[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

J_Player,

Well, I've had a chance to think some about helping you with how to proceed, with the Examiner testing.

First, I'm very sorry to hear about your nerve damage from a previous accident. Of course if you cannot get a typical dowsing response from a bent L-shaped wire, over a target in plain sight, then I would not expect you to get a typical response from an Examiner either. In all my years of testing and observing various dowsers, I've not run across a single individual who, after being shown what the typical response should look like over a garden hose or a known underground pipe, or a coin thrown on the ground; could not themselves get a similar or like response.

Of course, if the nerve connections between the brain and the hand (or arm) are damaged, then the ideomotor response could fire in the brain, but be blocked from getting to the hand.

I have but one single suggestion for you to try. Realizing that "apparently" using the device in your left hand, there will be a reduction "supposedly" in the the response; is it possible for you to try it several times in your left hand, and just see what you might get. Perhaps over the course of several tries you might be surprised at what you could train your left hand to do.

Now, to get down to some "brass tacks", so to speak. I have decided there is probably nothing that I can offer you in the way of constructive suggestions for how to proceed from this point. And, here is why I can't offer anything:

From your recent posting and several others in the past, concerning the RT Examiner; YOU seem to be "buying into and entertaining all of the RT marketing BS as IF it were True and Valid". Whether this is how you truly think or not, I cannot tell for sure. I can't believe you do, in your heart, but I can't tell at this point.

I, on the other hand, will not and cannot buy into a single iota of the RT marketing BS concerning the operation of the Examiner, the stated theory of operation, or any of the other nonsense perpetrated simply to snow the gullible and technically-challenged. I'm sorry, but I can't do that. Neither could I "make-out" like I believe it, just so it would appear that I am trying to give the device every opportunity for it to work and do what it is supposed to be able to do.

I know how the device operates. It is nothing more than a plastic box mounted atop a swivel handle, which responds to simple ideomotor responses from the operator. And, certainly, it WILL operate that way whether you hold it in your right hand or your left hand, it does not make a difference. The calculator and the "secret" codes to be plugged into it have not a single input or influence as to how the device will respond. There are NO signal lines traveling out to a target and back to the device or to the operator.

Since these are my opinions and understanding, I really cannot offer you anything constructive, especially in light of the "apparent" understanding and approach you are taking to the device. If you want to believe that a box full of do-nothing components with an Asian calculator stuck to it is somehow doing something constructive in terms of enhancing your own biological dowsing response, that is YOUR business. Frankly, I'm shocked that a man of your "seeming" intelligence would present yourself as harboring this kind of belief or understanding about such an obvious ruse. I still suspect it is an "act", but I can't prove it... I can only suspect it, since I never thought you qualified as a "gullible or technically-challenged".

I will consider the once bally-whoed testing of the Examiner as permanently closed, and will promise to quit "bugging" you about getting on with it. I was really looking forward to some meaningful conclusions to come out of your testing, as I'm sure many others were.... sorry it has to be shelved this way.

I suppose you will be sending it back to RT, in the not too distant future.

Hi Theseus,
Apparently you are forming conclusions based on an impoverished view of the facts around you.

First, the nerve damage was diagnosed in my lower right arm. The damaged nerves have mostly healed, but they are not the same as nerves that never needed to heal. I know this because there still remains some loss of feeling in that arm. But this is not the issue with making a valid test with the Examiner. If you had read their literature, you would have seen the manufacturer states the right arm has a different millivolt signal than the left arm, and for this reason, left-handed people cannot expect good results when using the examiner. In my case, I did happen to check the millivolt signal in both hands, and I found they were nearly the same at both sides within 5% when measuring AC or DC millivolts. This, in combination with the observed response became a strong indicator to me, especially after seeing someone else find much better response. But I did try the Examiner with my left hand on quite a number of ocasions. I did not notice any substantial difference in response from the right or left hand.

As far as the Rangertell marketing claims, of course I take them seriously. These are what I am interested in testing. If I were to start out before making a test and state that I already know all of the claims are false, and that there is absolutely nothing happening in the electronics, then any testing would be predjudiced. Further there would not be a purpose to conduct a test if I had already concluded all the tests would fail. However, my puprpose is not to predjudice a test. I am interested in making observations to see if the claims are true or not. In order to do so, I must first read what the claims are then find a way to conduct a test that will give reasonable evidence that any particular claim is true or not. It simply cannot be done if the conclusion is arrived at before a test is performed.

It does not matter what opinion I may have about the performance of the Examiner, of Esteban's LRLs, of a White's PI detector, or a NASA satellite. My opinion means nothing in a test routine unless I use it to decide what the performance is before completing a test. In that cases it would mean the test was tainted by a predjudiced person influencing the results by interjecting conclusions tainted with his own bias rather than observations.

As an example, the Examiner literature does not make claims about ideamotor, so there is no basis to test that non-claim. But they did make a claim about a charge and a frequency passing from the user to the Examiner. This is something I can test on a subject who is holding the Examiner in his right hand to see if it is true or not. I can also test to see if the claim that the millivolt signal passing from the right hand is stronger than the left hand, as well as making observations of field trials. And I can perform tests to observe if any "signal lines" are established in the air between a target and the antenna, which diminish when the claimed signal source removed from the Examiner.

Apparently you don't consider it necessary to read the claims before concluding what claims are true or false. This is your prerogative. Your purpose is apparenly not to find a way to test an Examiner, but to form conclusions without even bothering to read what the claims are you conclude are wrong. It is not surprising to me that you have no constructive suggestions of how you think I should proceed.

Best wishes,
J_P