Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Theseus
Why are the pics of JP opening the box identical to the ones on the RT website. I don't know.... but good question! Use your own judgement.  |
The pics are the same because the contact who sent the Examiner for me to test asked if he could use the pictures I took on the Rangertell website. I told him I don't mind if he does. In fact, the Rangertell people probably didn't need to ask. Most forums claim copyrights on all the content that members contribute to the forum, yet Carl seldom makes an issue of other sites cross posting content from his forum. We see the Rangertell site also has posted "Avramenko's fork" excerpts from Qiaozhi's spoof of how to build your own long range locator here:
http://www.rangertell.com/frequently...uestions-a.htm
taken from Qiaozhi's post here:
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...45&postcount=9
The pics I posted in the Geotech forum are probably in the public domain, because I never claimed copyrights. I presume if there are any copyrights to the photos I posted here, they belong to Carl Moreland, just as the copyright to all the content in Geotech forums belong to Carl unless someone else has prior copyright claims on some of the content.
Photos of me opening the enclosure to an Examiner also appear in Tnet. Jim asked me for permission to post those photos, but I told him Carl owns any copyrights, and to ask Carl. (I also told him I think it is a good idea to post those photos).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Theseus
I'm not sure why J_Player is "beating around the bush" about this device when it is so obviously a fraud from the git go.
|
I never beat around the bush. The fact is I do not have enough information to make a scientific determination whether the Examiner works or not. If you are willing to donate your time to establish a scientific test that will satisfy the scientific community, you are welcome to come and test the factory-fresh Examiner I have on loan.
This also makes me wonder on what basis you determined your own conclusions. As near as I can tell, it is on circumstantial evidence and a strong bias. But definitely not based on any scientific tests you performed.
As I said, I have not established any consistent base line for a scientific test for the reason that nobody has been able to get the Examiner to work reliably so far for known targets. This condition provides a lot of non-scientific evidence. But since I don't base my conclusions on non-scientific tests, I can say I don't know if it works or not. I presume you have the intelligence necessary to identify the pitfalls of making a definite conclusion based on flawed non-scientific tests.
Also note, I have never paid money to purchase any LRL, nor do I intend to purchase any LRL unless I become convinced it is a useful tool to help me find the kind of treasure I like to hunt for, or if I am convinced that the price is low enough and the novelty value high enough to be worthwhile as a conversation piece. No beating around any bushes, those are facts of my intentions and feelings about LRLs in general.
Best wishes,
J_P