ORIGINAL: Scent-Lok G.Designer
Atlasman,
1. We showed you that results on that graph because that is what the test shows. Plain and simple. We only omitted information that is confidential.
So like I said..........the only option is to take your word for it. You paid for the study but they won't let you publish the results..........why would any company do a study if they knew they couldn't publish the results??
I wonder if General Motors or Ford or JD Power or Consumer Reports would hide their methods of testing when asked.............how many people would feel comfortable buying a car with a high safety rating if they were told "Sorry........we can't tell you anything more then it got 5 stars" Good Luck.
2. I told you how the test was done and what equipment does it.
You did nothing even remotely close. You listed a method and some equipment. What were the conditions? What materials were used? What was the time frame? Was the scent coctail uniform and consistent? How many samples were run? There are about 100 other questions about what you used to come up with your little line graph.
You know very well that in the scientific community a line graph is meaningless. You would get laughed out of the room if you just put a graph up and were unwilling to describe the methods used to obtain those results..............that is precisely why they have peer review of studies before they get published...............it insures that proper proceedures and methods were used and therefore the reliability of the resulting data.
3. They are your lone opinions. You were the only one on fifteen different chat boards to bring in the article about dogs and boxes.
Wrong..........I didn't even know the study existed.........I clicked on a google link to a Nebraska Outdoor forum debate on scent suits.
I wasn't talking about my opinions on the dog study
And again, that dog and boxes is not a very valid study by any means! And again, for too many times now, that graph is what the raw data shows.
It's more valid then your line graph.............at least we know more about his study then the "results".......and he isn't selling anything.
4. Great atlasman you made your opinion available for weeks now. Thanks for your lone opinion.
Again..........you wouldn't be here if you thought my opinion was lone. Read this very thread and many others on this forum and you will find many people that share my thoughts on carbon suits.
5. Because you want to see testing data not funded be us. So I provided the tools and methods to do it. Again, if you want to fund it and try it at home, go for it. Nothing snide here.
There is nothing snide about making bold claims to consumers that go against scientific logic and then telling them when they have questions "If you don't like it.........test it yourself"???
That's a good one.............run it by your PR department........you may have a new slogan on your hands
6. Yup, but as above you can read about the techniques and understand fully how we do test.
You must be kidding..........the details of your study should take up pages of theory, proceedure, results, conclusions etc..........you listed two lines of text.
7. Because the dog is not a studay of merit and you hold a lot of weight in it; and it means nothing.
I hold more weight in it then your line graph for many reasons.
He is not selling me anything.
He listed his methods.
He listed his results.
He talked about variables that effected the study.
He used live animals that are used to smell yet still have less ability then a deer.
He had nothing to gain from the study either way.
You........posted a line graph and said "Trust me"
8. Fine, then don't believe and go away.
Nothing snide there
What's the matter?? Don't like when consumers ask educated questions?
Again the charts and grphs are the factual data tha tonly omits confidential information. And agin take my wor for it.
I know, I know.......you have said it 100 times...........I am still waiting for you to prove it just once.
After twenty washings the bonding agent begins to break down due to the washing process.
Please elaborate...........with a link to the study if possible.
1. What other philosophy is there.
Ask for proof...........especially when the claims of a product go against basic laws of science.
2. Huh? Uh... yes. You better believe in the strength of yur stand, and the speed of your bow and the waterproofness of your boots. I believe the airbag works in my car even though I have never seen it. I believe that the airplane slide will work when I open up the emerengcy door. I guess I really don't understand what you are implying here.
All those companies can prove everything they say their products can do.........and a hunter can verify them himself if he so chooses. Scent suits require bilnd faith in your line graph and a disreguard for the science of carbon. A hunter has no choice but to "believe" his suit is working because there is absolutely no way for him to know for sure.......there is no way to know if it is "full" or half "full" or working at all........there is no way to know if it is regenerated or not........there is no way to know if it ever worked even from day one.
Buy a pair of Rocky boots and go step in a puddle.......that's more proof then any carbon suit could ever provide. Shoot your bow through a chrono and you KNOW what it can do.
3. And if you put regenerated activated carbon between your nose and a mint and can't smell the mint, it just is. Try it at home!
You must be joking...........what an insult to the intelligence of hunters everywhere. That is what you offer as proof that a deer won't smell you in the woods?? Wow.
Again, look at the graph. Ha ha!! Just poking fun. I don't think you will ever agree.
I looked at the graph.............what would you say if I made a line graph that showed scent suits didn't work at all??........I bet you would want to know what I did to come up with that data and you would be screaming from the hilltops that it is bogus.......Yet that is all you have done here is show a graph and say "Believe me"