|
|
#526
02-20-2010, 08:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Hi hung,
that disclosed skamers proclaim Randi as greatest fraud is understandable. That you get on chills because of skamer commission loss is also understandable. However, that all your arguments were limited to insults, personal devaluation, and profanity, but it is not understandable. If you denied scientifically established principles of testing extraordinary claims, you denied current science. You can protect novice from current science, but you cannot protect they from yourself.
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence! 
|
|
#527
02-20-2010, 09:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I can see the reference you provided is for those who wish to claim the JREF prize based on their dowsing skills. I do not wish to claim the JREF prize based on my dowsing skills. I am not performing tests to satisfy Randi, nor do I have any dowsing skills that I know of. The reason I asked you for a specific test protocol is so I can perform a test that will satisfy you. You are the first person who told me a double blind test is the only way the Examiner can be tested. I am ready to perform your test regardless of whether I believe there are other ways it can be tested or not. All I need to know is the exact test protocol you require to satisfy you that the test was performed to your specifications, and to know exactly what attribute of the Examiner your test protocol is designed to test. I am sure you are aware there are thousands of kinds of double blind tests that could be arranged to test an Examiner, each designed to test a different attribute of the Examiner. There is no possible way I can test the attribute you want tested, or set up the test protocol to conduct the test you have in mind unless you tell me what they are. Are you able to provide instructions that I can use to arrange the specific test protocol you want, and provide a description of what attribute of the Examiner your protocol is designed to test? Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#528
02-20-2010, 10:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
However, if you are still struggling to understand it, then watch Randi on youtube -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOsCnX-TKIY This is the way it should be done, with the addition of a third-party who places the target under one of the cups but does not attend the actual test.
|
|
#529
02-20-2010, 10:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#530
02-20-2010, 10:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Rangertell has made no claims the examiner can locate people hiding behind crates, nor do I think it is able to do that. I understand the principle of double blind testing very well. It generally involves three parties, where a proctor is used. But there are thousands of protocols that could be used. In order to perform the test procedure you want to see, I only need to know the specific protocol you want to see set up, and to know what attribute of the Examiner you want to test. I am presuming you don't want to see if it can locate a person hiding behind a crate, but rather, some claim that Rangertell makes about the Examiner. If you don't really know what attribute of the Examiner you want to test, or any details of the test protocol you want to see done, please say so, because I can't figure it out by guessing at other people's ideas to test different things than the Examiner I have for testing. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#531
02-20-2010, 11:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It is better to place real target and similar placebo targets (eg. made from glass) first from fourth person in small and exactly the same paper boxes filled with cotton to dumping target noise and sealed by sixth person. But then comes the third person who places the boxes under cups but does not attend the actual test. It is recommended that, between persons changing, boxes are mixed by second person.
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence!
|
|
#532
02-20-2010, 11:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
However, if you don't mind me sticking my nose in..... I wouldn't mind seeing a DB test of the Examiner attempting to find some Gold (a nugget or a coin or a ring). Now if you have full knowledge of how a standard DB test should be conducted, then there is no sense in me describing that to you. All I would like to see is a Pre-test of the device done on a valid target that is in plain sight of the operator, and in the same setup and area as the real test would be conducted. Then do the DB test with a target(s) completely unknown to the operator. Then do a Post-test, again using a valid target in plain sight and conducted as the Pre-test was done. Does that seem reasonable? The attribute we are testing is to see if the Examiner will point towards a Gold item, and do it repeatedly so that a statistical calculation might be performed based on the number of Trials and the number of Hits, and the results would be considerably better than what one might expect from Chance Guessing. Just my thoughts.... 
__________________
 The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#533
02-20-2010, 11:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Perhaps we can now look forward to some results on the long awaited RT testing.
|
|
#534
02-20-2010, 11:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Thank you for the input. I wouldn't hazard a guess at what protocol of double blind testing Qiaozhi wants to see done either. I need to know the details of how he wants the test set up before I perform it. For the test that you would like to see, I have a 14k gold man's ring that can be used for the test. Of course, I will want to see some pre-tests as well. I will allow the operator to make dry runs while he makes whatever adjustments to the Examiner controls he needs to find the best performance. Then, when the operator has satisfied himself that he has found the best adjustment, I will film a pre-test done with the gold ring in plain sight of the operator. After the pretest is done, I can film repeated runs of double blind testing with the location of the gold ring unknown to the operator. Then I can allow the operator to repeat the pre-run test where the location of the target is known. There are only two missing element to the test you want to see. If you can provide the missing information, then I can perform the test. 1. Can you make a statement that describes what attribute of the Examiner this test is designed to test? 2. I know a lot about double blind testing. and I know that there are thousands of protocols that are used for double blind testing of this kind. In order to provide the degree of precision you want to see, I need to know the details of how you want the test set up. For example how many test runs, how the target is hidden from view of the operator, what distances, what kind of test field setting, etc. More details will make it more likely that you will see the kind of test you want to have done. "Does it sound reasonable? " For my purposes, it could be very reasonable depending on what attribute is being tested. Actually my own personal testing does not require double blind testing. I never performed a double blind test on any metal detector I bought, but I did test them out and read other people's reports about them. I was able to determine what detectors were suitable for me to purchase after trying out several competing models without a single scientific test. And I have always been happy with my purchases. I also have been happy with my choice not to buy detectors that did not seem suitable after trying them out (no scientific testing of my reject detectors either). I have no need to perform a double blind test of the Examiner for myself. I can make my determination of it's treasure locating value by testing it the same way I test any other metal detector. The only reason I am performing other tests is because I am interested to see if certain claims are true, or to act as a proxy tester for other people who want to see some test that I don't have a need to see. If I hear back from WesP, then we would only need to know the details of how you want the test protocol and the attribute you are looking to test before we can perform the test you have in mind. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#535
02-20-2010, 11:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#536
02-20-2010, 11:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The Randi test procedure showed a methodology and a protocol. I cannot use his protocol because it is one of thousands that must be adapted in any of a number of ways before it can be applied to the Examiner. Apparently you cannot describe the details of the protocol you want to see, or even describe what attribute of the Examiner you want to test. Unless you can tell the details of your protocol, I cannot follow it. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#537
02-20-2010, 11:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You can read the Rangertell public information to see them at the links in above posts and others. Here are a few examples: The Examiner can discriminate different target materials. The calculator sets various frequencies which the Examiner resonates at. The calculator sends signals to the internal circuitry by induction. The operator must be standing on the ground to complete a circuit that allows it to function. Etc, etc, etc. There are hundreds of them. Pick one that seems appropriate for your test. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#538
02-20-2010, 11:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Telling to someone what the blind tests produced means nothing for the simple reason that he has to try something himself anyway before buying. How can somebody ask for a DB test when he admits that he doesn't believe the word of others?
|
|
#539
02-21-2010, 12:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Remember that procrastination is the thief of time.
|
|
#540
02-21-2010, 12:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I think you are correct. A double blind test does not prove anything. It only provides evidence. At best, the results can be used as a model to gain insight where other methods did not work to confirm a theory. I think you are right. The only method that will convince an average user is to try it out and see if it is working for themselves. When you receive your Examiner, then I hope you will also invite others in your area to come and try it for themselves to see if it works for them. This is the best evidence that a person can see to determine if they think it is working. But as long as I have an Examiner, I can easily perform scientific tests for people who describe how they want the tests done. Maybe this will give them the information they want to know. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#541
02-21-2010, 12:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I am presuming the attribute of the Examiner you want to test is its ability to detect a hidden target. So far, your double blind test protocol includes putting numbers into the calculator that are used to detect a gold ring. This is not a double blind test protocol. Can you describe the details of the test protocol you want to see done? For example, how do you want the ring hidden, what distances, how many locations, how many test runs, what kind of test field etc. I am not interested in wasting time guessing what you want, only to be told later that we didn't guess the test you wanted to see correctly. You only need to give the details so WesP and I will know what to set up before the test is performed. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#542
02-21-2010, 12:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#543
02-21-2010, 12:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
There is a friend of mine that whatever you give him he can make it work. So I will exclude him from this as it is going to be too much for the skeptics. 
|
|
#544
02-21-2010, 12:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you find your Examiner is non-working, then you can take it to your friend to make it work. So you have a second guarantee that others do not have. By the way, I am skeptic about all LRL claims that I have not seen work in front of me with my own hands. But I don't have any problem reading stories told by people who say they find long range detection as long as I don't see them telling stories that are shown to be false information. I like to read your stories of what you found with your detectors, and also your fish stories. Did you send for your pocket fisherman yet? Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#545
02-21-2010, 01:00 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Please pick whichever protocol that you think appropriate and go with that. Whatever procedure you decide to use with be disputed by the dowsing fraternity anyway. Perhaps it's Hung you should be asking for an acceptable protocol, not the skeptics. We are already convinced that a cheap calculator, glued to a plastic box of do-nothing electronics, and fixed to a swivel handle can only detect treasure at the time of purchase. There have been many published tests which clearly demonstrate dowsing to be a trick of the mind. If dowsing really worked, despite many scientific tests that show otherwise, then Randi's wallet would be lighter to the tune of $1M ... and it is not.
|
|
#546
02-21-2010, 01:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I never asked for guidance. I asked for a specific test protocol to use. Without knowing what kind of test procedure you want to see, I can speculate that whatever procedure Theseus decides on will probably work to satisfy your requirements. I am guessing this because it seems he wants to test for a more specific version of detecting a hidden target where the target material is defined. After you see what Theseus requests for a tests protocol, then please make your comments that will let us know if this protocol is acceptable to you before we proceed. We can make a second test for you if the Theseus version is not acceptable. I have no worries about hung or other LRL believers. None of them have asked for any double blind tests while refusing to define a test protocol to use for their double blind test. If the dowsing fraternity disputes my tests, I don't care. The can dispute all they want, but they can't stop me from following a test procedure that is requested. It seems like you have a good idea to ask hung for a test protocol. Maybe the LRL enthusiasts have forgotten I am willing to perform tests for them since they can't be here to test this Examiner. All LRL believers are invited to post their requests for a test that they want to see done. This can be some simple test, or a double blind test, or any other kind of test. I already have collected a few requests, so those who already made their requests don't need to send it in again. And here is a special invitation for hung to send any request for testing that he wants to see. I need to know the specific test protocol you want to see performed before we perform the test. We can perform your test if we know the details you want done. Keep in mind, we can only perform a test. We will not hiring consultants or going to extraordinary lengths to create some strange conditions that don't exist in the local area where we will be testing. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#547
02-21-2010, 01:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I said it before that I was not a strong believer as far as dowsing concerns. Now I know and I am always studying more and more about the subject. When we treasure hunting whith my friend first we go somewhere on a suitable day and check it out whith our LRLs or sometimes even whith plain rods.If there is a response at the first place then we try to spot the target and we use our detectors for verification. It is difficult to say what you can do because you will have everybody after you especially when you live in a small country as Greece. The same applies for photos.I will send you some in private to see by e-mail.You see the law over here is made from the politicians for themselves in order to get richer. You want privacy more than anything as you get older and one thing that I hate to say is that you don't really want other people whith you except one or two good friends.Leting everybody know proved to be a silly thing to do.But this has nothing to do whith what I have said whith the LRL we are using.It is working as I said and whith the dowsing help you don't miss a target.I let a friend sometime ago to get the rods and try to go on target and he couldn't.But the meter was giving a reading and we knew that something silver was there.It took us 15minutes to unearth a very old silver fork.If it is something serious hidden then about always is put in a safe and difficult to reach place and we have to visit it many times.Most of these times it is impossible to get the treasure because they put it that way you need a very long time to get it out.They knew that this way it would be safe because it would be impossible for somebody to get it whithout somebody else see him.Some other times you need many people to work together and again you forget it. You cannot dig in here as in some other country.You have to have your mouth shut and be very carefull when you are going to do it. Pocket fisherman will soon have its own permanent place in my car.
|
|
#548
02-21-2010, 01:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Will the other be in your pocket?  Quote:
|
|
#549
02-21-2010, 03:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I forgot to include details for recovery protocol. See photo below for missing details. Also, you need to take Pocket Fisherman in the water for recovering fish Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#550
02-21-2010, 03:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
From all the advertising I've seen (and read) and from what I've seen on eBay, I think it is at least "inferred" if not said in so many words; that the Examiner will pull towards or otherwise indicate a gold target at some distance away. That is the attribute my test would be looking to validate. Let's say there are 5 possible locations where a single target might be located. The target could be any piece of gold or gold bearing object (nugget, coin, etc.) that would be deemed a logical target by R-T, and would have an appropriate Number to be plugged into the calculator. Five different locations or hiding places would be spread out probably in a semi-circle. Distance from the target locations to the operator should probably be at least 10 feet and maybe less than 30 feet. That gives you a good range, if need be. The method of hiding could be inverted cups, under paper plates or any other method that insures the operator has no clue as to what might be under the hiding method, or not. There will be 5 trials, during the DB portion of the test. Whatever the method is for concealing the target, ALL 5 of the positions and the method for hiding MUST be disturbed prior to each of the 5 trials. Standard DB protocol is assumed, and is described on Carl's DB testing page, if you are not familiar with who is involved in the hiding and recording of the results parts of the test. Remember of course there is a Pre-test and a Post-test, both done on a target that is EITHER in plain sight of the operator OR the operator can SEE where the target was placed. During the DB portion of the test, the specific hiding location should be determined by drawing a single number out of a hat (containing the numbers 1 to 5). To be convincing, although not necessarily a Final Conclusion, I believe of the 5 trials, the Examiner should successfully locate the Gold target a minimum of 4 times and 5 would be even better. Correctly locating the Gold target 4 times comes with a Odds of Occurring By Chance Alone of 1 in 156 times. Correctly locating the Gold target 5 times comes with a Odds of Occurring By Chance Alone of 1 in 3125 times. Let me know if there is anything else you need from me.
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
