"Criteria for Scientific Proof of LRL"

[Aurificus]

Here. All interested parties may have their Discussion on the Criteria for Scientific Proof of LRL, and related matters.

Suggested discussion items include: Acceptable "hit rates", Suitable "real" or artificial targets, Repeatability, Operator skill. experience, influence etc, etc. etc.

Go for it...

Your Welcome,
Aurificus

[Clondike Clad]

Originally Posted by Aurificus

Here. All interested parties may have their Discussion on the Criteria for Scientific Proof of LRL, and related matters.

Suggested discussion items include: Acceptable "hit rates", Suitable "real" or artificial targets, Repeatability, Operator skill. experience, influence etc, etc. etc.

Go for it...

Your Welcome,
Aurificus

Now we are talking.
One of the way to start is using Carl's db test (double blind test)and win the 25k($25,000).
$1,000,000 should make for a good test.
At this time NO ONE WANTS TO GO FOR THE 25K OR THE 1M.
All one needs is to show the world by taking the money.

Proof of LRL is showing and passing any db test for the NORMAL WORKING condition for the LRL.
So for me it is taking CARL'S 25k
If your LRL works SHOW IT BY TAKING THE MONEY.
FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS THE FORUM WILL SOUND LIKE THE FIRST DAY IT WAS STARTED...SCAMMING,PURE B/S ,CRAP,NAME CALLING,NOT READY YET,TOP SECRET,AND MANY MORE EXCUSES.
Ok back to lurking.

[Esteban]

Originally Posted by Clondike Clad

Now we are talking.
One of the way to start is using Carl's db test (double blind test)and win the 25k($25,000).
$1,000,000 should make for a good test.
At this time NO ONE WANTS TO GO FOR THE 25K OR THE 1M.
All one needs is to show the world by taking the money.

Proof of LRL is showing and passing any db test for the NORMAL WORKING condition for the LRL.
So for me it is taking CARL'S 25k
If your LRL works SHOW IT BY TAKING THE MONEY.
FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS THE FORUM WILL SOUND LIKE THE FIRST DAY IT WAS STARTED...SCAMMING,PURE B/S ,CRAP,NAME CALLING,NOT READY YET,TOP SECRET,AND MANY MORE EXCUSES.
Ok back to lurking.

But you don't understand? PFFFF!!!! First, the 25,000 is no longer available, and second 1,000,000 is FOR LRL RODS!!!

[Clondike Clad]

Originally Posted by Esteban

But you don't understand? PFFFF!!!! First, the 25,000 is no longer available, and second 1,000,000 is FOR LRL RODS!!!

Ok so the $25,000 in not available and the 1 mill is for rods.
SO IT IS ANYTHING GO'S AND THE EARTH IS FLAT AGAIN.
WHO NEEDS DB TEST OR PROOF ANYWAY.
BUY ONE AND DIG FOR MICRO GOLD DUST.
OH! WELL BACK TO LURKING

[homefire]

If you can come up with one, the $25,000 would just be around the corner!

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by homefire

If you can come up with one, the $25,000 would just be around the corner!

My suspicion is that it will never happen.
Your $25,000 is as safe as if it was in Fort Knox.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Aurificus

Here. All interested parties may have their Discussion on the Criteria for Scientific Proof of LRL, and related matters.

Suggested discussion items include: Acceptable "hit rates", Suitable "real" or artificial targets, Repeatability, Operator skill. experience, influence etc, etc. etc.

Go for it...

Your Welcome,
Aurificus

The criteria for proof of LRL?
To me, this means some apparatus is able to locate something valuable from a long distance. The criteria would be: "Does this apparatus result in a your finding something valuable"?
In addition, we must qualify what this apparatus finds... Is it valuable or not? For example, what could you sell the item you recover for to an informed buyer? Also, what is the hit rate? Does it work 100% of the time? If not, then does it work often enough to warrant using it?

But in the final analysis, if both LRL proponents and skeptics agree that the treasure has been recovered, then I would conclude we must have a preponderance of evidence that says it works. Who could dispute the fact that it works if both LRL proponents and skeptics agree that it recovered treasure?

Look below to see which LRLs work to find treasure based on this criteria for scientific proof:

[mosha]

hi J Player

for my case; mineoro found a treasure 10000 miles a way.

regards,

[Max]

Originally Posted by mosha

hi J Player

for my case; mineoro found a treasure 10000 miles a way.

regards,

Cause you found a moron that bought it I think!

The good for you now is that he's 10000 miles away!

Kind regards,
Max

[mosha]

Originally Posted by Max

Cause you found a moron that bought it I think!

The good for you now is that he's 10000 miles away!

Kind regards,
Max

I was that moron, cause I bought it from mineoro online. it found the treasure for mineoro people.

best regards,

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by mosha

I was that moron, cause I bought it from mineoro online. it found the treasure for mineoro people.

best regards,

At least you can laugh about it.

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

The criteria for proof of LRL?
To me, this means some apparatus is able to locate something valuable from a long distance. The criteria would be: "Does this apparatus result in a your finding something valuable"?
In addition, we must qualify what this apparatus finds... Is it valuable or not? For example, what could you sell the item you recover for to an informed buyer? Also, what is the hit rate? Does it work 100% of the time? If not, then does it work often enough to warrant using it?

But in the final analysis, if both LRL proponents and skeptics agree that the treasure has been recovered, then I would conclude we must have a preponderance of evidence that says it works. Who could dispute the fact that it works if both LRL proponents and skeptics agree that it recovered treasure?

Look below to see which LRLs work to find treasure based on this criteria for scientific proof:

I agree. All of the LRLs you've pictured worked exactly once. When the buyer gave the seller money in exchange for the device.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

I agree. All of the LRLs you've pictured worked exactly once. When the buyer gave the seller money in exchange for the device.

You are exacly right.
However, we do find a few rare exceptions. Occasionally someone recovers a treasure in a location where the LRL happened to be beeping, just as occasionally someone rarely recovers a treasure as they are digging a hole when they are not even looking for treasure.

Yes, each one of those LRLs worked once. But there are many more like them that also worked exactly once. We can see this must be true because so many of those LRL manufacturers are still in business. When we consider the hit rate for these LRLs fnding treasure, it must be dismally small. But when we look at the value of the treasure each one finds, we see it is usually worth several thousand dollars. Considering the number of suckers born every day, this can amount to a sizable cache of treasure for a particular model. Didn't RangerTell post figures of $60,000 AUD per year for selling his calculators at less than $1000?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

You are exacly right.
However, we do find a few rare exceptions. Occasionally someone recovers a treasure in a location where the LRL happened to be beeping, just as occasionally someone rarely recovers a treasure as they are digging a hole when they are not even looking for treasure.

Best wishes,
J_P

Yup, that statement is also true. However, I hope you are not implying that those rare exceptions occurred as a direct result of the merits/feedback of a particular LRL. Tossing lawn darts, random digging and pointing a finger in a certain location will also yield rare exceptions where a plausible "good" target might be found. Yet all of these locating mechanisms (LRLs included) work according to the same principles - random guessing, or Chance.

[Max]

Originally Posted by Aurificus

Here. All interested parties may have their Discussion on the Criteria for Scientific Proof of LRL, and related matters.

Suggested discussion items include: Acceptable "hit rates", Suitable "real" or artificial targets, Repeatability, Operator skill. experience, influence etc, etc. etc.

Go for it...

Your Welcome,
Aurificus

Hi,
it's simple: it must find the stuff from long range.

Assume it will not always hit the target... and so that sometimes it will miss it.

Now... the problem is that if you put this way we fall into statistical way to prove it works or not... and so the number of tests rise, cause in statistical report you need big numbers.

I think the test can be made by say 100 attempts but on a single target between 10 near locations, say spaced 5 meters from each other, kinda of narrow pits/holes in the soil covered by e.g. a brick on top.

At any attempt one target at a time will stay in one pit... other 9 pits will be empty.

For example I will put target at 50cm depth and LRL/operator at 10 meters from target pits.

This way you just need less than 50meters for the test field, or put pits in a circle... even less... just about 50meters circumference.

The hit ratio I will consider probatory that the LRL works is 95%.

It must detect the target location 95 times over 100 attempts. If so , to me it passed, otherwise not.

Now... the problem is how the heck you'll do such kind of tests if LRL requires the target must be long time buried !

In itself this "requirement" of long time buried stuff... is a trick. No reliable test can be made under that requirement.

Kind regards,
Max