Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike(Mont)
While I have never been involved in an actual double blind test, I have probably done more testing than anyone. Just because someone uses the term "double blind" does not prove it is a true test of the equipment or the operator's skills. I have explained my procedure many times. I carefully toss the test target so I have no knowledge of it's location, then I search for it. I know that is not considered true double blind but I would suggest it is more accurate, more real. I've tried having someone else hide the target but this is not true long range locating, more like mental telepathy. I can't tell you how many tests I have done, but it's in the tens of thousands because I practice 300 days a year. I don't hit the target every single test. But it's a very high percentage, something above 90 percent. There are many factors, but wind is the most important, then my emotional state. I don't get out in the field all that much. I hope this changes someday. I do get out and I do find gold and silver. What I do is real, what you do is misapplied theory about something you do not understand, and that's not real. Consider yourself lucky I even made this reply. I have nothing further to say to you.
|
What you are doing is reinforcing your belief system with non-scientific tests. Tossing a test target, and then trying to locate it, is not a blind test. And it is most certainly not "more accurate, more real" than a double-blind test. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
Like I said to Dell, go away and read the double-blind test procedure ->
A Double-Blind Test for LRLs
Ultimately (of course) I'm wasting my time, as I know for a certainty that neither you nor Dell will ever study the requirements of the test, and neither will you perform the test. It would be too shocking to discover the truth.