Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldSeeker
Hi all,
Joined this forum after reading this (rather lengthy) thread.
Is there any further to add. What was the outcome of all this ?
I looked at a RangerTell box of tricks years back, but spent my hard earned on a pair of decent Minelab MD's. Not sure I've done any better with these than with a RangerTell though !! 
Think I'm looking in the wrong places.
Cheers,
GoldSeeker
PS,
I just noticed another thread where the original poster (Hipopp)? was raving about how good his RangerTell was, then this post where he is clearly P***ed off.
What happend along the way to cause such a radical change of mind? (Sorry, I have just stumbled across all this, but very interested to know a bit more background). |
Hi Goldseeker,
From what I read, Hippop was convinced the Examiner finds gold, and set out to start a test program to prove how well it works. After many months he returned to tell us it does not work at all. Apparently, his tests convinced him he was deluded into thinking it worked, and he changed his mind to say it does not work.
But he continued on his crusade with intentions to get the local 60 minutes TV program to make an expose on the examiner. As near as I can tell, Hippop paid for his Examiner, and wanted to receive a full refund many months later when he decided it does not work. From my point of view, he is motivated to recover his loss of money he spent on the Examiner. The forum spokesman from Rangertell was not anxious to refund his money, but made some offers to partially refund it on the condition that the Examiner is first returned in the same condition as when it was shipped. I doubt Hippop accepted that offer, and we haven't heard much from Hippop since that time.
Like most LRLs, the Examiner is difficult to prove that it works or does not work. Simple tests I have conducted by myself and with other volunteers have resulted in no repeatable detection of gold targets that are hidden in an unknown location. But when the location is known, the results can approach 50% on avearage depending on the user. The problem with this kind of simple test is it cannot be classed as scientific. But it does provide some evidence of what an average volunteer user finds when they try it.
I found that a more scientific test is also difficult. The problem I encountered is you need to establish a control for a scientific test. In the kind of scientific test that most Geotech readers want to see, the control is to let a user establish the Examiner is working to locate gold in known locations before the blind testing begins. But no volunteers have been able to consistently get the Examiner to locate gold in known locations well enough to say it is working properly (less than 50% success for known locations). I have been looking for volunteers who are familiar with the Examiner, who can get good performance to participate in the testing in the Los Angeles area, but there have been no responses my invitations. (Invitations are still open ... send me a PM if you want to try it out).
As it stands, I cannot prove scientifically the Examiner will find treasure or not. At least not until someone is able to try it and find success with it. This leaves us with using the best information available. For me, the best information available is from people who bought and used the Examiner. You can read a number of threads from users. As I recall, hung, fenixdigger, Mike(Mont) and the Rangertell factory says it works fine. Hippop, Clondike-Clad, Carl-NC, Putrechigi, me, and several volunteers who tried my test unit say it does not work, or they are not sure if it works or not. I believe there are a number of other members who also made reports about how well the Examiner works.
Hope that helped.
Best wishes,
J_P