Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Theseus
I think, from your statement above, you have just released some unofficial results.
Apparently, someone, other than yourself, WAS successful at getting the Examiner to point to the exact location of some type of hidden gold target. Further, the inference is that these operators were successful at doing this under strict double-blind protocol (if not D-B, than why not?), which means their success rate was significantly better than what could be expected from Chance Guessing.
Wow!!!!
If this is not what happened or this is not what you meant to infer, please clarify what you observed and how it was conducted.
Also, I thought the Examiner worked on principles that totally eliminated operator characteristics and traits. Why then would you not be able to obtain the same results as some other operator or operators, when fairly tested?
|
Hi Theseus,
I don't know the reason why I didn't get the same results as others. According to what is written in the product literature, it could be caused by a biological deficiency in body charge. Or if I go by Mike(Mont)'s posts instead, it could have to do with breathing practices and mind control. Bottom line... I don't know. It is only an observation I made.
I meant exactly what I said. Nothing more.
I made no inference. Only a reader can infer things I did not say. If we go by the inferences you made and typed in your post, we would get a distorted view of what happened so far. This can be expected because I intentionally did not tell the details of the preliminary test conditions, or the exact results.
These were preliminary tests that are unofficial. The preliminary tests that were performed were simple tests suggested by the manufacturer to help rule out damaged sample unit. They are not intended to prove anything about the performance of the product. They are intended only to help the manufacturer ascertain whether the sample he sent was damaged in shipment or not. The preliminary tests were not done in any controlled conditions other than making adjustments to the Examiner and setting the test stage according to the manufacturer's suggestions. The exact test procedure to check for a malfunctioning Examiner was done in conditions that would probably be considered unsuitable for proof by scientific testing standards. This is the reason they are unofficial. The tests were not intended for testing the accuracy of the Examiner or it's ability to pass any contest percentages.
When I say others did better than me, you can infer whatever you want to think it means about the test conditions or percentages. The facts are that it was observed to point to treasure at some times when I tried it as well as when others tried it. I think under the circumstances of the preliminary testing, anyone would be able to observe it point at treasure some of the time. I suppose you are wondering how much of the time more than random did it point to the target? This is what I won't say until the Examiner is confirmed to be functioning correctly. But regardless of what the answer is, it has little to do with what results will be seen when actual testing is conducted. The fact is there was no scientifically controlled test method used to determine the accuracy of the Examiner yet.
The reason why I am not performing double blind testing at this point is because the testing program has not started yet, and will not start until I have a confirmation from Rangertell that the sample he sent is functioning correctly. This was the agreement I made. It is also the reason I am not talking about the details of the preliminary tests we ran until I get an OK from Rangertell.
Instead of inferring test conditions and arriving at speculative conclusions that have not been shown to be true, I suggest you wait until the test program starts, and then come to watch the actual testing and even perform your own tests done in the ways you feel are impeccable to satisfy you that it is properly tested. If you are here to oversee the tests you want done, then there can be no inferences to draw, because your tests will be definitive.
I am not anxious to form conclusions about what the tests will show until all the testing program is done. I don't think I could make accurate field test observations if I prejudge the performance and have any particular expectations of what I will observe. I don't intend to prove it works or not. I will let others do that. If I see it doesn't work, then a large number of people will have proved it to me. But if I see it working and finding treasure, then others will prove that to me as well. This way, I can see the best of the skeptics show me how it does not work, and the best of the LRL enthusiasts show me how it does. There will also be a number of volunteers who have no opinion of whether it should be able to work or not. When the last test is done, then I can decide what I want to conclude.
And this is the reason why you are best to try it yourself, so you don't need to rely on secondhand information from someone who might have an axe to grind. The best we can do for people who do not make thier own tests live is to try to conduct tests according to the instructions we get. No guarantees it can be done exactly as you would do it in every way.
Best wishes,
J_P