Electroscope Challenge

[Carl-NC]

I received the following email from someone who was looking to purchase an Electroscope Model 301, apparently he ran across my reports just in the nick of time:

------------------------------
From: xxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:16 AM
To: Electroscopes (electroscopes@chilitech.net)
Subject: Re: ELEKTROSKOPE MODEL 301

Hi Mike,
see Geotech-LRLs-Electroscope Model 301
Realy a f**k!

------------------------------
From: Electroscopes (electroscopes@chilitech.net)
To: xxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: ELEKTROSKOPE MODEL 301


xxxxxx:

That web site is truly garbage. He is a hater of anything that is not a conventional metal detector and speaks out of ignorance. I had a customer that is a US Marshall offer to take his challenge. My customer, Charles, said that he wanted proof that the $25,000 exists and if it did not, that Geotech and the website owner would be contacted by the proper authorities for fraud. Carl Moreland would not answer my customer’s e-mail.

Best regards,
Mike Bower, sales manager
Electroscopes by Thomas
------------------------------

My response to Mr. Bower is as follows:

Hello Mike,

Your response to xxxxxx was interesting and downright amusing. I'm absolutely sure you already know that no "US Marshall" by the name of "Charles" has ever contacted me about the Challenge, nor asked me for proof of the prize money. Had he done so, I certainly would have replied, and certainly would have provided the requested proof. The Challenge is real, and the prize money exists; unlike LRL manufacturers, I have nothing to hide, and nothing to hide from.

Instead of sending people bogus information, why don't you step up and show us all that one of the LRLs you peddle can perform any useful function? I realize that you carefully avoid making any actual claims for your products (worth it's weight in gold!) for legal reasons, but surely you can think of something to demonstrate. Perhaps the ability to detect gravity? No, how about the implied ability to locate gold? I hereby offer you $25,000 if you, as the operator, can successfully demonstrate an Electroscope LRL in a scientific test.

I won't hold my breath awaiting a reply, but I will post this challenge and any responses on my forum for public awareness.

Carl Moreland
Sweet Home, OR

P.S. -- Feel free to send me contact information for "Marshall Charles," I'll be more than happy to personally talk to him.

[Geo]

Very good Carl.
But what you mean with the "scientific test"???

:):)

[Carl-NC]

Very good Carl.
But what you mean with the "scientific test"???


A simple target test, but using a randomized blind protocol.

[WM6]

Very good Carl.
But what you mean with the "scientific test"???

:):)

Geo, it means "no pasaran" for LRL scientist swindle tricks. Only real remote detecting allowed.

[hung]

Geo, we know that Carl is not capable of producing a true scientific test in anyway. He's biased completely up to his neck.
This subject has been discussed over TNET by LRL users already. They literally 'fart' at carl's 'challenge' or whatever he wants to call that thing.

What happens is that every now and then when Carl's agenda submerges into obscurity he comes back with the same old trick in hopes he gets into the spotlight again. This new temptative was recently ignored over TNET's forum, so he apparently decided to bring it over here where his peers support him.

LRL users generally are in the field finding gold and don't waste time with this BS.
I think the electroscope guy even might take carl seriously in the start.
But I also think that as soon as he gathers more data about what the 'challenge' is about, that will certainly change.

[WM6]

LRL users generally are in the field finding gold ....



... with conventional metal detector.

As you do.

[Dave J.]

Hung, if you want "LRL's" to be taken seriously, one of the first things that needs to happen is for you to fall on your sword. That won't be enough, but it'll be a start.

The acronym "LRL" stands for "Long Range Locator". It evolved through popular usage on the Internet as the world of the fraudulent divorced itself from the world of the non-fraudulent. The starting place several decades ago was dowsing, which because of its mysterious nature straddled the fence between the two worlds.

As we've seen both here and on Tnet, everyone now knows the difference between dowsing and LRL's, and between those things and technical apparatus that isn't fraudulent. Separate forums were required, because the posting public knew the difference. Since I did not invent this difference, don't bytch. I am merely reporting what you are already painfully aware of.

DOWSING Controversial, as it has been for thousands of years, mysterious phenomena are at work, ideomotor response itself being in that category. It's not my purpose in this post to speculate deeply on the nature of dowsing, this being the wrong forum for that.

REAL TECHNICAL APPARATUS Underground radar, metal detection, Turam apparatus, magnetometry, etc. Stuff developed by people with a scientific background that can be demonstrated to work within its limitations, independently of operator or observer mental attitude. It can be demo'd robotically if that's required.

LRL'S Nobody who manufactures apparatus that actually works, describes it as an LRL and then argues with guys like Hung that theirs is in that same category but better than the stuff that Hung promotes. Apparatus that actually works is always described in its own category, and is not pitted against supposed LRL competitors. Heck, even that buffoon Chuckie denies that what he's selling is an LRL, that's how solidly the phrase "LRL" identifies fraudulent apparatus. If it's so stupid that even Chuckie doesn't want his name associated with it, this is the one thing that you can actually trust Chuckie on! He's (fraudulently) trying to ride on NASA's coattails, not on the historical LRL bandwagon which he obviously agrees is not something one would want their trademark associated with.

* * * * *

--Dave J.

[Dave J.]

Meanwhile back to "Electroscope Challenge".

I suppose that at least half the people who cruise this forum do Treasurenet as well. (Sorry, it's down for maintenance and rehab last time I checked.)

Over there I have reminded Mikey the Miniscule of Montana that Mr. Thomas the Maestro passes the IQ test. Mikey the Miniscule seems not to have liked being reminded of that. As it turns out, there's another "Mikey the Bower" assigned to flunk on behalf of El Maestro, which is to argue in public view with people who know what cooks and to lose miserably the contest.

--Toto

????? Mikey Miniscule is dumbfounded by a mere "woof!"? What will happen to Mike when his physical world finally registers?

[Fred]

LRL users generally are in the field finding gold and don't waste time with this BS.

:lol: I see them more often on forums, trying to sell their never-proven-to-work exotic devices... At prices that reveals their true intentions : to get rich.

Some of them try to convince themselves that they have a level of knowledge superior to science, giving that way a support to what remains of their falling apart conscience.

But living into lies must be very hard in the long term, so they end up searching for supporters on the forums, under false formation claims.

Some others are just interested in fraudulently selling crap a all costs, so they just blindly continue to deny any accusation. Justice seems to protect them.