|
|
#1
10-20-2013, 06:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Testing Techniques
|
|
#2
10-20-2013, 08:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
LRL manufacturers never do this, as it would reveal an uncomfortable truth.
|
|
#3
10-20-2013, 08:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I do something similar to the db test. Actually I consider it a more accurate test. I close my eyes, cover my ears, spin around a few times, toss the test target, spin around a few more times, then do a search. Of course if I visually spot the target, the test is voided. Instead of ten possible locations, my 20 x 40 feet test area has many more possible hiding spots even if I consider anything within 18 inches as a good hit. That is approximately one square yard.
My critique of Carl's db test is it requires so many repetitions the person is very likely to get confused/fatigued. That is the skeptic strategy. Also the ten distinct "hiding places" makes it more of a guessing game, what is known as a "forced choice". Although an experienced user can probably work around this, it is not the natural way of locating a target. Most importantly the real test should be able to prove the device can actually physically discriminate. The target type (gold, silver, etc.) settings on the device should not be known by the user. In other words, the device should be set and then covered so the user does not know what type of target they are searching for.
|
|
#4
10-21-2013, 09:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence!
|
|
#7
10-21-2013, 09:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Geo said it correctly. There is a gaggle of vultures circling overhead just waiting to swoop down and pick your bones clean. The skeptics will never accept a video as proof, nor should they. Like I said the only test that really should matter is the one where the user does not know what element the device is set to search. Even a baited coat hanger (with a qualified user) should be able to pass that test.
|
|
#8
10-21-2013, 10:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence!
|
|
#9
10-21-2013, 11:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You don't seem to understand--I have no need to prove anything to anyone.
|
|
#10
10-22-2013, 08:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
But that's only if you're prepared to accept (and not ignore / find excuses for) the results of the test. If a proper scientifically controlled double-blind test of an LRL or dowsing rod (and that's not one that involves tossing coins in air and spinning around several times) shows a positive result, then scientists/engineers would be interested. However, it never gives results better than guessing. That's why LRL manufacturers and "head-in-sand" users will avoid such tests at all costs, as it would reveal an unwanted truth that they would rather not know about.
|
|
#11
10-22-2013, 01:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Q, you are really in the dark on this one as with most of your posts on this subject. You think some biased skeptic can design a proper db test? I gave some honest improvements for the test, but you can't even conceive what I am talking about. That's okay, we all knew that anyway. That test has little or no relation to treasure hunting--it's there to feed some skeptic's beliefs. And at best it will only show the user's skill level. The way that test is designed, even the calculator thingy (or even a coat hanger!) might be able to pass with a qualified dowser. My test, the calculator would fail because it is not an LRL. You would at least need a baited coat hanger.
|
|
#12
10-22-2013, 04:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Double-blind testing is a universally accepted scientific procedure, and not something that's "there to feed some skeptic's beliefs".
Your reply is exactly the sort of response I would expect from someone who's afraid to face up to the truth. However, if you're comfortable living a lie, then that's also ok; as long as you keep the lie to yourself.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
