitivity control also plays a part in features that are considered an improvement over other kinds of MFDs.

I can tell you only what I have seen written in the manual. I can't tell you anything about how well it works or not.


Best wishes,
J_P

[hipopp]

Hi hipopp,
Actually I have read your posts and all the Rangertell posts as well as the Rangertell website, and a few other forums where there have been controversial posts about Rangertell.

I have read all your words. And that is all they are... words. For the purpose of proof, your words are only propaganda. You talk about all the long hours of testing you did that gave conclusive proof, but you have provided no test records or other credible documentation to support this proof as you claimed. You essentially proved it to yourself, nobody else. Then you began a propaganda campaign in hopes that everyone would have the same sentiments you do, and help you get your money back.



1. To see what the Examiner does with my own hands and eyes.
2. To show others who are interested in seeing the things that I see.

If you are expecting me to stop caring about those two things, you will be disappointed. If you expect me to abandon those two things to jump into your propaganda campaign and help get your money back, you will be dissapointed. But if you begin to put some credible documentation to support your rantings, then you will see me exert energy to make it easier for you to go about making your documentation seen.

Hopefully you won't waste any more of your energy trying to convince me to cancel my plans. Think about it. You can continue to rant on and hope more people will care about it, or you can put some substance behind your claims, and people might start becoming interested.


Best wishes,
J_P


** There are a few exceptions such as Morgan, Geo and Esteban and maybe some others, who actually did produce some sort of evidence to support their claims.

JPlayer your choice of words is disappointing. Rantings? No! clear unequivocal facts.. It is enough to be humiliated in front of my partner who witnessed the purchase and useage and subsequent testing of the useless device. There is nothing to prove, the device is a heap of crock. AS i said in a previous post...place a nugget in front of you and lock the aerial into it by saying"there it is i can see it" then leaving the nuggett where it is spin around a turn (for distraction) and looking at the nuggett tell yourself it is not there...the aerial will not lock on. Period full stop nil needs to be done or said more it is a crock. And i want everyone who bought one to get their money back.!!!!!!!!! You are heading down the blanes road of time wasting and cannot see it. The device has been tested by me in front of my partner a hundred times and it is useless. It can only find things that you already know the location of. No need to go to the desert or the Rockies or nevada or whatever else you have over there. Just try it on your front lawn right now...go outside and try it and come back and let us know straight away. I understand your professionalist approach but you will be as vulnerable as anyone else in the sickness that is Blanes. The simple lawn test will be enough for any prospective purchaser. If you cannot find a nuggett on top of your own lawn what hope out in the wild? You cannot evaluate this device alone, someone else has to hide the objects. Just to give you an example, i still cannot find a small nuggett in my lounge room hidden by my friend. Attempting to locate it even in such a small area i got more than 15 false signals of its location. I gave up when it was conclusive....THE AERIAL LOCKS ON TO WHERE I WILL IT TO NOT WHERE THE TARGET IS. Heap of Crock...Major Scam!!!!! go ahead and do your precise scientific analysis but do the lawn test for us all first. No one suggested you stop your testing that i know of, this is called the Blanes Effect...losing touch with reality JP. The lawn test please.....

[hipopp]

is jplayer Vincent? anyone know? must check to see how long it took the parcel to be received in the USA. My US parcels take about two weeks to get here at the quickest.

[hipopp]

by the way folks...the RT examiner will soon be a thing of the past...new release is a high gizmo gadget version new name new price same dud LRL. No wonder vince is stalling for time. Will post more info soon. p.s if the RT works why is it being shelved??????????

[hipopp]

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Gold-Detector-In-A-Mobile-by-maxFynd_W0QQitemZ230413148714QQihZ013QQcategoryZ58 054QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Qiaozhi]

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Gold-Detector-In-A-Mobile-by-maxFynd_W0QQitemZ230413148714QQihZ013QQcategoryZ58 054QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
According to the blurb -> NEW!! Just incorporated! An easy method to distinguish natural from manmade gold!! :lol:

And I thought alchemy was a thing of the past! :???:

[Theseus]

JPlayer....you obviously have not read all the claims made by Blanes about the RT...neither have you read all my posts...i say again...i have a conscience and would not sell my useless RT to a dog let alone another human being. I have spent 300 hours testing the useless fraudulent device and have been led up the garden path like most other folk who bought one. Examiner refuse to refund me my money even after the most exhaustive of tests proving conclusively the device is absolutely useless as a gem/metal/treasure/coin finding device ...to know where you are going you need to know where you have been...read all the posts including the disgusting posts by V. Blanes who cares nought for anyone but himself. The ultimate fraudster. He has all the time in the world to keep you changing methodology of testing, frequencies blah blah blah. It has already started with you , you have a delay in responses from him re the soundness of the device you have been sent. Expect one delay after another. I mean this guy thinks he is God. He claimed to be able to work out the correct calculator settings for finding Opal from 600 kilometers away in his office. The man is a deluded fool and the ultimate shyster. He is currently responding on the Finders Forum in Australia under another name so he is avoiding communicating with you re the soundness of your current device. Nothing wrong with your device it simply does not work, the same as mine and everyone elses. ALL RESULTS BY THE EXAMINER START AND FINISH IN THE OPERATORS HEAD. The device may as well be a bent wire coat hanger.

"...He is currently responding on the Finders Forum in Australia under another name so he is avoiding communicating with you re the soundness of your current device..."

Precisely my point! I mean give us all a break here. :D How long would it take for VB (or whatever alias he is currently using) to comment on the condition of the Examiner held by J_P? Last time I checked PMs here took a matter of minutes, and private Emails perhaps an hour at the most.

If this isn't a grand VB stall tactic; then please show us all what it really is? :lol:

[Theseus]

by the way folks...the RT examiner will soon be a thing of the past...new release is a high gizmo gadget version new name new price same dud LRL. No wonder vince is stalling for time. Will post more info soon. p.s if the RT works why is it being shelved??????????

Good Point!

However, let's assume the current Examiner (the one J_P has) does something useful towards finding and recovering treasure. Forget about the new model, let's just test the old model for exactly what IT is supposed to be capable of doing. ;)

Certainly it can't be worthless........ or, is it?

[Dell Winders]

Hi Dell,
I have never seen the precedent set to show frequency discrimination works for an MFD device that recovered buried treasure. Not over an over again, not even once. Nor do I know of any events that were held for the public to come and see an MFD set those precedents. As far as I know the precedents exist in the minds of people who believe them. Not in the facts that were demonstrated in front of witnesses here and now.

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,289835.0.html

[Theseus]

Hi Dell,
I have never seen the precedent set to show frequency discrimination works for an MFD device that recovered buried treasure. Not over an over again, not even once. Nor do I know of any events that were held for the public to come and see an MFD set those precedents. As far as I know the precedents exist in the minds of people who believe them. Not in the facts that were demonstrated in front of witnesses here and now.

Best wishes,
J_P

No precedent HAS ever been set, or shown to prove MFD works. But mentioning it here makes for good FREE advertising. :nono:

[Dell Winders]

Theseus, I realize you suffer from denial and the partial blindness of selective vision, but one of the reported finding with an MFD, with some photos of part of the 80+ lbs. of Spanish Gold reported sounds like a precedent to me.

Of course, it's good advertisement, but I never used it. That one find & recovery happened nearly 8 years ago. Have you ever seen it in any of my advertisements?

I added the link here, and on TNET only recently because you, and others claim you cannot find any information that my products ever worked for any one, and use your own inept research to print falsehoods.

Now you have 3 reports of findings which you can investigate and I will continue to add more. I have over 200 letters of favorable comments from customers. Documentaries have been shown of discoveries being made with the aid of MFD, on PBS, Discovery, and ABC 20/20. At least two books have been written on the discoveries made with an MFD.

The Skeptic claims of thorough research and honest reporting is a farce, a scam. Dell

[Theseus]

Theseus, I realize you.....

<< false claims, lies and other BS snipped >>
Dell

:lol: More FREE advertising. Go for it, Dell. I'm surprised you didn't mention how your LRL/MFD junk located Noah's lost Arc. C'mon Dell, give us all the fables and myths you can think of. :D :D :D

[g-sani]

There is only one test that can prove to me that an LRL work.
I take it and go out to a field that I have never been before and I try to locate anything metallic using the different options in search available in this LRL.
When there is a signal I find the exact spot and then I use my VLF and then my pulse detector if there is not possible to detect anything at the first place while using the VLF.
If the metal discovered is the metal I was looking for using the LRL then the result is satisfactory.
Of course it might be a metal out there and I might not have any indication for it but then I move to another place and try to locate something there.May be this sounds for most of you a funny thing to do but I will try to explain why I do it this way.
The chances that there is something metallic out in any a field are really great so if an LRL works then it should be able to pick up something.
To see and to prove to yourself that always there is something out there is very easy.Just take your VLF go anywhere and start walking around.
In the other hand if the LRL in test shows nothing in a place then there are two posibilities:
1.There is nothing there which is utopia(doesn't make sense) and
2.There is something there and our LRL doesnt work or it cannot pick it up.
So no signal at all for any of the metals that the LRL was build to search then this LRL in test is more likely(for me definately) that doesn't work.
Picking up a signal that finally proves a target then it works.As simple as that.Of course some can be better in one metal than another but then we go to a different story and other parameters must be taken in account making things complicated.
I believe that people in our hobby want a simple effective way of testing an LRL and in real conditions where everybody can do it and whith no one knowing what or where something is hidden or any other info like size or weigh of the metal in search.
Of course somebody can say that an LRL can pick only some of the targets around and may be is true but then this is enough to say that this LRL is working and I think you agree whith that.Which one and how can prove that it is nothing more hidden somewhere else? There is only one way. You have to have the perfect LRL!
Hidding metalls for testing is not proper testing for LRLs except if they are there for long time.How long?
Well don't do it for me.Because again we have to take other parameters in account and this is a mistake.
For Pulse detectors may be you can do it for VLFs don't.
An LRL works only when it gives you a find that you unearthed it yourself and you had no idea at all that something like that was in the area or in the exact spot that you found it.
Any other attempt in testing LRLs must also have as I said above other parameters taking into account and there are so many of them that we know nothing for sure yet so I think we are better off when we don't touch them.
Of course certain things can be checked in certain ways but then we are driving ourselves inside the Bermouda triangle loosing our mision which should be answered whith a YES or NO.

[Theseus]

...If the metal discovered is the metal I was looking for using the LRL then the result is satisfactory....

How often has that happened, and what was the particular LRL that you accomplished it with?

[WM6]

How often has that happened, and what was the particular LRL that you accomplished it with?



Right question. For valid test such finding method have to be reproducible again and again, not only randomly one case.

As still said before: at rich places one can coincidently find gold only by middle finger, no need LRL.

[J_Player]

I have never seen the precedent set to show frequency discrimination works for an MFD device that recovered buried treasure. Not over an over again, not even once. Nor do I know of any events that were held for the public to come and see an MFD set those precedents. As far as I know the precedents exist in the minds of people who believe them. Not in the facts that were demonstrated in front of witnesses here and now.

Originally posted by Dell Winders

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,289835.0.html Those are some fun to read treasure stories. Where are the parts of the stories I can see to show frequency discrimination recovering treasures? The few references to MFDs I read are more anecdotal stories believed in the minds of people who did not demonstrate it happening in front of witnesses here and now. What you showed me is not a precedent. It is more of the same old BS we have been hearing for ages.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

There is only one test that can prove to me that an LRL work.
I take it and go out to a field that I have never been before and I try to locate anything metallic using the different options in search available in this LRL.
When there is a signal I find the exact spot and then I use my VLF and then my pulse detector if there is not possible to detect anything at the first place while using the VLF.
If the metal discovered is the metal I was looking for using the LRL then the result is satisfactory.
Of course it might be a metal out there and I might not have any indication for it but then I move to another place and try to locate something there.May be this sounds for most of you a funny thing to do but I will try to explain why I do it this way.
The chances that there is something metallic out in any a field are really great so if an LRL works then it should be able to pick up something.
To see and to prove to yourself that always there is something out there is very easy.Just take your VLF go anywhere and start walking around.
In the other hand if the LRL in test shows nothing in a place then there are two posibilities:
1.There is nothing there which is utopia(doesn't make sense) and
2.There is something there and our LRL doesnt work or it cannot pick it up.
So no signal at all for any of the metals that the LRL was build to search then this LRL in test is more likely(for me definately) that doesn't work.
Picking up a signal that finally proves a target then it works.As simple as that.Of course some can be better in one metal than another but then we go to a different story and other parameters must be taken in account making things complicated.
I believe that people in our hobby want a simple effective way of testing an LRL and in real conditions where everybody can do it and whith no one knowing what or where something is hidden or any other info like size or weigh of the metal in search.
Of course somebody can say that an LRL can pick only some of the targets around and may be is true but then this is enough to say that this LRL is working and I think you agree whith that.Which one and how can prove that it is nothing more hidden somewhere else? There is only one way. You have to have the perfect LRL!
Hidding metalls for testing is not proper testing for LRLs except if they are there for long time.How long?
Well don't do it for me.Because again we have to take other parameters in account and this is a mistake.
For Pulse detectors may be you can do it for VLFs don't.
An LRL works only when it gives you a find that you unearthed it yourself and you had no idea at all that something like that was in the area or in the exact spot that you found it.
Any other attempt in testing LRLs must also have as I said above other parameters taking into account and there are so many of them that we know nothing for sure yet so I think we are better off when we don't touch them.
Of course certain things can be checked in certain ways but then we are driving ourselves inside the Bermouda triangle loosing our mision which should be answered whith a YES or NO.This is an interesting idea. When you go into a field where you have never been before and try to locate anything metallic using the different options in search, this is the same as you would do when you are not making tests on the LRL. This is how you would use it when you are on a treasure hunt to find new treasures. This is the kind of test that would be useful to a person who wanted to decide if they should buy a particular treasure finding machine. You use it the way you always use for finding treasure, and you watch to see if it is helping you to find treasures. If it is, then it is a useful treasure tool.

As you can see, tests are designed for a purpose. They are designed to test a given question such as: how far is the detection distance, or what is the smallest size it will detect, or what is the percentage of correct responses for a given target, etc. If the purpose of the test is to determine if the detector is a worthwhile tool for treasure hunting, then you would run a test similar to your method. But if your test purpose is to see if the response is caused by dowsing principles, then you would use a much different test designed to demonstrate the answer to that question.

Of course, the answers to all the test questions can change when we change the conditions at the test site, like the difference between fresh gold and long time buried gold. Or if you are testing a metal detector, the ground mineralization will change the answers for your tests for depth of detection.

To further complicate matters, tests can be made to see if claims people make about the performance of a particular LRL is true or not. When we look at claims made about different LRLs, we see several people make conflicting claims for how they work. For example, your method of walking with the VLF detector in the field first will invalidate a test of an LRL according to hung's claim that using a metal detector in the target area will destroy the signal for up to several days before your LRL can detect it again. Yet Morgan says there is no problem to test your LRL right after scanning the target with a metal detector.

Then there are LRLs which are claimed to detect fresh gold that has not been buried at long distances. One example is the Mineoro FG series. The Rangertell Examiner is another. We can also look at Dell Winders advertising page to see another example. He publishes letters from alleged customers who say they detect dollar bills that are hidden inside the house using his X-Scan.

But the Omnitron brand LRLs that Dell sells are a special class of LRLs that will only work if you are not there to watch them recover the targets they detect. This makes them difficult to test in front of witnesses who want to hold a definitive test to show if they really can detect anything at all, using standard testing methods in front of observers chosen to witness the test.

As you can see, in order to make any test, you first need to define exactly what you want to test, whether it is a claim someone made, or the general performance compared to other detectors, or to see what field conditions the detector is dependent upon.

And after defining what you want to test, you should be familiar with the claims at least from the manufacturer, so you don't end up making a test under conditions that can't work for the particular detector you are testing.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

...But the Omnitron brand LRLs that Dell sells are a special class of LRLs that will only work if you are not there to watch them recover the targets they detect...Ain't that the truth.

Speaking of testing...... heard anything from the R-T outfit?

Are we more or less dead in the water? ;)

[J_Player]

Ain't that the truth.

Speaking of testing...... heard anything from the R-T outfit?

Are we more or less dead in the water? ;)Yes,
I got an email with some specific instructions. I am waiting for a chance to try these instructions in the field. I couldn't do it yesterday because it was raining most of the day. So I will do it when the ground dries next week sometime.

But if you want to feel less primed and waiting in anticipation, I suggest you consider we are dead in the water. This is partly because I am in no rush. It's hard for me to take time away in the field during the week in normal times, and it's holidyay season where I have committments to attend to in my spare time. It is also a season where we have bad weather that leaves the ground saturated in a way I don't like for running tests. I also need to coordinate with some volunteers and drive somewhere to conduct tests in a place away from power lines and buildings. I could go on, but the bottom line is I prefer to take my time and do things in a way that makes sense to allow optimum results without a causing a lot of people to complain the testing wasn't done in good test conditions.

An easy way to know when something significant happens to bring us to the start of the test program is to watch for when I make a post giving the link to my web page. This will tell you the testing program has officially started, as well as show you a lot of details I can't talk about now.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Fred]

So by your preliminary results they where unable to confirm that your RT is working correctly and you need to perform more tests just for that? :shocked:

[Theseus]

Yes,
I got an email with some specific instructions. I am waiting for a chance to try these instructions in the field. I couldn't do it yesterday because it was raining most of the day. So I will do it when the ground dries next week sometime.

But if you want to feel less primed and waiting in anticipation, I suggest you consider we are dead in the water. This is partly because I am in no rush. It's hard for me to take time away in the field during the week in normal times, and it's holidyay season where I have committments to attend to in my spare time. It is also a season where we have bad weather that leaves the ground saturated in a way I don't like for running tests. I also need to coordinate with some volunteers and drive somewhere to conduct tests in a place away from power lines and buildings. I could go on, but the bottom line is I prefer to take my time and do things in a way that makes sense to allow optimum results without a causing a lot of people to complain the testing wasn't done in good test conditions.

An easy way to know when something significant happens to bring us to the start of the test program is to watch for when I make a post giving the link to my web page. This will tell you the testing program has officially started, as well as show you a lot of details I can't talk about now.

Best wishes,
J_P

Thanks for the update.... :rolleyes:

[J_Player]

So by your preliminary results they where unable to confirm that your RT is working correctly and you need to perform more tests just for that? :shocked:That is correct. So far this unit is still suspect as having been damaged in shipment. I will be doing some specific tests to see if we can arrive at a determination that it is functioning correctly or not.

Best wishes,
J_P

[g-sani]

How often has that happened, and what was the particular LRL that you accomplished it with?

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.

[Dell Winders]

Some Skeptics here don't care to hear the name Omnitron, associated with finding treasure, because that is the name I started in 1986 and is commonly associated with my products. The name Omnitron ,is banned from using on Treasure Net.

But to be fair, not all Omnitrons that have helped Treasure Hunters to find Treasure were my products. Omnitron, became a generic name that several manufacturers & sellers used to capitalize on.

It depends on who you bought your Omnitron, from as to who's product you were using. Regardless, I am happy that you found Treasure with the aid of an LRL and have the honesty, and guts to post a favorable comment about LRL on this forum. Dell

[Geo]

Let see the replies!!!!:lol::lol:

[J_Player]

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

[J_Player]

Some Skeptics here don't care to hear the name Omnitron, associated with finding treasure, because that is the name I started in 1986 and is commonly associated with my products. The name Omnitron ,is banned from using on Treasure Net.

But to be fair, not all Omnitrons that have helped Treasure Hunters to find Treasure were my products. Omnitron, became a generic name that several manufacturers & sellers used to capitalize on.

It depends on who you bought your Omnitron, from as to who's product you were using. Regardless, I am happy that you found Treasure with the aid of an LRL and have the honesty, and guts to post a favorable comment about LRL on this forum. DellHi Dell,
You are correct. Not all Omnitron products have helped treasure huntrers to find treasure.
In fact, even you agree that your Omnitron products are not proven to work, as you published on your products page:

"The PRO-4 has yet to prove it's merit with a recovery."

and

"As of August 2003 the X-SCAN has only been tested under the Ground & Atmospheric conditions of Central Florida, USA on a limited variety of targets.
At the moment I really don't know the extent of it's capabilities, or of it's limitations."

We see you claim the Pro-4 has never made a recovery, and after 6-1/2 years you still don't know the extent of the limitations and capabilities of the X-scan.

Of course, you refused to demonstrate either of these products you sell in front of witnesses who will report back here to tell what they see in a standard test. So we can safely assume the Pro-4 never made a treasure recovery, and you don't know what the X-scan will do to help us find treasure if we buy one. It's no wonder why TreasureNet banned using the name Omnitron in their forum. But don't worry about your products being banned at TreasureNet. I have the guts to post comments about your Omnitron products here.


Best wishes,
J_P

[g-sani]

J_P said above

.......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..........

I strongly agree whith the above statement from J_P and I also agree whith the following one

.... After all, most metal detectorists don't mind if watchers report how well their detectors work......

But I am not very proud to say that even myself belongs to that category as well.
Most of the time it was friends of mine there as well that now know what my LRL could do but again it can not be all of you having the same experience as them.
So I agree J_P that this comes up as a story but anyway is better than sitting there saying nothing anyway.
When you have something that does the job then it is much more difficult to spend time convincing others and especially when they ask you to test your LRL in a pre-set procedure.
It is like you are saying to everybody that my name is George and then they start calling you Nick.It upsets you, as simple as that.
And this is the main reason that nobody wants to prove anything to anybody.
There are Dowsers out there that they can convince skeptics just in a minute whith many different ways but they sit there and laugh.They are considering it as waste of time.
Skeptics are like nightbirds they can see certain things and only at nighttime.

Happy new year to everybody!

[J_Player]

J_P said above

.......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..........

I strongly agree whith the above statement from J_P and I also agree whith the following one

.... After all, most metal detectorists don't mind if watchers report how well their detectors work......

But I am not very proud to say that even myself belongs to that category as well.
Most of the time it was friends of mine there as well that now know what my LRL could do but again it can not be all of you having the same experience as them.
So I agree J_P that this comes up as a story but anyway is better than sitting there saying nothing anyway.
When you have something that does the job then it is much more difficult to spend time convincing others and especially when they ask you to test your LRL in a pre-set procedure.
It is like you are saying to everybody that my name is George and then they start calling you Nick.It upsets you, as simple as that.
And this is the main reason that nobody wants to prove anything to anybody.
There are Dowsers out there that they can convince skeptics just in a minute whith many different ways but they sit there and laugh.They are considering it as waste of time.
Skeptics are like nightbirds they can see certain things and only at nighttime.

Happy new year to everybody!Here is something you can do that is easy to prove if you have a video camera.
The next time you find a location where your LRL is telling you there is a target, don't dig that target. Make a note where the location is. Then return home without disturbing anything in the target area. Get your video camera and a friend to go along with you. Bring others too if they want to come. When you return to the place where the LRL is giving a signal, begin some distance away from the target location and have someone hold the camera to film everything. Then let someone else use the LRL and watch where it points to. Make sure you get a video of the LRL moving toward the target that is unknown to the person using the LRL. When you arrive at the target location, then you can take out a metal detector to pinpoint it. Then begin digging and see what you found. This should make a good tests if it is done in a place where the ground was not disturbed by digging before making the video. It is a good idea to keep the camera running without stopping it, so we can see there was no chance to turn if off and make changes around the test area. When you are done you will recover your target the same as if you did not show the video, but the difference is you can put the video on youtube for other people to watch.


Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

Happy New Year to believers and skeptics alike. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f15PNrk94kg

[Esteban]

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.

I remember a German man who asure he is very able to using LRL rods. When asked if he prefer electronic instruments, was reluctance to the electronic apparatus. Manufacturer build these LRL rods instruments because the people want it and trust in it.

[g-sani]

Here is something you can do that is easy to prove if you have a video camera.
The next time you find a location where your LRL is telling you there is a target, don't dig that target. Make a note where the location is. Then return home without disturbing anything in the target area. Get your video camera and a friend to go along with you. Bring others too if they want to come. When you return to the place where the LRL is giving a signal, begin some distance away from the target location and have someone hold the camera to film everything. Then let someone else use the LRL and watch where it points to. Make sure you get a video of the LRL moving toward the target that is unknown to the person using the LRL. When you arrive at the target location, then you can take out a metal detector to pinpoint it. Then begin digging and see what you found. This should make a good tests if it is done in a place where the ground was not disturbed by digging before making the video. It is a good idea to keep the camera running without stopping it, so we can see there was no chance to turn if off and make changes around the test area. When you are done you will recover your target the same as if you did not show the video, but the difference is you can put the video on youtube for other people to watch.


Best wishes,
J_P

Ι will have this in mind J_P in my future searches.I do not promise, but I might do it because I am sure many people they will find it interesting.

[Theseus]

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.

Thanks for the details you provided above. Interesting.....;)

In reading your posting, I'm reminded of one very important truism when it comes to fairly evaluating the worth and merits of LRL devices; if you only use your LRL to search in areas where it is known that artifacts, treasure, precious metals or minerals exist - then it will always appear to work just fine.

In order to be properly validated in the scientific world, it (the LRL) must be tested in a controlled environment, using acceptable protocol and witnessed and documented by several disinterested observers. Luck or subjectivity have no place in this type of testing.

[g-sani]

I remember a German man who asure he is very able to using LRL rods. When asked if he prefer electronic instruments, was reluctance to the electronic apparatus. Manufacturer build these LRL rods instruments because the people want it and trust in it.

Hi Esteban, I am not surprised about the preference of the German guy.
You don't need anything if you are that good but the manufactures make them to make money and at the end there is nothing that has no believers at all.
Lets think anout something else.
Butties work as a sonar when they hunt at night.They send pulses and receive back the signal analysing what the target is.
Why do you think that such a thing is unbelievable to be acomplished from a human being? Is a butty more clever than a man?
An elephant walks in a desert and is really thirsty.All he has to do is dowsing for water when is wondering arround.Suddenly you see him stoping and by using his long nose is digging in the sand.
Oooooppps.. water comes up.
Is the elephant more clever than man?
Skeptics do not say anything for such things in nature they don't taking them in account at all.May be they never heard of them.
All that looks strange to them has to do only whith human.
May be because they will never be able to do something like that themselves.And do not offend me, this is only because they will never believe.
It looks like all of them are against human capacity and abillities and probably they consider animals more capable in using their brains or their bodies or whatever else.
Lets be fair to human race my friends.

[g-sani]

Thanks for the details you provided above. Interesting.....;)

In reading your posting, I'm reminded of one very important truism when it comes to fairly evaluating the worth and merits of LRL devices; if you only use your LRL to search in areas where it is known that artifacts, treasure, precious metals or minerals exist - then it will always appear to work just fine.

In order to be properly validated in the scientific world, it (the LRL) must be tested in a controlled environment, using acceptable protocol and witnessed and documented by several disinterested observers. Luck or subjectivity have no place in this type of testing.

May be you are right and I see your point Theseus but I think that when somebody is Treasure hunting he wants mainly to see their practical side of things and he doesn't like theories that can never put down in practice.
Trying to test an LRL by trying to imitate real conditions is very tricky.
Testing in a controlled environment makes a big limitation for the LRL to be used and the results it will be very poor in my opinion.
Just imagine all the different compinations or environments than we can have because of the endless parameters they exist when we are out in the real thing.
Go out by chance a few times to different places and not only Sundays.:lol::lol::lol:
Use the real thing that there is out there in places as in a usaully day out.This is where we will use our LRLs anyway.
May be I am wrong my friends but I think all test protocols for LRLs that we know up to now are trying to do exactly the same.
Imitate the real thing.

[Esteban]

Hi Esteban, I am not surprised about the preference of the German guy.
You don't need anything if you are that good but the manufactures make them to make money and at the end there is nothing that has no believers at all.
Lets think anout something else.
Butties work as a sonar when they hunt at night.They send pulses and receive back the signal analysing what the target is.
Why do you think that such a thing is unbelievable to be acomplished from a human being? Is a butty more clever than a man?
An elephant walks in a desert and is really thirsty.All he has to do is dowsing for water when is wondering arround.Suddenly you see him stoping and by using his long nose is digging in the sand.
Oooooppps.. water comes up.
Is the elephant more clever than man?
Skeptics do not say anything for such things in nature they don't taking them in account at all.May be they never heard of them.
All that looks strange to them has to do only whith human.
May be because they will never be able to do something like that themselves.And do not offend me, this is only because they will never believe.
It looks like all of them are against human capacity and abillities and probably they consider animals more capable in using their brains or their bodies or whatever else.
Lets be fair to human race my friends.

Once my team and I go in possible treasure site (the treasure doesn't exist, I confirm it hours ago). There are an extended hole in all dimensions... We check the site and the nearby into all the property and out the property... nothing. Later, one of the inhabitants show me a bronze plate with the supossed quantity of gold in the site. I ask him how was found, and the man told me: "during excavation". I ask him who found it. And he told me: "a man with metal detector who check the removed sand during excavation". I conclude without any error that the treasure hunter plant the plate. Mainly because in the plate appears words as "kilos" and "meters", in a supossed epoch that the uses was pounds and the distance was yards, and "codos" (Spanish) for depth, no meters, etc. I interrogated all the persons who live in the site and they told me that the man demmand money for to continue. Because he need to buy candles of different colors for to "liberate" the place. I warned them it was a hoax. But they continued paying for "special" candles at high prices...

[Theseus]

May be you are right and I see your point Theseus but I think that when somebody is Treasure hunting he wants mainly to see their practical side of things and he doesn't like theories that can never put down in practice.
Trying to test an LRL by trying to imitate real conditions is very tricky.
Testing in a controlled environment makes a big limitation for the LRL to be used and the results it will be very poor in my opinion.
Just imagine all the different compinations or environments than we can have because of the endless parameters they exist when we are out in the real thing.
Go out by chance a few times to different places and not only Sundays.
Use the real thing that there is out there in places as in a usaully day out.This is where we will use our LRLs anyway.
May be I am wrong my friends but I thing all test protocols for LRLs that we know up to now are trying to do exactly the same.
Imitate the real thing.

You said; "when somebody is Treasure hunting he wants mainly to see their practical side of things and he doesn't like theories that can never put down in practice."

Treasure hunting requires an expenditure of time and usually significant monetary resources. I'm not one who likes to waste either time or money. Therefore, before I go into the field, I only make sure I am using tools that have been tried and tested, and that I am confident will perform as claimed or advertised. If the tools used were never tested under controlled conditions, how could I know they were worth depending on in conditions that are not controlled? The answer is simple; I could not.

Actual projects in the field, under varying conditions is not the place to evaluate tools of any kind, especially LRL implements. Unless of course you are not concerned with real conclusions and only want to verify a theory of operation. In which case, conclusions and results reached in that manner have no value whatsoever to the serious treasure hunter.

[g-sani]

To prove how bad we think sometimes I will tell you this.
When somebody wants to test an LRL by following a standard protocol or procedure first of all(please tell me your opinion) he has to search the area whith the LRL and before anything is touched or hidden.Then and only then he could carry on whith the procedures to be made.
This is the question now.
Please tell me if anybody ever mentioned this or tell me if you think that this is not that important but you have to explain the reason as well.
This I believe is the most important thing somebody must first do when he wants to test an LRL no matter what test-protocol he is going to follow.
Well sorry, I haven't seen anybody doing it yet.
Well, as far as I know.

P.S. Just keep in mind that I am always talking about the majority of people and that there are always exceptions as in anything in life.

[Qiaozhi]

To understand how LRLs "work", you must first understand the superstitious pigeon experiment. :p

[Theseus]

To prove how bad we think sometimes I will tell you this.
When somebody wants to test an LRL by following a standard protocol or procedure first of all(please tell me your opinion) he has to search the area whith the LRL and before anything is touched or hidden.Then and only then he could carry on whith the procedures to be made.
This is the question now.
Please tell me if anybody ever mentioned this or tell me if you think that this is not that important but you have to explain the reason as well.
This I believe is the most important thing somebody must first do when he wants to test an LRL no matter what test-protocol he is going to follow.
Well sorry, I haven't seen anybody doing it yet.
Well, as far as I know.

P.S. Just keep in mind that I am always talking about the majority of people and that there are always exceptions as in anything in life.

Part of the requirements of testing in a controlled environment requires that there be a Pre-test and a Post-test using a target in plain sight, which of course the LRL is supposed to be able to locate.

The confines of the test area should be searched for possible targets, but NOT with the LRL itself. Naturally, any possible targets should be removed from the test area that might interfere with the LRL.

If the Pre-test is successful, then one can go ahead with the Real-test, which should be of a double-blind protocol. Following the Real-test, you then perform a Post-test. If the Post-test is successful, then you can be reasonably sure the results of the Real-test are valid and significant.

If you need more details, please see Carl's dissertation on testing LRLs under double-blind conditions.

http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=/info/dbtesting.dat (http://www.geotech1.com/forums/../cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=/info/dbtesting.dat)

[g-sani]

You said; "when somebody is Treasure hunting he wants mainly to see their practical side of things and he doesn't like theories that can never put down in practice."

Treasure hunting requires an expenditure of time and usually significant monetary resources. I'm not one who likes to waste either time or money. Therefore, before I go into the field, I only make sure I am using tools that have been tried and tested, and that I am confident will perform as claimed or advertised. If the tools used were never tested under controlled conditions, how could I know they were worth depending on in conditions that are not controlled? The answer is simple; I could not.

Actual projects in the field, under varying conditions is not the place to evaluate tools of any kind, especially LRL implements. Unless of course you are not concerned with real conclusions and only want to verify a theory of operation. In which case, conclusions and results reached in that manner have no value whatsoever to the serious treasure hunter.

Of course if money was not involved then it would be no problem at all.
I spent much money myself buying detectors and I know very well how expensive this hobby is.
But from my experience up to now I can say that tests of LRLs differ from person to person and it is the very slightest difference in the way that somebody uses them that give the different results in the same tests.
This in turn brings up to the average mind the case that somebody writes in favour of something and then who you believe.
One thing is for sure the more somebody reads about the subject the more he learns.
So Keep talking.

[Geo]

Γιωργο Γεια και καλη χρονια!!
Αυτοι δεν ενδιαφερονται για αποδεικτικα στοιχεια οτι τα ΛΡΛ δουλευουν, αλλα για στοιχεια οτι δεν δουλευουν:angry:
Οτι και να τους δειξεις θα βρουν κατι αλλο να γραφουν ωστε να αντικρουσουν την πραγματικοτητα.

Φιλικα:)

[g-sani]

....Naturally, any possible targets should be removed from the test area that might interfere with the LRL...

No I do not agree whith that Theseus.
The most usual case in most areas is many objects arround in different sizes and depths.
This is where an LRL should show abillities if any of course.
And this is why I wrote about the omnitron's experience of mine.
I discovered then that if a metal is lying there alone is much easier to detect it whith any LRL
This in turn is no good for me because from experience I know that is always more bits and pieces arround wherever you go.

[g-sani]

Γιωργο Γεια και καλη χρονια!!
Αυτοι δεν ενδιαφερονται για αποδεικτικα στοιχεια οτι τα ΛΡΛ δουλευουν, αλλα για στοιχεια οτι δεν δουλευουν:angry:
Οτι και να τους δειξεις θα βρουν κατι αλλο να γραφουν ωστε να αντικρουσουν την πραγματικοτητα.

Φιλικα:)

Γεια σου Γιωργο υγεια και ευτυχια να μας φερει το 2010.Τωρα και για κανενα κασονακι δεν λεμε οχι.
Το ξερω οτι αντιδρουν οπως τα μικρα παιδια αλλα κατα βαθος αμα τους βαλεις κανενα LRL που ψιλοδουλευει στο χερι δεν θα μπορεις να τους το παρεις μετα.
Tους γυρισε το μυαλο παντως και κατα πολυ με τα βιντεακια απο τα τεστ που κανατε.
Τους βλεπω να γινονται φανατικοι ατο τελος φιλε.

[Qiaozhi]

Γιωργο Γεια και καλη χρονια!!
Αυτοι δεν ενδιαφερονται για αποδεικτικα στοιχεια οτι τα ΛΡΛ δουλευουν, αλλα για στοιχεια οτι δεν δουλευουν:angry:
Οτι και να τους δειξεις θα βρουν κατι αλλο να γραφουν ωστε να αντικρουσουν την πραγματικοτητα.

Φιλικα:)

Translation:
George Hello and Happy New Year! Those not interested in evidence that the LRL works, but for data that does not work that show them they will find something else to write so counter to reality.

Γεια σου Γιωργο υγεια και ευτυχια να μας φερει το 2010.Τωρα και για κανενα κασονακι δεν λεμε οχι.
Το ξερω οτι αντιδρουν οπως τα μικρα παιδια αλλα κατα βαθος αμα τους βαλεις κανενα LRL που ψιλοδουλευει στο χερι δεν θα μπορεις να τους το παρεις μετα.
Tους γυρισε το μυαλο παντως και κατα πολυ με τα βιντεακια απο τα τεστ που κανατε.
Τους βλεπω να γινονται φανατικοι ατο τελος φιλε.

Translation:
Hi George healthy and happy to bring us the 2010.Tora and no kasonaki not say no. I know it performs as young children, but basically the AMA put any LRL psilodoulefei at hand that will not be able to get to the post. Tous turned his brain, however, by far the videos of the tests that you did. we are seeing them fanatics individual end bud.

[Geo]

Translation:
George Hello and Happy New Year! Those not interested in evidence that the LRL works, but for data that does not work that show them they will find something else to write so counter to reality.



Translation:
Hi George healthy and happy to bring us the 2010.Tora and no kasonaki not say no. I know it performs as young children, but basically the AMA put any LRL psilodoulefei at hand that will not be able to get to the post. Tous turned his brain, however, by far the videos of the tests that you did. we are seeing them fanatics individual end bud.


Hi Qiaozhi...
Good work :lol:

Regards:)

[J_Player]

To prove how bad we think sometimes I will tell you this.
When somebody wants to test an LRL by following a standard protocol or procedure first of all(please tell me your opinion) he has to search the area whith the LRL and before anything is touched or hidden.Then and only then he could carry on whith the procedures to be made.
This is the question now.
Please tell me if anybody ever mentioned this or tell me if you think that this is not that important but you have to explain the reason as well.
This I believe is the most important thing somebody must first do when he wants to test an LRL no matter what test-protocol he is going to follow.
Well sorry, I haven't seen anybody doing it yet.
Well, as far as I know.

P.S. Just keep in mind that I am always talking about the majority of people and that there are always exceptions as in anything in life.


Originally posted by Theseus
Part of the requirements of testing in a controlled environment requires that there be a Pre-test and a Post-test using a target in plain sight, which of course the LRL is supposed to be able to locate.

The confines of the test area should be searched for possible targets, but NOT with the LRL itself. Naturally, any possible targets should be removed from the test area that might interfere with the LRL.

If the Pre-test is successful, then one can go ahead with the Real-test, which should be of a double-blind protocol. Following the Real-test, you then perform a Post-test. If the Post-test is successful, then you can be reasonably sure the results of the Real-test are valid and significant.


....Naturally, any possible targets should be removed from the test area that might interfere with the LRL...


Originally posted by g-sani
No I do not agree whith that Theseus.
The most usual case in most areas is many objects arround in different sizes and depths.
This is where an LRL should show abillities if any of course.
And this is why I wrote about the omnitron's experience of mine.
I discovered then that if a metal is lying there alone is much easier to detect it whith any LRL
This in turn is no good for me because from experience I know that is always more bits and pieces arround wherever you go.Hi g-sani,
A controlled test does not require any particular pre-test or post test or even to check the area for interference. A controlled test simply is a test where the person conducting the test made some sort of control to the test that would help make it a suitable test for the purpose he has.

Taking steps to search the area first is one kind of control you can make. Making pre-tests and post tests to the area another kind of control. You can conduct controlled tests without taking those particular precautions. In fact, for some controlled tests, you would want to make certain you did not search the area first or make any pre-tests. It all depends on what the objective of your test is. If you want to conduct a test for prize money to see if an LRL locates a single hidden target object from one of ten locations, then searching the field first for interference can be a good control, as well as a pre test and post test.

But some tests are not conducted to see if an LRL can find a single freshly hidden target object. For example, some LRLs are claimed to work well only for long-time buried targets. Suppose we did not want to conduct a test for a prize, but we wanted to conduct a test to see which of several LRLs shows the best evidence of responding to only treasure items when it is surrounded by trash items. Suppose this test was held to show to some people who want to buy an LRL to use in areas that have a lot of signals that make it hard to hunt treasure. They ask for a test that will show them which one is best to buy to use in the trashy area where they will be hunting.

In this case, a test I would want to see is a test where nothing was disturbed in the field at all. If there are power lines nearby, or metal trash that was scattered in the area, I would not want anyone to clean it. I would think making pre-tests and post-tests is optional work that would not help much for me to decide which LRL works best compared to the others.
I would want to see the controls made only by making sure all the LRLs were put through the same test conditions. The controls should insure nobody disturbs the ground or digs the targets until after all the tests were completed and recorded. And controls would insure all the LRLs start from the same place and distance from the target. And we would mark all the treasure locations that are located within the test area by each LRL. Then, after all the tests were done and recorded, we would dig all the treasure targets to see what the LRLs located at what depth, (if they located anything at all).

You can see the controls I would want are designed to provide a comparison for a person who wants to know which works best in his area full of non-treasure trash. It uses very different controls than a test designed to measure the statistical success rate of locating where a single target is hidden in a large test area. And there are many other ways to put controls on a tests to make it suitable for any particular purpose.

So remember... there is no one standard method for controls that tests everything you could want to know about an LRL.
The test protocol you choose will depend on what the purpose of your test is.


Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi g-sani,
A controlled test does not require any particular pre-test or post test or even to check the area for interference. A controlled test simply is a test where the person conducting the test made some sort of control to the test that would help make it a suitable test for the purpose he has.

Taking steps to search the area first is one kind of control you can make. Making pre-tests and post tests to the area another kind of control. You can conduct controlled tests without taking those particular precautions. In fact, for some controlled tests, you would want to make certain you did not search the area first or make any pre-tests. It all depends on what the objective of your test is. If you want to conduct a test for prize money to see if an LRL locates a single hidden target object from one of ten locations, then searching the field first for interference can be a good control, as well as a pre test and post test.

But some tests are not conducted to see if an LRL can find a single freshly hidden target object. For example, some LRLs are claimed to work well only for long-time buried targets. Suppose we did not want to conduct a test for a prize, but we wanted to conduct a test to see which of several LRLs shows the best evidence of responding to only treasure items when it is surrounded by trash items. Suppose this test was held to show to some people who want to buy an LRL to use in areas that have a lot of signals that make it hard to hunt treasure. They ask for a test that will show them which one is best to buy to use in the trashy area where they will be hunting.

In this case, a test I would want to see is a test where nothing was disturbed in the field at all. If there are power lines nearby, or metal trash that was scattered in the area, I would not want anyone to clean it. I would think making pre-tests and post-tests is optional work that would not help much for me to decide which LRL works best compared to the others.
I would want to see the controls made only by making sure all the LRLs were put through the same test conditions. The controls should insure nobody disturbs the ground or digs the targets until after all the tests were completed and recorded. And controls would insure all the LRLs start from the same place and distance from the target. And we would mark all the treasure locations that are located within the test area by each LRL. Then, after all the tests were done and recorded, we would dig all the treasure targets to see what the LRLs located at what depth, (if they located anything at all).

You can see the controls I would want are designed to provide a comparison for a person who wants to know which works best in his area full of non-treasure trash. It uses very different controls than a test designed to measure the statistical success rate of locating where a single target is hidden in a large test area. And there are many other ways to put controls on a tests to make it suitable for any particular purpose.

So remember... there is no one standard method for controls that tests everything you could want to know about an LRL.
The test protocol you choose will depend on what the purpose of your test is.


Best wishes,
J_P

I certainly hope you apply all this same objectivity to the testing of the Examiner... if those tests actually take place. :D

[Carl-NC]

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.

This is why I strongly suggest the following:

1. Try to get the manufacturer to demonstrate the device himself in a test that he agrees is fair to the capabilities of the device, and that you agree is fair in a scientific sense.

2. If a manufacturer demonstration isn't possible, have the manufacturer specify the exact test procedures that someone else can use to successfully demonstrate the capabilities of the device. Make sure he understands the procedures must follow good scientific protocol, i.e., randomized, blind, and repeatable.

3. If the manufacturer won't offer his own test procedures, design your own test around the explicit claims made of the device.

4. If the manufacturer makes no explicit claims (more common than you might think), design the test around what the device ought to do, if the device worked as a useful long-range locator of treasure.

[Theseus]

This is why I strongly suggest the following:

1. Try to get the manufacturer to demonstrate the device himself in a test that he agrees is fair to the capabilities of the device, and that you agree is fair in a scientific sense.

2. If a manufacturer demonstration isn't possible, have the manufacturer specify the exact test procedures that someone else can use to successfully demonstrate the capabilities of the device. Make sure he understands the procedures must follow good scientific protocol, i.e., randomized, blind, and repeatable.

3. If the manufacturer won't offer his own test procedures, design your own test around the explicit claims made of the device.

4. If the manufacturer makes no explicit claims (more common than you might think), design the test around what the device ought to do, if the device worked as a useful long-range locator of treasure.

:thumb: :cheers:

[J_Player]

This is why I strongly suggest the following:

1. Try to get the manufacturer to demonstrate the device himself in a test that he agrees is fair to the capabilities of the device, and that you agree is fair in a scientific sense.

2. If a manufacturer demonstration isn't possible, have the manufacturer specify the exact test procedures that someone else can use to successfully demonstrate the capabilities of the device. Make sure he understands the procedures must follow good scientific protocol, i.e., randomized, blind, and repeatable.

3. If the manufacturer won't offer his own test procedures, design your own test around the explicit claims made of the device.

4. If the manufacturer makes no explicit claims (more common than you might think), design the test around what the device ought to do, if the device worked as a useful long-range locator of treasure.Hi Carl,
I agree 100%.

I am amazed any manufacturer sent a sample to be tested. Rangertell has set a precedent in the recent history of LRL manufacturers.
It is nice to have a new factory-fresh sample to test.

But there is still one problem I don't like about the whole idea of testing an Examiner without a factory rep here to operate it. I am not an experienced user of any Rangertell products, or any LRL. Any failed test results can be said to be caused because I don't have the experience, or knowledge, or not using the subtle techniques that trained users acquire after some time in the field with successful results. The only simple way to avoid this potentially fatal defect in testing is to have a factory rep who knows how to use it properly and take all the precautions he knows from his years of experience. If no factory rep can demonstrate it, then maybe people who are familiar with the Examiner, and have had success with it before can make some tests to show what kind of results they get.

But if there is nobody available with some experience of successful hunting with an Examiner, the next best method is what you recommended
-- to make specific tests recommended by the manufacturer. and make tests to determine if specific claims can be demonstrated or not.
I also had some thoughts of other tests that can be performed.

The way I am thinking, I can make three kinds of tests:
1. The specific tests like you described to determine if particular claims can be demonstrated.
2. Simple tests can be conducted by ordinary people who have no knowledge or experience with any LRL to see if the average novice will find success with the Examiner by following the instructions and trying it out. This could also be done with metal detectorists who are familiar with treasure hunting, but not with LRLs, and can even be done by people who are dowsers and LRL enthusiasts. While this class of volunteer is not a trained factory rep, they can serve to show what an average treasure hobbyist would experience if he used an Examiner.
3. Lab tests designed to measure "signal lines" and EM emissions coming from the Examiner, or travelling in the air between the target and the examiner. Also tests designed to measure the charges moving from a user's body to the Examiner, and the difference in charge of the examiner between the ground, the surrounding air, and the antenna.

I already took some measurements along these lines and I measured a charge that showed a little over 200 volts in the air at 6 feet above the ground, which reduced to zero as my probe was lowered to the ground. Of course, the charge varied at different locations. These kind of tests are interesting to me to determine if we can measure the claimed "phenomenon" effects made by LRL enthusiasts. The only success rate field test I am interested in is to try it out with my own hands and see if I get the feeling it is helping me to find treasure. The other more controlled tests I am doing are for the benefit of other people who want to see them.

This is why I am taking suggestions for tests that people want to see done. I think others who can't be here will have more demanding tests, since they cannot try it out like the people here can. And even if you can be here to see the tests, and try it yourself, you should do every test that you think is important to you. Don't ever rely on second-hand information unless it is not possible to find out for yourself first-hand. When you try it out yourself in your own hands, then you will truly "know" ... not just theorise from what you see in some videos and reports.


Best wishes,
J_P

[g-sani]

This is why I strongly suggest the following:

1. Try to get the manufacturer to demonstrate the device himself in a test that he agrees is fair to the capabilities of the device, and that you agree is fair in a scientific sense.

2. If a manufacturer demonstration isn't possible, have the manufacturer specify the exact test procedures that someone else can use to successfully demonstrate the capabilities of the device. Make sure he understands the procedures must follow good scientific protocol, i.e., randomized, blind, and repeatable.

3. If the manufacturer won't offer his own test procedures, design your own test around the explicit claims made of the device.

4. If the manufacturer makes no explicit claims (more common than you might think), design the test around what the device ought to do, if the device worked as a useful long-range locator of treasure.

That's a good suggestion Carl, I have to say it.

[g-sani]

Hi Carl,
I agree 100%.

I am amazed any manufacturer sent a sample to be tested. Rangertell has set a precedent in the recent history of LRL manufacturers.
It is nice to have a new factory-fresh sample to test.

But there is still one problem I don't like about the whole idea of testing an Examiner without a factory rep here to operate it. I am not an experienced user of any Rangertell products, or any LRL. Any failed test results can be said to be caused because I don't have the experience, or knowledge, or not using the subtle techniques that trained users acquire after some time in the field with successful results. The only simple way to avoid this potentially fatal defect in tests we could perform is to have a factory rep who knows how to use it properly and take all the precautions he knows from his years of experience. If no factory rep can demonstrate it, then maybe people who are familiar with the Examiner, and have had success with it before can make some tests to show what kind of results they get.

But if there is nobody available with some experience of successful hunting with an Examiner, the next best method is what you recommended
-- to make specific tests recommended by the manufacturer. and make tests to determine if specific claims can be demonstrated or not.
I also had some thoughts of other tests that can be performed.

The way I am thinking, I can make three kinds of tests:
1. The specific tests like you described to determine if particular claims can be demonstrated.
2. Simple tests can be conducted by ordinary people who have no knowledge or experience with any LRL to see if the average novice will find success with the Examiner by following the instructions and trying it out. This could also be done with metal detectorists who are familiar with treasure hunting, but not with LRLs, and can even be done by people who are dowsers and LRL enthusiasts. While this class of volunteer is not a trained factory rep, they can serve to show what an average treasure hobbyist would experience if he used an Examiner.
3. Lab tests designed to measure "signal lines" and EM emissions coming from the Examiner, or travelling in the air between the target and the examiner. Also tests designed to measure the charges moving from a user's body to the Examiner, and the difference in charge of the examiner between the ground, the surrounding air, and the antenna.

I already took some measurements along these lines and I measured a charge in the air that showed a little over 200 volts in the air at 6 feet above the ground, which reduced to zero as my probe was lowered to the ground. Of course, the charge varied at different locations. These kind of tests are interesting to me to determine if we can measure the claimed "phenomenon" effects made by LRL enthusiasts. The only success rate field test I am interested in is to try it out with my own hands and see if I get the feeling it is helping me to find treasure. The other more controlled tests I am doing are for the benefit of other people who want to see them.

This is why I am taking suggestions for tests that people want to see done. I think others who can't be here will have more demanding tests, since they cannot try it out like the people here can. And even if you can be here to see the tests, and try it yourself, you should do every test that you think is important to you. Don't ever rely on second-hand information unless it is not possible to find out for yourself first-hand. When you try it out yourself in your own hands, then you will truly "know" ... not just theorise from some videos and reports.


Best wishes,
J_P

Dear J_P It is very wise from you to admit that may be somebody needs some experience in a specific LRL when tests it.
You seem you have everything in your mind in order to do the test as good as possible.
I realise that you cannot satisfy all of us and you are trying your best.
I also liked that you said that an area shouldn't cleaned before you put the metal in search.Putting a sample in a clean place says nothing when testing an LRL.

.....Don't ever rely on second-hand information unless it is not possible to find out for yourself first-hand. When you try it out yourself in your own hands, then you will truly "know" ... not just theorise from some videos and reports......

Whith this last statement J_P you saved me writing the post I was thinking.
It is going to be interesting for sure, the stage is yours! 8)

[Theseus]

Bionic 01 Video, Dr. Best Ultimate Cough Remedy, or was that LRL, Alonso PD... all rather interesting diversions; but wait a minute! :oh:

Don't we have a real live LRL that needs to be tested? Looked at? Evaluated? :shrug:

Wasn't there an earth-shaking precedent here, when this ONE brave LRL manufacturer sent a free sample to J_Player for complete testing and evaluation? ;)

Or, did he really send it? Well, I recall seeing pictures of it being unwrapped. Or, did he really intend that it would be tested and evaluated. Hmmm... interesting.

I'm bored with detecting shovels with laser beams and the like. I would think this thread should have been at the top of the list for many days now, instead it is sliding off into oblivion. Wonder why? :rolleyes:

[Qiaozhi]

Bionic 01 Video, Dr. Best Ultimate Cough Remedy, or was that LRL, Alonso PD... all rather interesting diversions; but wait a minute! :oh:

Don't we have a real live LRL that needs to be tested? Looked at? Evaluated? :shrug:

Wasn't there an earth-shaking precedent here, when this ONE brave LRL manufacturer sent a free sample to J_Player for complete testing and evaluation? ;)

Or, did he really send it? Well, I recall seeing pictures of it being unwrapped. Or, did he really intend that it would be tested and evaluated. Hmmm... interesting.

I'm bored with detecting shovels with laser beams and the like. I would think this thread should have been at the top of the list for many days now, instead it is sliding off into oblivion. Wonder why? :rolleyes:
I think J_P is waiting for RangerTell to confirm the Examiner is a working unit. But I agree ... there seems to be a long delay in getting that agreement. :rolleyes:

[Theseus]

I think J_P is waiting for RangerTell to confirm the Examiner is a working unit. But I agree ... there seems to be a long delay in getting that agreement. :rolleyes:

Yeah... I know that was the latest "official" status. Glad I'm not the only one that thinks this whole verification process is draaaaaaaaaaaaging on a bit more than expected. Could there be something foul in Denmark?

I just surmised from all the preliminary hoopla that things would flow a bit more smoothly once the item actually got delivered in the US. So much for surmising.... :D

Oh well..... back to locating shovels with laser beams, and the Dr. Hung Debunker Comedy Routine.

Incidentally, where are all these interesting and noteworthy LRL conversations that are supposed to be taking place on Tnet? I just checked and that place is as dead as yesterday's newspaper. :razz:

[J_Player]

Bionic 01 Video, Dr. Best Ultimate Cough Remedy, or was that LRL, Alonso PD... all rather interesting diversions; but wait a minute! :oh:

Don't we have a real live LRL that needs to be tested? Looked at? Evaluated? :shrug:

Wasn't there an earth-shaking precedent here, when this ONE brave LRL manufacturer sent a free sample to J_Player for complete testing and evaluation? ;)

Or, did he really send it? Well, I recall seeing pictures of it being unwrapped. Or, did he really intend that it would be tested and evaluated. Hmmm... interesting.

I'm bored with detecting shovels with laser beams and the like. I would think this thread should have been at the top of the list for many days now, instead it is sliding off into oblivion. Wonder why? :rolleyes:Hi Theseus,
Current update is I am waiting for others to coordinate their time schedules for some field test trips that will allow at least one person free for holding the camera. But that is only the beginning. We need to do a lot of tests and adjustments until we see a specific kind of response. I have no clue how long it will take for that to happen, nor do I care.

There is no need to feel anxious about the Examiner test project. You can consider it "dead in the water". I won't repeat myself, but you can read details here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=103535&postcount=308 (http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=103535&postcount=308)

If you are getting really bored at the other remote sensing posts, there is a solution that will allow you to see the Examiner tests sooner than I can show them. You can order your own Examiner for a discount sale price of $441 US. When you receive your own Examiner, then there are no restrictions on what you can do with it. You can test in any way you want, and you don't need to make any promises of what you can make public or not after you have paid the cost. It sounds like a high price for amusement, but hey, people pay a lot more to solve boredom at Disney World, or Las Vegas.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,
If you are getting really bored at the other remote sensing posts, there is a solution that will allow you to see the Examiner tests sooner than I can show them. You can order your own Examiner for a discount sale price of $441 US.
Best wishes,
J_P

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think I'll pass on that suggestion.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bored is one thing.... but insane I'm not. At least not yet.... :D

[Theseus]

:shrug:

[Jim]

Hi Theseus,

When you receive your own Examiner, then there are no restrictions on what you can do with it. You can test in any way you want, and you don't need to make any promises of what you can make public or not after you have paid the cost.



Along those lines...are there restrictions on what you can do? Did you make any promises of what you can make public?

I'm not trying to be an ***...but, I am getting this strange feeling that some reports will be held back, if they are not favorable for the manufacturer. I've never seen a "test" where the manufacturer called all the shots....like this one apparently is.

[Theseus]

Along those lines...are there restrictions on what you can do? Did you make any promises of what you can make public?

I'm not trying to be an ***...but, I am getting this strange feeling that some reports will be held back, if they are not favorable for the manufacturer. I've never seen a "test" where the manufacturer called all the shots....like this one apparently is.

:thumb:

[J_Player]

Along those lines...are there restrictions on what you can do? Did you make any promises of what you can make public?

I'm not trying to be an ***...but, I am getting this strange feeling that some reports will be held back, if they are not favorable for the manufacturer. I've never seen a "test" where the manufacturer called all the shots....like this one apparently is.Hi Jim,
I have not made any scientific tests using the Examiner yet. I conducted some preliminary non-scientific tests to see if it would amazingly point to gold samples when the button sequences for gold were entered into the calculator. What I found is I could not get it to respond when trying this indoors except some intermittent responses that seemed to repeat at the same location on occasion. I repeated these non-scientific checks and did not see much change. Then I tried it again outdoors, and found similar responses, only when the sensitivity control was set to 4. Other people also tried the outdoor checks and observed the antenna pointing to a gold sample more often than it did for me. But none of these were scientific tests. We were only trying to verify if the Examiner was responding to targets, or if it was possibly damaged in shipment.

I agreed that I would not make public posts of test data until I verified the Examiner is functioning correctly. In fact I will not start the testing program until I am certain this Examiner is not damaged. I really don't want to waste my time scheduling scientific tests for a damaged piece of equipment. While there is no visible damage to the Examiner that can be seen from looking at it, I was cautioned that certain wires inside must not be moved. I can speculate that during shipment it is possible wires could move inside if the box bounced around with other boxes during shipment.

I would consider it reasonable that any manufacturer would want to make certain a test sample of his equipment is functioning properly before people publish test results on the sample. I imagine if you were a manufacturer of super deep metal detectors, and you sent one out to be tested, you would want to take some corrective measures if you heard back in preliminary report it wasn't detecting very deep. Wouldn't you want the testing person to make very specific adjustments and see if it responds before he began publishing test results, or possibly send it back for a replacement?

At present, I have no way to know if this Examiner was damaged due to moved wires in shipment, or if I have the controls adjusted wrong, or if I am one of the rare individuals who is biologically challenged and does not provide the necessary biological signal to the Examiner handle. What I do know is others have had better success than I had on the preliminary checks to see if it is damaged or not. After more people try it when making more adjustments to the antenna length, the sensitivity control, the temperamental setscrew, and trying more alternate "treasure frequencies", I will eventually arrive at a point where I can decide to begin the test program, or send it back for a replacement. Part of the delay is my schedule. I can only spend time with the Examiner when I am not busy in an office.

The preliminary checks (non-scientific tests to see if it is damaged or not) have all been documented in my electronic journal along with photos. These will be made public after the test program starts. If it turns out the initial testing I made was on a defective Examiner, this will be stated along with the tests results from a defective Examiner. Then new tests will also be shown on the replacement Examiner that was not damaged as well.
While I have been waiting to see some deciding evidence of this Examiner working or not, I have made some passive electronic tests to see what signals I can measure at the calculator and around the Examiner. These will also be made public after the test program starts. Hopefully I will see some specific preliminary results that will allow Rangertell to confirm this Examiner I have is not damaged in shipment.

But for now, the test program has not started, and will not start until I feel confident I am not testing a damaged piece of equipment.


P.S.
If you want to see some real testing without waiting an unknown length of time for someone to verify the Examiner is working correctly, you can can order your own Examiner for a discount sale price of $441 US. When you receive your own Examiner, then there are no restrictions on what you can do with it. You can test in any way you want, and you don't need to make any promises of what you can make public or not after you have paid the cost. It sounds like a high price for a chance to make tests. But hey, people pay a lot more for a chance to test their golf equipment at the country club.


Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Jim,
...While there is no visible damage to the Examiner that can be seen from looking at it, I was cautioned that certain wires inside must not be moved. I can speculate that during shipment it is possible wires could move inside if the box bounced around with other boxes during shipment...

Wires must not be moved? Sounds like there is something drastically wrong with the packing and shipping methods, since this may have happened to countless other devices shipped to who knows how many other customers. How many other units might there be out there with "moved wires" that are not functioning properly, and the owners are totally unaware of the situation? :shrug:

At present, I have no way to know if this Examiner was damaged due to moved wires in shipment, or if I have the controls adjusted wrong.. Hmmm... I could understand how you wouldn't know if "wires were moved", but it should be crystal clear if the controls are adjusted correctly, since those adjustments are a function of the instructions available to ALL operators. If the instructions are confusing, as to control adjustment, then I could see how many other users might be suffering from the same problems, and would really be at a disadvantage to obtain correct and advertised results. Are the instructions for control adjustment lacking in clarity? And should be revised? :shrug:

[Qiaozhi]

If the instructions are confusing, as to control adjustment, then I could see how many other users might be suffering from the same problems, and would really be at a disadvantage to obtain correct and advertised results. Are the instructions for control adjustment lacking in clarity? And should be revised? :shrug:
I'm surprised you ask such a question. :lol: Have you ever looked at any of RT's documentation, or at their website? Using the word "confusing" is being kind. ;)

[Theseus]

I'm surprised you ask such a question. :lol: Have you ever looked at any of RT's documentation, or at their website? Using the word "confusing" is being kind. ;)

Yeah... briefly.... I couldn't stand looking at it for any real length of time. I've seen third-graders put together better websites. :D

(My question was asked with a healthy bit of condescending sarcasm mixed in; much like many of the postings I have seen, of late.)

[J_Player]

Wires must not be moved? Sounds like there is something drastically wrong with the packing and shipping methods, since this may have happened to countless other devices shipped to who knows how many other customers. How many other units might there be out there with "moved wires" that are not functioning properly, and the owners are totally unaware of the situation? :shrug: You may be right about the packing methods. Take a look at how it was packed when I opened the box. There were none of the usual foam packing beads. The product wrapped in a layer of bubble wrap and taped to the bottom of the box.
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=102241&postcount=179
Hmmm... I could understand how you wouldn't know if "wires were moved", but it should be crystal clear if the controls are adjusted correctly, since those adjustments are a function of the instructions available to ALL operators. If the instructions are confusing, as to control adjustment, then I could see how many other users might be suffering from the same problems, and would really be at a disadvantage to obtain correct and advertised results. Are the instructions for control adjustment lacking in clarity? And should be revised? :shrug:Are the instructions for control adjustment lacking in clarity? And should be revised?
In my opinion, yes.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Fred]

If it takes so long just to know if the RT is working properly, i may consider buying another LRL .
There is plenty of choices out there, and with others this doesn´t seems to happen.I will wait a bit longer before i decide myself anyway.

[g-sani]

I have just had a look of how the RT was sent to you J_P and I was really surprised.
They could at least use some old newspaper around it to prevent it from going loose into the box.
I am planing to buy it myself and I will do it no matter this test but since of what I saw I have to remind RT to pack it more carefully for sure.

[J_Player]

If it takes so long just to know if the RT is working properly, i may consider buying another LRL .
There is plenty of choices out there, and with others this doesn´t seems to happen.I will wait a bit longer before i decide myself anyway.Hi Fred,
Which ones are you considering to buy for yourself? A Dell directional rod, or a Mr. Stick?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

You may be right about the packing methods. Take a look at how it was packed when I opened the box. There were none of the usual foam packing beads. The product wrapped in a layer of bubble wrap and taped to the bottom of the box.
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=102241&postcount=179
Are the instructions for control adjustment lacking in clarity? And should be revised?
In my opinion, yes.

Best wishes,
J_P

Gosh. You would think that for as many units as he claims(??) to have sold, and to so many different locations(???); he would have a really good idea of how to pack them for shipment...... by now. ;)

At the selling price of these things, seems like a few scoops of Styrofoam peanuts, or yesterday's waded up newspaper would be an easy way to insure it gets to a destination in good shape. Incidentally, was the parcel Insured for Loss or Damage during shipment?

[Fred]

Hi Fred,
Which ones are you considering to buy for yourself? A Dell directional rod, or a Mr. Stick?

Best wishes,
J_P
AI want a high-tech one, i let you guess.

thesus,you can´t get peanuts for free.

[Theseus]

thesus,you can´t get peanuts for free.

No. But they aren't that expensive either, and in the interests of making sure the item arrives in good working order - NO COST SHOULD BE SPARED. :nono:

[Fred]

No. But they aren't that expensive either, and in the interests of making sure the item arrives in good working order - NO COST SHOULD BE SPARED. :nono:
:lol::lol:

[hung]

Art Flowers from the TNET forum:

'Went to the local park today ( I know AF, it is a known treasure site)..Dug 7 holes to find 7 targets….Even found a nice gold ring and didn’t have to dig 100 pull tabs to find it….Art

Nhttp://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=291343.0;attach=43 2701;image

...that's exactly how it's supposed to work, mambo boys.

[Fred]

Hung,

Does the picture prove that the RT is a good detector of Bud (light) beer or coins?

[Jim]

Art Flowers from the TNET forum:

'Went to the local park today ( I know AF, it is a known treasure site)..Dug 7 holes to find 7 targets….Even found a nice gold ring and didn’t have to dig 100 pull tabs to find it….Art

Nhttp://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=291343.0;attach=43 2701;image

...that's exactly how it's supposed to work, mambo boys.

Oddly enough...Art does not claim to have found the coins pictured. Only that he dug seven holes. Period. The ring was more than likely found on his nightstand. Again, he did not say that he used the RT, nor did he say the items in the picture were dug.

That...or the booze made him type scads of crap :shrug:

[Infamy]

Are LRLs any good for mine clearing?
How about posting a demonstration on utube

[Theseus]

Art Flowers from the TNET forum:

'Went to the local park today ( I know AF, it is a known treasure site)..Dug 7 holes to find 7 targets….Even found a nice gold ring and didn’t have to dig 100 pull tabs to find it….Art

...that's exactly how it's supposed to work, mambo boys.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol:

I know Art Flowers, he's pulling your leg Hung. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hey, Hung, why not tell the whole story and show the other pics?

First of all Art verified all his targets, before he dug a hole, with a metal detector. Who knows how many targets he dowsed that the metal detector indicated not a real target. Second, he dug several pieces of change, not just Silver and Gold. If the Examiner was set for Gold, how come he found Silver with it, or if the Examiner was set for Silver, how come he found the Gold ring, or how come he found copper coins? Finally, why not say that he was coinhunting in a virtual minefield of lost coins - a baseball dugout area?

Sorry, Hung, but you get only a D- in this particular debunkering effort... and I'm being kind. :razz: :razz: :razz:

[J_Player]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol:

I know Art Flowers, he's pulling your leg Hung. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hey, Hung, why not tell the whole story and show the other pics?

First of all Art verified all his targets, before he dug a hole, with a metal detector. Who knows how many targets he dowsed that the metal detector didn't say was a real target. Second, he dug several pieces of change, not just Silver and Gold. If the Examiner was set for Gold, how come he found Silver with it, or if the Examiner was set for Silver, how come he found the Gold ring, or how come he found copper coins? Finally, why not say that he was coinhunting in a virtual minefield of lost coins - a baseball dugout area?

Sorry, Hung, but you get only a D+ in this particular debunkering effort... and I'm being kind. :razz: :razz: :razz:Wait a minute...!

Has hung discovered a way to prove the sample Examiner I have is working?

I mean... If I go to a local beach where I usually find several dollars in lost coins in an hour or two, then I could walk up to the sand with this Examiner and see where it points. I could check each location with a metal detector and dig up any coins I find. I can even take photos of the Examiner pointing the correct direction when digging the holes where I find a coin. Then, when I'm done, I can take a photo of the Examiner next to all the coins I recover.
Then we can get on with starting the scientific test program.

Would this be a suitable test to confirm the Examiner is locating treasure, and not damaged?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Are LRLs any good for mine clearing?
How about posting a demonstration on utube

Apparently not! :frown:

A demonstration video showing mine clearing with an Examiner would be pretty gruesome since all you would see are human limbs being blown off. :(

[Theseus]

http://www.youtube.com/user/aarthrj3811

Here you can see Art Flowers in action. Just exactly what Art is demonstrating here, is anyone's guess. I'm sure it must have some significance to Art, or someone. :shrug: Perhaps there is beer and a metal detector involved, that was not shown in this video - like there was in the story above. :D

This is the same fella that Hung wants us to believe dug seven holes, found seven wonderful targets, using nothing but the Examiner and a spade.

[WM6]

http://www.youtube.com/user/aarthrj3811

Here you can see Art Flowers in action. .



It seems that he forgot to charge the battery.

[hung]

He,he,he... As I thought, that picture and Art's successful hunting with the RT turned the skepthics here into a freaking state just like cockroaches('cuckarachas') flying trough the air in a summer night...:lol::lol:

And the mambo boys even hint he had not found the coins and the ring in the picture using the RT... this even after seeing it with their own eyes!:shocked:
Imagine if they saw what I already found...
That's why I said in the other forum about the psychological altered states skepthics live in a daily basis here...
Here's Art's own words... Yes there is also another picture with more coins and a dollar bill found...

Would the official time stamp expert please check the time stamp on my computer to the one on the photo…I do not post fake photo’s…..I did not use a Metal Detector to find the coins and dollar bill. I never dug any empty holes or a single pull tab….I resent the fact that I have been called dishonest on this web site….If you guys can’t take the heat…Art

Also, JP should definetely take more lessons from Art, maybe in private and in person this time. Emails to him are not working... Hurry up, becase if this ain't work, send the thing back fast, otherwise you will need to pay for it!:lol:

What a hell of a great time LRL users have here...:lol::thumb:

How's that for a technical forum Esteban?

[Theseus]

Hung, I'll bet you could make ten times more money doing stand-up comedy than you ever could treasure hunting.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[WM6]

And the mambo boys even hint he had not found the coins and the ring in the picture using the RT... this even after seeing it with their own eyes!:shocked:



Hi hung

dont be funny. Your "findings" are not mention worth.

See my last week findings using dr Best BIOnic 01 GOLDY machine:

http://templars.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/treasure_chest_gold.jpg

[Jim]

He,he,he... As I thought, that picture and Art's successful hunting with the RT turned the skepthics here into a freaking state just like cockroaches('cuckarachas') flying trough the air in a summer night...:lol::lol:



As it turns out, Art's picture was staged. Art was caught padding the thread with false information. No surprise, and no surprise that Hung will attempt some low-class damage control. How about that for debunkering sports fan :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[hung]

As it turns out, Art's picture was staged. Art was caught padding the thread with false information.

Not worth it placing a coment on the above statements.

[Theseus]

As it turns out, Art's picture was staged. Art was caught padding the thread with false information. No surprise, and no surprise that Hung will attempt some low-class damage control. How about that for debunkering sports fan :lol::lol::lol::lol:

:thumb: :cheers:

Thanks for getting the truth injected here, Jim.

[Esteban]

He,he,he... As I thought, that picture and Art's successful hunting with the RT turned the skepthics here into a freaking state just like cockroaches('cuckarachas') flying trough the air in a summer night...:lol::lol:

And the mambo boys even hint he had not found the coins and the ring in the picture using the RT... this even after seeing it with their own eyes!:shocked:
Imagine if they saw what I already found...
That's why I said in the other forum about the psychological altered states skepthics live in a daily basis here...
Here's Art's own words... Yes there is also another picture with more coins and a dollar bill found...



Also, JP should definetely take more lessons from Art, maybe in private and in person this time. Emails to him are not working... Hurry up, becase if this ain't work, send the thing back fast, otherwise you will need to pay for it!:lol:

What a hell of a great time LRL users have here...:lol::thumb:

How's that for a technical forum Esteban?

Do you suggest starting another technical forum, but not here?

[WM6]

Do you suggest starting another technical forum, but not here?



Great idea, except word "technical".
What has esoteric dowsing to do with technique?

All sceptic will be there for funny.

[ivconic]

Do you suggest starting another technical forum, but not here?

Personaly i don't mind having you here guys. Forum is better with your presence.
Only thing that lacks is some more detailed and more real and REPEATABLE project from you.
Much stories, much claims, much photos and clips...yet NONE of the real working schematic, project..hint...something real and material.
On other side, from "us" you have here numerous I/B,PI,BFO etc.. schematics, pcbs, projects...all REPEATABLE, WORKING and PROVEN in practice.
But hey! Nothing perfect in ths sad world.

[hung]

Do you suggest starting another technical forum, but not here?

Esteban, we have already talked about this in our emails.

I suggest you ask yourself if this forum is being helpful to you the way you are being helpful to it... You might find some useful info on the regular MD toys forum, but what about RS forum?

I suggest you ask yourself if you enjoy posting LRL technical info and receiveing nothing in return except fun and skepticism... Of course! They are skepthics and complete ignorants on LRLs...But they do not have respect.

And finally I suggest you ask yourself if you enjoy being criticized and ridicularized for not posting a working LRL circuit here, as you and I know that this will never happen for obvious reasons.

If your answer to the three questions above is NO, then yes, I suggest you migrate to a forum where you talk to real LRL users, talk about the technology with them and you trully exchange relevant information.
You can filter skeptic members to prevent the usual baloney from them. Remember: You want to talk about LRLs. You're way past the stage where LRLs were still being discussed as probable... Quite sometime ago eh?

And if you have some time left, hang around here just to have fun. Like the skepthics do all the time...

Regards.

[ivconic]

"...But they do not have respect.."

You are wrong here. Respect you have here. Credence maybe not...but respect you have.

Even if you, Esteban and other LRL proponents move from this forum and go to another place...would you post something more real there than?
If so than i will join also that new forum (to se more real stuff there)!:lol:

Solution is not to run away from this forum, solution is to stay here and defend you attitude with more real facts.
Regards!

[hung]

:thumb: :cheers:

Thanks for getting the truth injected here, Jim.

How idiotic...
Let Art speak for himself...


Gee..It seems that my Camera does not have the right time…My new camera is wrong but guess what…It will not be the last time….Now AF…You keep insisting that we all use Metal detectors to pin point our targets….If they are so accurate how come millions of pin pointers have been sold to people with Metal Detectors? When I was locating all those coins and the DOLLAR BILL marking the spot to dig was simple.. When the LRL swung I followed it to the source and put a little mark on the ground with my shoe..The next step is to degauss the antenna , put the freq back in and press enter…Then hit the COS button and wait for it to make it’s calculations…I then enter 0.0005 feet ..I move my foot around the mark on the ground until it swings. I place my steel marker beside the front part of my heel on my left foot…I can dig the coin now….The spot is mark directly over the top of the coin. I know that the coin is silver, nickel or copper because of the freq that I was using….100% discrimination…100% accuracy I could go other there and use the Aluminum freq and dig few hundred pull tabs for you guys but since you keep bugging us with a never ending bunch of false information I will let you guys dig all those empty holes that have pull tabs in them…Art

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=291343.0;attach=43 2930;image

See what I mean Esteban?

[hung]

stay here and defend you attitude with more real facts.
Regards!


If there were no real facts there would be no Esteban, no hung, no Mineoro, no Rangertell, no OKM, etc.
Knowledge does not come to us.
We go towards it.

[WM6]

I suggest you ask yourself if you enjoy posting LRL technical info and receiveing nothing in return except fun and skepticism...

.

Huh hung

Esteban is still the greatest living collector of foreign intellectual property.
He never posting nothig of his ovn idea only replicas of others ideas.

And dont forget, that only sceptic can LRL forum keep in vivo.
Without sceptic your new forum will be SRL (Short Range Living).

[g-sani]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esteban http://www.geotech1.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=104454#post104454)


Do you suggest starting another technical forum, but not here?


My opinion is that a technical forum cannot stand alone my friends.
When it comes to electronics involved in Treasure Hunting it will always be and some other posts between the schematics and then everything will be mixed again and at the end it will be exactly the same.
Apart from this all that somebody has to do is click Technology.Skeptics will be always everywhere and they do us good as well.
:lol::lol::lol:
It is so many members here by now that infos+knowledge come in every form and shape.
Here in Greece It was 1-2 forums at the beggining and it was allright.You could serf and enjoy it.Since the same people or company splitted by making new forums(6-7) things changed in a bad manner.You have to pass from all of them if you want to talk to your old friends and you loose track of the situation.
The result?
You get bored and fed up instead of be happy and relaxed.:(

[ivconic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esteban http://www.geotech1.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=104454#post104454)


Do you suggest starting another technical forum, but not here?


My opinion is that a technical forum cannot stand alone my friends.
When it comes to electronics involved in Treasure Hunting it will always be and some other posts between the schematics and then everything will be mixed again and at the end it will be exactly the same.
Apart from this all that somebody has to do is click Technology.Skeptics will be always everywhere and they do us good as well.
:lol::lol::lol:
It is so many members here by now that infos+knowledge come in every form and shape.
Here in Greece It was 1-2 forums at the beggining and it was allright.You could serf and enjoy it.Since the same people or company splitted by making new forums(6-7) things changed in a bad manner.You have to pass from all of them if you want to talk to your old friends and you loose track of the situation.
The result?
You get bored and fed up instead of be happy and relaxed.:(


Well...that makes sence. I agree.

[Fred]

And finally I suggest you ask yourself if you enjoy being criticized and ridicularized for not posting a working LRL circuit here, as you and I know that this will never happen for obvious reasons.Regards.

Esteban and his posts have always been respected and read with interest , because he wants to learn more and try to understand what he is observing.In other words, he wants to progress, unlike you , which just blindly believe in something that you will never understand -


If there were no real facts there would be no Esteban, no hung, no Mineoro, no Rangertell, no OKM, etc.
Knowledge does not come to us.
We go towards it.

Is this a joke? because i found it funny.At least it shows how far away you are from reality.

[osman]

Do you suggest starting another technical forum, but not here?
everyone, knowledge, skills and experience in, to share, an environment free of course, olcaktır enjoyable.

[Jim]

How idiotic...



There is that low-class damage control

[osman]

[quote = asılı; 104.467] Eğer hiçbir Esteban olacaktı gerçek gerçekler vardı asılı hayır, hayır Mineoro, hayır Rangertell, hayır OKM, vb
Bilgi bize gelmiyor.
Biz doğru gidin. [/ Quote]


hung hi

As an experienced user,
For users, what is recommended.? What do you suggest.? (appropriate settings + search system), etc.

Best wishes

[Jim]

:thumb: :cheers:

Thanks for getting the truth injected here, Jim.



Not a problem.

Not only did Art not know about his camera's digital signature, he didn't realize he made so many posts that day...you could plainly see he didn't have enough time to recover those amounts of targets.

And....now its time to wait for Hung's low-class damage control piffle :rolleyes:

[hung]

There is that low-class damage control

It fits perfectly your pathetic temptative of discrediting him.
But Art's feat and the facts have blown you and your stage up (as always).

You really seem to be a chronic masochist who rather choose to fool yoursef intead of accepting the facts. You are 'factual spanked' all the time by him at TNET and don't evolve...
I can only feel sorry for you buddy...

[hung]

[quote = asılı; 104.467] Eğer hiçbir Esteban olacaktı gerçek gerçekler vardı asılı hayır, hayır Mineoro, hayır Rangertell, hayır OKM, vb
Bilgi bize gelmiyor.
Biz doğru gidin. [/ Quote]


hung hi

As an experienced user,
For users, what is recommended.? What do you suggest.? (appropriate settings + search system), etc.

Best wishes

Hi Osman,

If you refer to the RT aproach, it's really hard to say as each user seem to develop a particular aproach, frequencies and equations that work best for him. For instance, Art's own frequencies, and method to enter the equations do not work very well for me. And my own aproach probably will not fit Art's... So what I suggest is that you try different settings according to the manual and see what works best for you. Actually to be honest, the examiner requires a big amount of time for practicing it as you become part of the circuit regarding the locating procedure. I have been using one for almost 5 years now and I'm still learning, but it pays. It's a great aproach and saves you a lot of time in the field. And I mean a LOT of time.

Art is a special case. He has been an experienced dowser for many years and the examiner in his hands becomes a polished jewell. I, like him have stated that the Examiner is not dowsing. And his claim on this is much more important as he is a master dowser and knows exactly what he is talking about.
He has mastered the device as you can see in the pictures and I dare to say that probably he can find anything he wants now considering the amount of experience he has on the device today.

Hope this helps, but in case you have more doubts, send me a PM and I will gladly try to solve them.
All the best to you too.

[Theseus]

Not a problem.

Not only did Art not know about his camera's digital signature, he didn't realize he made so many posts that day...you could plainly see he didn't have enough time to recover those amounts of targets.

And....now its time to wait for Hung's low-class damage control piffle :rolleyes:

If we were to itemize all the areas where Art is short of a clear understanding, we could be here making out the list until the wee hours of the morning, or longer. Art's lack of knowledge and basic understanding skills might only be overshadowed by Hung's. ;)

[osman]

Hi Osman,

If you refer to the RT aproach, it's really hard to say as each user seem to develop a particular aproach, frequencies and equations that work best for him. For instance, Art's own frequencies, and method to enter the equations do not work very well for me. And my own aproach probably will not fit Art's... So what I suggest is that you try different settings according to the manual and see what works best for you. Actually to be honest, the examiner requires a big amount of time for practicing it as you become part of the circuit regarding the locating procedure. I have been using one for almost 5 years now and I'm still learning, but it pays. It's a great aproach and saves you a lot of time in the field. And I mean a LOT of time.

Art is a special case. He has been an experienced dowser for many years and the examiner in his hands becomes a polished jewell. I, like him have stated that the Examiner is not dowsing. And his claim on this is much more important as he is a master dowser and knows exactly what he is talking about.
He has mastered the device as you can see in the pictures and I dare to say that probably he can find anything he wants now considering the amount of experience he has on the device today.

Hope this helps, but in case you have more doubts, send me a PM and I will gladly try to solve them.
All the best to you too.


hi hung

Thank you.they are written above, just agree.

[Qiaozhi]

Art is a special case.
No comment. :rolleyes:

He has been an experienced dowser for many years and the examiner in his hands becomes a polished jewell. I, like him have stated that the Examiner is not dowsing
If the Examiner is not a dowsing gadget, then why would being an experienced dowser make any difference? Sounds like double-dutch to me. :lol:

[Theseus]

No comment. :rolleyes:


If the Examiner is not a dowsing gadget, then why would being an experienced dowser make any difference? Sounds like double-dutch to me. :lol:

Well, of course the Examiner IS most definitely a dowsing wand. (Let's not forget the original report that is still on Carl's site.) And, like other LRL scammers in the past, it is all dolled up with a bunch of do-nothing parts and appendages to fool the gullible and technically-challenged into thinking it does more than a bent coat-hanger. Fool them it has; as Art and Hung are prime examples. :rolleyes:

They can rave on and on about frequencies and signal lines and Cosine Functions all they want, but the truth is, none of that is doing Jack Squat towards helping the operator/dowser to locate a target. In the end, the Examiner is still nothing more than an indicator of ones intuition, and of course moves ONLY in response to the classic ideomotor effect from the operator holding it. :razz:

[g-sani]

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2631/lrl.th.jpg (http://img130.imageshack.us/i/lrl.jpg/)

I wrote in some other post before that I am interesting of buying the RT examiner and now I think is the right time to tell you why.
As you see in the picture above somebody holds a pistol that its main box is a calculator.
This is a guy that makes lrls and the particular one I can assure you that works in exactly the same principle as the examiner.
How did I get knowing this guy? I will tell you how.
This guy went out a few of times whith a very good friend of mine looking for treasure.One time they were lucky to discover a small pot of silver coins(27).One other time the guy said that we have something in gold here but they could not confirm it because it was inside somebody elses property.And also some other time in some other place he said that he was getting something silver and they didn't confirm it whith their detector(Whites DFX).Well he said that it was deeper than what the DFX could get.
What can you say about that?May be is true and may be not.
Anyway my friend was really amazed whith this pistol of his and once we were sitting in a cafe talking about treasure places.My friend told me about that time they detected gold inside that property.
When he told me the name of the village and the exact location it was like getting an electric shock.
What happened is that I had detected the same target whith my lrl about a year ago and I never told anybody else about that.The thing is that I confirmed the target whith my LORENZ Deepmax X3 and yes is true.It is something gold inside the garden in the exact spot as my friend knows as well.The only difference is that they never confirm it whith a VLF or whith a Pulse detector.
This heppened while I was about 500m away from the village looking for a small wooden box whith gold sovereigns that it was supposed to be left there in the woods during World WarII.
Instead of finding this I had that signal in that nearby village in that property which is located just in the edge of the village.
So I am a bit skeptical that this kind of detector does something or in other words is probably working.
You see the guy that makes these pistols over here even supplies you whith a manual very very similar to what RT has for their customers probably written in a different manner.
This guy is an electronics man and he says that from time to time makes LRLs because is his hobby but he sells them as well.As I learned from my friend he is doing it for many years and he is experienced.
After all this tell me what are the posibilities of what is really happening here.
This guy took the patent of RT and makes the same detectors whith no name on them and everytime in different packages-boxes and may be RT sometime ago took the idea from him.One thing is for sure is that he sells for much more.My friend told me he sells them for a few thousand euros and that he also has made some other patents for other electronic systems apart from detectors which I found out that it is true.
I will try to meet whith the guy sometime and probably ask him in person what is the relation of him and RT.
He must know them one way or another for sure.
You see I stopped my friend of buying his LRL when I explained him that there is the examiner that does exactly the same and I can tell you now that is really confused.

Many regards

[Rangertell]

Rangertell Locating and Explorations Systems invented the Examiner concept in 2002 and retains rights etc to the product.

Proof of this exists on the net back to this period.

We categorically state no similar unit was used as a basis for the original. We started using a coil idea that occurred to the maker and it developed from there. The assistant applied the calculator idea after testing the coils and discovering a new concept.

The unit described may work to an extent or he has refined it. It's not Rangertell though and has not had 8 years successful worldwide marketing and testing to back it up.

Rangertell
15/01/2010



First & Final Comment

[WM6]

... I can tell you now that is really confused.



Probably this is the only truth, dear g-sani.

About Christmas my best frieds, whom I believe, say to me, that he saw Santa inside BigMarkt. It is hard to believe to me and I wish to convince myself about this tale story.

And, yes, what electric shock, I saw Santa in BigMarkt too. I didnt want to touch his beard and mustache because he was on other property. But after that some other people told to me that they saw Santa at the same place too. No one pull his beard and mustache down because of other property.

Now I firmly believe in Santa.

[J_Player]

You see I stopped my friend of buying his LRL when I explained him that there is the examiner that does exactly the same and I can tell you now that is really confused.Hi g-sani,

I can't tell you anything about field performance for the Examiner. But I can tell you something about what's inside of them. The earlier version that Carl-NC showed photos of is no longer being made. There was a newer diodes model that was also finally updated to the present model. The basic model being sold today is the Examiner T-G version 8.08B for a special sale price of $421 US. You can see this on the products page at the Rangertell website.

I received an email from Rangertell giving approval open this T-G version 8.08B Examiner and post photos of what I see inside.
I have no test data to show yet, but have fun seeing how the new ones look inside:

[WM6]

Hi J_P

Brilliant picture and add comments. Thank you.

I am trying to find som meter indicator or buzzer on picture but there is nothing. Hov RT indicate direction to treasure or indication is not needed cause they cannot find nothing?

[Qiaozhi]

Hi g-sani,

I can't tell you anything about field performance for the Examiner. But I can tell you something about what's inside of them. The earlier version that Carl-NC showed photos of is no longer being made. There was a newer diodes model that was also finally updated to the present model. The basic model being sold today is the Examiner T-G version 8.08B for a special sale price of $421 US. You can see this on the products page at the Rangertell website.

I received an email from Rangertell giving approval open this T-G version 8.08B Examiner and post photos of what I see inside.
I have no test data to show yet, but have fun seeing how the new ones look inside:
.

[J_Player]

Hi J_P

Brilliant picture and add comments. Thank you.

I am trying to find som meter indicator or buzzer on picture but there is nothing. Hov RT indicate direction to treasure or indication is not needed cause they cannot find nothing?Hi WM6,
There are no meters or buzzer in this Examiner to tell you when you find treasure. I read in the instruction manual the explanation how it works:
First they explain the circuit inside is set to a resonant frequency with the target by pressing the correct buttons on the calculator.
The manual explains how this essentially reinforces the target material's "signal" to amplify it in the circuitry.
Then to indicate where is the treasure:
"On being amplified by the circuitry in the Examiner the magnetic laws govern its disposition for it to align with the target's direction".

I hope the explanation from the manual helps.


Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Then to indicate where is the treasure:
"On being amplified by the circuitry in the Examiner the magnetic laws govern its disposition for it to align with the target's direction".

I hope the explanation from the manual helps.

J_P

Thanks, it helps a lot. But now I understand that this creation is much more complex and sophisticated than I assumed.

[Fred]

This guy took the patent of RT and makes the same detectors ...
A patent of a RT ? :shocked: where?


Amazing work J-P , i found very interesting the way to hold the "pickup" coils and the crystal connected (in serial) with it.

Every working TV set has an oscillator running on that frequency, do they talk about interference from TV´s when using the RT ?
Fortunately i don´t see many wires that can move around during shipping.Maybe this is why they don´t need to use packing peanuts...

[hung]

Hi g-sani,

I can't tell you anything about field performance for the Examiner. But I can tell you something about what's inside of them. The earlier version that Carl-NC showed photos of is no longer being made. There was a newer diodes model that was also finally updated to the present model. The basic model being sold today is the Examiner T-G version 8.08B for a special sale price of $421 US. You can see this on the products page at the Rangertell website.

I received an email from Rangertell giving approval open this T-G version 8.08B Examiner and post photos of what I see inside.
I have no test data to show yet, but have fun seeing how the new ones look inside:

Hey bigmouth, so there's indeed a diode as I had stated eh ??:lol:

[J_Player]

Hey bigmouth, so there's indeed a diode as I had stated eh ??:lol:I don't see a diode connected to the pot as you stated. I am reading the report where you made the claims you opened yours and took meter measurements inside.

I am wondering what readings you took inside where the diode is connected to the pot. I am wondering why we never saw any meter readings you allegedly took inside. It looks easy to take readings inside to me. Were you making up a story? Was this more fake testing you pretended to do? Is this why you had to wait until you found anther way to connect a meter without breaking the enclosure?
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=63618

Best wishes,
J_P

[hung]

I don't see a diode connected to the pot as you stated. I am reading the report where you made the claims you opened yours and took meter measurements inside.

I am wondering what readings you took inside where the diode is connected to the pot. I am wondering why we never saw any meter readings you allegedly took inside. It looks easy to take readings inside to me. Were you making up a story? Was this more fake testing you pretended to do? Is this why you had to wait until you found anther way to connect a meter without breaking the enclosure?
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=63618

Best wishes,
J_P

1 - In my model there's a diode conected to the pot. It requires 1 single neuron for a geek to figure there are several modifications employed along RT years. doohh!

2 - If I had not opened my examiner I would never be able to apply my mod.
In my report I decided to not show the insides of the unit as I have ethics, unlike you who don't.

This case is closed to me. I will not waste my time beating your dead horse here.

Gotta go.

[WM6]

I am wondering why we never saw any meter readings you allegedly took inside.

J_P

Measurement contact was done on brass rod from downside:

Such "phenomenon" can be measured inside buildings on all LC circuit, there do not need calculator to be present.

Are you open calculator too, to prove if some mod was done?

[WM6]

In my report I decided to not show the insides of the unit as I have ethics, unlike you who don't.

.

Read first then accuse!

J_P clarify before photos:

"I received an email from Rangertell giving approval open this T-G version 8.08B Examiner and post photos of what I see inside.
I have no test data to show yet, but have fun seeing how the new ones look inside: "

But you have ethics to sell nonworking boxes to naive? Great ethics!

[g-sani]

Probably this is the only truth, dear g-sani.

About Christmas my best frieds, whom I believe, say to me, that he saw Santa inside BigMarkt. It is hard to believe to me and I wish to convince myself about this tale story.

And, yes, what electric shock, I saw Santa in BigMarkt too. I didnt want to touch his beard and mustache because he was on other property. But after that some other people told to me that they saw Santa at the same place too. No one pull his beard and mustache down because of other property.

Now I firmly believe in Santa.

You will never be able to understand the point that somebody else makes WM6 because you consider your self more clever than anybody.
To see things doesn't mean that all you have to do is to keep your eyes open.
You are oversuspicious whith everything and everybody and this will result of yourself being at the same low level for ever.Be generous for once in your life WM6, you must give first in order to receive.
Well thats your choice and you can always keep sleeping.
Of course you can always dream of Santa Claus as you always do since the day you were a child.
But watch out WM6 don't dream of him having presents(treasure) in his bag since you will never see a treasure yourself the way you go.;)

P.S. Don't worry about the gold inside that property my friend.
I checked it whith my X3 not to prove that my LRL or that guy's LRL is working but only because time has come for
that gold to be picked up from somebody.

[J_Player]

1 - In my model there's a diode conected to the pot. It requires 1 single neuron for a geek to figure there are several modifications employed along RT years. doohh!

2 - If I had not opened my examiner I would never be able to apply my mod.
In my report I decided to not show the insides of the unit as I have ethics, unlike you who don't.

This case is closed to me. I will not waste my time beating your dead horse here.

Gotta go.Hi hung.
There is no question of ethics in showing the inside of an Examiner. Rangertell sent an approval to show the photos you see above. They don't mind if you show photos of the inside and show what variances you measure on the meter readings you get. You realise of course many people don't believe you ever made meter readings inside your Examiner showing variances.

As far as the mod you claimed to make on your Examiner, you said the only mod you made was to stop the handle from swiveling. It is not necessary to open an Examiner to stop the handle from swiveling. But even if you opened it to stop the handle from swiveling or other mods, you still did not show any meter readings that indicate variances inside at the diode connected to the pot like you claimed you did.

I can see why you are anxious to close this matter.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

You will never be able to understand the point that somebody else makes WM6 because you consider your self more clever than anybody.
To see things doesn't mean that all you have to do is to keep your eyes open.
You are oversuspicious whith everything and everybody and this will result of yourself being at the same low level for ever.Be generous for once in your life WM6, you must give first in order to receive.
Well thats your choice and you can always keep sleeping.
Of course you can always dream of Santa Claus as you always do since the day you were a child.
But watch out WM6 don't dream of him having presents(treasure) in his bag since you will never see a treasure yourself the way you go.;)

Thanks for compliments, g-sani, but compliments are not arguments, that your point of view is correct. In contrary its lack of arguments.

[Theseus]

Hi hung.
There is no question of ethics in showing the inside of an Examiner. Rangertell sent an approval to show the photos you see above. They don't mind if you show photos of the inside and show what variances you measure on the meter readings you get. You realise of course many people don't believe you ever made meter readings inside your Examiner showing variances.

As far as the mod you claimed to make on your Examiner, you said the only mod you made was to stop the handle from swiveling. It is not necessary to open an Examiner to stop the handle from swiveling. But even if you opened it to stop the handle from swiveling or other mods, you still did not show any meter readings that indicate variances inside at the diode connected to the pot like you claimed you did.

I can see why you are anxious to close this matter.

Best wishes,
J_P

It's the old "duck and cover" routine. Most all LRL aficionados have some sort of a run and hide plan in place when cornered with facts and truth they can't debunker. :D

[Theseus]

Hi g-sani,

I can't tell you anything about field performance for the Examiner. But I can tell you something about what's inside of them. The earlier version that Carl-NC showed photos of is no longer being made. There was a newer diodes model that was also finally updated to the present model. The basic model being sold today is the Examiner T-G version 8.08B for a special sale price of $421 US. You can see this on the products page at the Rangertell website.

I received an email from Rangertell giving approval open this T-G version 8.08B Examiner and post photos of what I see inside.
I have no test data to show yet, but have fun seeing how the new ones look inside:

Kind of sorry you took it apart prior to the testing. If the testing actually ever happens, isn't there a good chance this action can be used "as an excuse" if the test results are less than glowing? :frown:

[J_Player]

Kind of sorry you took it apart prior to the testing. If the testing actually ever happens, isn't there a good chance this action can be used "as an excuse" if the test results are less than glowing? :frown:Hi Theseus,
I don't think so. I was cautioned not to move the wires inside, and I was very careful about this. From my recent observations, I think the problem is not with moved wires. I think the best operation will be found after some time-consuming adjistments to the tuning cap, which I was told must be moved a hair at a time. I expect this to be very time consuming based on my first few attempts, that included several other things to be adjusted to various settings after each setting at the cap. Of course, I am only guessing the tuning cap is the problem at this point. But if people begin complaining that any testing is void because it was opened, then I can return it for a replacement that is never opened.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Fred]

Is this capacitor tuning necessary?
In their adverts they say a child can use it, and that it is not complicated , so i don´t think you will find any difficulty. :D

[Theseus]

Is this capacitor tuning necessary?
In their adverts they say a child can use it, and that it is not complicated , so i don´t think you will find any difficulty. :D

Seems we are getting two different versions of this story. The way J_Player states, I hardly think a child could work through the setup procedure, and probably a lot of ordinary users, either.

[J_Player]

Seems we are getting two different versions of this story. The way J_Player states, I hardly think a child could work through the setup procedure, and probably a lot of ordinary users, either.From what I read, when it is functioning properly, a child can use it. When it is not functioning properly, then you may need to make a number of adjustments to get it to function properly. One of those adjustments is the temperamental setscrew. It only sounds like two different versions of the story if you have not read the instruction manual that tells you the whole story that the manufacturer publishes when he sends a unit.

I presume the majority of these units do not need to have the setscrew adjusted. But I really don't know.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Boldgold]

This is surreal, are some of you people for real. Close this case once and for all. Finding gold and silver from a distance with, and ALL long range locators are 100% scams with scam machines, put out by scam artists, designed to scam people to separate them from their money. SCAM, Suckers Come Away Mystified. Don't be mystified by the junk science!

Imaging radar for deep objects directly below or a Magnetometer(magnetic surveys) to find iron anomalities done from an airplane done by large mining companies does work. But there is NO electronic instrument that finds gold and silver off in the far off horizontal distance in the horizon 25, 100, or 1000 meters(yards) off, I can assure you! If you have a personal gift from God, you do not need an expensive electronic unit. Bent clothes hanger wires and/or map dowsing would then work, and can be made for under $5 or so.

[J_Player]

This is surreal, are some of you people for real. Close this case once and for all. Finding gold and silver from a distance with, and ALL long range locators are 100% scams with scam machines, put out by scam artists, designed to scam people to separate them from their money. SCAM, Suckers Come Away Mystified. Don't be mystified by the junk science!

Imaging radar for deep objects directly below or a Magnetometer(magnetic surveys) to find iron anomalities done from an airplane done by large mining companies does work. But there is NO electronic instrument that finds gold and silver off in the far off horizontal distance in the horizon 25, 100, or 1000 meters(yards) off, I can assure you! If you have a personal gift from God, you do not need an expensive electronic unit. Bent clothes hanger wires and/or map dowsing would then work, and can be made for under $5 or so.Hi Boldgol,

You might be right about that. This is what I though also. And so far, I have never seen any real live evidence of any handheld instrument finding buried treasure off at a distance on the horizon.

Yet we have people here that claim they have done it. So I am taking the advice of Carl-NC who runs this forum. He says we should not take his word or for it, or the word of people who make these claims. We should try it out and see for ourselves. And that is what I am doing. If it works, then I will see it work in my own hands. And if it doesn't work I will see it doesn't work. I will have a chance to test it any way I want to arrive at a final conclusion. I can't think of a better way than that to find out if those claims are true or not.

But that's not all. I will also be inviting anyone else to come try it out and see for themselves too. And I will make photos and videos to show what I see it doing or not doing. So if you want people to believe like you do, send me a PM to come try it out yourself so I can post a video to show everybody exactly what kind of performance you see.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

This is surreal, are some of you people for real. Close this case once and for all. Finding gold and silver from a distance with, and ALL long range locators are 100% scams with scam machines, put out by scam artists, designed to scam people to separate them from their money. SCAM, Suckers Come Away Mystified. Don't be mystified by the junk science!

Imaging radar for deep objects directly below or a Magnetometer(magnetic surveys) to find iron anomalities done from an airplane done by large mining companies does work. But there is NO electronic instrument that finds gold and silver off in the far off horizontal distance in the horizon 25, 100, or 1000 meters(yards) off, I can assure you! If you have a personal gift from God, you do not need an expensive electronic unit. Bent clothes hanger wires and/or map dowsing would then work, and can be made for under $5 or so.

You are preaching to the choir. :D

[WM6]

We should try it out and see for ourselves. And that is what I am doing. If it works, then I will see it work in my own hands. And if it doesn't work I will see it doesn't work. I will have a chance to test it any way I want to arrive at a final conclusion. I can't think of a better way than that to find out if those claims are true or not.

J_P

J_P this so called dowsing "phenomenon" was explained by science 100 years ago, as was explained that the Earth is round and not flat.

You can still find people who argue that Earth is flat. So, should you flew to the moon to personally make you sure what is true?

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/flatearth.html

[Esteban]

I see the xtal. and the diode in the Rangertell. The use of silicon diode is wrong here. Must be used high quality low drift germanium diode or even a germanium transistor as diode. Also the Xtal. freq. MAYBE is wrong, 4.43. In the 2000 I work with different xtals. in antenna FOR ELECTRONIC LRL PISTOL. Yes, this frequency (4.43) detect the gold (OBJECT PLATTED BY GOLD), but with interruptions. Of course, I have buried gold in my patio, no pure gold, clock platted by gold BURIED MANY YEARS. But found other object, a small platted gold chain by Rommanel, bijouterie, only platted by gold jewel, not pure.

[WM6]

Of course, I have buried gold in my patio, no pure gold, clock platted by gold BURIED MANY YEARS. But found other object, a small platted gold chain by Rommanel, bijouterie, only platted by gold jewel, not pure.




The Bible says: those who search for, find it.

But I agree with you about rectifier silicon diode. It is about basic RF knowledge. With such design RT can detect only power line hum (which was measured on Dell pictures). On other hand for scamming people even defective diode is a good diode.

Interruptions you detect, have nothing to do with gold, as with xtal too. Natural gold resonate at 173o MHz (173 mm wavelength) here you can find explanation why only gold plated.

[Jim]

Yet we have people here that claim they have done it. So I am taking the advice of Carl-NC who runs this forum. He says we should not take his word or for it, or the word of people who make these claims. We should try it out and see for ourselves. And that is what I am doing. If it works, then I will see it work in my own hands. And if it doesn't work I will see it doesn't work. I will have a chance to test it any way I want to arrive at a final conclusion. I can't think of a better way than that to find out if those claims are true or not.



But, are you going to be allowed to post your results online? Has the manufacturer lifted restrictions on what you are allowed, or not allowed to report? This is where it gets confusing

[Boldgold]

Hi Boldgol,

You might be right about that. This is what I though also. And so far, I have never seen any real live evidence of any handheld instrument finding buried treasure off at a distance on the horizon.

Yet we have people here that claim they have done it. So I am taking the advice of Carl-NC who runs this forum. He says we should not take his word or for it, or the word of people who make these claims. We should try it out and see for ourselves. And that is what I am doing. If it works, then I will see it work in my own hands. And if it doesn't work I will see it doesn't work. I will have a chance to test it any way I want to arrive at a final conclusion. I can't think of a better way than that to find out if those claims are true or not.

But that's not all. I will also be inviting anyone else to come try it out and see for themselves too. And I will make photos and videos to show what I see it doing or not doing. So if you want people to believe like you do, send me a PM to come try it out yourself so I can post a video to show everybody exactly what kind of performance you see.

Best wishes,
J_P


Thanks JP, I understand what you are saying. The best way is try it out for yourself-ourself is always the best, yes this is true. Thanks for the offer to come and try it out then report what I see. I would meet with you if I was close to you. But I am a long way off from you and I am not in the USA. Go ahead and try it out since you alread have it and let us know. But I can not 99%, but can instead 100% assure you that expensive electronic machines will not pick up gold and silver on the distant horizon, horizontally 25, 100, 1000 (meters)yards out.

WM6 and JP, people claim they have done it you said. I never said that finding gold and silver in the distant horizon or under the hands-feet was not possible, but it is the operator doing it, that can be done with about $5 or so worth of homemade equipment that does it, not a high priced scam instrument itself doing it that rips off people to put it honestly and bluntly. What does it is the operator him or herself doing it from the gift they have from God. Do you think all the old-time miners in all the gold rushes had electronic equipment. Yes they were first on the site-virgin ground, and yes they were the same people as us, but they had a sense in finding gold activated by being down and out, down to their last straw, when this sense works the best.

If you buy either an expensive electronic or non-electronic dowsing machine(loaded with false resistors and the like), you can also make one at home for a fraction of the cost. Amazingly my dad does find things with 'bent wires' that cost under $5. (Either bent metal wires, or wood at 90 degree shaped and glued at the ends being smaller round wooden dowels can be put directly in the hands, or inside bigger sized 2x-pieces of about 6" long & about 1" diameter round wooden or metal dowels with the middle drilled out a little bigger than the wire or smaller wood dowel to be inserted inside them.) Some people use no metal but instead an ALL wood dowser like a forked shaped willow. This is all of no use to you if you do not have the gift with this skill. Not everyone has this gift and MOST people cannot even do it. It is the persons sense working through the instument, and NOT only a long range instrument doing it for you like a metal detector. Rather it's the person instead. As these high priced long range instruments are totally worthless in themselves and taking buyers for a financial rip-off ride.

Somebody wrote this and is very true in most cases:

Be careful when you purchase any treasure hunting unit.
It's best to talk to people that have had success with the unit you are interested in.
ONLY TO THE OWNERS.
Not just one person, at lease 5.
Tim Williams

[J_Player]

Thanks JP, I understand what you are saying. The best way is try it out for yourself-ourself is always the best, yes this is true. Thanks for the offer to come and try it out then report what I see. I would meet with you if I was close to you. But I am a long way off from you and I am not in the USA. Go ahead and try it out since you alread have it and let us know. But I can not 99%, but instead 100% assure you that these expensive electronic machines will not pick up gold and silver on the distant horizon, horizontally 25, 100, 1000 (meters)yards out.

WM6 and JP, I never said that finding gold and silver in the distant horizon or under the hands-feet was not possible, but it is the operator doing it with about $5 or so worth of homemade equipment that does it, not a high priced scam instrument that rips off people to put it honestly and bluntly. What does it is the operator him or herself doing it from the gift they have from God. Do you think all the old-time miners in all the gold rushes had electronic equipment. Yes they were first on the site-virgin ground, and yes they were the same people as us, but they had a sense in finding gold activated by being down and out, down to their last straw, when this sense works the best.

If you buy an either an expensive electronic or non-electronic dowsing machine(loaded with false resistors and the like), you can also make one at home for a fraction of the cost. Amazingly my dad does find things with 'bent wires' that cost under $5. (Either bent wires, or 90 degree shaped, glued at the ends, smaller round wood dowels can be put directly in the hands, or in 2x-pieces of about 6" long & about 1" diameter round wooden or metal dowels with the middle drilled out a little bigger than the wire.) Some people use no metal but am ALL wooden dowsing like a forked shaped willow. Not everyone has this gift and MOST people cannot do it. It is ONLY the persons sense, and NOT an instrument doing it for you. As these high priced instruments are totally worthless in themselves and taking buyers for a financial rip-off ride.

Somebody wrote this and is very true in most cases:

Be careful when you purchase any treasure hunting unit.
It's best to talk to people that have had success with the unit you are interested in.
ONLY TO THE OWNERS.
Not just one person, at lease 5.
Tim WilliamsHi Boldgold,
It sounds like you are talking about dowsing when you say it is possible for some people to locate buried things at some distance in the horizon using homemade equipment. And your point is that by using an electronic apparatus to hold as a dowsing rod, you are adding nothing to this dowsing effect. This suggests an interesting test that I could perform using the Examiner. If a dowser were to show how he can locate a target item using simple dowsing rods, then we can see what difference we find when he tries with the Examiner. There are a number of ways to set up tests that would show us if there is any difference.

From what I have read so far, it appears the Examiner is said to follow the same "signal lines" that dowsers claim they are locating, but with the added advantage that it is able to accurately tune to a single target material, much like a radio receiver tunes to a single station instead of receiving all radio stations at the same time. The theory is it amplifies the single "signal line" from the target you set it to find which makes it easy for people who have difficulty with dowsing to locate targets.

You can see this is not too hard to test, and find out if a dowser says he finds it any easier when using the LRL instead of simple dowsing rods. And there are many other ways to make more scientific tests as well.

And you are aware there are many people who post in this forum say who the electronic LRLs don't work, and neither does dowsing. This test may be hard to conduct if nobody can demonstrate that they are able to locate targets by dowsing with simple dowsing methods. (By demonstrate they can locate targets, I mean to demonstrate they can identify the location of a target that we recover to see that it is really there. Not a target that they say is buried a hundred feet down that we will never take out of the ground to see the item they found).

In any case I won't begin the testing just yet until I feel confident the Examiner is functioning correctly, which will require some time-consuming adljustments. But when I start the public test program, all are invited to come try it out and see for yourself what it can do for you to locate treasure. If you know someone in the Southern California area that would like to try it or simply watch, have them send a PM.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

And your point is that by using an electronic apparatus to hold as a dowsing rod, you are adding nothing to this dowsing effect. This suggests an interesting test that I could perform using the Examiner.

J_P

Hi J_P

Can we expect that you will soon come to a test flight with a broom?

http://www.shanmonster.com/witch/wards_tools/broom.gif

So low, neither Esteban has slipped. At least Esteban is trying to use some solutions and discoveries in the field of electronics in order to manufacture super-sensitive devices for detecting treasures. He is not a medieval dowser.

[J_Player]

Hi J_P

Can we expect that you will soon come to a test flight with a broom?

http://www.shanmonster.com/witch/wards_tools/broom.gif

So low, neither Esteban has slipped. At least Esteban is trying to use some solutions and discoveries in the field of electronics in order to manufacture super-sensitive devices for detecting treasures. He is not a medieval dowser.Hi WM6,

I have no interest in testing a broom.
But if someone wants to fly in on a broom, I can make a video of them demonstrating their flying broom to post on youtube.
Tell any broom-flyers to send a PM if they want to have videos made.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

But, are you going to be allowed to post your results online? Has the manufacturer lifted restrictions on what you are allowed, or not allowed to report? This is where it gets confusingHi Jim,
I thought I already made a lengthy explanation of what I agreed to. I will repeat myself only one more time. This will be a super-long post so you can bookmark it to come back and use it for reference any time you forget what my answer is. I will not be repeating the same answers to your questions again:

I agreed to make sure the Examiner I have is functioning correctly before I release public test results. I consider this to be a reasonable request from any manufacturer of equipment who sends out a sample to be tested. In addition to what I agreed to with the manufacturer, I decided I do not want to waste time testing a defective piece of equipment. So I also have an interest in making sure this Examiner is working the same as any other Examiner that is sent out and reported to be working correctly. Once I feel confident I have a properly working Examiner, then I will make my website address public so the public testing can begin. At that time you will be able to read my preliminary test results along with tests that may be performed afterwards without any restrictions from the manufacturer or anyone else.

I made a few preliminary tests before I even took out a camera, and found I did not see the response I expected based on the instructions. I did get some intermittent response. When I checked with the manufacturer, I was told that I cannot rely on tests that are made on raised floors, because the Examiner depends on the user standing on solid ground in order for it to work. I made some other preliminary tests only to determine if it was functioning correctly. These were not scientific tests. But I did take photos of what I saw when others also tried it. We still found intermittent results in the non-scientific outdoor tests away from electrical interference. After spending a lot of time tweaking and adjusting different things in several sessions which were not recorded, it appears that the best we found so far is intermittent success observing the antenna point to the target. This leads me to believe the Examiner is damaged or is in need of an adjustment before it can be deemed to be functioning properly.

The adjustment procedure is going to require that we make some tweaks to a small trimmer cap that is said to be very difficult to set to the exact position for good performance. I was told that it must be moved by a "hair at a time" until I find the setting that works, and to be careful once I find that setting because if I lose it, I may not be able to easily find it again. For each "hair movement", I will also need to adjust the sensitivity and antenna position after entering some specific sequences of calculator buttons. Then walk past a target placed on the ground and make observations of what I see happening with the antenna.

This procedure must be repeated each time the trimmer cap is moved another "hair movement". You can imagine it takes some time to do all this, and my free time is limited, so it will not happen as quickly as some people may hope.

During this tweaking process to find the best position of the trimmer cap, I will not be making videos for everyone to see what happens after each "hair movement" of the trimmer cap. I really don't have time for that. And these are not actual tests of the Examiner, they are an adjustment procedure that shows nothing of scientific significance to prove anything about the Examiner. However I have nothing to hide about the procedure or what results any settings of the trimmer cap will result in or not result in. If you consider it important to document the process of making adjustments to the trimmer cap to see where the best response is, then I am inviting you to come and run the video camera while we try to tune it for good performance. This may take awhile, but if you get bored holding the camera, I will let you make the "hair movement" adjustments while I hold the camera. You can submit all the videos you get to youtube and make any comments to go along with them you like. But I will not be posting videos of this procedure on my web page.

I did take some photos at a preliminary test that showed only intermittent performance. My electronic journal accounts of the preliminary tests will be fully disclosed whether they show success or failure, and whether they are known to be made on a non-functioning Examiner or a functioning Examiner. I will not remove any data from test sessions that have been entered into my electonic journal. But I will make it known that they are preliminary tests which are non-scientific tests made only for the purpose of determining if the Examiner is functioning correctly. And I will make it known what we find out about the whether the Examiner is functioning correctly at the time of the preliminary tests.

After the preliminary testing and adjustments are done to find the best settings we can find for the Examiner, a determination will be made to decide whether this Examiner is functioning as it is supposed to function, or if it needs to be returned for a replacement. When the time comes that we know we have an Examiner in hand that functions correctly, then I will make the web address of my website public for anyone to see, and the public test program will begin. When I make my website address public, you will see the electronic journal reports I made along with any non-scientific data that was noted during these preliminary tests. There are no preliminary tests that will be deleted from the journal. But you may want to pay more close attention to the public testing that follows. This is where the real tests will be done by others who may be LRL enthusiasts as well as skeptics, or even dowsers.


If your urgency for me to show all the test data is so you can post content from my website on TNet like you did from Geotech, you can forget it. I won't tolerate people hot-linking or stealing content from any of my websites without going through me first. Not you and not TNet.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

The adjustment procedure is going to require that we make some tweaks to a small trimmer cap that is said to be very difficult to set to the exact position for good performance. I was told that it must be moved by a "hair at a time" until I find the setting that works, and to be careful once I find that setting because if I lose it, I may not be able to easily find it again. For each "hair movement", I will also need to adjust the sensitivity and antenna position after entering some specific sequences of calculator buttons. Then walk past a target placed on the ground and make observations of what I see happening with the antenna.

Just out of curiosity, was this incredibly complex "tuning" procedure a part of the enclosed instructions (that accompanies all Examiners), or is it something special that was transmitted to you by R-T? :frown:

[J_Player]

The adjustment procedure is going to require that we make some tweaks to a small trimmer cap that is said to be very difficult to set to the exact position for good performance. I was told that it must be moved by a "hair at a time" until I find the setting that works, and to be careful once I find that setting because if I lose it, I may not be able to easily find it again. For each "hair movement", I will also need to adjust the sensitivity and antenna position after entering some specific sequences of calculator buttons. Then walk past a target placed on the ground and make observations of what I see happening with the antenna.

Just out of curiosity, was this incredibly complex "tuning" procedure a part of the enclosed instructions (that accompanies all Examiners), or is it something special that was transmitted to you by R-T? :frown:Hi Theseus,
This is included in the instructions as a "last resort" in the case you don't see the results expected after following the other instructions. There is nothing complex about it, but it requires looking for a very hard-to-find setting that may take some time for a new user of an Examiner. From what I read, this is only necessary on a few units that show poor performance. Apparently, I have a unit that needs this adjustment.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

If your urgency for me to show all the test data is so you can post content from my website on TNet like you did from Geotech, you can forget it. I won't tolerate people hot-linking or stealing content from any of my websites without going through me first. Not you and not TNet.



I thought my question was a simple one, that really didn't require a lengthily reply. I simply asked if the manufacturer has lifted the restrictions on what you can or cannot report.

There is no urgency, nor did I state the data was urgent. You just made that up. If you do not want your data shared with like minded folks on other websites, with proper credit given...simply say so. Tolerate people stealing content....to much drama. Thread/picture removed.

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,
This is included in the instructions as a "last resort" in the case you don't see the results expected after following the other instructions. There is nothing complex about it, but it requires looking for a very hard-to-find setting that may take some time for a new user of an Examiner. From what I read, this is only necessary on a few units that show poor performance. Apparently, I have a unit that needs this adjustment.

Best wishes,
J_P

"..nothing complex about it.." Let's say we substitute the word complex with the phrase "incredibly time consuming".

Also, by the way you explained it (the procedure); it would seem that there are some rather lop-sided odds associated with even achieving the correct tuning... ever. I'm not a bookie, but I would say it could be like 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 odds of ever achieving a satisfactory tuning.

Is it just me, or does this smell a lot like a built-in escape clause for those operators who fail to get the desired results? Certainly, if it is not an escape clause, it has got to be a delay clause, possibly eating up all the time on the return for a full refund clock. ;)

[J_Player]

I thought my question was a simple one, that really didn't require a lengthily reply. I simply asked if the manufacturer has lifted the restrictions on what you can or cannot report.

There is no urgency, nor did I state the data was urgent. You just made that up. If you do not want your data shared with like minded folks on other websites, with proper credit given...simply say so. Tolerate people stealing content....to much drama. Thread/picture removed.Hi Jim,

I don't mind my data being shared. My concern is for other sites using my bandwidth to keep afloat. No drama intended, just trying to avoid spending extra money for more bandwidth that runs other people's websites. Geotech probably does not have bandwith concerns, so I doubt they care if you hotlink them or post photos from their forums.

The manufacturer made no restrictions on what I can post or not. Therefore he cannot lift restrictions he did not make. I agreed not to show test results until I know the Examiner is working properly. The only restrictions have to do with copyrights and international disclosure laws that I made no specific agreement to. But I do abide by international laws when posting on international forums. You can expect I will not post proprietary information unless I have written permission from the owner of the information.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

Hi Jim,

I don't mind my data being shared. My concern is for other sites using my bandwidth to keep afloat. No drama intended, just trying to avoid spending extra money for more bandwidth that runs other people's websites. Geotech probably does not have bandwith concerns, so I doubt they care if you hotlink them or post photos from their forums.

if you think something smells like a lot like a built-in escape clause, tben come on over and videotape everything you see. You are invited.

Best wishes,
J_P

I deleted the thread/picture on TreasureNet. Way to much drama for me.

I didn't mention a escape clause.....and this is not urgent

[J_Player]

I deleted the thread/picture on TreasureNet. Way to much drama for me.

I didn't mention a escape clause.....and this is not urgentThen why did you put text that includes "escape clause" in my quote? Isn't that from Theseus?

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

"..nothing complex about it.." Let's say we substitute the word complex with the phrase "incredibly time consuming".

Also, by the way you explained it (the procedure); it would seem that there are some rather lop-sided odds associated with even achieving the correct tuning... ever. I'm not a bookie, but I would say it could be like 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 odds of ever achieving a satisfactory tuning.

Is it just me, or does this smell a lot like a built-in escape clause for those operators who fail to get the desired results? Certainly, if it is not an escape clause, it has got to be a delay clause, possibly eating up all the time on the return for a full refund clock. ;)Hi Theseus,
I really don't know the answer to your questions. You may be right. Or maybe we will find that there is more to it than that. I really can't predict what we will observe. But I do know it takes time to make the adjustments at the trimmer cap. From what I read, there are only a few Examiners that need to have the setscrew adjusted as a last resort. I am taking a neutral position so I can make objective tests without speculating about what will be observed in the future and forecasting odds like a bookie might do. I suppose you could apply the same odds scenario to any metal detector that is suspect of not working properly and say there is an escape clause or delay clause built in. I guess I just havent arrived at that conclusion yet. But you could make a case about it.

As far as the refund clock, I do have an opinion that it would be better to have a 30 day period based on my experience.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

Then why did you put text that includes "escape clause" in my quote? Isn't that from Theseus?

Best wishes,
J_P

I just clicked Quote...and replied.

The text you see in the quote is what was there

[J_Player]

I just clicked Quote...and replied.

The text you see in the quote is what was thereOk, no problem.
When my website is shown online, you can send me a PM or use the link at the website to contact me for posting content. No need for drama.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Carl-NC]

Hey bigmouth, so there's indeed a diode as I had stated eh ??

Why is the presence of a diode important?

[J_Player]

Why is the presence of a diode important?Hi Carl,
I don't think the presence of a diode is important.
The question I wonder about is if hung ever really measured any variances inside the Examiner. I saw the meter he used to measure the outside antenna and brass rod. But I never saw any measurements he claims he made inside. Personally I don't think he was able to get any meter measurements from inside his Examiner. I think he would need a more precision meter to see variances from inside the Examiner. My feeling is he made up the story about making measurements of variances inside. But this is only an opinion. Maybe hung really did measure something on his meter inside the Examiner. We will never know, because he never showed us any measurements he made inside. He only showed us some measurements outside with fingers touching the probes.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Carl-NC]

This stuff has been going on for so long, I can't remember what's been said in the past. Hung seemed to make a Big Deal about the diode, and I wondered why.

Yeah, I remember now that he (supposedly) made internal measurements, but he would never show how to replicate them. Can't do anything with that but dismiss it.

[J_Player]

This stuff has been going on for so long, I can't remember what's been said in the past. Hung seemed to make a Big Deal about the diode, and I wondered why.

Yeah, I remember now that he (supposedly) made internal measurements, but he would never show how to replicate them. Can't do anything with that but dismiss it.Ya, yer right

It was awhile ago. hung was trying to prove he measured variances inside his Examiner. He had a version that was called the "diodes" model that was in production after the version you tested in your report, and his model was replaced with the version I have. The big deal hung complained about is whether a diode was connected to a pot inside his Examiner. Maybe there is a diode connected to a pot like hung says, but nobody knows except hung because he never showed any evidence of it.

But this is not what the forum debate was about. Hung said he measured variances inside his Examiner. But when we asked to see some proof, he did not show any measurements from inside his examiner. He switched the test points to places on the outside instead. The question was posed "why can't we see the variances you claimed to measure from the inside like you said you did?" We never got an answer other than "I opened the Examiner and I made mods" or "there is a diode connected to the pot". But we never saw the alledged measurements hung says he made inside.

The measurements hung made on the outside are highly suspect to be tainted by errors. See what hung presented as a substitute for internal measurements here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13789&highlight=examiner

As an EE, you can draw your own conclusions of what hung actually measured in his presentation.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Rangertell is engaged in high level mineral detection. We have found an area with the Examiners which has assayed at 40 gm ton zinc, copper, gold, silver etc and hundreds of gm copper in one spot. All things being equal we won't even need to sell the locators eventually. :)


You forgot to tall that all those treasure was detected lying in sofa from 532 miles of distance.


Been there done that and 1300 users round the world are happy.


Honestly, not "are" but "would be" happy if they can do a little strangling with you.


Come up for a demo and we'll see what is wrong with your unit. Your body in fact may be out. It needs to resonate at normal levels, approx 6.9Hz. If you have a problem it would not.


Not only your body, your ethic may be out too. Your body resonate only on money frequency.


BTW, the owner is a Garry Brooker.


Brooker? Yes, this can be true.


Just because you've used the Examiner and not found gold doesn't mean a thing. Most people have found very little using metal detectors of the beeping kind over decades , so what's the difference? :rolleyes:


If one as experienced detectorist search over decade by MD, mean that within range of the detector there is no gold, but if one search by RT over decade, mean that his mind and body not "resonate at normal level".


That is all I wish to say re this.


We already know. You do not have to be trying.


PS: If J Player can travel to Phoenix there is a guy there that uses the Examiner.


And maybe sell too?


Tech Support



You mean "Scam Support"?

[hung]

Hi Theseus,
This is included in the instructions as a "last resort" in the case you don't see the results expected after following the other instructions. There is nothing complex about it, but it requires looking for a very hard-to-find setting that may take some time for a new user of an Examiner. From what I read, this is only necessary on a few units that show poor performance. Apparently, I have a unit that needs this adjustment.

Best wishes,
J_P


It's more than obvious by now that you are not able to make the Examiner work.
It's so easy to maket it work tough. But I admit there are some people who simply can't do it as RT states. My wife being one of them.
So direct to the point. My advices for you:

1 - Contact Art trying to make an apointment with him. He lives in your neighboorhood. See if you can have him demonstrate the device live before your very eyes.
Tell him his emails with instructions are not working for you. This either due to your lack of ability as I stated above or in the worst case simply by conscient negligence.

2 - Quit at once the mambo you are trying to conduct here for weeks in a row. Once at Art's, you can film him, conduct lots of interviews, ask all the questions you feel like you need to and who knows, maybe you can start to learn how to use the device.
And don't forget to pay the guy for his time, please...

Well, all of the above provided you are serious as you claimed to be about your intented report and also, of course, if he thinks you are serious enough before he accepts to demo the device for you.
I for my part, don't think you are and never will be serious in this subject as you gave myself and the forum plenty of reasons to support this claim due to your lying and cheating in the PD past episodes.
Tough I cared to suggest the advices above, I know you will cheat again and discard what I suggest, simply because you actually NEVER had the intention to conduct a serious research. RT was all kindness in sending you a unit and after weeks, you still are blowing hot air, did no test it at all, and even pushed to open the device as you perfectly know.

If you were serious, by now, clearly knowing you can't handle the examiner, you would have already called Art and would have made all possible efforts to document his aproach on the device.
You are perfectly aware of his skills over the TNET forum.
Also you had my own testing report with the AC and DC variances, you had RT's own you tube video showing this procedure and did not bother to replicate either.

In sum, stop fooling the naives here because the ones who use the device and knows how to work with it, have already figured out what you are up to.
For those who really understand about the scientific concept behind it, your pictures clearly show how the device MUST and why it HAS to work. There's no other way!

I sincerelly hope you don't fall in the category of Carl's who owns more than 15 LRLs and can't make ANY of them work. Not even the all electronic ones!
Actually I'm thinking about calling Guiness this week to suggest his name for the category of the most incompetent LRL user to date! :lol:
Humm.. Maybe not the fame he expected...

[hung]

I see the xtal. and the diode in the Rangertell. The use of silicon diode is wrong here. Must be used high quality low drift germanium diode or even a germanium transistor as diode. Also the Xtal. freq. MAYBE is wrong, 4.43. In the 2000 I work with different xtals. in antenna FOR ELECTRONIC LRL PISTOL. Yes, this frequency (4.43) detect the gold (OBJECT PLATTED BY GOLD), but with interruptions. Of course, I have buried gold in my patio, no pure gold, clock platted by gold BURIED MANY YEARS. But found other object, a small platted gold chain by Rommanel, bijouterie, only platted by gold jewel, not pure.

No Esteban, this is not a Xtal or fequency for gold. The device is a substance detector able to react to many targets, not only gold, according to the frequencies that are input.

The Xtal I believe is acting as a stabilizer due to its properties, for keeping the pulses steady in the induction process and to avoid drifting.
Altough, there is much still to be done to perfect the device, I can safely say that its concept and the functions it can perform are the most advanced in LRL history to date.

[WM6]

The Xtal I believe is acting as a stabilizer due to its properties, for keeping the pulses steady in the induction process and to avoid drifting



You believe ... you will show up to debunker the big mouths, but you don't know how.

Dear hung, don't teach Esteban when he is trying to apply known science in his creations.

Better to imitate him, rather than you try to apply your spontaneous beliefs in your own tower of beliefs.

[Theseus]

No Esteban, this is not a Xtal or fequency for gold. The device is a substance detector able to react to many targets, not only gold, according to the frequencies that are input.

The Xtal I believe is acting as a stabilizer due to its properties, for keeping the pulses steady in the induction process and to avoid drifting.
Altough, there is much still to be done to perfect the device, I can safely say that its concept and the functions it can perform are the most advanced in LRL history to date.

Obviously, you have not a single clue as to what a piezoelectric crystal does in a REAL electronic application.

Crystal material will generate a voltage when mechanical pressure is applied and conversely will undergo mechanical stress when subjected to a voltage.

Naturally, if you connect a Xtal into a randomly selected hodge podge of electronic components, such as the Examiner circuitry, it does not (and cannot) accomplish anything close to the function it serves in a REAL application. The Examiner neither creates mechanical pressure, nor does it apply a voltage. Thus, the Xtal just sits there and does nothing, exactly like the other randomly connected components. It looks impressive to the gullible and technically-challenged, but it serves no other purpose. Sorry.

:razz:

[J_Player]

...So direct to the point. My advices for you:

1 - Contact Art trying to make an apointment with him. He lives in your neighboorhood. See if you can have him demonstrate the device live before your very eyes.
Tell him his emails with instructions are not working for you. This either due to your lack of ability as I stated above or in the worst case simply by conscient negligence.

2 - Quit at once the mambo you are trying to conduct here for weeks in a row. Once at Art's, you can film him, conduct lots of interviews, ask all the questions you feel like you need to and who knows, maybe you can start to learn how to use the device.
And don't forget to pay the guy for his time, please...Hi hung,
Art does not live in my neighborhood, and he cannot be contacted if his email doesn't work. But he was invited to come and try the examiner with his own hands to see what it does, and never responded. I have had an open invitation to anyone who wants to try it out to come on over and try it. It is simple as sending me a PM. So why hasn't Art responded?
For one, he already stated he has the older model that doesn't work the same as this one.
Also, he does not live in the neighborhood.
Third, I am not hiring consultants to perform tests.
I am inviting people who want an opportunity to try it for themselves in Southern California to do so by simply making an appointment for when to come try it. If Art had any interest in trying it, then I suspect he would have contacted me by now. But he hasn't.

By the way, you are also invited to come try it out if you think you are in the neighborhood.
You can bring your diodes model too and see how it compares.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Tough I cared to suggest the advices above, I know you will cheat again and discard what I suggest, simply because you actually NEVER had the intention to conduct a serious research. RT was all kindness in sending you a unit and after weeks, you still are blowing hot air, did no test it at all, and even pushed to open the device as you perfectly know.You are suggesting cheating and claiming I know I pushed to open the device?
How can you know these facts?
These are not facts.
But I can tell you the facts if you are interested.

After I first received the Examiner I sent an email to Rangertell informing them it had arrived, and I asked several questions so I would know what parts of the Examiner are considered proprietary and cannot be shown online.
My questions were:

1. Am I correct that the calculator key codes should not be posted online?
2. Is it ok to open the examiner case and look at the insides for my own interest and not divulge what I see? Is it ok to open the examiner case and photograph the insides to post online?

I expected to receive an answer that all the calculator codes and anything inside are considered proprietary. But I was surprised when they replied it would be ok to show photos of the inside. In fact I sent another email asking if they were sure about that. Their reply was yes, with an added caution not to move the wires inside because they are sensitively positioned. They also reminded me of the deal I made, and asked me to get it working first.

These emails were just after I received the Examiner. I hadn't shown photos of the inside until a couple of recent emails when I opened the Examiner again looking for signs of wires that look moved. I told Rangertell I could post photos of the inside if they wanted. In their reply they asked to see a composite photo I would post. After they saw it they said ok to post. They explained The examiner is sent out from the factory glued closed, but they did not glue the one they sent me so I could open it without damaging it.

It seems to me I wasn't pushing.
Early on Rangertell told me they don't mind posting photos of the inside because they consider it pertinent. I understand their point of view. I posted photos now because I had it open, and becaues Rangertell said it was ok. If the facts I described above constitute your idea of "cheating and pushing", I can ask the Rangertell contact to come and post his verification that all I said is true.


Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Rain, rain... go away.
Come again some other day.

There is the trimmer cap to carefully adjust,
to be sure of a perfect setting, an absolute must.

The once ballyhooed testing, with show and tell,
now seem only a distant memory, and begins to smell.

Rain, rain go away.
Come again some other day,
When once again Graham can come out and play

Perchance to record a video to show,
So that in the end we can say; I told you so!


-Theseus :)

[Theseus]

:shrug:

[WM6]

:shrug:

Upgraded to Danger tell.

[Clondike Clad]

Hi to all and hope you all a good 2010:)
I just dropped in to to say hi.

I am loving my old and very old XLPRO more and more.
This is my LRL of choice.

[g-sani]

Sorry J_P I couldn't wait any more for the test results so I just ordered my examiner a couple of days ago.
I am having a very good working LRL as I said before but I wanted something small reliable that I can always carry whith me in my car or in my backpack when I am out fishing.You know what I mean J_P.
Shopping therapy at its best!
:lol::lol::lol:

[J_Player]

Sorry J_P I couldn't wait any more for the test results so I just ordered my examiner a couple of days ago.
I am having a very good working LRL as I said before but I wanted something small reliable that I can always carry whith me in my car or in my backpack when I am out fishing.You know what I mean J_P.
Shopping therapy at its best!
:lol::lol::lol:Sure I know :)

You read what I found in my preliminary checks of the Examiner, so you already know what my results are so far.
Be sure to check back and let us know what your experience is with your Examiner.

Also be sure to pick up some fly fishing gear when you are shopping, and let us know your results with the trout
(photos are good for trout). :)

Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

Hahahahahaha:lol::lol::lol::lol:
Hi G-sani.
If you understood well, J_P means that you will not find something so to post the photos here.
For this reason he says you to go for fishing!!!! because it is sure that then you will post photos here:lol:.
J_P, i don't know who are bigger liars.... fishermen or treasure hunters:lol::lol:

Regards:)

[J_Player]

Hahahahahaha:lol::lol::lol::lol:
Hi G-sani.
If you understood well, J_P means that you will not find something so to post the photos here.
For this reason he says you to go for fishing!!!! because it is sure that then you will post photos here:lol:.
J_P, i don't know who are bigger liars.... fishermen or treasure hunters:lol::lol:

Regards:)All treasure hunters only tell the truth, and all fishremen too. This photo from steehead flyfishing is proof:

[Geo]

All treasure hunters only tell the truth, and all fishremen too. This photo from steehead flyfishing is proof:

Are you in photo???

[Esteban]

Sorry J_P I couldn't wait any more for the test results so I just ordered my examiner a couple of days ago.
I am having a very good working LRL as I said before but I wanted something small reliable that I can always carry whith me in my car or in my backpack when I am out fishing.You know what I mean J_P.
Shopping therapy at its best!
:lol::lol::lol:

Fishing or shopping? Or fishing into a shopping? :lol:

[J_Player]

Sorry J_P I couldn't wait any more for the test results so I just ordered my examiner a couple of days ago.
I am having a very good working LRL as I said before but I wanted something small reliable that I can always carry whith me in my car or in my backpack when I am out fishing.You know what I mean J_P.
Shopping therapy at its best!
:lol::lol::lol:Oh... I forgot...
Here is something small reliable that you can always carry with you in your car or backpack when you are out fishing.
2 for cheap price is good therapy: :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRQMCRy7YwU
https://www.ronco.com/PocketFisherman/Default.aspx

[g-sani]

Fishing or shopping? Or fishing into a shopping? :lol:

The best catch for me now it would be a goldfish Esteban!:lol:

[g-sani]

Oh... I forgot...
Here is something small reliable that you can always carry with you in your car or backpack when you are out fishing.
2 for cheap price is good therapy: :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRQMCRy7YwU
https://www.ronco.com/PocketFisherman/Default.aspx

Thank you J_P. I never knew its existance.
I will get two pairs whith this price.
I can always have it in my bag when out trying to find goldfish.:D

[g-sani]

Hahahahahaha:lol::lol::lol::lol:
Hi G-sani.
If you understood well, J_P means that you will not find something so to post the photos here.
For this reason he says you to go for fishing!!!! because it is sure that then you will post photos here:lol:.
J_P, i don't know who are bigger liars.... fishermen or treasure hunters:lol::lol:

Regards:)

This is what I am planing to do Geo.
Whenever I get no fish I can take my examiner out and the oposite.
This gives you more chances to return back home happy, one way or another.;)
Once there was a time I returned back home having both fishes and goldfishes in the same bag.
:lol::lol::lol::lol: no, that was a fishermans lie. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Geo]

When you will receive the rangertell, tell me to come there to give it another try (At first time it did n't worked).

[g-sani]

When you will receive the rangertell, tell me to come there to give it another try (At first time it did n't worked).

Allright Geo, but let me take the pocketfisherman whith me just in case.:lol:

[Esteban]

The best catch for me now it would be a goldfish Esteban!:lol:

:lol: :lol:

[Theseus]

Sorry J_P I couldn't wait any more for the test results so I just ordered my examiner a couple of days ago.

Probably just as well... it appears the "fabled" testing is on permanent hold.

When you get your R-T dowsing rod, maybe you can stop back and tell us how it works. Be sure and try it on other than stuff in plain sight. And watch that trimmer capacitor adjustment... I hear it is real "touchy". :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hung]

Sorry J_P I couldn't wait any more for the test results so I just ordered my examiner a couple of days ago.
I am having a very good working LRL as I said before but I wanted something small reliable that I can always carry whith me in my car or in my backpack when I am out fishing.You know what I mean J_P.
Shopping therapy at its best!
:lol::lol::lol:

Hey g-sani. You won't regret.
As you said, it's small, compact and you will have a lot of fun in the field, specially with the latest frequencies. I tested them and they are superb.
If you wish PM me and we will share experiences.
Regards.

[Qiaozhi]

Hey g-sani. You won't regret.
As you said, it's small, compact and you will have a lot of fun in the field, specially with the latest frequencies. I tested them and they are superb.
If you wish PM me and we will share experiences.
Regards.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I can hear RangerTell laughing all the way to the bank.
What's your commission rate?

[Theseus]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I can hear RangerTell laughing all the way to the bank.
What's your commission rate?

So can I.... even across all those miles of ocean.

I'm guessing he gets probably at least 10%, maybe up to 20.

[Qiaozhi]

So can I.... even across all those miles of ocean.

I'm guessing he gets probably at least 10%, maybe up to 20.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yes ..... that's where the real treasure is to be found! :cool:

[g-sani]

Don't worry everybody I will let you know my experiences whith the examiner but it will take some time because of the weather were I live.
Mind you that if an LRL can do the job even sometimes and not always this is good enough for me and I will be happy.
Imagine an LRL that gives me one or two real targets(finds) every 10 times that I get a signal line. What will you say about that? It is not working?
Make up your mind and think different otherwise you will miss the train.
Of course you can say that this LRL is not working but when it comes to me I will be there smiling whith two nice finds in my pocket.
I believe that the best thing to do is to keep using this LRL and one day it will give you probably a major find(Treasure of a high value).
Sitting down looking for the perfect LRL that can give you valueable targets all of the times is like lying down underneath an appletree while you are hungry looking for the apple to fall into your mouth.
No, sorry my friends but you have to raise your hand to take the apple yourself otherwise you will still be hungry for ever.
The same applies to skeptics, I see them sitting there talking while others picking up Treasures everyday.:lol: :lol: :lol:

[g-sani]

All treasure hunters only tell the truth, and all fishremen too. This photo from steehead flyfishing is proof:

Check out my backpack J_P.
LRL is inside!:lol:

[Geo]

Don't worry everybody I will let you know my experiences whith the examiner but it will take some time because of the weather were I live.
Mind you that if an LRL can do the job even sometimes and not always this is good enough for me and I will be happy.
Imagine an LRL that gives me one or two real targets(finds) every 10 times that I get a signal line. What will you say about that? It is not working?
Make up your mind and think different otherwise you will miss the train.
Of course you can say that this LRL is not working but when it comes to me I will be there smiling whith two nice finds in my pocket.
I believe that the best thing to do is to keep using this LRL and one day it will give you probably a major find(Treasure of a high value).
Sitting down looking for the perfect LRL that can give you valueable targets all of the times is like lying down underneath an appletree while you are hungry looking for the apple to fall into your mouth.
No, sorry my friends but you have to raise your hand to take the apple yourself otherwise you will still be hungry for ever.
The same applies to skeptics, I see them sitting there talking while others picking up Treasures everyday.:lol: :lol: :lol:

Hi George.
Very good.
Next month i will come to test the Ranger Tell and to compare it with my LRLs.
I wish you good Treasures.
Regards:)

[Geo]

Check out my backpack J_P.
LRL is inside!:lol:



Ohhh as i see, this LRL is for big treasures :lol::lol::lol:

[WM6]

Ohhh as i see, this LRL is for big treasures :lol::lol::lol:



In case of no treasure, reason can be extensive humidity.

[Qiaozhi]

Mind you that if an LRL can do the job even sometimes and not always this is good enough for me and I will be happy.
But will you be happy if it does the job zero times?
Remember, you are talking about a RangerTell Scaminer (as promoted by Hung) whom you can hardly call a reputable source of useful information. :rolleyes:

[Theseus]

...Mind you that if an LRL can do the job even sometimes and not always this is good enough for me and I will be happy.


A Blind Hog Will Sometimes Find an Acorn.... ;)

So if you aren't going to challenge the Examiner in a full blown DB test, and you are satisfied with a "once in awhile find", then no need to waste your money on an Examiner. A piece of bent wire (L-shaped), your natural intuition, research, basic logic and best-guessing will come up "looking" successful "sometimes". :rolleyes:

[hung]

But will you be happy if it does the job zero times?
Remember, you are talking about a RangerTell Scaminer (as promoted by Hung) whom you can hardly call a reputable source of useful information. :rolleyes:

Ozzy, g-sani RUBBED comon sense in your face.
Maybe this time you think of it useable to your sick brains?
Gotta go from this circus now, had enough fun for today.:D

[Qiaozhi]

Ozzy, g-sani RUBBED comon sense in your face.
Maybe this time you think of it useable to your sick brains?
Gotta go from this circus now, had enough fun for today.:D
:lol: :lol: The circus clown has left the building! :lol: :lol:

As I said before ... and I repeat ->
Remember, you are talking about a RangerTell Scaminer (as promoted by Hung) whom you can hardly call a reputable source of useful information. :rolleyes:
If there was any common-sense involved, then these do-nothing devices would not be on the market being promoted by someone who should know better. :D

[Qiaozhi]

Check out my backpack J_P.
LRL is inside!:lol:


Good luck g-sani!
You have just bought yourself an education. :D

[Fred]

Ozzy, g-sani RUBBED comon sense in your face.
If this is what you call common sense, then no wonder every do-nothing junk will work with you.
Exactly like a particular multimeter that sometime reads some values, sometimes it don´t ...know what i mean? :razz:

Like thesus said, a good high-tech piece of equipment for you would be Dr Stick...

[Qiaozhi]

Like thesus said, a good high-tech piece of equipment for you would be Dr Stick...
:lol: I don't know if you intended the double meaning ... but Dr H is a well known masochist! :stars:

[g-sani]

But will you be happy if it does the job zero times?
Remember, you are talking about a RangerTell Scaminer (as promoted by Hung) whom you can hardly call a reputable source of useful information. :rolleyes:

No I will not be happy Qiaozhi if this is the case.Probably I will give up to it.
I will test it out my own way first and many times in different weather conditions.
If I justify that in a place that the material in search was in present more than three or four times(reasonable volume) and the LRL didn't detect it then I will start thinking skeptical as well.
Apart from all this I believe I have another advantage myself when testing an LRL and this is perhaps my strong point.
This is testing them in a place that I know that a real treasure exists and when I am saying that I am talking about knowing the exact place.
How can that be?
Well may be I am in the lucky position of having documents of where some treasure are hidden or in the unlucky position that these treasures are imposible to be picked up.Everybody see it in his own way and may be you are right if you do not believe me when I am saying that.Mind you that I have confirmed these places whith my MFD or my pulse detector where possible.
My self I use these places as a test field and up to now the only LRL that passed all tests so far is the one I am using and it is an MFD as I said before.I have to admit that in those places the generator was always used less than 150 meters away from the known spot.But as I said It was times we got targets from a very long distance like 500mts for a 30*40cms target.
Gold gun AL707 for example when checking it in three different locations just gave the target in one of them and only once after three visits in the same place.But then there was no relative transmition of VLF stations so the result was expected in some way.
Thats why I say that we must give a chance to everything and always.
As Carl said(and I think J_P also agreed) you have to see something whith your own eyes first and then listen to others.

[g-sani]

A Blind Hog Will Sometimes Find an Acorn.... ;)

So if you aren't going to challenge the Examiner in a full blown DB test, and you are satisfied with a "once in awhile find", then no need to waste your money on an Examiner. A piece of bent wire (L-shaped), your natural intuition, research, basic logic and best-guessing will come up "looking" successful "sometimes". :rolleyes:

A piece of bent wire might do exactly the same job for me but it is not the same Theseus.
If examiner works as many claim then it will be much less fatigue on the way when searching places.You can not dowse all day long my friend.It will take you down no matter who you are.Exaclty the same applies when you do it everyday for a long time.
But checking first whith something like an examiner will be of a great help as a start in a possible treasure to be place.Treasure Hunting I hope you agree that needs strategy as well.
Also there are other things in this that most people don't understand.
Think for example that some people use a mercedes to go from a place A to B when they could also go there on foot and sometimes spending the same time.
Do you want to know why?
There is no why my friend because although the result looks the same it is not, because the whole thing is incomparable from its very beggining.

[Qiaozhi]

Hi g-sani,

The fact that you think you know where a treasure is buried could be a major disadvantage, particularly if you use any device with a swinging handle. The RangerTell Scaminer is just a dowsing rod dressed up with some do-nothing electronics and a cheap calculator. Because of the ideomotor effect you will get the result that you expect.

[g-sani]

Hi g-sani,

The fact that you think you know where a treasure is buried could be a major disadvantage, particularly if you use any device with a swinging handle. The RangerTell Scaminer is just a dowsing rod dressed up with some do-nothing electronics and a cheap calculator. Because of the ideomotor effect you will get the result that you expect.

Hi Qiaozhi,
You see how dificult it is for somebody to say that he knows a couple of places where treasure is.I was thinking to put it down in my post and may be I was wrong doing it.
Straight away people fantasize that "I think" that I know where treasure is although I explained the situation.
I will explain again in case I was misunderstood.
I first went to those places having maps whith some reading on them explaining where the treasure was hidden and yes they were giving the exact spot one of them in pain Greek.
Then I got my LORENZ X3 went there again and crosschecked two of the places.Then some other time I went there to check them whith my freq.generator to see what it does.Bingo I got them again not by using rods but by having readings on the meter of my LRL.Well the third one I could not check it whith my X3 because it is inside a church.
Do you think that it was by chance to have readings in the same places(spots)? Do you think that Lorenz X3 gives faulse readings for targets the size of a box? Believe me it doesn't and anybody using it can assure you about that.
I agree that if you know the place of a target then most of the people might detect it whith rods but sorry this says nothing to me as well since your skeptical mind will be always keep saying that this is because of the ideomotor efect so nothing can be proved.
Electroscope 901 gave us a good target once and it was people again saying it was lucky and all this rubish.Many years passed and we had a few more finds and some of them were of a good value.
Is it bacause we are lucky and you are not?:nono:
If this is the case I feel sory for you my friend.

[g-sani]

Hi George.
Very good.
Next month i will come to test the Ranger Tell and to compare it with my LRLs.
I wish you good Treasures.
Regards:)

Hi Geo,
You are welcome my friend.

[Fred]

Hi G-sani,
I think there is a big misunderstanding here : the difference is between if these LRL works on a technical point of view, and on the other side on the human point of view.
You assure us it works on the human side, and i believe you.
But i am still waiting to see a technical proof that it really works.
As Qiaozhi said, as long as you know where the target is ,and unless you wrote every test you made in everyplace, results cannot be taken in account.

[Qiaozhi]

Hi G-sani,
I think there is a big misunderstanding here : the difference is between if these LRL works on a technical point of view, and on the other side on the human point of view.
You assure us it works on the human side, and i believe you.
But i am still waiting to see a technical proof that it really works.
As Qiaozhi said, as long as you know where the target is ,and unless you wrote every test you made in everyplace, results cannot be taken in account.
At least Fred understood what I was saying. :thumb:

[g-sani]

Hi G-sani,
I think there is a big misunderstanding here : the difference is between if these LRL works on a technical point of view, and on the other side on the human point of view.
You assure us it works on the human side, and i believe you.
But i am still waiting to see a technical proof that it really works.
As Qiaozhi said, as long as you know where the target is ,and unless you wrote every test you made in everyplace, results cannot be taken in account.

Fred, I never wrote the tests I made in everyplace because the results are interesting me more.
Well it is sure that my other LRL(freq. generator) holds a technical proof since it gives me numbers on a meter when the material in search is present.
Sorry I can not help in that since I don't know how it is been made or in what principle it is based.Simply I don't care and I am busy digging targets instead of trying to see why it works.Apart from that I don't want to open it.
The only thing I can say is that whenever gave us a target we found it and proved right using our rods to follow the signal to the target.
Of course someone can say that may be there are times that it gives us nothing and may be the material in search exists in some place and we never know it.Well this holds truth and I have to admit it.
But then how can always proved right when the receiving signal gives as a meter reading?
Now when it comes to examiner I have to see it first, I cannot say anything yet but let me ask you something.
If it works for example that means I have dowsing abillities?
Well it is only me I can judge that and the only thing I can do for you is to let you know.
Believe me or not is a different story.
Since the beggining of time humans discovered many things just by experimenting and without knowing always the explaination behind them.
Of course some of them hold technical proofs but do you think that we always know it from the beggining?
Or is that a reason to stop using them? We understand things different as time passes by and we always adjust accordingly.
Weakness of understanting the technical point of view of a working LRL shouldn't stop us using it.
This is completely different policy than the one of skeptics.
Whatever they don't understand they say that it is not working and they will never try it themselves.:nono:

[J_Player]

Check out my backpack J_P.
LRL is inside!:lol:

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11313&stc=1&d=1266424801
Hi g-sani,

Yes, I see excellent view of the LRL inside your backpack. But I don't see your pocket fisherman.
The pocket fisherman is small, but it finds big fish. Not only for finding goldfish.
--- Can catch a big fish good for breakfast and for lunch too!

Watch video again and see the big fish at the end of the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRQMCRy7YwU


Also, Mr. Stick LRL can be modified for catching fish too, but is not as good for recovering big fish as the Pocket Fisherman.
Good news is you only need to take Mr. Stick... no extra LRL needed! :)

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

A piece of bent wire might do exactly the same job for me but it is not the same Theseus.
If examiner works as many claim then it will be much less fatigue on the way when searching places.You can not dowse all day long my friend.It will take you down no matter who you are.Exaclty the same applies when you do it everyday for a long time.
But checking first whith something like an examiner will be of a great help as a start in a possible treasure to be place.Treasure Hunting I hope you agree that needs strategy as well.
Also there are other things in this that most people don't understand.
Think for example that some people use a mercedes to go from a place A to B when they could also go there on foot and sometimes spending the same time.
Do you want to know why?
There is no why my friend because although the result looks the same it is not, because the whole thing is incomparable from its very beggining.

Whatever..... I can see your mind is made up, and there is nothing I'm going to say that will change it in any way.

Good luck with your Intuition Indicator. Believe me; a bent piece of wire will do the same thing for you. :lol:

[Theseus]

Appears we certainly have a lot of time for fishing; but not so much for testing the Examiner. :frown:

...wonder what happened to that little venture?

[J_Player]

Appears we certainly have a lot of time for fishing; but not so much for testing the Examiner. :frown:

...wonder what happened to that little venture?I don't have time for fishing.
It is where I would be if I wasn't stuck in an office for so many hours.

That little venture is in the same stage of progress as I stated in numerous posts above. Currently I am waiting for people to send me a PM to come and try it out with their own hands. But nobody responded. I contacted 4 Geotech forum members in my local area, and found that all four of them declined to do any testing on the Examiner, even if I came to where they are located so they could conveniently perform tests.

At present, after trying to locate known targets with the Examiner adjusted at the factory settings, and re-adjusted to different settings, I have concluded that I am a person who is biologically impaired, and cannot perform a scientific test on an Examiner even if it is tuned perfectly. Without a person who has "normal biological signals", I cannot make an accurate adjustment of the trimmer cap.

I have no questions other than to ask if anyone wants to try it out in thie Los Angeles area and see if they can find good response with it after making their best adjustments at the controls. If you have suggestions of how you think I should proceed next, I would be interested in hearing them.

Best wishes,
J_P