Dowsing on Randi's "Psychic Investigator" (1991)

[mattman]

So I know this goes a ways back, but I just came across these old episodes of James Randi - Psychic Investigator from 1991. In the 4th episode (Dowsing) Michael Cook successfully located a landmark in a 1 in 24 chance test and then proceeded to locate a "bad spot" chosen by another pair of dowsers. Although I think anything supernatural is equally ridiculous, dowsing has always gotten under my skin more than others so I was disappointed to see this guy supposedly pass these tests. Does anyone know anything further about this? Do he make an attempt at the cash prize? Was he found to have cheated? I suppose its possible that if everyone has a 1 in 24 odds of succeeding, after dozens of demonstrations someone is bound to luck out...it just isnt very gratifying.

[rjh01]

Some link might be in order
Part 1 1yKmdRwhY6g
Part 4 7DLKQyXIT7c

Now carry on.

[tuoni]

I emailed James Randi to ask him about this test a couple of years ago, in his reply he said that the guy was found to have had access to the map before the show

[ufology]

When I was younger I used to work for the City of Calgary Electric System and I had this old Italian boss who would locate buried lines with a set of home made dowsing rods made from copper wire. The guy was uncanny and he showed me how to do it, but I never got quite as good as him.

[wardenclyffe]

When I was younger I used to work for the City of Calgary Electric System and I had this old Italian boss who would locate buried lines with a set of home made dowsing rods made from copper wire. The guy was uncanny and he showed me how to do it, but I never got quite as good as him.

Not quite as good as him, but better than chance? Want a million dollars?

Ward

[bluesjnr]

I emailed James Randi to ask him about this test a couple of years ago, in his reply he said that the guy was found to have had access to the map before the show

Do you have a copy of that mail and would you be willing to share it? I tried to find evidence that Randi had stated that Cook had had access to the map before the show but couldn't. I'm convinced that dowsing is woo but like the OP found the conclusion ungratifying.

For the record, I correctly guessed the square working on the possibility that a monument would likely be found somewhere around a convergence of roads which would indicate a town. One other factor is that I am extremely familiar with the town in question having lived there at a couple of points in my life for around 10 years in total; maybe I subconsciously recognised the map layout (I'm a bit of a map geek and spent a lot of time with them).

[wardenclyffe]

I also wrote to Randi concerning the same thing back in 2006. Here are the pertinent parts of the exchange:

Me: "What happened with Michael Cook (the map dowser)? Did he just get lucky or were there behind the scenes shenanigans that you were unaware of at the time? This is the type of situation I would fear if I were trying to produce a show like this. I assume that more than one test would have to be given to avoid the one in 24 chance of a lucky guess."

Randi: "The map the dowser used had been left out in the hall before the show, with the critical area marked… I never made a big fuss about it, since he would only deny that he’d seen it, and the rest of his performance was a failure…"

The elipses in the middle and at the end are Randi's. I cut nothing out.

Ward

[bluesjnr]

I also wrote to Randi concerning the same thing back in 2006. Here are the pertinent parts of the exchange:

Me: "What happened with Michael Cook (the map dowser)? Did he just get lucky or were there behind the scenes shenanigans that you were unaware of at the time? This is the type of situation I would fear if I were trying to produce a show like this. I assume that more than one test would have to be given to avoid the one in 24 chance of a lucky guess."

Randi: "The map the dowser used had been left out in the hall before the show, with the critical area marked… I never made a big fuss about it, since he would only deny that he’d seen it, and the rest of his performance was a failure…"

The elipses in the middle and at the end are Randi's. I cut nothing out.

Ward

Thanks Ward.

[tuoni]

I also wrote to Randi concerning the same thing back in 2006. Here are the pertinent parts of the exchange:

Me: "What happened with Michael Cook (the map dowser)? Did he just get lucky or were there behind the scenes shenanigans that you were unaware of at the time? This is the type of situation I would fear if I were trying to produce a show like this. I assume that more than one test would have to be given to avoid the one in 24 chance of a lucky guess."

Randi: "The map the dowser used had been left out in the hall before the show, with the critical area marked… I never made a big fuss about it, since he would only deny that he’d seen it, and the rest of his performance was a failure…"

The elipses in the middle and at the end are Randi's. I cut nothing out.

WardBasically an identical exchange to the one I had.

[ufology]

Not quite as good as him, but better than chance? Want a million dollars?

Ward


I was told by someone else here that dowsing doesn't qualify for the million dollar prize, and even if it did, the rules say I'd have to pay all the expenses, and since I don't have much money, and I'm not 100% accurate, and I haven't done it in a long time, I wouldn't want to gamble on it. But it would fun to try if I still had the "gift" so to speak. BTW ... I'd never go out and charge people for the service or anything like that. It was just an experience I had when I was younger that I thought was interesting to share, and for all I know, what I thought was going on was nothing more than coincidence ... a lot of coincidence mind you.

[Czarcasm]

I was told by someone else here that dowsing doesn't qualify for the million dollar prize...Over 900 posts, and you haven't even bothered to read the rules for the MDC?

[wardenclyffe]

I'm pretty sure that dowsing does qualify, but I don't speak for the JREF on this or any subject. Also, there are other cash prizes available. Those should reduce your travel costs, and if you win them, they would cover any costs involved in winning a million. The IIG claims that they are opening an affiliate in Calgary soon. Write to them and see what's up. Of course if you can only find water in a pipe in a house, there is the added cost of tearing up the ceilings floors and walls in order to prove that you are right. It seems like there are much more efficient and cheaper methods of proving the skill which would make you a shoe-in for the prize. And I'm pretty sure you don't have to be right 100% of the time, but you and the testing organization would have to agree to a percentage that was greater than chance that was acceptable to both you and them. Here's the whole list of cash challenges:

Here is a list of possible challenges:

There's the Australian Skeptics' AU$100,000 Prize
http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/
They also offer AU$20,000 as a "Spotter's Fee"

There's the IIG's US$50,000 Challenge in California, USA
They now have affiliates in Atlanta, GA and Washington, DC and are developing affiliates in Denver, CO, Calgary, Canada and probably other places as well.
http://www.iigwest.org/challenge.html
They also offer US$5,000 as a "Finder's Fee"

There's the North Texas Skeptic's US$12,000 Challenge in the USA
http://www.ntskeptics.org/challenge/challenge.htm

There's Prabir Ghosh's 2,000,000 Rupee Challenge in India
http://rationalistprabir.bravehost.com/

There's the Swedish 100,000SeK prize offered by Humanisterna
http://www.humanisterna.se/index.php...d=27&Itemid=49

The Tampa Bay Skeptics offers a US$1000 prize in Florida, USA
http://www.tampabayskeptics.org/challenges.html

In Canada there's the CAN$10,000 from the Quebec Skeptics
http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/activites/defi

In the UK, the ASKE organization offers £14,000
http://www.aske-skeptics.org.uk/challenge_rules.htm

Tony Youens in the UK offers £5,000
http://www.tonyyouens.com/challenge.htm

In Finland, Skepsis offers 10,000 Euros
http://www.skepsis.fi/haaste/

The Fayetteville Freethinkers in Arkansas, USA offer a US$1000 prize
http://fayfreethinkers.com/

There's a 1,000,000 Yuan prize in China offered by Sima Nan. This is his blog: http://blog.sina.com.cn/simanan

The Belgian SKEPP organization offers a 10,500 Euro prize
http://www.skepp.be/prijzen/de-sisyphus-prijs/

If you find any broken links, or know of any tests not on this list, please notify me in this thread.

Good Luck,

Ward

[SkepticScott]

I think dowsing qualifies too; see MDC FAQ 2.3. However, I don't speak for the JREF either.

A statistician can work out the numbers for the protocols based on the claimants claimed performance. It will take more trials the lower your accuracy, of course.

I'm not sure I did the math right, but for example, if you claimed you could detect water with a 50% accuracy -- that is, you'd pick the container with water 50% of the time and would pick a container at random (which may be the right one) the other 50% -- a test might involve placing water in one of twenty opaque containers. You'd have to find it in at least 13 out of 50 tries. I think that would give you a 99.996% chance of succeeding if you have that 50% accuracy. If you couldn't dowse and were simply guessing, you'd have a 1 in 1.3 million chance of passing just by luck.

[MNBrant]

The problem with dowsing is that when you move your hands left or right the rods move. Anybody else notice this flaw?

[ufology]

I think dowsing qualifies too; see MDC FAQ 2.3. However, I don't speak for the JREF either.

A statistician can work out the numbers for the protocols based on the claimants claimed performance. It will take more trials the lower your accuracy, of course.

I'm not sure I did the math right, but for example, if you claimed you could detect water with a 50% accuracy -- that is, you'd pick the container with water 50% of the time and would pick a container at random (which may be the right one) the other 50% -- a test might involve placing water in one of twenty opaque containers. You'd have to find it in at least 13 out of 50 tries. I think that would give you a 99.996% chance of succeeding if you have that 50% accuracy. If you couldn't dowse and were simply guessing, you'd have a 1 in 1.3 million chance of passing just by luck.


When we used to do it, we weren't looking for containers of water, we were looking for conduits or lines, so it wasn't like the dowsing where a stick bends, but two metal rods that rotate parallel to the direction of the conduit when they are above it. So the test would have to involve a situation where you would get some independent utility markers ( the call before you dig people ) to locate some active buried lines at several locations, then see if the dowser can find them as well. You'd also have to verify that if the dowser seemed to locate other instances of a line, that there wasn't also something there.

Or, you could create a controlled location that had been swept by both scanners and the dowser to be sure nothing was picked up by either. Then bury the test conduits and lines and keep the locations known only to the testing crew. That would give you a baseline. If the dowser can find them several times in several configurations ... and the rules allow for dowsers ... then maybe ... just maybe ... ka ching! I'd definitely be willing to find me some rods and give it a shot. It could be fun whether I still have the touch or not!

[wardenclyffe]

This has been done:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqoYrSd94kA

This a long, but very interesting video. It's from back in the day when the MDC was only worth $10,000. I assume that the TV show paid for the set-up of this test. Under normal circumstances, the applicant is responsible for the costs of the test. Otherwise, it'd be very easy for applicants to demand a test that would cost millions and then accuse the JREF of chickening out when they won't pay for it.

If the applicant can really do what they say they can, and if it costs them $20,000 in order to get a million, the million would be long gone.

Ward

[ufology]

This has been done:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqoYrSd94kA

This a long, but very interesting video. It's from back in the day when the MDC was only worth $10,000. I assume that the TV show paid for the set-up of this test. Under normal circumstances, the applicant is responsible for the costs of the test. Otherwise, it'd be very easy for applicants to demand a test that would cost millions and then accuse the JREF of chickening out when they won't pay for it.

If the applicant can really do what they say they can, and if it costs them $20,000 in order to get a million, the million would be long gone.

Ward


Interesting video. The problem for me is that the way that the test in the video was done, it would add a lot of noise to the way the technique is used. For example, it is likely that I'd have picked up a conduit in all the locations including the one with the water, with perhaps the water being slightly more obvious.

So for me, a fair setup would be single or widely spaced conduits, all with water in unmarked locations for which I could not know the coordinates. For example if instead of multiple marked conduits in a single plot as in the video, multiple plots each with a single hidden conduit with water would be just as scientifically valid, and would probably work fine for me. At least that is how I experienced it when I used to do it years ago.

[wardenclyffe]

Interesting video. The problem for me is that the way that the test in the video was done, it would add a lot of noise to the way the technique is used. For example, it is likely that I'd have picked up a conduit in all the locations including the one with the water, with perhaps the water being slightly more obvious.

So for me, a fair setup would be single or widely spaced conduits, all with water in unmarked locations for which I could not know the coordinates. For example if instead of multiple marked conduits in a single plot as in the video, multiple plots each with a single hidden conduit with water would be just as scientifically valid, and would probably work fine for me. At least that is how I experienced it when I used to do it years ago.

So you would "read" an empty pipe as almost identical to a pipe with flowing water? Are you detecting the metal in the pipe or the water or what? That's the problem with claims like this. At first, it's "I can detect water," but then it changes to "I can detect where there was water a little while ago even though there's flowing water one meter away."

And why would it be easier to detect when you had no idea where the pipes were? When you know it's either here, here or there, that should make it a whole lot easier.

Ward

[ufology]

So you would "read" an empty pipe as almost identical to a pipe with flowing water? Are you detecting the metal in the pipe or the water or what? That's the problem with claims like this. At first, it's "I can detect water," but then it changes to "I can detect where there was water a little while ago even though there's flowing water one meter away."

And why would it be easier to detect when you had no idea where the pipes were? When you know it's either here, here or there, that should make it a whole lot easier.

Ward



Hey warden ... if you check back you'll notice that my experience was from way back when I worked for the City of Calgary and this old Italian guy showed me how he did it, and we used it to find buried conduits and cables. Back in those days a lot of the conduits were metal and so were the cables ( obviously ), so maybe we were picking up the metal. Personally I've never made the claim to able to detect water specifically, and now that you've made me think about it, I'd have to try it out again to see if I could even do it with those plastic pipes. Anyway, my initial post was also just to relay the story about the old Italian guy who I thought was amazing at it back then. And after he showed me how to do it, it seemed to work for me too. But for all I know, I was still younger and more impressionable, and it was all just coincidence. I just thought maybe the readers here would find it interesting. It seems like these old dowser guys are a part of our urban mythology.

[wardenclyffe]

I understood your original explanation. I just was not completely clear on what you were "targeting," whether it was the metal or the water or the empty space in a conduit or what. And I know that you are not particularly experienced with dowsing, but you seemed pretty sure that it was something you were able to do (at least at one point). That was why I brought up the Million Dollar Challenge (and the others that were closer to you).

If this is real and you could do it, it should be testable. Perhaps you were young and impressionable and it was just coincidence as you suggest. But I sense that you are not convinced that that was the case. If I were in your postition and I was looking at a potential million dollars (or $50K or any of the others), I would explore it further. I'm not in your position, though.

There are many things that you believe in based on evidence that I find lacking. This is a case where we don't have to wait for a UFO. This is something that you can explore on your own. It shouldn't take much time, and the upside is so huge that the time would be well spent.

Your UFO beliefs are based, in part, on personal experience. That's hard to argue against. You were there. I wasn't. Dowsing is also something that is a personal experience for you. I wasn't there for that either. But this is something where you can reproduce the effects and have them tested. And there have to be testing protocols that do not involve digging up streets or tearing up the floorboards of a house.

And if it doesn't work for you, there are those challenges with a finder's fee. You could bring a successful dowser to the IIG or the Australian Skeptics, and if that dowser wins their prize, you'll be pocketing some money for yourself.

Good Luck,
Ward

[ufology]

I understood your original explanation. I just was not completely clear on what you were "targeting," whether it was the metal or the water or the empty space in a conduit or what. And I know that you are not particularly experienced with dowsing, but you seemed pretty sure that it was something you were able to do (at least at one point). That was why I brought up the Million Dollar Challenge (and the others that were closer to you).

If this is real and you could do it, it should be testable. Perhaps you were young and impressionable and it was just coincidence as you suggest. But I sense that you are not convinced that that was the case. If I were in your postition and I was looking at a potential million dollars (or $50K or any of the others), I would explore it further. I'm not in your position, though.

There are many things that you believe in based on evidence that I find lacking. This is a case where we don't have to wait for a UFO. This is something that you can explore on your own. It shouldn't take much time, and the upside is so huge that the time would be well spent.

Your UFO beliefs are based, in part, on personal experience. That's hard to argue against. You were there. I wasn't. Dowsing is also something that is a personal experience for you. I wasn't there for that either. But this is something where you can reproduce the effects and have them tested. And there have to be testing protocols that do not involve digging up streets or tearing up the floorboards of a house.

And if it doesn't work for you, there are those challenges with a finder's fee. You could bring a successful dowser to the IIG or the Australian Skeptics, and if that dowser wins their prize, you'll be pocketing some money for yourself.

Good Luck,
Ward


Hey wardenclyffe,

I find everything you've said perfectly reasonable. Thanks for the feedback. If you lived here in Calgary I'd be glad to show you the dowsing thing just for the fun of it. You cold probably even do it yourself. If you've got the "gift" and the right rods, the rods just kind of do their own thing. You can make a set out of some heavy gaugue copper wire. Strip the wire bare down to the handles, figure out how to hold them so they can swing freely, and see if you can get 'em to work for you. I don't have the money to put up for any challenge, but maybe you'll surprise yourself ... go ahead ... take a few steps into wooville just for the fun of it!

[wardenclyffe]

There are skeptics in Calgary. If the IIG is setting up an affiliate there, there must be local people who have requested it. If you contacted the IIG, they would probably get you in touch with the Calgary folks. They might be able to work with you on a protocol and you'd be on your way to $50K(US).

I cannot afford to dig up streets or tear up floorboards any more than you can. Randi created what was pretty close to real world condition for his test. That didn't work with many experienced dowsers. They also could not find a huge concentration of gold (which they claimed they could) under a bit of cardboard. And, of course, in both instances, the dowsers could sense what they were looking for when they knew where it was. It seems to work best with old Italians who've been working in the building industry for decades and know the most likely places for conduits already from experience.

I also would have no idea what to do with the bent wires once I made them. Do I concentrate? On what? You do not even know if you were finding wires or water or pipes or what. So what am I looking for and how do the wires direct me to that thing?

Ward

[ufology]

There are skeptics in Calgary. If the IIG is setting up an affiliate there, there must be local people who have requested it. If you contacted the IIG, they would probably get you in touch with the Calgary folks. They might be able to work with you on a protocol and you'd be on your way to $50K(US).

I cannot afford to dig up streets or tear up floorboards any more than you can. Randi created what was pretty close to real world condition for his test. That didn't work with many experienced dowsers. They also could not find a huge concentration of gold (which they claimed they could) under a bit of cardboard. And, of course, in both instances, the dowsers could sense what they were looking for when they knew where it was. It seems to work best with old Italians who've been working in the building industry for decades and know the most likely places for conduits already from experience.

I also would have no idea what to do with the bent wires once I made them. Do I concentrate? On what? You do not even know if you were finding wires or water or pipes or what. So what am I looking for and how do the wires direct me to that thing?

Ward


Hey Ward:

Funny comment about the "old Italians" ( it's soo true ) ... the old country folk are full of interesting superstitions and sayings. Anyway, to play with the idea yourself you don't always have to tear up any floor boards. It also doesn't have to be scientific. The last time I tried it I went out in the back yard to see if I could locate the gas line. I did ... but I called the "call before you dig" locators afterwards anyway. While I was playing around, the rods indicated something where I didn't think anything should be. So I went checking my house plans and still couldn't find anything in the ground. Puzzled, I happened to look up at an airplane and I noticed I was right under the overhead utility cables. Of course I knew they were there subconsciously, so it doesn't really count.

As for using the rods, you might have to experiment a bit to fine tune them, but all you do is make them like I said and hold them by their handles so they swing freely. You should be relaxed and not concentrating. The guy in the video was holding his set far apart. I find it works better to let your arms hang at your sides, with your elbows, wrists and fingers keeping the set oriented. If you try too hard to hold the rods in position, they won't move. If you try too hard not too, they'll be all over the place. The finesse is getting that balance just right. You don't have to concentrate on water or conduits or anything else, just getting that balance right. The rods will do the rest. It's easy stuff that you can play around with yourself. You certainly don't have to take it seriously. Consider it toying around with folklore. Besides, it's much easier than tracking down UFOs, that's for sure.

[marplots]

If it's the rods, you can eliminate the human element altogether. Get them "balanced" correctly and fix them in place. Then make your test items mobile and see if the rods react by bringing various things under the rods. Film it. Easy peasy. I like this version because the natural jolts from walking around are taken away.

Look forward to the YouTube demonstration.

[ufology]

If it's the rods, you can eliminate the human element altogether. Get them "balanced" correctly and fix them in place. Then make your test items mobile and see if the rods react by bringing various things under the rods. Film it. Easy peasy. I like this version because the natural jolts from walking around are taken away.

Look forward to the YouTube demonstration.


Interesting. I had always presumed there was some human element to it. However if it was that easy wouldn't someone have invented something based on that by now?

Something else I just thought. Maybe some metal dowsing rods were unknowingly magnetized during their creation and act kind of like compass needles around active wires or metal pipes?

[SezMe]

ufology, do you have a copy of Flim-Flam? If not, you need to get a copy for your general edification. But, for purposes of this thread, read the description of dowsing for water flowing in pipes that begins on page 307. All the dowsers failed. Now, for you, here is the fun part: the test was conducted in Italy.

[marplots]

Interesting. I had always presumed there was some human element to it. However if it was that easy wouldn't someone have invented something based on that by now?

Something else I just thought. Maybe some metal dowsing rods were unknowingly magnetized during their creation and act kind of like compass needles around active wires or metal pipes?

Good idea. But step one would be to reliably demonstrate an effect, then go about explaining it.

I took my thought experiment from something you said about, "and then the rods do the rest." I thought you meant the operator wasn't important. But that's one thing you could find out with the fixed rods thing -- do you need to have someone holding them or not?

Maybe then you could look at: Does it matter who is holding them? And so on.

Stepwise, easy questions with only one variable modified is the way to distill out the particulars. But first you'd want to see if there was an effect to test or not.

[ufology]

ufology, do you have a copy of Flim-Flam? If not, you need to get a copy for your general edification. But, for purposes of this thread, read the description of dowsing for water flowing in pipes that begins on page 307. All the dowsers failed. Now, for you, here is the fun part: the test was conducted in Italy.


Thanks for that ! Good laugh there at the end :)

[wardenclyffe]

As for using the rods, you might have to experiment a bit to fine tune them, but all you do is make them like I said and hold them by their handles so they swing freely. You should be relaxed and not concentrating. The guy in the video was holding his set far apart. I find it works better to let your arms hang at your sides, with your elbows, wrists and fingers keeping the set oriented. If you try too hard to hold the rods in position, they won't move. If you try too hard not too, they'll be all over the place. The finesse is getting that balance just right. You don't have to concentrate on water or conduits or anything else, just getting that balance right. The rods will do the rest. It's easy stuff that you can play around with yourself. You certainly don't have to take it seriously. Consider it toying around with folklore. Besides, it's much easier than tracking down UFOs, that's for sure.

This part doesn't make much sense to me. If I'm not concentrating, then how do the rods even "know" what I'm looking for? Let's say I'm walking along with my rods, they activate. I dig, and I find water, a conduit, gold, a diamond, ants, dirt and there are overhead cables. What was activating the rods? The ants? The dirt? The gold? Without any specific target, then everything becomes a target.

You do not seem to be sure what was activating the rods when you used them. Could it have been earthworms? Could it have been your imagination?

Here's a way to modify marplots test. The rods are not fixed in place; they are being held by a human (the user). The user wears some sort of hood or stands in a box or something that blocks most of his field of vision. What the user can see is the tips of the rods. Then the target samples are snuck under and away from the rods out of the user's field of vision. The rods activate or they do not.

This is needlessly complicated since it seems to accomplish the same thing as the target in a shoebox. But target in a shoebox, as simple and as elegant as it is, always seems to make the dowser fail for reasons still unexplained, but seemingly obvious.

Ward

[Akhenaten]

This is needlessly complicated since it seems to accomplish the same thing as the target in a shoebox. But target in a shoebox, as simple and as elegant as it is, always seems to make the dowser fail for reasons still unexplained, but seemingly obvious.

Ward





Seems to defeat kidney detectors as well. I think what we really need to be doing is investigating the psi-blocking properties of shoeboxes.

[marplots]

Here's a way to modify marplots test. The rods are not fixed in place; they are being held by a human (the user). The user wears some sort of hood or stands in a box or something that blocks most of his field of vision. What the user can see is the tips of the rods. Then the target samples are snuck under and away from the rods out of the user's field of vision. The rods activate or they do not.

This is needlessly complicated since it seems to accomplish the same thing as the target in a shoebox. But target in a shoebox, as simple and as elegant as it is, always seems to make the dowser fail for reasons still unexplained, but seemingly obvious.

Ward

I like this as one of a series of experiments. Near the end of the series, I'd like to test the rods as measuring, not any specific physical item, but as a way to "make visible" the subconscious of the operator. In this framing, the rods only exist as something that responds to delicate, unconscious motion driven by "something."

That something might be intuition or other mental process underlying the belief in the system as a whole. That hypothesis allows for various levels of competence, streaks of failure and success, and other things we would like an explanation for. How, for instance, does the subject's own knowledge affect what the rods do? Can they be honestly mistaken (and can we separate out cheaters from self-deluded)?

In the end, it becomes an experiment about human psychology more than psychic phenomena, but that's cool with me.

[ufology]

This part doesn't make much sense to me. If I'm not concentrating, then how do the rods even "know" what I'm looking for? ...



When I was doing it I knew I was looking for conduits or lines but I never had to "concentrate" any harder than just keeping that in mind. The part that takes the concentration is the finesse I described earlier. When you are over a line the rods will swing together parallel to the line.

But here's a funny story. We were out trying to find a buried optical trunk line between Calgary and Edmonton. The markers had been obscured over time and we didn't have the electronic locator. So out came the dowsing rods. We both got a reading at about the location we figured the cable should be and began to dig by hand. I was almost 6 feet down and still there was no cable. We should have encountered it sooner, but instead of finding the cable the hole started to fill with guess what ... water! So we ended up digging around some more in hip waders and found the cable about 3 inches off our mark at the four foot level. We were dead on with the water that we weren't looking for, and missed the cable by inches. Ironically, the backhoe they brought out broke the line anyway, even after we had spent all that effort digging to locate it.

[R.A.F.]

So your a dowser too, ufo?

How many irrational beliefs do you "subscribe" to??

[ufology]

So your a dowser too, ufo?
How many irrational beliefs do you "subscribe" to??



Hey I just played around with the things and am telling people what happened. I'm not saying I "believe in" dowsers or subscribe to anything. Chances are you could play around with a set and they might behave the same for you. I don't claim to be any master dowser or anything. Please don't follow me around on the forum and give me a hard time about every comment I make.

[AdMan]

Chances are you could play around with a set and they might behave the same for you.


Of course they would. It's called the ideomotor effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideomotor_effect). Haven't you looked into that?

[ufology]

Of course they would. It's called the ideomotor effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideomotor_effect). Haven't you looked into that?


Actually this is something you could actually try yourself and evaluate yourself on your own time really cheaply just for the fun of it. Why assume it's the ideomotor effect ... go ahead and check it out for yourself. Not evryone has the "gift" or as you might say, is susceptible to the "ideomotor effect" ... wouldn't you like to know if you're immune to psychologically contagious woo-abilities?

[wardenclyffe]

I doubt I have the "gift." I guess I won't know for sure unless I try. But the fact that everyone who has the "gift" seems to fail double-blind tests does not encourage me.

Ward

[AdMan]

Actually this is something you could actually try yourself and evaluate yourself on your own time really cheaply just for the fun of it. Why assume it's the ideomotor effect ... go ahead and check it out for yourself. Not evryone has the "gift" or as you might say, is susceptible to the "ideomotor effect" ... wouldn't you like to know if you're immune to psychologically contagious woo-abilities?


Oh, I've played around with dowsing rods and pendulums and ouija boards--why assume I haven't?

No, I haven't been able to do anything supernatural with them, even if they do appear to move on their own. I consider the ideomotor effect explanation enough, especially as no one has been able to successfully demonstrate it's anything but that.

[zooterkin]

I was told by someone else here that dowsing doesn't qualify for the million dollar prize

I believe you were misinformed. Dowsing has been tested by James Randi; one account is here (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/234-the-definition-of-qdouble-blindq.html). The same dowser ('edge' on this forum) has had discussions about an application for the MDC, but the talks broke down when he was unable to agree to a protocol.

[AdMan]

I believe you were misinformed. Dowsing has been tested by James Randi; one account is here (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/234-the-definition-of-qdouble-blindq.html). The same dowser ('edge' on this forum) has had discussions about an application for the MDC, but the talks broke down when he was unable to agree to a protocol.


Yes, ufology was misinformed on this.

Take a look at the MDC log of applicants (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43) and you'll find a number of dowsers.

[ufology]

Oh, I've played around with dowsing rods and pendulums and ouija boards ...



What did you use for dowsing rods? Just curious.

[AdMan]

What did you use for dowsing rods? Just curious.

Straightened wire coathangers, with one end bent to form the handle, IIRC.

[ufology]

Straightened wire coathangers, with one end bent to form the handle, IIRC.



What we did was get some heavy gauge solid core copper wire. Typical solid core copper house wire also works. Strip off everything but the handles.

BTW: did you get any reaction using them?

[AdMan]

What we did was get some heavy gauge solid core copper wire. Typical solid core copper house wire also works. Strip off everything but the handles.

BTW: did you get any reaction using them?


I didn't conduct a proper double-blind test, but did try a few things.

As expected, when I knew that I was over a substance that the rods were supposed to react to, they did.

When I didn't know, they appeared to react randomly.

[AdMan]

Dowsing has been tested by James Randi; one account is here (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/234-the-definition-of-qdouble-blindq.html). The same dowser ('edge' on this forum) has had discussions about an application for the MDC, but the talks broke down when he was unable to agree to a protocol.


Coincidentally, I just watched Randi's retelling of the edge test from TAM 5.5 (on the DVD I got at TAM 9) tonight. He added one or two additional details that don't shine too good a light on the applicant...