#76
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
There is one thing I definitely agree on ... that you use "no" mental input with your dowsng or LRLs. If you did, you would soon see the error of your ways. Enough said; you are clearly a lost soul. But don't worry, Treasurenet will soon be resurrected, and you will be able to retreat to safe territory. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
~J Player~
Quote:
Quote:
Do you know if the H3Tec has every been tested by an Independent Testing Lab? Qiaozhi….Why would I want to use mental input with my Dowsing Rods and my LRL’s? Both disciplines work perfect when I use no mental input. I do not make errors…I jut locate and recover gold… Yes…I will return to T-Net….There are 48 owner/operators who under stand that these devices work as adverticed..Art |
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I see that you still haven't figured out how to use the quote and multi-quote buttons. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Gee…I have complained for months about the quality of the skeptics on T-net..I guess I was wrong…Same quality on this board…Art
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Keep on talking as the hole just keeps getting deeper. It seems that the H3Tec people may be the least problem for you. You may have Libeled a much greater group of people. Pack you bags as you maybe heading to Utah….Art
|
#81
|
||||
|
||||
Try asking the same question again and again, and keep repeating it until you get the answer that you want.
|
#82
|
||||
|
||||
I feel sorry for the admin/mod's as they cannot use the IGNORE feature. You guys are obligated to read each and every post. Every single post...:::shudders:::
|
#83
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So that's it? I'm sure you realize that the contract is not rigid, and I fully encourage the claimant to make whatever changes to the challenge he deems necessary. I will gladly work with them to ensure a test that we both are confident is fair and properly tests the LRL claims. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Finally an Answer Reply To This Topic #42 Posted Jan 27, 2010, 04:29:58 PM Quote from: EddieR on Jan 27, 2010, 11:43:58 AM I'm simply asking how the movement can be proven without a doubt to be ideomotor. ~Carl~ You can prove this with simple double-blind randomized tests. Re: Finally an Answer Reply To This Topic #43 Posted Jan 27, 2010, 05:01:05 PM Quote You can prove this with simple double-blind randomized tests. So that tells us that there is no proof…Art ~Carl~ Re: Finally an Answer Reply To This Topic #44 Posted Jan 27, 2010, 05:39:37 PM If you choose to ignore the results of the tests, or choose not to do the tests at all, then yes, there is no proof. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
~Carl~
With LRLs and dowsing, "random chance" applies to randomized blind tests, not to field use. A randomized blind test does 2 things that a field test cannot do. First, it eliminates outside influences that might alter performance results, such as observable clues. Second, it provides a baseline from which to compare results, namely guessing. Despite intentional attempts to mislead people, random chance doesn't apply to field use. You can't ask, "What are the odds of digging 10 holes in a park and recovering a gold coin?" There is no way to calculate that, because there is not enough information*. But in a randomized blind test, it is quite easy to calculate the odds. Depending on the design of the test those odds can vary, so it is not a fixed number that applies to every test, but it's not a "moving target" either. Quote:
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Results and Prize Award
The test is designed to eliminate the need to judge results. Because the target is placed in a discrete, marked location, a "hit" will only occur if the claimant selects the exact location of the target. Selections other than the correct one will not count as even partial credit. After 10 double-blind attempts are complete, the number of hits will be added. If the number of hits equals or exceeds 7 (for a 70% minimum success rate), the claimant will win the full prize amount. Wow..What a great test. The only thing that this test will prove is …One man and his device can or can not win the money….It does not prove if the LRL is working or not…Art |
#87
|
||||
|
||||
Art - you still have no idea how to quote other people's posts in your replies. Putting this together with your poor grasp of the English language, one would wonder how you can ever have the remotest chance of understanding a double-blind test.
No wonder you are completely taken in by the ideomotor effect. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#89
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I can pass Carl's test using a $69.95 toy metal detector. And you say your dowsing abilities will not pass the same test? Isn't this the same kind of test Sandia Labs uses to determine if a locator works or not? Why would this kind of test be considered to prove nothing when Sandia Labs uses it, the US government uses it, and it is required by the FDA before new drug products are placed on the market? I think a double blind test can prove a $69.95 toy metal detector can locate which piece of plywood Carl hides a silver dollar under. And I think it can prove that you can find the silver dollar by watching your rods cross when you step on the plywood where the silver is hidden under. Do you really think your rods won't cross when you step on the plywood where Carl hides the silver dollar under? Best wishes, J_P |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
~J Player~
Quote:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=1&oq=double+blind+stu dy+&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4PCTC_enUS351US354&q=double+blind+study+de finition http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=3&oq=double+blind+&ie =UTF-8&rlz=1T4PCTC_enUS351US354&q=double+blind+study http://www.thefreedictionary.com/double-blind+procedure |
#91
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#93
|
||||
|
||||
C'mon Marc...!
Boy, I'll be glad when Tnet is back up, so these guys can go back to there loony farm.
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
~Theseus~
Quote:
|
#95
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Also, notice how I am able to use the "quote" and "multi-quote" buttons when replying to other people's posts. Please try to do the same. Again, I know it is difficult for you, but you must try to concentrate harder. If this was a school report, I would have to put "Could do better" at the bottom. |
#96
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
#97
|
||||
|
||||
Use the IGNORE feature...saves a lot of grief and having to clean off your monitor
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
~Jim~
Quote:
|
#99
|
||||
|
||||
Please, sue me. I am the right person for this job.
I am stating, that the pseudo scientific scams do not work and I am urgently proposing not to buy such scams. And do not buy anything from a dealer, which sells scams too. Comeon you bloody bas.tards. Sue me now. Aziz |
#100
|
||||
|
||||
I didn´t visit the forum lately, and just discovered this great party, with all the good ol´participants. Nice !
Too bad some are not learning a thing and are stuck in the dead end of esoteric science . And i think it is great to see haw scammers tecnhiques are being shown- Thanks Carl - |
|
|