Hi Goldfinder,
I am skeptical about a lot of things. I generally don't subscribe to methods related to dowsing. All this BS from Theseus is just that. In my opinion, he never ran any tests on signal lines or LRLs. He can't even describe the kind of tests he allegedly ran. The notion that a double blind test is the only kind of valid test is not a fact. It is only the opinion of some people. Can you remember a double blind test ever being conducted on a metal detector? I can't. Yet I ran some simple non-scientific tests to determine what metal detectors I wanted to buy. And I found them to be very suitable for my purposes.
The simple tests I ran on the Examiner did not help me to find treasure. So I decided not to buy any Examiners. Can I prove the examiner won't pass a scientific test? Not so far. At least not until someone can get it to work well enough with known targets to perform a randomized test. But my non-scientific testing was enough to convince me I don't want to spend any money to buy one. For others, maybe they will find success in their non-scientific testing. In their cases, they may want to buy an Examiner. I am not stupid enough to say I have scientific proof it can't work, because I don't have that proof. I can safely say Theseus does not have that scientific proof either.
Qiaozhi was right -- it is impossible to prove there is no tea tray in orbit, just as it is impossible to prove there are no signal lines. The best any skeptic has been able to do is to conduct tests that provide evidence it is statistically unlikely for LRL/dowsing to work. As a substitute to proving LRL/dowsing can't work, people have run tests to show a collection of LRL user/dowsers are not able pass a statistical test to locate a target. And even this test does not prove dowsing doesn't work. It only shows evidence that a particular collection of people can't pass the test. They can open LRL contraptions and show the circuitry does not make sense. This can show evidence of fraud from the manufacturer, but it still does not prove that signal lines don't exist.
But most people aren't interested in testing. They are ordinary treasure hunters who are looking for something that helps them find treasure. Like you, they don't care to prove anything, nor do they wish to perform tests. They rely on what they hear from their friends or read about that helps to find treasures.
Think about it:
If you were to find a chicken that squalked whenever you got near treasures, then I think you would simply use the chicken to locate treasures. You wouldn't stop to conduct double blind tests, or any tests at all on this chicken. You would go treasure hunting. And when the chicken couldn't find the treasure any more, then you would stop taking it on the treasure hunts.
If a testing fanatic got hold of your chicken, it would probably undergo several weeks of testing before they performed an autopsy. And you would lose your treasure finding chicken!
If self-professed testing experts insist they have scientific proof signal lines are imaginary, then let them spin their wheels. They will never be able to convince anyone familiar with testing theory that they have any proof. Sure this forum has ameteur "experts", but the people who run this forum are wise enough to know what can be proved and what cannot. You won't see Qiaozhi or Carl claiming they conducted a scientific test that proved signal lines don't exist.
I have seen some of your circuits posted on other sites. Good luck with your treasure hunting.
Best wishes,
J_P
10-08-2010, 07:15 PM
Gold finding chicker
Maybe we could go into the business of raising and selling gold detecting chickens.
Threaded Mode