Dowsing By Edge

[BillyJoe]

curlyjoe. said,
I don’t think anyone gets rich mining anymore, but we have fun, hell just to be able to support a camp and sleep under the stars with a campfire is wealth that you can’t put a price on, + get some gold.
Ya can’t beat that as long as you enjoy it.

You are all also my friends per say!What can I say. :)
Best of luck to you edge.;)

CJ

[Paulhoff]

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Paul

:) :) :)

[William Smith]

...
GzuzKryzt

I rewrote it twice I will when I’m ready. Here’s the thing even if they test me my way on the creek they still have a way out because they leave it open ended by saying there is a formal test.
Now what does that exactly mean?
I would think we would do the same test on a different piece of property the way the first test was done but I kinda doubt it.
The way I thought it was in the dowsing test scenario was the open test was the pilimnary test and the closed was the formal test but by what they themselves write no one has passed the pilimnary test in any category.
...
Sounds like some ones getting scared.....

The open test, or base line test, is not the preliminary test. The open test ensures that your claimed ability works in the test surroundings, and nothing in the test setup hinders you or your rod - sort of like a calibration.

In short: The preliminary test makes sure that there is something to be observed. In the formal, or final test, a lot of people will be watching, meaning: it will have very stricts controls.

Both tests will use the very same protocol, obviously. Hence, the test surroundings will have to be very similar, if not the same.

I assume this isn't news to you, edge. Your experience with JREF should enable you to know how to meet the test requirements.

Quite frankly, you seem to be one "getting scared", because you keep stalling and dodging and making unreasonable demands (a test on the creek) or assumptions (JREF having an "out" by demanding a formal test).

Edge, please submit your claim and protocol proposal in this thread, as I previously suggested. We will help you to get tested to the best of our abilities. Your move.

[BillyJoe]

Well, it seems to me the environment is crucial for edge. Can you paint mona lisa any time you like or must the conditions be just right for the creative juices to flow. If we can't accommodate edge, then we can't test him and that's the end of it.

[Dumb All Over]

The open test, or base line test, is not the preliminary test. The open test ensures that your claimed ability works in the test surroundings, and nothing in the test setup hinders you or your rod - sort of like a calibration....

I assume this isn't news to you, edge. Your experience with JREF should enable you to know how to meet the test requirements.


Quite.

Edge, if I recall, you've been through this procedure before. When you were tested in Randi's office you first took the baseline test. I remember reading about it. You were allowed to test your sticks on items you could see, before they were covered up. It allowed you to state that the testing conditions were satisfactory. Remember? You scored 100% correct during this test. That was the baseline test.

Nothing has changed. For this new test, you will again be afforded the opportunity to test your equipment before any preliminary test begins. You should know all this stuff, Edge. You should know better than any of us. You've been through it. We haven't.

[Spektator]

Edge knows that the baseline run was NOT the preliminary test. This has been explained to him over and over: the preliminary test is two parts, an open test, with the targets in plain sight so he can say his mojo is working, and then a double-blind test so he can demonstrate to others that his mojo is working.

Months ago, he predicted he would produce pounds of gold within a few weeks of dowsing, and then he would be able to pay the JREF representatives' expenses for his retest.

I assume he did not find the pounds of gold.

[edge]

The open test, or base line test, is not the preliminary test. The open test ensures that your claimed ability works in the test surroundings, and nothing in the test setup hinders you or your rod - sort of like a calibration.

In short: The preliminary test makes sure that there is something to be observed. In the formal, or final test, a lot of people will be watching, meaning: it will have very stricts controls.

Both tests will use the very same protocol, obviously. Hence, the test surroundings will have to be very similar, if not the same.

I assume this isn't news to you, edge. Your experience with JREF should enable you to know how to meet the test requirements.

Quite frankly, you seem to be one "getting scared", because you keep stalling and dodging and making unreasonable demands (a test on the creek) or assumptions (JREF having an "out" by demanding a formal test).

Edge, please submit your claim and protocol proposal in this thread, as I previously suggested. We will help you to get tested to the best of our abilities. Your move.


Now I'll rewrite it.

[Cuddles]

There is no such thing as neutral ground as far as I can see unless Tricky can tell me where we can test where the bedrock is just rock.

What exactly do you think rocks are made of?

That's right, metal! :eek:

[robinson]

Most rocks are not metal.

[Cuddles]

Most rocks are not metal.

So what do you think they are made of?

Calcium and silicon are in fact metal. Their compounds make up most of the Earth's crust, along with a lot of iron, aluminium, magnesium, sodium and pottasium. Admittedly, silicon is technically a metaloid and not a true metal, but even counting this if you manage to find a single place where rocks don't contain metals I will happily eat someone's hat.

[Tricky]

So what do you think they are made of?

[Calcium and silicon are in fact metal. Their compounds make up most of the Earth's crust, along with a lot of iron, aluminium, magnesium, sodium and pottasium. Admittedly, silicon is technically a metaloid and not a true metal, but even counting this if you manage to find a single place where rocks don't contain metals I will happily eat someone's hat.
Calcium is. Silicon is specifically a non-metal, and silicon is the most abundant element in the earth's crust.

In common speech though, when we say "metal" we normally mean the pure metal, which has quite different properties than compounds which contain metal elements. After all, you wouldn't call hemoglobin a metal just because it contains iron.

Consider: Will a metal detector detect basalt, which is composed mostly of mafic (magnesium-iron based) crystals? If not, why do they call it a metal detector?
http://www.corrosionsource.com/handbook/periodic/periodic_table.gif

[Tricky]

It has to be a natural setting that is void of metals so that I can get it the first time according to their test concept.

After carefully thinking of that problem I have figured that a lime stone quarry would be a perfect place possibly.
The best place would be a beach, preferably in north Florida. It is almost pure quartz (a non-metal) plus it is a hell of a long way from the bedrock.


Something I was told by my teacher was wrong.
That is that dowsing for gold will only pick up the gold, my knowledge pre 1999.
What I have learned now is it picks up all metals and magnetic fields.
If your teacher was wrong about that, perhaps he was wrong about other things. Perhaps he was wrong about everything.

Oh, BTW, many metals, especially precious metals, are not ferromagnetic. Gold is among them. Even ferromagnetic metals which are in compounds (like ore) are not usually ferromagnetic. Magnetite is one notable exception.

BTW, what pure metals do you find in your area other than gold? There are very few of them. Native copper is fairly common and lodestone occasionally. What else? Even silver is almost never found in pure form. It is almost always in ore form.

If you are talking about rocks which contain metallic elements, then, as has been pointed out, you're talking about almost every rock in your area, including limestone.

Why it’s better than a metal detector is the detector is limited in depth again refer to the picture with the wheelbarrow next to me.You'd better hope your dowsing rod is limited in depth too, or you're going to be picking up the earth's iron core everywhere you dowse.

Has anyone ever explained the inverse square law to you?

They are one and the same if they are the same grade and size. Then use as a target something with similar grade and size to what you are finding there.

But what is the relationship of size and purity to the signal? One would think that the greater the size and purity, the stronger the signal. Can you give us a good reason why this wouldn't be the case?


You want theory? I'm sure you don't have any. Theories are based on evidence. However, I would be interested in hearing your wild hypotheses.

This is exactly what I told you I did and can do in the field. It does not even remotely resemble my suggestions. You'd be better off expense-wise if you flew down to meet Randi in Ft. Lauderdale and tested on a nearby beach.

Better hurry though. After April 1, you're not eligible anymore.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

edge - I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts about your original test (as per Paulhoff's link). Thanks!

[Spektator]

Edge's views on the original test seem to change from time to time. At the time of the test, he was given the opportunity to dowse open containers in which he could see the targets to make sure everything was working properly. He said it was -- at that time, that is -- and then failed when he tried to dowse closed containers in the double-blind portion of the test. At first he said he failed, no excuses. Then he said the gold in the lettering on the covers of a set of books fouled up his divining rod; then when it was pointed out that the gold coloring on the books wasn't gold, he blamed a copy machine in another room; then later he blamed the ballast in a fluorescent light fixture, and so on. A couple of years ago he explained things in a slightly different way in the "Seeing is believing" thread. There may be other variants now.

As for dowsing a Florida beach, years ago Edge said that the whole peninsula of Florida, with a couple of small exceptions, interfered with his abilities because -- well, he said we ought to know why, and left it at that.

[Cuddles]

Calcium is. Silicon is specifically a non-metal, and silicon is the most abundant element in the earth's crust.

Wrong. As I said, silicon is a metaloid, also known as a semi-metal. Since we don't know any details about how dowsing is supposed to work I can't say if it would be detected or not.

In common speech though, when we say "metal" we normally mean the pure metal, which has quite different properties than compounds which contain metal elements. After all, you wouldn't call hemoglobin a metal just because it contains iron.

Consider: Will a metal detector detect basalt, which is composed mostly of mafic (magnesium-iron based) crystals? If not, why do they call it a metal detector?

People have claimed that the gold coloured paint on books in the same room can interfere with dowsing for gold. Edge seems to have difficulty putting forward a coherent theory, but it would be interesting to know if there is a cut-off size below which metal crystals can't be detected, and if so, where it is. Since dowsing apparently works by magic rather than inducing a current in the metal I wouldn't think the limit would be the same, and Edge does say that his technique is much more sensitive than a metal detector.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Calcium is. Silicon is specifically a non-metal, and silicon is the most abundant element in the earth's crust.

According to Physical Geology by Monroe and Wicander,

Element, Symbol, Percent of Crust by Weight, Percent of Crust by Atoms
Oxygen, O, 46.6%, 62.6%
Silicon, Si, 27.7%, 21.2%
Aluminum, Al, 8.1%, 6.5%
Iron, Fe, 5.0%, 1.9%
Calcium, Ca, 3.6%, 1.9%
Sodium, Na, 2.8%, 2.6%
Potassium, K, 2.6%, 1.4%
Magnesium, Mg, 2.1%, 1.8%
All Others, , 1.5%, 0.1%

Oxygen is by far the most abundant element in the Earth's crust. It is usually bound up in carbonates, oxides, silicates, etc. Silicon is a distant second, but still far more abundant than all the other elements. Oxygen and Silicon together account for approximately 74.3% of the earth's crust by weight and they are both non-metals.

[Tricky]

Wrong. As I said, silicon is a metaloid, also known as a semi-metal. Since we don't know any details about how dowsing is supposed to work I can't say if it would be detected or not.
I've seen it classified as a non-metal and as a metalloid, but never as a metal. But in any case, I don't think Edge is referring to bound metals such as oxides.

Dowsers (if they knew anything about geology) would not classify silicon compounds as "targets" simply because it is impossible to avoid them no matter where you dowse.

However, it should be noted that among the targets that Edge brought for his first test was a crystal of quartz. He had some theory that quartz contained "energy" (I'm pretty sure he was talking about the piezoelectric effect.) So there's really no telling what dowsers think they can dowse. All we know is what they have successfully dowsed in properly run tests.

According to Physical Geology by Monroe and Wicander,

Element, Symbol, Percent of Crust by Weight, Percent of Crust by Atoms
Oxygen, O, 46.6%, 62.6%
Silicon, Si, 27.7%, 21.2%
Yeah, dammit. I forgot about oxygen. And of course, quartz is the most common mineral, composed of silicon and oxygen.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Edge's views on the original test seem to change from time to time. At the time of the test, he was given the opportunity to dowse open containers in which he could see the targets to make sure everything was working properly. He said it was -- at that time, that is -- and then failed when he tried to dowse closed containers in the double-blind portion of the test. At first he said he failed, no excuses. Then he said the gold in the lettering on the covers of a set of books fouled up his divining rod; then when it was pointed out that the gold coloring on the books wasn't gold, he blamed a copy machine in another room; then later he blamed the ballast in a fluorescent light fixture, and so on. A couple of years ago he explained things in a slightly different way in the "Seeing is believing" thread. There may be other variants now.

Thanks, Spek. I know there is a lot of info on/by edge. And perhaps it has changed a bit over time. I'm hoping edge would be kind enough to let us know (in this or another thread) what his current thoughts/feelings are to the article as it was written (included here, just in case - http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html)). In other words; was the description of events accurate? Did he think the test was fair? What does he think of the huge discrepancy between the "open" test (100%) and the "blind" test (10%)?

edge - Please respond, if/when you get a chance. Thanks!

[edge]

Thanks, Spek. I know there is a lot of info on/by edge. And perhaps it has changed a bit over time. I'm hoping edge would be kind enough to let us know (in this or another thread) what his current thoughts/feelings are to the article as it was written (included here, just in case - http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html)). In other words; was the description of events accurate? Did he think the test was fair? What does he think of the huge discrepancy between the "open" test (100%) and the "blind" test (10%)?

edge - Please respond, if/when you get a chance. Thanks!

It's what I accepted at the time.
It was as scientific for JREF as they needed to keep the status quoi.

Even if I explained all this you would still say that I am making excuses so lets say that I have spent many more years trying to figure out what went wrong and how to make another proper attempt.

What they require is accuracy in the double blind part of the test which I can prove in the field and now I have to see if I can make it simpler to show it the way they ran it in the office.
I think I know how to do that now in the field with the containers and a different form of dowsing than what I used back then. This means that the JREF team will only have to stay one day in the field, however I have no idea what the formal test will consist of except it should be back in the field on the only spot that I might be able to prove it on.
If so then we are on.
If you are following this thread you have picked up on what I am saying.

Now on Monday I will make sure that I can do that up here on a specific bank on the Hayfork creek.
Right now my problem is finding the right bearings to make the other form of dowsing sticks as I described in my previous post.

That means I will have to travel 56 miles to do that and I will.
I have got the application notarized today and am proceeding.
I still have to rewrite the addendum to the protocols and will do that soon.
But first I have to see if I can bring my computer up to speed today by adding more ram to it.

[BillyJoe]

edge,

I agree with you that the JREF must test what you say you can do. This means going out into the field and allowing you to follow your protocols. A skill as fickle as dowsing must require conditions to be just right in order for it to work. If you say you can do it one way, the JREF can't then test you another way because the power of dowsing doesn't work that way. That makes sense to me. Also I don't think we need to harp back on your past failure. Sure a lot can be said about that, but we have a new challenge so let's move on. The remaining problem is whether you can actually be tested using your new protocol. I don't mean to say that you are working it to come out that way, but it's possible that your powers cannot be tested.

curls.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

It's what I accepted at the time.
It was as scientific for JREF as they needed to keep the status quoi.

Even if I explained all this you would still say that I am making excuses so lets say that I have spent many more years trying to figure out what went wrong and how to make another proper attempt.

No offense but, how do you know what I would say? To be fair, I could see how you might think that. A few people have been less than charitable toward you. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt. But thanks for responding.

One thing interests/puzzles me... You failed the test that was agreed on. Did you ever think it might be an indication that your dowsing abilities were inaccurate or maybe even non-existent?

[petre]

No offense but, how do you know what I would say? To be fair, I could see how you might think that. A few people have been less than charitable toward you. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt. But thanks for responding.

One thing interests/puzzles me... You failed the test that was agreed on. Did you ever think it might be an indication that your dowsing abilities were inaccurate or maybe even non-existent?

I believe he has noted that his knowledge of dowsing has changed significantly since the date of his test. It seems to me he is now diligantly working on trying to find one thing about it that is testable and repeatable. I don't think anyone can estimate how much time that will take.

[William Smith]

...
What they require is accuracy in the double blind part of the test which I can prove in the field and now I have to see if I can make it simpler to show it the way they ran it in the office.
I think I know how to do that now in the field with the containers and a different form of dowsing than what I used back then. This means that the JREF team will only have to stay one day in the field, however I have no idea what the formal test will consist of except it should be back in the field on the only spot that I might be able to prove it on.
...


You're getting closer, edge: Accuracy, proper double-blinding and repeatability are three cornerstones of the JREF Challenge protocols.

That being said, the formal test uses the exact same protocol as the preliminary test. The only difference might be stricter controls against cheating or false positives.
However, edge, since you seem a mostly straightforward guy, I do not imply that you want to cheat; and a false positive seems impossible with the use of containers - either you find it or you don't.

I recommend again you post your claim and protocol proposal in this thread before you send it off to JREF.
A field test might find JREF's approval if you keep it simple enough. Your last protocol proposal, along with other demands, seemed aimed at getting disqualified because of the oft-discussed unreasonable demands. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1659051#post1659051

I also suggest you only reply to forum members who help working towards a test, or have reasonable inquiries.

[edge]

One thing interests/puzzles me... You failed the test that was agreed on. Did you ever think it might be an indication that your dowsing abilities were inaccurate or maybe even non-existent?



For a while it had me baffled.

Yes one has to think that way too.

This is why I had to come back to the field to test while mining and do the tests the way they do.


I let them say what the protocols would be the first time and now they will or should use my protocols if acceptable.
My score before I went to the Jref was 60% at my sisters house in central Florida and the ones in Fort Lauderdale were a lot less plus while testing there at her house I found 5 silver trays on the other side of the house buried in her yard from the other side of the house.
At first I thought of it as interference from within the house kind of like the infamous printer behind the wall.

Petre said, I believe he has noted that his knowledge of dowsing has changed significantly since the date of his test. It seems to me he is now diligently working on trying to find one thing about it that is testable and repeatable. I don't think anyone can estimate how much time that will take.



Mining is defiantly repeatable with the method.
I have one more experiment to do and that will tell me weather or not
I can do it their way or if the only way that it is possible to test is actually mining and uncovering it.
I have found bearings that I need for the L dowsing sticks and have rebuilt a computer with 250 mega bits of ram with the original hard driver that I had when I first talked to you all in 1999, and parts from my old one.


When I know that you will see my protocols because I will have sent them to Jref and they will be the ones to post them.
We will then also be in challenge applications thread with this line of discussion.
My word 2000 has to be repaired something’s up with it, so Lets see how this comes out to you.

[William Smith]

...
When I know that you will see my protocols because I will have sent them to Jref and they will be the ones to post them.
We will then also be in challenge applications thread with this line of discussion.
My word 2000 has to be repaired something’s up with it, so Lets see how this comes out to you.

Please post the protocol anyway, edge. Given Jeff Wagg's workload, it could take a while for your application to be processed.

I assume you will send a proper application along with your protocol proposal, right?

[edge]

Please post the protocol anyway, edge. Given Jeff Wagg's workload, it could take a while for your application to be processed.

I assume you will send a proper application along with your protocol proposal, right?

When I send it to Jeff I'll put it in here.

[William Smith]

When I send it to Jeff I'll put it in here.

"It" includes a proper application, edge, does it?

[edge]

It's from their site and it's just the signature sheet. It is also what I write as protocols. Two paragraphs of protocols, you know this.

[William Smith]

It's from their site and it's just the signature sheet. It is also what I write as protocols. Two paragraphs of protocols, you know this.

Pardon my insisting, edge: Have you filled out a proper application form, had it notarized and enclosed the protocol proposal?

[edge]

This computer is fast now.
Don’t know....

[Paulhoff]

Jeff Wagg's work load is way to much, that is one of the reasons they changed to rules for the million. Way to many BS claims being made.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Tricky]

Tricky you are right and that’s why I’m taking caution and time.
But you don't have too. Simply use a target that is so big and pure that its response overrides any small, impure, distant responses.


The explanation of the Idomotor effect as I see it is false which leaves a great mystery. What is your understanding of the idiomotor effect? I'm betting you have it wrong.

Lets say it’s wrong and accuracy is limited then what your left with is still amazing. No it is not. Accuracy in all tests has shown to fall well within the range of pure statistical chance.

What it might be is an addendum to Newton’s laws.
Can you explain for us, in layman's terms, what that addendum might be? Does it violate any of the other laws of Newtonian physics?

What goes up can stay up through electrical energy.
It might be important, then again it might not.
But if it is and we dismiss it with out really looking at it we might really be losing an important key to something that even Tesla seen but didn’t continue.
These things have been looked at. They were shown not to work.

I know you have a great fondness for Tesla, but though he was indeed a brilliant inventor and scientist, there is not a thing that he did that cannot be explained with the ordinary laws of physics. He managed without requiring any "addendums". Can you?

[edge]

Tricky says,

But you don't have too. Simply use a target that is so big and pure that its response overrides any small, impure, distant responses.

That’s exactly what I intend to do plus a less sensitive form of dowsing in the horizontal instead of the vertical response. I know what the differences are on the same bank that I checked both ways, I’ll know soon about that.


What is your understanding of the Idomotor effect? I'm betting you have it wrong.
Come on we all know what it says, I ask you to dismiss it and then what are you left with?


No it is not. Accuracy in all tests has shown to fall well within the range of pure statistical chance.


Then there must have been a reason why I didn’t get more than one out of ten in a building right?
My average was at least 4 out of ten at my sisters’ house.

Can you explain for us, in layman's terms, what that addendum might be? Does it violate any of the other laws of Newtonian physics?
If you speculate with me what do you think it is?
Lets say I’m right about dowsing what does it prove?



These things have been looked at. They were shown not to work.


They work alright and have been proven too, the reservoir here in Weaverville was found by a water dowser and the one in Hayfork I know I have asked the old timers that have been here for generations..+ many home owners wells were found that way in both towns it usually is told as the last chance we had was to call in a dowser.

You’re smart tell us what it would mean if it can be proved.

[Tricky]

That’s exactly what I intend to do plus a less sensitive form of dowsing in the horizontal instead of the vertical response. I know what the differences are on the same bank that I checked both ways, I’ll know soon about that.
That in no way addresses my statement. Can you or can you not find a target of gold that is so large and so pure that its "dowsing response" should vastly overwhelm local, sensitive variations? If not, why not? None of your "explanations" have ever addressed this question.

But speaking of horizontal, were you ever able to make a pendulum of gold swing by dowsing at it? Since you have previously claimed that your dowsing has found forces that are so strong they rip the dowsing rod from your hand, you should be able to easily affect a pendulum sitting at equilibrium with nothing but air in between your dowsing rod and the gold target.


Come on we all know what it says, I ask you to dismiss it and then what are you left with?
No, we "all" don't apparently know that. I want you to tell me, in your own words, what it means so we can know what you are dismissing. Don't quote me a definition from some source. Show me that YOU know. I'm not giving you any hints.
Then there must have been a reason why I didn’t get more than one out of ten in a building right?
Yes, a very good reason. One out of ten is exactly what would be expected by random chance. When properly performed, the experiment reveals that dowsing is no better than random.

I have a paranormal ability too. I can draw an Ace out of a deck of shuffled cards. On the average, I get it once out of every thirteen tries.
My average was at least 4 out of ten at my sisters’ house. And your test at your sisters' house was probably not properly blinded. So far, you have not been able to demonstrate that you know how to set up a double blind test. Can you describe the exact protocol you used for this "home test"?

If you speculate with me what do you think it is?
Lets say I’m right about dowsing what does it prove? If you are right, you have discovered a new law of physics which has somehow eluded scientists who dedicate their lifetimes to studying such things. You will win a Nobel prize and be rich beyond your wildest dreams.

Now let's say you're wrong about dowsing. What does it prove? That the laws of physics work pretty much the way they have been described, that you will not discover an "addendum" to the laws of physics, that you will not be able to pass a properly blinded test and that you will spend a lot of time pursuing a fantasy which will never get you any significant amount of money.

Now, which one of those scenarios seems to be occurring?

They work alright and have been proven too, the reservoir here in Weaverville was found by a water dowser and the one in Hayfork I know I have asked the old timers that have been here for generations..+ many home owners wells were found that way in both towns it usually is told as the last chance we had was to call in a dowser.
Do you know how water occurs in the underground? Why don't you describe it for us?

Yes, stories and anecdotes like this are quite common in folklore, yet every time one of these dowsers is performs in a controlled test, they fail. Every time. Usually they refuse to be tested because they know they will fail. They have all sorts of excuses for not being tested, including requiring impossible conditions. Does this sound familiar?

[SezMe]

For those who think April 1 is a drop dead date for Edge, please see today's Swift (http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-01/011907tam.html). All Edge has to do is get a local group to do the prelim.

[Tricky]

For those who think April 1 is a drop dead date for Edge, please see today's Swift (http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-01/011907tam.html). All Edge has to do is get a local group to do the prelim.
Yeah, I noticed that too. I'm guessing he's not too convient to a skeptic group and he's not willing to make the effort to contact one anyway.

[SezMe]

Yeah, I noticed that too. I'm guessing he's not too convient to a skeptic group and he's not willing to make the effort to contact one anyway.
Hey, Edge, I'm in your area (California) and have conducted a preliminary Challenge test. So when you have your application all in order, let me know. Let's rock (sorry, couldn't resist the pun).

[William Smith]

It's from their site and it's just the signature sheet. It is also what I write as protocols. Two paragraphs of protocols, you know this.

Just in case you missed my post, edge, and please pardon again my insisting:

Have you filled out a proper application form, had it notarized and enclosed the protocol proposal?

[Paulhoff]

Hey sezme, who's Edge.
Edge

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Paul

:) :) :)

And if I remember right, I heard Randi say at a monthly meeting, that the largest group of people tested for the million dollars are dowsers, and of course the million dollars is still there.

[Tricky]

Hey, Edge, I'm in your area (California) and have conducted a preliminary Challenge test. So when you have your application all in order, let me know. Let's rock (sorry, couldn't resist the pun).
Very generous of you to offer, SezMe. What challenge(s) have you done before? (If you can say without violating agreements.)

I'm not in California, but as a long time gadfly and supporter of Edge's efforts, I'd be willing to participate (without compensation) in a properly conducted trial. Like you, I want to see the protocol. I've suggested several to Edge, but he has never addressed any of them directly in a way that indicated that he understood what I was saying. So to reiterate I'll give the basic scenario again:


Edge designates an area where there are only weak, few, or no dowsing responses when he uses his rod.
Into that area, we bring a relatively large, pure target of gold.
Edge verifies, by open testing, that he can consistantly detect that target in his chosen area.
In closed testing, on his chosen area, using properly designed double-blind proceedures, Edge finds the randomly placed target, either under minimal cover (such as an opaque container placed over the target) or in "natural settings" (buried in the sediment).If Edge is serious, we can work out the details. I'll ask Randi in advance if such a test will qualify to advance Edge to the Challenge. I'm not an academic, but I am a scientist.

This will require Edge to answer some basic questions:

Can you detect pure gold?
Is the volume and purity of the gold proportional to your ability to detect it?
Exactly what other substances give you identical responses to the response for gold and what is the best way we eliminate their interferance? (Incidentally if other substandes give identical responses, we might consider dowsing for them. It would be much cheaper.)
If in the above described setting you dowsed ten trials of ten targets each, how many successes (1 to 10) would you consider to be an adequate demonstration of the success of dowsing?These are all easy questions. Numbers one and two, Edge should obviously answer "yes" or it is a direct admission that gold dowsing doesn't work.

Frankly, I doubt that Edge will ever agree to this scenario or any other reasonable one. He is a veritable font of excuses. But I remain available to be proved wrong.

[robinson]

Slight aside here, having not read everything about this claim/person/event etc etc

Wouldn't a scientific study show evidence if there were any abilities to find water? (forget gold, that would no doubt be kept quiet, heh)?

http://www.twm.co.nz/dowsing_jse_com.html

Has this been debunked?

[BillyJoe]

Wouldn't a scientific study show evidence if there were any abilities to find water? (forget gold, that would no doubt be kept quiet, heh)?That has been done - there's a video somewhere of a trial in Australia by Randi et alia. But edge's claim is for dowsing for gold, so he has to be tested for that. If you claim to be able to run 50 km in under 2 hours, I'm not going to test your claim by asking you to run 100 meters in under 9 seconds.

[BillyJoe]

These are all easy questions. Numbers one and two, Edge should obviously answer "yes" or it is a direct admission that gold dowsing doesn't work.
- Can you detect pure gold? The answer may not be 'yes'.
It may need to be contaminated gold, meaning there is a combination of elements/substances that cause the rod to move. Perhaps edge can offer up a few specimens that he has dredged up himself after successfully dowsing them in the field. Now all it takes is to set up a successful dowsing environment in the field to do the test.

- Is the volume and purity of the gold proportional to your ability to detect it.Again the answer may not be 'yes'.
Maybe experience has found that the rod just detects the presence of gold not the amount. How can this be explained? An addendum to the laws of physics may be required. But edge is not a scientist so you may need to provide this addendum for him. When he wins.

If in the above described setting you dowsed ten trials of ten targets each, how many successes (1 to 10) would you consider to be an adequate demonstration of the success of dowsing?I believe edge successfully dowsed 4 out of 10 at his sister's house. But this was a good day with ideal conditions which would be difficult to set up in a trial. Would 2 or 3 do? This is 2 or 3 times more than pure chance.

[Tricky]

The answer may not be 'yes'.
It may need to be contaminated gold, meaning there is a combination of elements/substances that cause the rod to move. Perhaps edge can offer up a few specimens that he has dredged up himself after successfully dowsing them in the field. Now all it takes is to set up a successful dowsing environment in the field to do the test.
A reasonable point, though weak. As you have suggested, I have also recommended that he use as a target, gold that he has previously found through dowsing. But if it is a combination of elements, then how does one know if they are getting responses from gold or from other elements/substances? In such a scenario as where edge is prospecting, dowsing for gold wouldn't work because those other elements/substances might be quite commonplace.

Again the answer may not be 'yes'.
Maybe experience has found that the rod just detects the presence of gold not the amount.
Therein lies a big problem. There is a trace amount of gold virtually everywhere. It is even dissolved (yes, gold can be dissolved in tiny amounts) in seawater and, of course, groundwater. Some plants, such as horsetails even concentrate heavy metals, such as gold (http://www.dur.ac.uk/botanic.garden/sciencetrail/), in their tissues. Not enough to be valuable, but many times higher than background levels.

I believe edge successfully dowsed 4 out of 10 at his sister's house. But this was a good day with ideal conditions which would be difficult to set up in a trial. Would 2 or 3 do? This is 2 or 3 times more than pure chance.
I have requested that Edge give the protocols of that experiment at his sisters' house (not sure if it is one sister or more) and he has not yet had time to respond. A lot would depend on the number of targets (getting 4 of ten correct with only two targets would be less than impressive) and the method of double-blinding. From previous experience, I'm not sure Edge is capable of conducting a proper double-blind test. Most of his tests have involved only two people, which makes double-blinding impossible.

In a proper double-blinded test, three successes might be okay for a preliminary test, but probably not, because it is well within what might be expected by chance. But with a hundred tests, twenty or thirty successes (assuming ten targets) might be enough to be significant. Most dowsers, though, claim much higher success rates than this.

[BillyJoe]

Maybe its gold = no effect; other elements/substances = no effect; gold + other elements/substances (intimately bound) = effect.

Maybe there is a threshold level for gold, followed by a flatline dose/response curve.

I don't think edge is interested in why or how this could be the case. He is just a dowser, not a scientist, and he will leave this question to be resolved by scientists after he wins.


PS: How do you work out the odds of getting 2, or 3, or 4 correct by pure chance in a trial of 10 targets only one of which contains the booty?
(we can't expect him to do a hundred tests. It might be beyond his endurance.)

[SezMe]

Very generous of you to offer, SezMe. What challenge(s) have you done before? (If you can say without violating agreements.)
I ran the GSIC test (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=38788&highlight=GSIC). Searching for GSIC also turns up several other related threads. This was the claim that a "chip" could improve the quality of sound from a CD. I really enjoyed doing it and want to assist with other tests whenever possible.

[edge]

robinsons’ Link is exactly the way it should be, tested in the field.


It got me thinking why the tests where so successful and Tricky your idea suddenly hit me.
Bury the target and it’s grounded to the field.
This could explain success in the field, so simple.
Every other way I have tried, even at JREF the metal wasn’t grounded.

Tricky says,

· Edge designates an area where there are only weak, few, or no dowsing responses when he uses his rod.
· Into that area, we bring a relatively large, pure target of gold.
· Edge verifies, by open testing, that he can consistantly detect that target in his chosen area.
· In closed testing, on his chosen area, using properly designed double-blind proceedures, Edge finds the randomly placed target, either under minimal cover (such as an opaque container placed over the target) or in "natural settings" (buried in the sediment).


This is good

And this
1. Can you detect pure gold?
2. Is the volume and purity of the gold proportional to your ability to detect it?
3. Exactly what other substances give you identical responses to the response for gold and what is the best way we eliminate their interferance? (Incidentally if other substandes give identical responses, we might consider dowsing for them. It would be much cheaper.)
4. If in the above described setting you dowsed ten trials of ten targets each, how many successes (1 to 10) would you consider to be an adequate demonstration of the success of dowsing?
5.

Yes to all
Purity isn’t as important and the target can be any metal, but we will consider coins even modern ones for size of target.
For the test lets say 6 of 10, if it works right for me when I test this creek bank then we can say 7 of 10.
I’ll be up there Tuesday in Hayfork and I will check it both ways, willow and L rods for clarity of the bank. I will see which method is better at locating with out feeling every thing if my memory serves me correct there is a good blank spot where I didn’t get any reaction with the L rods.
Plus I will try L rods that will have some friction out of coat hanger material with and with out the cardboard tubes as handles.
I will try the target in the ground and above the ground.
I’ll have a few more days to finish the ones with bearings.
Right now I have found two sets of bearings out of two hard drives that will work perfectly well.
I just have to find a grinder to use, to get them to fit into handles, probably pvc pipe, to make them more manageable.
They are the styluses from two hard drives, the part that writes on the disk.

Tricky says,

Frankly, I doubt that Edge will ever agree to this scenario or any other reasonable one. He is a veritable font of excuses. But I remain available to be proved wrong.
__________________


Tricky you got to remember, never say never.
I have had to figure what went wrong and that has been very difficult especially compared to actually mining with the method of dowsing.
It makes it so much easier to locate what ever is there.

Then here it is the last line of Robinsons’ signature,
If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated."


I don’t know every thing there is to know about it yet.

Now, there is a difference in the amount of force that you feel the more gold the more force, there is also some platinum here, in the mix.
It’s heavier on the atomic scale so there size of equal proportion would be different or a heavier pull.
That would be hard to measure though but not the difference between lead and gold.
This is what I feel and think.

BillyJoe From what I can tell all metals have an attraction more or less it depends what the atomic weight is as to weather it’s stronger or weaker. As far as I can tell the amount of the metal plays into how much force you are going to feel.

Let me throw a question to you, why should the molten core of the Earth hold us down on the out side of a circular globe that’s spinning?
It makes more sense in a bucket shape being slung in a circular orbit.

You want to know what I think is going on with dowsing?

[William Smith]

...
This will require Edge to answer some basic questions:

Can you detect pure gold?
Is the volume and purity of the gold proportional to your ability to detect it?
Exactly what other substances give you identical responses to the response for gold and what is the best way we eliminate their interferance? (Incidentally if other substandes give identical responses, we might consider dowsing for them. It would be much cheaper.)
If in the above described setting you dowsed ten trials of ten targets each, how many successes (1 to 10) would you consider to be an adequate demonstration of the success of dowsing?These are all easy questions. Numbers one and two, Edge should obviously answer "yes" or it is a direct admission that gold dowsing doesn't work.
...



...
Yes to all
...


Edge, how does a "Yes" answer even make sense to Tricky's questions #3 and #4? Are you kidding me?


You want to know what I think is going on with dowsing?


No.

Your meandering about physics could not be of less interest. You probably gave Mr. Randi an earful or two during your test with JREF, didn't you? From here: http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html "[...]During the dowsing process, he kept up a running commentary to me on such matters as a rare "Indian root" with which he was familiar and which was a sure cure for the 'flu, a special crystal he carried on his person to ensure his good health, and a few "free energy" machines that he thought I should know about.[...]"

I want to see you applying with a proper application and a sensible protocol proposal.

One claim at a time. Can you successfully dowse for gold, as you have repeatedly stated?


When I send it to Jeff I'll put it in here.

It's from their site and it's just the signature sheet. It is also what I write as protocols. Two paragraphs of protocols, you know this.

Are you deliberately avoiding me, edge, or are your feet getting cold:

Have you filled out a proper application form, had it notarized and enclosed the protocol proposal?

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe From what I can tell all metals have an attraction more or less it depends what the atomic weight is as to weather it’s stronger or weaker. As far as I can tell the amount of the metal plays into how much force you are going to feel.Okay, this makes dowsing sound a little less crazy and a little less dependent on an addendum to the laws of physics. :)

Let me throw a question to you, why should the molten core of the Earth hold us down on the out side of a circular globe that’s spinning?
It makes more sense in a bucket shape being slung in a circular orbitGravity.
The spin of the Earth imparts a velocity to us which tends to make us travel in a straight line rather than follow the curvature of the Earth. But gravity keeps our feet firmly planted on the ground. It's not just the molten core but a mutual attraction between us (individually) and the whole, entire mass of the Earth. Of course Einstein had a somewhat different view of gravity, but let's not stray too far away.

You want to know what I think is going on with dowsing?Yes, what do you think is going on?

[Paulhoff]

Bury the target and it’s grounded to the field.
This could explain success in the field, so simple.
Every other way I have tried, even at JREF the metal wasn’t grounded.

Grounding only means that it does not have an electrical charge, I very much doubt that any metal that was handled when placed would have a charge.


I don’t know every thing there is to know about it yet.

Who does, but this does not open the flood gates for anything to be real and or possible.


BillyJoe From what I can tell all metals have an attraction more or less it depends what the atomic weight is as to weather it’s stronger or weaker. As far as I can tell the amount of the metal plays into how much force you are going to feel.

What kind of attraction, it is not electrical (no charge) and it is not magnetic (gold, silver, platinum are not magnetic).


Let me throw a question to you, why should the molten core of the Earth hold us down on the out side of a circular globe that’s spinning?
It makes more sense in a bucket shape being slung in a circular orbit.

The core being molten has nothing to do with gravity, all things have gravity, the core, the mantle, the crust, the oceans, the air, you, me, and everything. The spinning of the Earth does make you weight just a little tiny less, at the poles you weight a tiny bit more, at the equator a tiny bit less because of the centrifugal-force. The earth does not spin anyway near fast enough to throw you off.

Paul

:) :) :)

[robinson]

Oh please, I have had enough. Real dowsers know that it works through the law of similars , in which like resonates with like, so water is easy, especially with a willow branch, because willows like water, but gold you would need a gold pendulum, or a piece of gold in your hand, or better, on the rod(s) you use, and radionic tuning of the rod(s) to get the maximum harmonic resonance, so that the dowsers body reacts to the presence of gold.

Edge, after you make these adjustments, and start finding gold like crazy, I want half. And the finders fee when you win the money.

:D

[Paulhoff]

the law of similars, :D
Sounds a little homeopathic to me.

Paul

:) :) :)

Which would mean nothing is needed to find something.

[robinson]

Yes, but they are not the same concept here. Also Edge, you need to avoid contamination of your etheric field in order to not cancel out the harmonic resonance while dowsing. Even one skeptical observer watching will nullify your ability.

;)

[Tricky]

Yes, but they are not the same concept here. Also Edge, you need to avoid contamination of your etheric field in order to not cancel out the harmonic resonance while dowsing. Even one skeptical observer watching will nullify your ability.

;)
Yes, but this can be compensated for by having no skeptical observers present during the test, just make sure someone trustworthy is recording the hits and misses. A good candidate for this task would be a videocam.

[steenkh]

Yes, but this can be compensated for by having no skeptical observers present during the test, just make sure someone trustworthy is recording the hits and misses. A good candidate for this task would be a videocam.
How close is "present"? I think the existence of skeptics within a number of light-years of the test can severely ruin the results. But perhaps it will work better if the skeptics do not know about the test. In taht case they cannot subconsciously send out their negative anti-dowsing field.
;)

[Paulhoff]

How close is "present"? I think the existence of skeptics within a number of light-years of the test can severely ruin the results. But perhaps it will work better if the skeptics do not know about the test. In taht case they cannot subconsciously send out their negative anti-dowsing field.
;)
3 Parsecs should work.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Reno]

I'd prefer 8 parsecs. I think that's about the length of a good Kessel run.

[BillyJoe]

The spinning of the Earth does make you weight just a little tiny less, at the poles you weight a tiny bit more, at the equator a tiny bit less because of the centrifugal-force.Centrifugal force???

The earth does not spin anyway near fast enough to throw you off.:D

[Paulhoff]

Yes, Centrifugal Force, one of the reasons that the space center is in Florida, it to take advantage of that little extra speed from being closer to the equator for launching the rockets.

Paul

:) :) :)

[BillyJoe]

What is the source of this so-called centrifugal force?

[Paulhoff]

http://phun.physics.virginia.edu/topics/centrifugal.html

Geee, I didn't make the term up, get real.

:) :) :)

[TjW]

What is the source of this so-called centrifugal force?

An accelerated reference frame.
What is the source of this so-called inertia?

[Tricky]

http://phun.physics.virginia.edu/topics/centrifugal.html

Geee, I didn't make the term up, get real.

From your link:
It is important to note that the centrifugal force does not actually exist. We feel it, because we are in a non-inertial coordinate system. Nevertheless, it appears quite real to the object being rotated.
It's a nitpicky thing, but Billy Joe's point is correct that this is not centrifugal force.

[robinson]

Edge,

I am sad that you have not responded to my helpful suggestions. I need that $50,000. And the gold we could find too. Please respond.

[Paulhoff]

What, does one now have to explain terms used in day to day life now too.

Paul

:) :) :)

And yes we know that there is no pull of gravity too.

[Spektator]

Paul, I may be wrong because it's been many years since I had physics, but I think the main reason one weighs a bit more at the poles rather than the equator more directly relates to the fact that Earth is not a spere, but an oblate spheroid; it is slightly flattened, so that it bulges at the equator. At the pole, one is somewhat closer to the Earth's center of gravity than at the equator, and so one weighs a bit more.

As I say, I could be wrong...and if I am, someone here will surely correct me!

[Paulhoff]

Paul, I may be wrong because it's been many years since I had physics, but I think the main reason one weighs a bit more at the poles rather than the equator more directly relates to the fact that Earth is not a spere, but an oblate spheroid; it is slightly flattened, so that it bulges at the equator. At the pole, one is somewhat closer to the Earth's center of gravity than at the equator, and so one weighs a bit more.

As I say, I could be wrong...and if I am, someone here will surely correct me!
Yes, but also because the earth spins you are lighter too. If the earth would not be torn apart and it spun at about 17,000 miles an hour or 5 miles a second you would become weightless at the equator.

Paul

:) :) :)

[petre]

As I'm better at thinking of helpful questions than seeking useful answers (mostly because the former requires a great deal less time), I think I'll float one more.

Mostly a repeat of Tricky's inquiry, but I'm wondering exactly what Edge makes of the idiomotor effect? Is there no such thing in this universe, and all dowsing movement is a result of attraction to the material? Or does it indeed exist in some situations, but is not the only factor in dowsing movement?

I'm just thinking that dismissing it outright seems no more right than dismissing dowsing outright (or likewise, simply accepting either). If it does indeed have some effect, it seems that minimizing such effect would make dowsing more accurate. Thus, I think any significant inquiry into dowsing would require a very good understanding of it, in order to properly dismiss or minimize its effect.

[edge]

GzuzKryzt,askes again,


I want to see you applying with a proper application and a sensible protocol proposal.

One claim at a time. Can you successfully dowse for gold, as you have repeatedly stated?

Are you deliberately avoiding me, edge, or are your feet getting cold:

Have you filled out a proper application form, had it notarized and enclosed the protocol proposal?

Are you not reading this thread?
His papers are ready my protocols may change tomorrow I hope to do the test exactly as Tricky has out lined. I‘m going on Tuesday to a certain spot on a certain river bank to see if it can be done his way, JREFs way.

The reason I’m not always in here is, I have things to do and set up + manufacturing dowsing rods.
There is also a bug in my explorer from 2003 as this driver hasn't been up since then and I'm dealing with those problems.
Paul got any ideas on this?

As far as skeptics being present, at the test it doesn't matter in the least.
I plan at the test to let skeptics try it and it will work for them too.

Nasa has mapped the gravity field and it is very interesting, there are highs and lows, spikes and depressions and that doesn't change anything as far as I know.
How ever what makes this interesting is the reasons.
I'll see if I can find the link.

My thoughts on how dowsing works is as follows.
It's simple the metals are creating depressions in the field at what ever location you are in weather it's a high field or a low field, that what dowsers are feeling.
So do great masses of water, and willows seek water and can clone themselves when a branch breaks off and settles new roots are sent to the water.
Does not insure the survival of the broken branch.

What was I suppose to talk to him about GzuzKryzt ?
I wanted to know his opinions.
Even James is not perfect, what I said about the crystals was wrong.
I said they carried a charge, the Root works very well and is able to replace minerals that a person is lacking, and it does keep you healthy and can cure you quickly from the flu.

[edge]

As I'm better at thinking of helpful questions than seeking useful answers (mostly because the former requires a great deal less time), I think I'll float one more.

Mostly a repeat of Tricky's inquiry, but I'm wondering exactly what Edge makes of the idiomotor effect? Is there no such thing in this universe, and all dowsing movement is a result of attraction to the material? Or does it indeed exist in some situations, but is not the only factor in dowsing movement?

I'm just thinking that dismissing it outright seems no more right than dismissing dowsing outright (or likewise, simply accepting either). If it does indeed have some effect, it seems that minimizing such effect would make dowsing more accurate. Thus, I think any significant inquiry into dowsing would require a very good understanding of it, in order to properly dismiss or minimize its effect.

Subconsciously yes you can make it work and not know that you are.

So I have been using my conscience to not let that affect happen and
Using gravity to nullify any shaking or vibration at least with the L rods.
They have to go up against gravity, up hill to cross each other.
The other thing is there is no contact to the hands and the metal.
The parts that move are connected to arms in a sense but pointing down hill.

With the willow stick I have many ways of holding it, barely with the least amount of skin surface.
With the willow I have also checked with rubber gloves and still get a reaction.
With the willow if it drops on a target I let it go down and then hold tight and try to lift it like a bar bell, the more gold or metals that is there the heavier it is.
It can be scattered gold and then what I feel depending on size of chunks is many little bumps and it goes up and down.


I have made one out of copper wire, which duplicates the willow type and I used a thick piece of wire, which makes it very slippery and hard to hold hard to stop the reaction.
The reaction is very fast and strong.
While dowsing for a duration of time you start to feel like the field is draining you like being shock so very mildly that you really don’t notice at first, but its draining you also.
Some days it makes my hands and fingers go numb really quick so I feel that there is some kind of electrical reaction happening.
On good days I become over sensitive and feel too much and have to stop and start over some times breaking the connection many times.
The brain creates 12 watts of power to supply the body and make it run there is in my opinion a defiant interaction between the Earths field and the dowser.
This may be what the spikes do.
The spikes are what may contribute to the stick in the field pointing straight up at times.
It's very rare in the field
This also happens with a line overhead that’s carrying 250 volts or more and with ballasts that are used in florescent tubes this also could be caused by the charged gasses.
I haven’t tried under High voltage lines that could be dangerous and lightning storms because I’m not crazy.

If it was just the Idomotor effect then why is it possible to find the right spots in the creek or river?
When you are not finding any thing for days and then you dowse and hit, it is at that time that you know for sure.

[edge]

Here's the link,

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030723.html

[teck49]

As with my challenge, the possibility of ideomotor reflex must be factored out. This can be done in a similar fashion to the process Kramer & I discussed. Simply lay out a grid of small boxes, (3" cube) in 6 rows of 6, approx. 2 feet apart. Then have an impartial observer put whatever is to be dowsed for in a box determined by rolling a die twice; once for row, once for column. Then run the agreed upon number of trials. Hopefully you will have an easier time than I had getting a trial off the ground.

[William Smith]

GzuzKryzt,askes again,

Are you not reading this thread?
His papers are ready my protocols may change tomorrow I hope to do the test exactly as Tricky has out lined. I‘m going on Tuesday to a certain spot on a certain river bank to see if it can be done his way, JREFs way.


I am reading your posts at least three times, because your writing style allows for a lot of different interpretations.

For example: When you say "His papers are ready", I suppose this means the notarized JREF Challenge Application including a protocol proposal along the twelve official rules of said challenge. Please correct me if I got you wrong.

However, I still do not understand your response to Tricky's questions #3 and #4:


...
This will require Edge to answer some basic questions:

Can you detect pure gold?
Is the volume and purity of the gold proportional to your ability to detect it?
Exactly what other substances give you identical responses to the response for gold and what is the best way we eliminate their interferance? (Incidentally if other substandes give identical responses, we might consider dowsing for them. It would be much cheaper.)
If in the above described setting you dowsed ten trials of ten targets each, how many successes (1 to 10) would you consider to be an adequate demonstration of the success of dowsing?These are all easy questions. Numbers one and two, Edge should obviously answer "yes" or it is a direct admission that gold dowsing doesn't work.
...


Your response to this was:


...
Yes to all
...


A "Yes" reply to #3 and #4 does not make sense to me, edge. You do seem to respond to said questions in the text below, though. Albeit in your usual fuzzy way.


...
What was I suppose to talk to him about GzuzKryzt ?
I wanted to know his opinions.
Even James is not perfect, what I said about the crystals was wrong.
I said they carried a charge, the Root works very well and is able to replace minerals that a person is lacking, and it does keep you healthy and can cure you quickly from the flu.

By my understanding, during the test you were supposed to dowse for you targets. Not to mine for temporary companionship.



Edge, the reason why I keep insisting is to get a clear and definitive answer to inquiries relevant to the JREF Challenge. You seem to be all over the place, either deliberately or unknowingly.

The more time I spend discussing with you in this thread, the more I evidence I get that you are doing the best to prolong your dowsing claims without having to do another test.

There are USD 1,000,000 waiting for you, edge, in case of a successful demonstration of your claim. You repeatedly have claimed you can dowse for gold. This thread is going on for eight months now.

Your efforts in moving towards an acceptable protocol do not suggest that you are convinced of your alleged ability.

They do suggest that you are clinging, clamping, clasping on to something which is very likely a delusion, because this delusion formed a basic part of your view of reality. So far, you have rejected every other explanation and, as Tricky has said, you are indeed a veritable fountain of excuses.

Edge, please give us a definitive date when you will send in your proper application.

USD 1,000,000. That should ensure a safe retirement, shouldn't it?

[teck49]

USD 1,000,000. That should ensure a safe retirement, shouldn't it?

I think that an ability to dowse gold would pretty much cover any needs imaginable. Go for it Edge!

(Chanting) EDGE! EDGE! EDGE! EDGE! EDGE! EDGE! EDGE! EDGE!

[BillyJoe]

I think that an ability to dowse gold would pretty much cover any needs imaginable.The gold doesn't come much, but it comes more when using the rod. :cool:

[petre]

Subconsciously yes you can make it work and not know that you are.

With the willow stick I have many ways of holding it, barely with the least amount of skin surface.
With the willow I have also checked with rubber gloves and still get a reaction.
With the willow if it drops on a target I let it go down and then hold tight and try to lift it like a bar bell, the more gold or metals that is there the heavier it is.
It can be scattered gold and then what I feel depending on size of chunks is many little bumps and it goes up and down.


Interesting, only slight contact and even transitive contact (through gloves) have yielded dowsing activity. I wonder what results you might get if you were to find a way to prevent the willow stick from dropping at all. I'm thinking a situation where you, say, place the tip of it on a scale or other force-measuring device while holding the other end(s) from beneath (thus preventing you from inadvertantly adding downward force). The downward force from the dowsing activity ought to be measurable this way (it would show up as a force greater than the weight of the stick if you hold it light enough). I was thinking the scale could be placed on a movable item (like a cart) or perhaps suspended from your wrists/arms in some way.

[nathan]

Paul, I may be wrong because it's been many years since I had physics, but I think the main reason one weighs a bit more at the poles rather than the equator more directly relates to the fact that Earth is not a spere, but an oblate spheroid; it is slightly flattened, so that it bulges at the equator. At the pole, one is somewhat closer to the Earth's center of gravity than at the equator, and so one weighs a bit more.

Think about why Earth is an oblate spheroid. Would it still be one, if it didn't rotate? There's more going on at the Equator than just being further from the Earth's center. (I have no idea which effect dominates one's weight difference.)

[Paulhoff]

Think about why Earth is an oblate spheroid. Would it still be one, if it didn't rotate?
Rotation is why the Earth is slightly oblate, Jupiter is even more oblate because of its faster rotation speed and being mainly made of gas.

Edge, let’s do a little math and find out how much gravity the human body has compared to the earth.

First the volume of the body of a 150 lbs man would been about

A U.S gallon of water is about 8.33 lbs. and the volume of a gallon is 231 cubic inches.

150 lbs divided by 8.33 lbs for how many gallons of water = 18 gallons

231 cubic inches to the gallon times 18 gallions equals 4158 cubic inches.

To find the radius of a sphere with 4158 cubic inches divided by 4, multiply by 3, divided by PI and take the cube root of the remainder.

4158 / 4 equals 1039.5, 1039.5 * 3 equals 3118.5, 3118.5 / PI equals 992.6, the cube root of 992.6 is 9.975. So the sphere is about 10 inches in radius or 20 inches in diameter.

For a quick check on finding the g force of the moon so we know the math is right. The moon’s gravity is about 1/6 of earth’s on the surface of the moon. In reality the moons gravity is only 1/80 of the earth because the moon weights only 1/80 of the earth’s but because the moon is smaller, you are closer to the center of gravity of the moon, so the force of gravity is much higher.

Now for the rough calculation of the g force, the diameter of the moon is about ¼ of the earth’s and the density is about 2/3 of the earth’s. So ¼ times 2/3 equals 1/6th g.

The density of the man is about 18 percent of the earth’s.

10 inch radius / (earth’s radius in inches (3959 miles * 5280 ft. * 12 inches)) 250,842,240 inches equals .00000003986.

.00000003986 * .18 equals .000000007176g.

If you can feel .000000007176 g’s then you doing good and what you'll looking for is even smaller and in the ground.

Paul

:) :) :)

[EHocking]

Slight aside here, having not read everything about this claim/person/event etc etc

Wouldn't a scientific study show evidence if there were any abilities to find water? (forget gold, that would no doubt be kept quiet, heh)?

http://www.twm.co.nz/dowsing_jse_com.html

Has this been debunked?
My attempt back in 1999.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2281609#post2281609

The Betz "report" is a total misrepresentation of the role of the dowser in this project. Betz's report is based on the DOWSER's account and not that of the Project team. ie, a credulous retelling of misinformation.

[edge]

GzuzKryzt said,

By my understanding, during the test you were supposed to dowse for you targets. Not to mine for temporary companionship.

He’s a lot quieter than you are.


USD 1,000,000. That should ensure a safe retirement, shouldn't it?


Probably give me a heart attack or a stroke, but yes of course..

I couldn’t go up there on Tuesday because of ice on the road but I will attempt it soon.
No one is more inpatient than me with the acceptation of you.

The only way possible right now, is to mine to prove it.
That protocol probably wont be acceptable to J.R.E.F. .
So I have to go to the next possible place that is the most neutral bank on a creek that I know about and I can’t get to it right now. Because the weather conditions, are treacherous now.
I don’t know maybe I’m not being clear enough.
In other words I’m not going to look like a total fool again.
However the information that I have supplied is as truthful as I can possibly give you.
If I can do the double blind test on that bank then I will send in the paper work to jref.
Like I said before if it a delusion it’s a damn good one.

So more time is required for myself to write the exact protocol for them to make it as easy for the people involved as I can.
Because no one wants to spend days here, testing me.
So the protocols I am going to test are exactly as they did in the office and as Tricky has outlined with the exception of the place…………..Oh ya the target and the form of dowsing that I use probably will be different.
I have to see if I can get at least 60% right.


Petre,
Pretty interesting contemplation. That could be another way of experimenting with it after I prove it’s a real effect.
It would have to be a hanging scale I would think.

Paulhoff wouldn’t that be like atoms or molecules?
The smallest that I can recover are microns.

Here’s some more facts on the copper wire with the loop on the end.
To hold it parallel to the ground you really have to grip it hard because of it’s weight and that it is at least 16 to 18 inches long.
This makes it quite heavy.
When a target is suspended above me it becomes as light as a feather and I only use my index finger and thumb.
I find this **** amazing.
The wire that I used is what the electrical service, “you know the electrical meter on your house” is grounded with.
Try it and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
You can get it at Ace for a buck or two.

[Paulhoff]

Paulhoff wouldn’t that be like atoms or molecules?
The smallest that I can recover are micron.
I was writing about gravity, the math had nothing to do with atoms and or molecules outside that things are made of them.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Tricky]

Well, Edge, I must say that you are coming remarkably close to joining us in the real world. I can see you still need a little help with doing a double blind test though. Remember, you need three people (or two people and a videocamera that is running constantly).

One person hides the target in one of the locations, using a random number to choose it. If you have a six-sided die, you can use that to approximate randomness but then you can only use six targets. Ten-sided dice are available at gaming stores. (You can't use two six-sided dice, because rolling two dice, "7" is six times more likely than "12")

You and the person hiding the target must never be in the dowsing area at the same time because you might accidentally get hints from each other. It doesn't mean anyone thinks you would cheat, it is called "sensory leakage". Use a buzzer or something to let each other know that you have left the area. No talking at all.

If you use a third observer rather than a videocam, that observer must also not ever make contact with the person who hides the target (for the same reason).
The observer does not know the correct answers. The observer only records what choices you made. (This is why it is fairly acceptable to use a videocam instead of a human for this). But if you use an observer, again, use a non-verbal communication to let the others know you have left the area.

No answers must be revealed until the all trials are complete and no more dowsing will occur. At that point and that point only can you compare the numbers of the actual locations that the target-hider has written down with the record of the dowser's picks.

The percentage of correct picks is not as important as the ratio of correct picks to the number of targets. If you use six targets, then about 18% correct is what you would expect by random. If you use ten targets, then 10% is the random number. If you use only two targets, then 50% is to be expected, and 60% means very little unless you do many many trials.

I am impressed that you are making an attempt to do this honestly. It is not as easy to make a fair test as it might seem though. Let us know if you have questions.

[Cuddles]

The smallest that I can recover are microns.

I nearly missed this gem. Edge, forget dowsing. If you can detect micrometre sized particles without a microscope, and actually recover them without some seriously specialised equipment, you will have made probably the biggest advance in micro-scale technology ever. Not only would be a fairly sure bet for a Nobel, you would have every production company in the world hammering on your door trying to give you money.

[BillyJoe]

My attempt back in 1999.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2281609#post2281609

The Betz "report" is a total misrepresentation of the role of the dowser in this project. Betz's report is based on the DOWSER's account and not that of the Project team. ie, a credulous retelling of misinformation.I read all that. Interesting how the conclusion can be the opposite of what actually happened. I remember this whenever I read about a prayer study that showed an effect or water that cured something or other (I'm talking homoeopathy here, of course)


PS: I accidentally posted this on another thread but can't remember where. I thought I was here :D

[EHocking]

I read all that. Interesting how the conclusion can be the opposite of what actually happened. I remember this whenever I read about a prayer study that showed an effect or water that cured something or other (I'm talking homoeopathy here, of course)


PS: I accidentally posted this on another thread but can't remember where. I thought I was here :DOver where I replied to you!

"Spirit Dowsing"

[petre]

Petre,
Pretty interesting contemplation. That could be another way of experimenting with it after I prove it’s a real effect.
It would have to be a hanging scale I would think.


It could also provide another approach to applying for the challenge. If you could demonstrate a previously-unknown force, that alone would probably be accepted. Showing the attraction between any dowsing rod and anything else such that the force exceedes what would be expected from gravity, magnetism, static charge, etc. ought to be sufficient.

[Reno]

When a target is suspended above me it becomes as light as a feather and I only use my index finger and thumb.
I find this **** amazing.
The wire that I used is what the electrical service, “you know the electrical meter on your house” is grounded with.
Try it and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
You can get it at Ace for a buck or two.

Here's something that could be tested without having to find a 'natural' area. You could test this in the JREF offices couldn't you? Or would the books and the photocopier in another room interfere again?

[edge]

I nearly missed this gem. Edge, forget dowsing. If you can detect micrometre sized particles without a microscope, and actually recover them without some seriously specialised equipment, you will have made probably the biggest advance in micro-scale technology ever. Not only would be a fairly sure bet for a Nobel, you would have every production company in the world hammering on your door trying to give you money.

I'm a miner when we say microns we are talking about flour size up to a fine, which continues to rice size. After that they are small earring sizes, those are the beginning of nugget sizes.

Paul says,If you can feel .000000007176 g’s then you doing good and what you'll looking for is even smaller and in the ground.


That sounds like molecules or smaller I don't know, but I forget you all might not be familiar with the mining vernacular.

I have given some thought as how to extract the gold that is in sea water and have a few ideas but I need to win the challenge for backing on that idea.
I have heard tell of some one up here that was trying in some of the richer mineral creeks here and was shut down by the government.
He supposedly was successful.
My ideas are a little different.
First you have to overcome the energy losses.

The word was ****.

[Paulhoff]

The earth has 1 g of force. A person of 150 lbs has .000000007176 g’s of force, read my post again edge you missed the point.

Paul

:) :) :)

[BillyJoe]

I'm a miner when we say microns we are talking about flour size up to a fine, which continues to rice size. After that they are small earring sizes, those are the beginning of nugget sizes...you all might not be familiar with the mining vernacular.I knew you had an explanation edge. Good on you. Credit where credit's due. :)

The word was ****.Okay, I don't know if you were censored or if you are having a joke. I'm leaning towards a joke. If not there are ways around the censor. For example: In the beginning the word was S... :D

[BillyJoe]

The earth has 1 g of force. A person of 150 lbs has .000000007176 g’s of force, read my post again edge you missed the point.It's okay, edge, he lost me somewhere along the lines as well. :D

[Paulhoff]

It's okay, edge, he lost me somewhere along the lines as well. :D
Simple math lost you, mmmmmmm :rolleyes:

Paul

:) :) :)

[Jackalgirl]

Hey edge --

I've been following this thread for a while and it certainly has been interesting. But I think it's getting away from the original point, which is devising a protocol for testing, and then getting tested -- it has strayed into the realm of the description of how this works, what you've gotten to work for you, math that proves/disproves various aspects of your hypotheses, and so forth.

Since this is in the Challenge forum, we really need to focus on getting you ready and set up for your test.

That's not to say that that discussion has been unfruitful; in fact, for example, you came up with a point that perhaps the target object has to be completely buried in the ground in order for you to be able to sucessfully find it (that is, objects sitting on the ground or separated from the ground by a container are harder for you to find). Part of the process of any experiment is to brainstorm what could go wrong and control for that, so this is an excellent thing for you to be exploring.

But I think we're now at the point where you should be able to describe a working protocol.

So, given everything you've discovered and explained so far, and as a dowsing expert, could you give me a step-by-step description of a revised test that you think would demonstrate dowsing? Just a list of needed materials and a list of steps and some kind of numerical expectation (i.e., "the test will be successful if I am able to locate the target substance 8 out of 10 times").

I'm really looking forward to your reply (and I mean that; to me, coming up with a test protocol is easily the most fun part of any test)!

[edge]

Paul,
Your entire math is wrong everyone knows that pies are not square pie r round!
So your whole equation is wrong..
Besides we are on Earth not Jupiter or the moon.
Seriously this occurs in the field of Earth.
I did what Billy Joe did and skimmed over it.
The math will come later and who knows we may need to give calculations to magnify the powers.
First lets see if there is something to it.
One set of protocols goes like this.

Two of Jrefs people come to a certain spot where I’m dredging.
The duration of the test will be two weeks.
For two weeks, my self and what the operation produces supply all that is needed to support the camp and pay for rooms if needed.
I will for the proof pick ten spots to unearth that contain more than a quarter ounce.
I will pick another ten spots that have virtually nothing or no more than a pennyweight of gold.
Each one I will say six out of ten correct, that’s 12 out of twenty for both, but from what I have seen from last year it’s more like 90%.
Then I will do that test again with 20 spots.
But from what I hear they “ jref “ won’t go for it.
This would be the best way and is my first choice.

So I will do a hidden container test like at the office except on the bank on the creek.
The difference is the target will be on the ground hidden by the container but most likely the lids of the containers that I already have.
The target will be a 1885 silver dollar you know the large ones.
The dowsing rods or the attractors are radio antennas that are L rods.
Totally insulated from my body.
I will dowse ten containers ten times in each category open and close and I will say that I will get 60% correct.
Then the next test that will be the formal I will repeat the process.
I will be allowed two days for those test so that I may be able to stop and rest when I feel the need to or continue the next day for the formal test..
This test will occur when I think it is reasonably warm enough to stay on the bank of the creek long enough to get one set of testing done. That could be as soon as Feb. or March.
It also depends on the volunteers’ scheduling.

Before it is sent, the “protocols”, I need to go 56 miles and see if it can be done there.
If my memory serves me correct, when I dowsed there in a certain spot of the bank there was no reaction what so ever in a section that would be large enough to set ten spots up with enough spaces between each one so their is no mistaking of the target.
I should be able to go there this week, also green eyes has a doctor’s appointment in that town.
I would consider doing the test here but there is more interference here in this area versus there.
I’m sure that the roads won’t be a factor this week.
If I’m wrong about that spot then I still have time.

I hope that answers your question, Jackalgirl.

Edge

[Jackalgirl]

So I will do a hidden container test like at the office except on the bank on the creek.
The difference is the target will be on the ground hidden by the container but most likely the lids of the containers that I already have.
The target will be a 1885 silver dollar you know the large ones.
The dowsing rods or the attractors are radio antennas that are L rods.
Totally insulated from my body.
I will dowse ten containers ten times in each category open and close and I will say that I will get 60% correct.
Then the next test that will be the formal I will repeat the process.
I will be allowed two days for those test so that I may be able to stop and rest when I feel the need to or continue the next day for the formal test..
This test will occur when I think it is reasonably warm enough to stay on the bank of the creek long enough to get one set of testing done. That could be as soon as Feb. or March.
It also depends on the volunteers’ scheduling.

...

I hope that answers your question, Jackalgirl.

It does, and I'm glad to hear you have something specific in mind. I agree with you regarding your first plan; I imagine (but don't know) that any local skeptical organization would be willing or able to hang out with you for two weeks. It's too long, and sounds like it would be completely uncontrolled. For example, there would be no way to prevent someone from coming in, say, at night and intentionally adding or removing material, without the help of a lot of very expensive multi-function camera equipment (i.e., IR, night-vision, etc). I think your second test is a better idea -- simpler, easier to do, easier to control.

Can this test be done anywhere, or just in this location? Or is it the fact that it's outdoors and away from, say, power lines, etc, that is the important factor (for example, would your test work on /any/ creekside)? Will the fact that the silver coin won't be completely buried within the creekside affect the test negatively?

[edge]

Jackalgirl. give me a minute or two.

[Jackalgirl]

Jackalgirl. give me a minute or two.

No problem -- take your time. : )

[teck49]

Edge, dowsing doesn't work.


Now that may, or may not be a correct statement. Do you have any statistical results from a double-blind experiment or two, to back up your statement?
Just saying, "It doesn't work." is just as ignorant as professing your "belief" that it does.
The only proof is in the stat-pudding.

[edge]

Jackelgirl
It does, and I'm glad to hear you have something specific in mind. I agree with you regarding your first plan; I imagine (but don't know) that any local skeptical organization would be willing or able to hang out with you for two weeks. It's too long, and sounds like it would be completely uncontrolled. For example, there would be no way to prevent someone from coming in, say, at night and intentionally adding or removing material, without the help of a lot of very expensive multi-function camera equipment (i.e., IR, night-vision, etc). I think your second test is a better idea -- simpler, easier to do, easier to control.

Can this test be done anywhere, or just in this location? Or is it the fact that it's outdoors and away from, say, power lines, etc, that is the important factor (for example, would your test work on /any/ creekside)? Will the fact that the silver coin won't be completely buried within the creekside affect the test negatively?

Salting of the test area could be done but hardly likely that anyone could get to the bottom with out air and that would be noticeable.
Several reasons, the gold in quantities like what I described lets say a quarter once pocket or crack would be under hundreds of pounds of rocks.
A geologist could verify when it was uncovered because it would have a layer that is similar to soft concrete over the top of it.
Also we could use a guard dog like the ones in my pictures back on the link that I posted and I guarantee that if a sparrow were to show up, the dark colored one would go off.
There is no way that any body that is sane will throw any amount of gold back into the creek on such a risk.
Plus all involved on my side could take a lie detector test at the end to prove no one cheated.

Lets say right now the creeks and rivers are calm which they are, so to salt it and put targets in the creek I would have to dredge down about let say three feet by three feet put the gold there and then cover it.
That would be too much work.
Then lets say that the creek rises with floodwaters this winter, there is no way that you could guarantee that it would stay there because the waters could hydraulic it out and it would be lost.
It can move even when the ground hasn’t been loosened.
I would need several ounces to take a chance with even I wouldn't risk it.
A geologist would know.
The waters are so cold I'm not even getting in.
If I put a dredge in before July 1st. fish and game would confiscate my dredges that would be a $10,000.00 dollar loss and the test would be cancelled.
Basically a guy like Tricky a resident geologist would have to dive when and only when the spot is finally uncovered or as we approach it.
He would have to check us before and be there till it's done, in some cases that could take ten minutes in some who knows but the spots I could say are ten feet by ten feet. Or could be one foot by one foot.


The spot that I think I can prove dowsing is very neutral there is hardly anything there, I mined it and the area around it.
This is very hard to find, “Neutral ground” and it is a convenient area.

There are several choices in that area but one good flood could ruin that.
You would not believe the power under those conditions.
As long as the dollar touches the ground it's grounded and that maybe all the difference that it takes.
When I hung targets in the air I thought I had it, what I learned is that There is an attraction going up in a column and one that gravity is working on going down.

Yes the second one will be quicker.
The first is why dowsing for gold takes place.

[SezMe]

Plus all involved on my side could take a lie detector test at the end to prove no one cheated.
edge, taking a lie detector test doesn't prove anything except that you took a lie detector test.

You're making this WAY too complicated. Uncontrollable field tests like you are describing will never be accepted as a test protocol. You'd be better off spending your time, er, dowsing for a test protocol in the nearest library.

[edge]

edge, taking a lie detector test doesn't prove anything except that you took a lie detector test.

You're making this WAY too complicated. Uncontrollable field tests like you are describing will never be accepted as a test protocol. You'd be better off spending your time, er, dowsing for a test protocol in the nearest library.

Did you read the second one?

[Dumb All Over]

Now that may, or may not be a correct statement. Do you have any statistical results from a double-blind experiment or two, to back up your statement?
Just saying, "It doesn't work." is just as ignorant as professing your "belief" that it does.
The only proof is in the stat-pudding.

Thank you for coming to the defense of "dumb all over", but if you are going to take on that role, then do it right. He made the claim,...

My friend Paul need not come to my defense. I'm quite capable of doing that myself. But, thanks Paul.

No, there's probably not a definitive double-blind experiment that demonstrates dowsing doesn't work, just as there is not one that demonstrates God doesn't exist. But there is plenty of evidence within this forum and within the pages of Swift and many other sources that clearly demonstrate an inability to show dowsing does work. In every case, in every properly designed test, it has never been shown to work, ever. Not to mention the entire body of physical science which says it doesn't work as dowsers claim it does.

I do understand the difference between trying to prove a negative versus testing a dowsing claim. Maybe there are two types of skeptics, good ones and bad ones. The good ones, such as yourself teck49, realize that until something is scientifically disproved, the possibility remains that it might be true. That's OK, I don't have any problems with that. I can understand the sensibility behind that approach. Maybe one day I won't be so dumb and will be able to say that things flying in the face of reason which haven't been disproved still have a chance of being true. (Actually, I say that a lot. Many new scientific discoveries mesmerize me; discoveries that, at face value, might seem unreasonable but have been shown to be true.) Today is not that day. I'm a bad skeptic because I say it doesn't work.

teck49, do you have any statistical data showing it does work? I'm all ears.

This is for edge and edge only-
edge, dowsing doesn't work.

[Jackalgirl]

Yes the second one will be quicker.
The first is why dowsing for gold takes place.

You put your finger right on it! The first test is just going to require way too much work, both to accomplish and to control, and two weeks is going to be too long. It might be worth pursuing, /later/, once the first, basic tests are complete. If you are able to regularly pass such basic tests, I imagine mining companies will be falling all over themselves to pay you to teach them how to work out a long-term resource-finding technique. So let's not worry about that right now.

I asked:

Can this test be done anywhere, or just in this location?

You replied:

The spot that I think I can prove dowsing is very neutral there is hardly anything there, I mined it and the area around it.
This is very hard to find, “Neutral ground” and it is a convenient area.

Sounds good. So now we need a little more detail on the protocol. How does this sound?

Requirements: 1 (one) silver half-dollar (target).
10 opaque containers (preferably round), numbered 1-10.
One ten-sided die.
You & your dowsing equipment
At least four (4) observers, two provided by you and two provided by a skeptical association. Labeled 1e, 2e (your folks) and 1s, 2s (the skeptical folks).
Two walkie-talkies with some kind of CW function (that is, they can transmit a beep).
At least two (2) video cameras, positioned to easily observe the scene from two different angles.
Two "holding areas" both out of sight and of sound of the actual test area and of each other.

Protocol:
The cameras are set to roll. 1e and 1s set up the scene thusly: they roll a die to determine under which container to place the target. 1s places the target under the container. 1s then places the other containers at other spots on the ground and is observed by 1e. 1s takes note of the number of the container that has the target.

1e and 1s leave the area and go into their holding area. They "beep" you, 2e & 2s (aka "your team) with one beep via the walkie-talkie to let you know they're done. For the first actual run of the test, the die will have been left on top of the container that contains the target. This allows you to confirm that the scene is free of interference and that your equipment is working correctly. Once you have determined under which container the target is located, your team will note which container you chose, you will all go into your own holding area, and then you will beep the other team.

At the beep, the other team returns to the test area and retrieves all of the containers and the coin. It's very important that they clear up all of the containers and start over from scratch. They then repeat the process of rolling the die, placing the containers, etc. This time, however, they take the die with them. This is the first of your actual test runs. Once they have set up the test area, they return to your holding area and beep you & your team. You go to the test area, determine which container holds the target, mark it down, return to your holding area, and beep the other team. This is repeated nine more times for a total of 10 tries (not including the "calibration test").

When you're done with all 10 tries, the two teams get together and compare their lists. If you correctly identify the container holding the silver coin in 6 out of 10 tries, you pass the test.

Does this sound like an acceptable protocol to you? How about to anyone else -- do you have any specific suggestions or know of any trickery for which this protocol does /not/ control?

[BillyJoe]

A philosophical conundrum:

Do we accept everything as true untill it has been disproven, or do we accept everthing as false until it has been proven? In the former, we need evidence to stop accepting something as true. In the latter, we need evidence to start accepting something as true.

Now....how do we prove which one of these alternative positions is correct?


:confused:

[Jackalgirl]

A philosophical conundrum:

Do we accept everything as true untill it has been disproven, or do we accept everthing as false until it has been proven? In the former, we need evidence to stop accepting something as true. In the latter, we need evidence to start accepting something as true.

Now....how do we prove which one of these alternative positions is correct?

:confused:

I think that might be a false dichotomy, though I am no expert at logical debate. I don't think that you have to live in either of the alternative positions.

Personally, I try not to accept something as fact until I have some kind of believable evidence for it. But I'm willing to say "maybe" for the time being. I /won't/ be willing to bet my life on it (or someone else's life on it), though, without some kind of evidence.

And I try to keep an open mind, even about stuff I think is total nonsense, so that I don't dismiss any so-called evidence out of hand (though I find this extremely difficult). In other words, I will try to believe that things are wildly improbable, but not impossible. If Sylvia Browne (www.stopsylviabrowne.com) were to undergo a proper double-blinded test and actually pass, I might actually begin to give her some credit -- after I've examined the test (and, more importantly, smarter people than I have looked at it) and determined that it properly controlled for trickery. In other words, I wouldn't dismiss the test results out of hand, even though I think it is wildly improbable that Sylvia Browne could accurately determine /anything/ she hasn't fished for with those claws of hers.

So, in other words, I think of things as possible until I have evidence for them, and am likely to think of certain long-untested things (like mediums) as improbable (only because they've had so long to pony up some evidence, and haven't).

[BillyJoe]

Jackagirl,

Very good.

We have edge in an environment where he knows there will be no interference form any source artificial or natural. Ostensibly no there will be no EM/other artificial devices. And no interfering natural metal in the ground, verified by edge himself. Good clean start.

And the protocol sounds foolproof to me.
However, edge may wish to try the open test several times to be absolutely sure. That should be no problem. 6 out of ten seems fair. The odds are 1 in a million.


edge?

[Jackalgirl]

Jackagirl,

Very good.

We have edge in an environment where he knows there will be no interference form any source artificial or natural. Ostensibly no there will be no EM/other artificial devices. And no interfering natural metal in the ground, verified by edge himself. Good clean start.

And the protocol sounds foolproof to me.
However, edge may wish to try the open test several times to be absolutely sure. That should be no problem. 6 out of ten seems fair. The odds are 1 in a million.


edge?

I agree with you -- doing the open test 10 times is a really good idea. It would prove, beyond a doubt, that the initial calibration run worked and that everything is functional the way it should be.

[SezMe]

Seems like an excellent protocol. edge?

[Paulhoff]

A philosophical conundrum:

Do we accept everything as true untill it has been disproven, or do we accept everthing as false until it has been proven? In the former, we need evidence to stop accepting something as true. In the latter, we need evidence to start accepting something as true.

Now....how do we prove which one of these alternative positions is correct?


:confused:
Why do we have to start at the extremes, all or nothing? When I walk outside on a clear sunlit day and see a blue sky, I don’t question the color, but I will in time ask the questions and find the answers to why it is blue and these answers have been found. Dosing has been around more than long enough for the questions to be asked, so it does make one wonder why the proof has not been found, until one sees that all the testing does lead to a proof, that it does not exist.

Paul

:) :) :)

[William Smith]

Strap an engine on it. It'll fly. Or in the words of the mythbusters who flew a cement glider last week, "IT ACTUALLY FLIES!"

So now back to the current subject...... where are the stats on dowsing?

Here's one stat that might help: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034

[William Smith]

...
No, there's probably not a definitive double-blind experiment that demonstrates dowsing doesn't work, [...]


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12885649996034

You probably know the above link already, Dumb All Over.

While it might not definitely prove that dowsing does work, it shows that in this test it did not. The dowsers performed as well as chance would indicate.
(One particular dowser whose individual result was not explicitly mentioned in the video, had a significant better result than chance. But on another trial he could not reproduce his result. It may very likely have been a fluke. Couldn't find the link now, sorry.)



Interested parties, please chime in:
How many tests like the above have to yield no significant results before we can say "It is highly unlikely (as in 99,99%) that dowsing does work."?




Dumb All Over, where'd you get that pic of Silvia before her morning shave? :D

[BillyJoe]

I think that might be a false dichotomy, though I am no expert at logical debate. I don't think that you have to live in either of the alternative positions.

Personally, I try not to accept something as fact until I have some kind of believable evidence for it. But I'm willing to say "maybe" for the time being. I /won't/ be willing to bet my life on it (or someone else's life on it), though, without some kind of evidence.

And I try to keep an open mind, even about stuff I think is total nonsense, so that I don't dismiss any so-called evidence out of hand (though I find this extremely difficult). In other words, I will try to believe that things are wildly improbable, but not impossible.

So, in other words, I think of things as possible until I have evidence for them, and am likely to think of certain long-untested things (like mediums) as improbable (only because they've had so long to pony up some evidence, and haven't).Perhaps an oversimplification rather than a false dichotomy.

I agree that the depth of your belief in something needs to be in proportion to the strength of the evidence. If there is no evidence after an extended period of looking, the practical thing to do is to live as if that thing is false. But you always remain open to further evidence becoming available at some point that supports it. If the evidence for something is overwhelming, your default position is that it is true. Again, you remain open to the fact that evidence may become available at some point that refutes it completely. Most things lie somewhere in between and, as I said, the depth of your belief is in proportion to the strength of the evidence.

An open mind is good. But I think it is good to have a spring constantly trying to close it, otherwise a whole lot of nonsense might find it's way in. New ideas, of course, are another story. We should always be open to new ideas unless and until the evidence for it fails to materialise over a sufficient period of time.

In other words, I think we are largely in agreement.

[BillyJoe]

Why do we have to start at the extremes, all or nothing? When I walk outside on a clear sunlit day and see a blue sky, I don’t question the color, but I will in time ask the questions and find the answers to why it is blue and these answers have been found.I was simply trying to make a distinction between believers and unbelievers and asking questions. Is a believer someone who believes unless and until it is disproven and an unbeliever someone who unbelieves unless and until it is proven? Anyway, I don't know that I was really expecting an answer.

Dowsing has been around more than long enough for the questions to be asked, so it does make one wonder why the proof has not been found, until one sees that all the testing does lead to a proof, that it does not exist.Well, edge is a believer in dowsing because of his positive experiences with it, so he will continue to believe unless and until dowsing is disproved *to him*. He is not interested in how other dowsers may or may not have been disproved. We are trying to set up a situation which will prove *to him* that dowsing is false. He must be completely happy with the setup and we must make sure that he is completely happy, even when he says he is, otherwise *for him* dowsing will not be disproved.

This is what is meant by testing for what the person says they can do, not your interpretation or extrapolation of what he can do.

[Jackalgirl]

IWe are trying to set up a situation which will prove *to him* that dowsing is false. He must be completely happy with the setup and we must make sure that he is completely happy, even when he says he is, otherwise *for him* dowsing will not be disproved.

As much as I'd hope that edge's faith in dowsing might be shaken up a bit by a test not passed, I'm not really in it to prove to him that dowsing is false. I'm in it to design a protocol that tests the question, and -- hopefully -- in the process teach edge about designing properly controlled tests. It will be up to edge to decide, if he ever decides this, that x number of failed controlled tests leads to a conclusion that dowsing probably doesn't work.

[Dumb All Over]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12885649996034

You probably know the above link already, Dumb All Over.

While it might not definitely prove that dowsing does work, it shows that in this test it did not. The dowsers performed as well as chance would indicate.
Yes, Gzuz, I've watched that clip several times. And I've read the full account in Swift of one Mike Guska (edge). These types of tests only show that the dowsers were unable to substantiate their claims. For teck49, they are not evidence that support my statement, "dowsing doesn't work." Therefore, according to teck, I should not say it. But before further elaboration, I'll wait to see if ol' Mr. teck49 has anything else to say.


Dumb All Over, where'd you get that pic of Silvia before her morning shave? :D

(from South Park)
Kyle: Aren't they ever gonna wake up? Chef: Oh, they will. It's gonna be one uuuugly sight. Kyle: I thought you said the wonder of Mother Nature was a beautiful thing. Stan: Yeah, when does Mother Nature go from beautiful to ugly? Chef: Usually about 9:30 in the morning, children. [the elephant begins to wake up] Uh oh, here we go. [Elephant looks down at Fluffy with surprise and bellows] Yeahhh, there's nothing worse than getting all drunk and waking up the next morning next to a pig. [Fluffy looks up at elephant, begins crying] Or a big fat elephant.

[BillyJoe]

I'm not talking about dowsing in general or faith in general, I'm talking about edge and his faith in dowsing. I think he can be persuaded with the proper setup. At the very least, if he fails a test in which we make absolutely sure he agrees with every aspect, it will create a great deal of cognitive dissonance for him.

Most dowsers just go with the feel and never really think about why, edge is at least thinking about why and how it works for him and why it fails when it does.
He may just find it's all in his mind.

Of course, if he wins.....

[NoZed Avenger]

I cannot get my mind around the fact that this incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability can apparently only work -- out of the entire country -- in a 10 x 10 plot of land.

[Dumb All Over]

I'm not talking about dowsing in general or faith in general, I'm talking about edge and his faith in dowsing. I think he can be persuaded with the proper setup. At the very least, if he fails a test in which we make absolutely sure he agrees with every aspect, it will create a great deal of cognitive dissonance for him.

Most dowsers just go with the feel and never really think about why, edge is at least thinking about why and how it works for him and why it fails when it does.
He may just find it's all in his mind.

Of course, if he wins.....

Respectfully, BillyJoe, I couldn't disagree more. This new test will no more convince edge than the last one did. edge has been through this before. He was presented with a right and proper setup. He performed no better than chance. After the testing, all he could offer were excuses, none of which included the possibility that dowsing doesn't work. What makes you think this test will be any different? In my opinion, it won't.

[petre]

I cannot get my mind around the fact that this incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability can apparently only work -- out of the entire country -- in a 10 x 10 plot of land.

Not so much that, just that "consistency" seems to fade as one fiddles with it (or attempts to do it the same way twice it seems). Many people, upon discovering that repeated attempts yeild different results and demonstrate erratic and incosistant behavior, conclude the effect does not exist at all and cease to examine it further.

Others insist the effect is "untestable, but somehow they just KNOW it's true" and then cease to examine it further.

Edge is different in that he continues to examine it long after many would have gone one way or the other. It will be interesting to see if there will come a time when:

1. Edge will decide to continue to believe that it works, but feel it is far too complicated to elicit reproducable results.
2. sufficient failure under intense examination will eventally lead him to conclude that "dowsing" is indeed comprised solely of known probabalistic, physiological and psychological events.
3. he will find sufficient conditions to create repeatable events beyond explanation of known phenemonena and apply for the challenge (or win a Nobel prize for physics).

#1 would be a rather boring end, and he seems determined to find his way through to 3, even at the risk of one day falling into 2. To that end I've attempted to direct him into more simplistic tests of dowsing.

For example, I've suggested there might be a difference in different dowsing rods. If he could demonstrate a difference between two rods that would be otherwise indistinguishable, that would be worthy of the challenge. If there is absolutely no discernable difference between dowsing with an oak stick, an iron bar, a glass tube, or a blade of grass, that might lead an experimenter to wonder exactly what it is the stick does, or if it is even required at all!

Or, he could test the force of the pull during dowsing. If such a force is detectable, that would be worthy of the challenge (being a previously-unknown force). If absolutely no actual measurable force is present, it might lead an experimenter to wonder whether the action of the rod during dowsing is indeed explained by other phenomona in the dowsers physiology.

I think examination of the fundamental elements like composition and force will prove the most enlightening, whatever those results may be.

[BillyJoe]

I cannot get my mind around the fact that this incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability can apparently only work -- out of the entire country -- in a 10 x 10 plot of land.I think you may have missed the point.

The idea is to test in such a way as to eliminate all known confounding variables as far as possible. That's what a scientific test aims to do. It seems edge has found a plot of land free of any response to dowsing - which, to him, means there is no gold there. So, no geographical clues to a gold deposit. Perfect for an in-the-field test. If we keep out any other possible sources of artificial interference to the complete satisfaction of edge, we'll be ready for the actual test.

Also, it is not edge's claim that his dowsing is an "incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability". He gets 6 out of 10. He is not a rich man. All he claims is that he finds more gold with dowsing than without.

[BillyJoe]

Respectfully, BillyJoe, I couldn't disagree more. This new test will no more convince edge than the last one did. edge has been through this before. He was presented with a right and proper setup. He performed no better than chance. After the testing, all he could offer were excuses, none of which included the possibility that dowsing doesn't work. What makes you think this test will be any different? In my opinion, it won't.When someone has been convinced through a lifetime's worth of experiences that something works, why would a single failure persuade him otherwise.

It's natural to think that something went wrong. Edge dowses in the field. This was done in an office. All sorts of things could have interfered in this situation. Especially if the mechanism of dowsing is not known. Would you give up your belief in science if a single test result seemed to blow that belief out of the water. Or would you look for a reason why the test might have gone wrong?

I admire edge's persistence and I admire his willingness to think and explore in whatever capacity he has to do so considering he is not a scientist.

[edge]

Last ten posts are pretty interesting with the exception of Paul’s.
But I nominated one of his.
He is funny!

petre I'm going to try something you said tomorrow with a scale.
Thursday I will test myself on that ground in Hayfork so we'll know something then.
I'm probably the only one on the planet that is doing so many experiments to be sure of what is true on this subject.
What ever my conclusion is in the end you can take as gospel.
I am on the Edge of saying yes or no.
petre says

3. he will find sufficient conditions to create repeatable events beyond explanation of known phenomenon and apply for the challenge (or win a Nobel prize for physics).



For physics do you know what this would mean?
How about where it would lead?
I'm not saying it's true yet but if it was?


There is a reason why I wouldn't mine with out dowsing for gold.
This can be proved two ways at once, this I do know.

Everything that I have stated about it is other proof, now if I can prove it Jrefs way that will be all I need to go with all the rest of what I have told you, but there is even more that I haven’t told you.
The difference between water dowsing and gold is, water is everywhere gold is not, at least not in mineable placer deposits.

[Dumb All Over]

When someone has been convinced through a lifetime's worth of experiences that something works, why would a single failure persuade him otherwise.
Or for that matter, why would a thousand failures persuade him otherwise?
It's natural to think that something went wrong. Edge dowses in the field. This was done in an office. All sorts of things could have interfered in this situation. Especially if the mechanism of dowsing is not known.
Especially if the mechanism is not known?!! If dowsing has never been shown to work in the first place, talking of an unknown mechanism is like putting the cart before the horse. What gibberish is this?
Would you give up your belief in science if a single test result seemed to blow that belief out of the water. Or would you look for a reason why the test might have gone wrong?
You seem to imply that within the annals of scientific history, only one dowsing test has ever been conducted.

[edge]

http://setterfield.org/tworelativities.html
For you too.

[Jackalgirl]

I am on the Edge of saying yes or no.

Edge, what do you think of my protocol? Would you be willing to submit this to JREF with an application? If not, what about it would you change?

[edge]

I have to wait.

[SezMe]

I have to wait.
For what? For how long?

[edge]

A day maybe two.
I have to go up there from here and run the tests and then I will know if the spot is good to go.

[edge]

Not so much that, just that "consistency" seems to fade as one fiddles with it (or attempts to do it the same way twice it seems). Many people, upon discovering that repeated attempts yeild different results and demonstrate erratic and incosistant behavior, conclude the effect does not exist at all and cease to examine it further.

Others insist the effect is "untestable, but somehow they just KNOW it's true" and then cease to examine it further.

Edge is different in that he continues to examine it long after many would have gone one way or the other. It will be interesting to see if there will come a time when:

1. Edge will decide to continue to believe that it works, but feel it is far too complicated to elicit reproducable results.
2. sufficient failure under intense examination will eventally lead him to conclude that "dowsing" is indeed comprised solely of known probabalistic, physiological and psychological events.
3. he will find sufficient conditions to create repeatable events beyond explanation of known phenemonena and apply for the challenge (or win a Nobel prize for physics).

#1 would be a rather boring end, and he seems determined to find his way through to 3, even at the risk of one day falling into 2. To that end I've attempted to direct him into more simplistic tests of dowsing.

For example, I've suggested there might be a difference in different dowsing rods. If he could demonstrate a difference between two rods that would be otherwise indistinguishable, that would be worthy of the challenge. If there is absolutely no discernable difference between dowsing with an oak stick, an iron bar, a glass tube, or a blade of grass, that might lead an experimenter to wonder exactly what it is the stick does, or if it is even required at all!

Or, he could test the force of the pull during dowsing. If such a force is detectable, that would be worthy of the challenge (being a previously-unknown force). If absolutely no actual measurable force is present, it might lead an experimenter to wonder whether the action of the rod during dowsing is indeed explained by other phenomona in the dowsers physiology.

I think examination of the fundamental elements like composition and force will prove the most enlightening, whatever those results may be.

From what I can see for 12 watts going in,"as I believe is powering the dowsing rod" I get at least a quarter pound of force.
That's with a counter weight on a hanging scale.

You will still say it's the ideomotor effect.

[Paulhoff]

You will still say it's the ideomotor effect.
http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html

Oh this is tooooo much.

Paul

:) :) :)

[BillyJoe]

Or for that matter, why would a thousand failures persuade him otherwise?He has failed only once that he knows of for sure. All the other times he feels he has succeeded.
Also, you're preempting the outcome of future tests and edge's response to them.
That's not really scientific.

Especially if the mechanism is not known?!! If dowsing has never been shown to work in the first place, talking of an unknown mechanism is like putting the cart before the horse. What gibberish is this? Misdirection.

I was saying that, if a possible mechanism for dowsing is not known but you are convinced from a lifetimes experience of successful dowsing that dowsing works, and a test shows it doesn't work, then it would be reasonable to think that the peculiar setup might have introduced a variable which interferred with the outcome that you normally get in the field.

Can you parse all that?

You seem to imply that within the annals of scientific history, only one dowsing test has ever been conducted.You seem to forget that we are talking about an individual called edge and his specific abilities and methods. That has been tried only once.

[Jackalgirl]

A day maybe two.
I have to go up there from here and run the tests and then I will know if the spot is good to go.

Hi edge --

Well, I'm not so much interested in the spot (at this time) as I am in the protocol. So I have two questions for you:

1) Assuming that the spot is free of interference, are you okay with the protocol I suggested?

2) What tests, in particular, are you going to run? In other words, could you describe the protocol you'll be using, using a description comparable to the one I gave you here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2295116&postcount=493)?

[Paulhoff]

Before the test they all agree that everything with the test is OK and after they fail the test they then point out what is wrong with the test.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Jackalgirl]

Before the test they all agree that everything with the test is OK and after they fail the test they then point out what is wrong with the test.

Paul

:) :) :)

We've certainly seen that before! But that's the point of the "calibration test" of my protocol (and BillyJoe's most excellent suggestion to run the calibration test more than once). Not that having calibration runs built into the test has ever stopped anyone from suddenly finding some new objection after the test (see Randi's Australian test of dowsers), of course, but it's still important. : )

[Paulhoff]

Calibrate to your hearts content, the results will be the same for the test and the excuses will be forthcoming from the dower.

Dowers and audiophiles (that can hear differences in wire etc) come from the same boat. Before the test they know for a fact that they have the gift and know without a doubt that they will past the test. But after they fail it is always the test that is at fault, never is it them or their ideas on their alleged abilities.

Paul

:) :) :)

[petre]

From what I can see for 12 watts going in,"as I believe is powering the dowsing rod" I get at least a quarter pound of force.
That's with a counter weight on a hanging scale.

You will still say it's the ideomotor effect.

Well, what'd I'd say isn't really going to matter in the end. If it can be setup where it can be demonstrated that the force doesn't come from increased/decreased pressure in your hand (ideomotor effect or otherwise), then it'd be a worthy demonstration. My suggestion earlier was supporting it from below (I had pictured just putting one knuckle beneath the near end), but I'm not sure of a good way to eliminate it offhand since I don't know more about it.

If it works through a rubber glove, perhaps it could work through a hard cast? Or without human contact at all? The cast could be attached to the rod and scale system in such a way that none of the components would ever move relative to one another, which I think would exclude the ideomotor effect from being a possible cause of measured force.

[edge]

So I will do a hidden container test like at the office except on the bank on the creek.
The difference is the target will be on the ground hidden by the container but most likely the lids of the containers that I already have.
The target will be a 1885 silver dollar you know the large ones.
The dowsing rods or the attractors are radio antennas that are L rods.
Totally insulated from my body.
I will dowse ten containers ten times in each category open and close and I will say that I will get 60% correct.
Then the next test that will be the formal I will repeat the process.
I will be allowed two days for those test so that I may be able to stop and rest when I feel the need to or continue the next day for the formal test..
This test will occur when I think it is reasonably warm enough to stay on the bank of the creek long enough to get one set of testing done. That could be as soon as Feb. or March.
It also depends on the volunteers’ scheduling and mine.
We can use cell phones to communicate when one team is ready to leave the test area and one team with myself is ready to go to the testing area.

After the tests we can have a little party if the participants wish.
Edge

How’s that?

[NoZed Avenger]

I think you may have missed the point.

The idea is to test in such a way as to eliminate all known confounding variables as far as possible. That's what a scientific test aims to do. It seems edge has found a plot of land free of any response to dowsing - which, to him, means there is no gold there. So, no geographical clues to a gold deposit. Perfect for an in-the-field test. If we keep out any other possible sources of artificial interference to the complete satisfaction of edge, we'll be ready for the actual test.

Also, it is not edge's claim that his dowsing is an "incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability". He gets 6 out of 10. He is not a rich man. All he claims is that he finds more gold with dowsing than without.

I don't think I missed the point.

I understand the reason for the test and the set-up.

His reliability claims have also dwindled somewhat from the time of the initial testing; see also his many, many posts early in this very thread talking about the usefulness of dowsing in general.

And yet this ability can be completely negated by background chatter in practically every spot on the entire planet, apparently, except maybe one small plot of land.

No, I haven't missed the point. Nor do I think I was particularly rude; I did not aim anything at edge specifically and have wished him luck inthe past. I still do.

[edge]

If this is good to go I'll send it tomorrow.
If accepted that buys me up to a year if I need that much time .
I think I only need a few more days to pin piont the exact day.
That will be stated on the application threads with Mr. Wagg.

[edge]

I don't think I missed the point.

I understand the reason for the test and the set-up.

His reliability claims have also dwindled somewhat from the time of the initial testing; see also his many, many posts early in this very thread talking about the usefulness of dowsing in general.

And yet this ability can be completely negated by background chatter in practically every spot on the entire planet, apparently, except maybe one small plot of land.

No, I haven't missed the point.

What ever I said before doesn't matter and now with silver as the target and steel antennas as the dowsing mecinism that might not be the only place on the planet.
I'm acually thinking there may be a chance in at least two other states that I know of.
I have done many more expeiments since then on and off.
It works when you mine I know now how it will work for a simple test.

[edge]

What happens when I mine is this that tiny little chatter is usually gold and other small metals that are scattered then somewhere near that chatter is a bigger hit.
As a miner we get all of it in that location if it's with in a fairly close proximity.
So I see what all that chatter is as well as the bigger hits.
I have done this many many times, to see what it is and bring it up, with a dredge, a pan, or a sluice box and buckets.

What I know in the creek while mining is that I’m feeling every little piece of metal that’s there.

[BillyJoe]

His reliability claims have also dwindled somewhat from the time of the initial testing; see also his many, many posts early in this very thread talking about the usefulness of dowsing in general....And yet this ability can be completely negated by background chatter in practically every spot on the entire planet, apparently, except maybe one small plot of land.I am wondering why you don't see this as a great achievement by all of us. Edge, by constant test and trial, has narrowed his claim down to a very specific ability which is suitable for testing for the prize; and we have all helped him to that end by our constant helpful and positive advice and analysis (yes, well, I'm overstating that a bit :D ).

No, I haven't missed the point. Nor do I think I was particularly rude; I did not aim anything at edge specifically and have wished him luck inthe past. I still do.I don't remember saying or implying you were rude to edge. That is difficult to do because he has been trying so hard to narrow down exactly what he can do, side stepping all the insults and preconceived conclusions with good humour along the way. I also wish him luck. Hell, I hope he wins the prize (well, maybe I'm going a bit far here :D )

regards,
BillyJoe

[CynicalSkeptic]

I will dowse ten containers ten times in each category open and close and I will say that I will get 60% correct.
Then the next test that will be the formal I will repeat the process.
I will be allowed two days for those test so that I may be able to stop and rest when I feel the need to or continue the next day for the formal test..

How’s that?

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm guessing that you won't be able to do the formal immediately following the preliminary. My understanding is that you must first pass the preliminary, which will make you eligible for the formal, and that may require some additional preparation by JREF.

[Paulhoff]

I was talking to Jeff at Randi's meeting last night about edge, mostly all he did was shake his head.

Paul

:) :) :)

[William Smith]

I was talking to Jeff at Randi's meeting last night about edge, mostly all he did was shake his head.

Paul

:) :) :)

What exactly did you two talk about, Paulhoff?

[edge]

I was talking to Jeff at Randi's meeting last night about edge, mostly all he did was shake his head.

Paul

:) :) :)

This reminds me of sibling rivalry

L.M.A.O.

Why not say, on here, what you had to say, sum it up for us you big baby.
For the first time in any of your posts you have us all in suspense.
Don’t worry I won’t get mad and tell daddy James!

Snicker snicker!!

Edge crawls off to wipe off the tears……….From laughter!!!!!!!!

Tell me Paula what’s up with you? You mad cause I took your candy?:(

:):):)

[William Smith]

This reminds me of sibling rivalry

L.M.A.O.

Why not say, on here, what you had to say, sum it up for us you big baby.
For the first time in any of your posts you have us all in suspense.
Don’t worry I won’t get mad and tell daddy James!

Snicker snicker!!

Edge crawls off to wipe off the tears……….From laughter!!!!!!!!

Tell me Paula what’s up with you? You mad cause I took your candy?:(

:):):)

Touched a nerve, didn't he? (Told you, Paul.)



Edge, please prove your claim that you can "dowse".

[NoZed Avenger]

I don't remember saying or implying you were rude to edge.

Ah. Well, I'll chalk it down to my misreading and the awkwardness of the internet format then. I had read your reply as you feeling the need to run a bit of interference (acting as a "niceness buffer") in case I was being too harsh. Sorry; I'll plead a long work-week and lack of sleep.

[Jackalgirl]

So I will do a hidden container test like at the office except on the bank on the creek.
...

We can use cell phones to communicate when one team is ready to leave the test area and one team with myself is ready to go to the testing area.

Sorry not to refer back to the office test, but what I'm looking for is a precise description of what you're planning to do. Could you link to the office test (I can't find it right off the bat) and then describe what you're doing that's different? I already know you're doing the test on a river back instead of in an office, but what other changes have you made? Obviously, phrases like "the applicant will leave the room" don't apply outside, so please let us know what you're doing instead. Some questions/comments:

1) I'm assuming that when you mention volunteers, they'll be along for the whole ride. Is that correct? How many volunteers do you have, and exactly what will they be doing? I only ask because your basic description doesn't mention the volunteers until the end, so I just want to make sure I'm understanding everything correctly.

2) Cellphones: not a bad idea, but make sure that you control for trickery. For example, make sure that no one actually speaks (conceivably, people could set up a code phrase to pass along where the coin is. It'd be complicated, but it could be done). I'd recommend just checking the phone to make sure it's coming from the other team, while the other team lets the phone ring, say, four times (/each time/ -- no number codes!) before they hang up.

3) Are you either following my suggestion re: the two areas, one for each team, that are both out of the sight & hearing of each other and the test area?

4) Will the team that is setting up the test containers and target be making absolutely sure that they are picking up all of the containers in between each test, so that each attempt is made against a completely freshly made-up setup?

5) What are the shapes of your containers? I recommend round. Someone could conceivably set up all square containers, for example, so that they're lined up with one another, then subtly shift the one the coin's under. Watch out for that. When you do the blinded test, you absolutely want to make sure that there is NO CLUE as to where the target is. This will strengthen the claim that you are not unconsciously cueing.

When you write your protocol up and send it in to Jeff, please please please make sure that you use the level of detail I used in my initial protocol description to you. If you would like some help getting it typed up and formatted, please let me know. I'd be happy to help.

[edge]

The envelope is mailed.

Paul don't be angry I'm not. I know when you post binary code your angry.
Jackalgirl
Each of the jref team members can hold the phones.
It's the same test but in a different place and different dowsing rods silver is the target. The target may change.

The containers once I place them stay there through the whole test.

Thanks for offering but it's done besides when it shows up if accepted they will post it and we will still be hashing out the fine details on the application thread.
You'll be able to participate there.

[Jackalgirl]

Each of the jref team members can hold the phones.
It's the same test but in a different place and different dowsing rods silver is the target. The target may change.

In that case, though, it's not /exactly/ the same test. Remember, part of the protocol is to make sure that both teams (claimaint and test-setter-upper, whatever) never come into contact. How are you going to keep your teams apart? ETA: I mean, there won't be any "rooms" for them to leave or enter. This is outside. So what are you going to do?

The containers once I place them stay there through the whole test.

I'm not sure I understand this. You're placing the containers? How will the test target end up under one of the containers? Someone else is going to pick up the container and stick the target under it? If this is the case, I submit to you that this will be something that JREF will insist on changing. If the containers are static, then you may very well be able to tell (consciously or non-consciously) that one of them has been moved. We have to prove that it is /dowsing/ that is the effect here, so I strongly suggest that the test setup be set up from scratch each and every time.

You'll be able to participate there.

Boy, don't I wish that were the truth! Unfortunately, the "Challenge Applications" section is closed -- it'll be you and Jeff, plus any applicable messages to and from the local group who'll be observing your test. I'll tell you what, tho -- if you need any help or suggestions from me in regards to adjusting your test during the whole protocol negotation phase of this, please feel free to PM me. I'd be glad to help.

Would you be willing to post what you mailed, word-for-word? We might be able to give you a heads up on potential problems Jeff & the local group might have (such as you arranging the test setup and it not changing from test to test) so that you're prepared with a quick adjustment.

[William Smith]

Really GzuzKryzt you are such a good mind reader.
You should apply!
Because I have.
...

Please post your claim like in you wrote it in your application, edge.

If you like, post the whole application. This would make things easier, since Jeff Wagg seems not to post them any more in the Challenge Application subforum.

One million reasons to provide proof.

[Tricky]

The envelope is mailed.
Really? Without having someone here proof-read it, though there were numerous offers? Given your lack of facility with the language and your difficulty in writing a protocol, that was just a waste of money for a registered mailing. I hope you borrowed Jackalgirl's protocol, but based on what you say, I'm betting you didn't.

Frankly, I'm not sure you mailed an application to the JREF. You have not been known in the past to be a bastion of veracity.

The containers once I place them stay there through the whole test.
That will never be acceptable, because you could just look to see if they had been moved or realigned. But of course, you don't mean they can't be moved around, or at least, I hope that's not what you mean, because it would be impossible to place the target if that were the case. I hope you mean that they won't be moved from the test area. I don't think that will be a problem.

Thanks for offering but it's done besides when it shows up if accepted they will post it and we will still be hashing out the fine details on the application thread.
You'll be able to participate there.
There wouldn't have been many "fine details" if you had let us look it over and help you edit it before you sent it. You may recall that Randi looked at one of your earlier proposals and said it was trash. (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-08/081106inthemail.html) Why would you turn down the many offers to help you write it? The only reason I can think of is because you want it to be turned down so you can claim that the JREF won't test you.
Well, they won't test you unless you agree to a properly conducted, double-blind test, and nothing you've ever posted here indicates that know how to design one.

[edge]

Really? Without having someone here proof-read it, though there were numerous offers? Given your lack of facility with the language and your difficulty in writing a protocol, that was just a waste of money for a registered mailing. I hope you borrowed Jackalgirl's protocol, but based on what you say, I'm betting you didn't.

Frankly, I'm not sure you mailed an application to the JREF. You have not been known in the past to be a bastion of veracity.


That will never be acceptable, because you could just look to see if they had been moved or realigned. But of course, you don't mean they can't be moved around, or at least, I hope that's not what you mean, because it would be impossible to place the target if that were the case. I hope you mean that they won't be moved from the test area. I don't think that will be a problem.


There wouldn't have been many "fine details" if you had let us look it over and help you edit it before you sent it. You may recall that Randi looked at one of your earlier proposals and said it was trash. (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-08/081106inthemail.html) Why would you turn down the many offers to help you write it? The only reason I can think of is because you want it to be turned down so you can claim that the JREF won't test you.
Well, they won't test you unless you agree to a properly conducted, double-blind test, and nothing you've ever posted here indicates that know how to design one.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2304225#post2304225

[edge]

They can’t be moved because the lids will be placed in a small hole ten of them.
One of them will be hiding the dollar or what ever target I use such as a nugget ect.
They will be in a straight line, and next to the holes will be a 2x12 board approximately 10 or 20 feet long so that all that walk there can’t disturb the ground.

They can however if they want change or lift each target lid to re-disturb the area around each of the holes slightly so that they are changed some what on each of my tries so there is a change to each of the holes or spots.
In this way I won’t be able to tell anything that is noticeable with one change of the coin from spot to spot.

There is no way that I can cheat.
These are the only flaws.
I want this to be a fair and honest test.

I’m sure that if the formal test can’t be done in the same manner on the same ground or a place that I choose I would then say that THE TEST FOR THE MONEY IS FLAWED.

What you seem to forget is that I place the containers in the open test and that’s where they stay for the closed portion of the test.

And to be fair by the time they get there I will have to re-establish them again.
Only the target is moved from then on.

[Jackalgirl]

They can’t be moved because the lids will be placed in a small hole ten of them.
One of them will be hiding the dollar or what ever target I use such as a nugget ect.
They will be in a straight line, and next to the holes will be a 2x12 board approximately 10 or 20 feet long so that all that walk there can’t disturb the ground.

They can however if they want change or lift each target lid to re-disturb the area around each of the holes slightly so that they are changed some what on each of my tries so there is a change to each of the holes or spots.
In this way I won’t be able to tell anything that is noticeable with one change of the coin from spot to spot.

Edge, I am SO RELIEVED to see you write something like this. I think that this is a good part of your protocol, and I think it'll be important that each target lid be lifted each time, for exactly the reason you specify.

What you seem to forget is that I place the containers in the open test and that’s where they stay for the closed portion of the test.

Nope, didn't forget. I just don't recall you ever saying this (in this thread). I grok that each numbered container will be in the same hole every time. I think that'll work fine -- if the containers are all lifted and replaced each time.

Did you write all of this into the protocol? Could you please post, here, your protocol exactly as you wrote it?

P.S. Let me tell you a story about my elementary school. I had a teacher named Chuck. He was kind of a weirdo, but in a good way -- inventive, crazy, interesting. One day, he wanted to teach us about instructions and making assumptions about what a complete stranger might or might know. So he asked us to write down instructions for making a peanut butter & jelly sandwich. Then he brought in all the gear (bread, jelly, peanut butter, knives) and started to follow the instructions. EXACTLY. It was hilarious. Many of the kids had not specified that a knife was required. "Spread peanut butter on one piece of bread," for example. So he'd use his hands to spread peanut butter on one piece of bread. All over it, both sides -- 'cause, you see, the instructions hadn't specified that you only spread peanut butter on ONE side (and hadn't mentioned the knife). All of our sandwiches came out profoundly screwed up. But it was a great lesson. To this day, when I talk about instructions, I talk about "peanut butter & jelly instructions". Edge, your protocol has to be peanut butter & jelly instructions. It has to have this level of intricate detail, so that there's no room for peanut butter ending up all over the bread, hands, etc.

[Tricky]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2304225#post2304225
Yes, I saw that, Edge, but it doesn't properly describe a double-blind test, though it is light years better than your earlier plan which was, roughly "dowse in a natural area then dig and see what you find". You are making progress, but there are still numerous details to work out about protocol. But this is a good start. Still, I wish you had let us help you before you sent off the application.

Practice on making sure you are dowsing without any info on the location of the target or any contact with anyone who has info. Also, don't forget the "open" test where you dowse when you know where the target is. If your success ratio is higher in the open test, then perhaps you might recognize that the response you get is subconsiously controlled by you (the idiomotor effect). But 60% in ten trials with ten targets is easily enough to win phase one of the challenge in the old rules. By the new rules, there is no "phase one" so you'll probably have to take more than ten tests so as to eliminate blind luck. I think though that if you took 100 tests, a success ratio of 25% (with ten targets for each test) might be enough for a win. But I'm not a representative of the JREF, so don't take my word as gospel.

The good news is that under the new rules (which you may not be subject to) if you pass the test, you win. In the old version, after you passed the preliminary test, all you got was a chance to try the final test. As you may be aware, nobody ever passed a preliminary test.

[Tricky]

P.S. Let me tell you a story about my elementary school. I had a teacher named Chuck. He was kind of a weirdo, but in a good way -- inventive, crazy, interesting. One day, he wanted to teach us about instructions and making assumptions about what a complete stranger might or might know. So he asked us to write down instructions for making a peanut butter & jelly sandwich. Then he brought in all the gear (bread, jelly, peanut butter, knives) and started to follow the instructions. EXACTLY. It was hilarious. Many of the kids had not specified that a knife was required. "Spread peanut butter on one piece of bread," for example. So he'd use his hands to spread peanut butter on one piece of bread. All over it, both sides -- 'cause, you see, the instructions hadn't specified that you only spread peanut butter on ONE side (and hadn't mentioned the knife). All of our sandwiches came out profoundly screwed up. But it was a great lesson. To this day, when I talk about instructions, I talk about "peanut butter & jelly instructions". Edge, your protocol has to be peanut butter & jelly instructions. It has to have this level of intricate detail, so that there's no room for peanut butter ending up all over the bread, hands, etc.
I'm falling in love with you, Jackalgirl. :)

(PS: see nomination thread)
As Dictator for the Language Award Nominations, I agree that this is an excellent post. However, it is not eligible for the January prize. It will have to wait untill February to see if it makes the finals.

[Dumb All Over]

As Dictator for the Language Award Nominations, I agree that this is an excellent post. However, it is not eligible for the January prize. It will have to wait untill February to see if it makes the finals.
For clarity, I'm sure you didn't mean BillyJoe's post is a candidate for TLA. Stating the obvious- Jackalgirl, Tricky meant your post.;) Otherwise, if that's all it takes, I love you, too, Jackalgirl!

[Spektator]

I was curious whether Edge has received a response to his letter of February 2, but I see he's managed to get himself suspended for activity in another thread. Oh, well.

[William Smith]

I was curious whether Edge has received a response to his letter of February 2, but I see he's managed to get himself suspended for activity in another thread. Oh, well.

A cynic would probably say that getting suspended or banned is edge's only way to save face.

Of course, I am never cynical when it comes to potential applicants weaseling away from their claims.

Just another day at the JREF Million Dollar Challenge Forum.

[Tricky]

A cynic would probably say that getting suspended or banned is edge's only way to save face.

Of course, I am never cynical when it comes to potential applicants weaseling away from their claims.
I doubt that Edge is doing that. What he got suspended for was essentially his inability to figure out how to make links and forgetting to give credit. If anything, he uses the forum as a way to procrastinate about taking the challenge. Maybe he'll use the break to get back to dowsing, but I imagine he's shut down mining for the winter.

As to the "letter" he sent, I wouldn't bet he actually sent a letter. He might have sent an e-mail to somebody (not necessarily Randi). I seriously doubt he was going to spring for the cash to send a registered letter.

You see, Edge, in addition to being a few stars short of a constellation, is also not a devoted slave to veracity.

[Spektator]

Snip....

As to the "letter" he sent, I wouldn't bet he actually sent a letter. He might have sent an e-mail to somebody (not necessarily Randi). I seriously doubt he was going to spring for the cash to send a registered letter.

You see, Edge, in addition to being a few stars short of a constellation, is also not a devoted slave to veracity.

Well, he did tell us on February 2

The envelope is mailed.

I would hope he wouldn't lie to us. It's a sin to tell a lie, they say.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Oh, and edge, is the link you gave (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...25#post2304225 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2304225#post2304225)) your protocol? If so, it is rather vaguely worded, and not very detailed.

[Dumb All Over]

I would hope he wouldn't lie to us. It's a sin to tell a lie, they say.
I chatted with Jeff Wagg about an hour ago. He confirmed that he did receive an application from edge. Jeff said the application was being processed. He said he was currently communicating with edge via email. He did not say whether the app. was acceptable or not, just that it was being processed.

[edge]

I chatted with Jeff Wagg about an hour ago. He confirmed that he did receive an application from edge. Jeff said the application was being processed. He said he was currently communicating with edge via email. He did not say whether the app. was acceptable or not, just that it was being processed.

I haven't heard nothing yet.
My email address is in here though.

[Paulhoff]

I just saw Jeff last Wednesday night, you should have told me to ask him.

Paul

:) :) :)

[edge]

It's in here under user Cp I guess he can PM me also.
There's no big hurry the weather is icky.
Lots of snow and ice on the passes.
Water isn't high though.
I haven't been up there to do the double blind on myself yet.
I hope to do that soon with the other form of dowsing "L rods" and on those neutral spots with silver or a copper coil.
We’ll see, it’s all in the numbers.

[edge]

That whole suspension thing was bullship.
Tricky posted a link I went into it and pasted something and if you followed the conversation you could have figured it out but Noo.
They suspended me for using the same links that I had been using with most of those pages.
Go and figure.
Being suspended from the forum wouldn't affect the challenge at least I would think it wouldn't.
Since they are so touchy I backed off.
I try to write my own stuff now. :)

[edge]

Tricky, are you and Sezme still up for the test if it happens?
They haven't contacted me yet and that's good, the weather is still a factor and as soon as it's clear enough I will test myself on that particular bank.

I may end it before anyone spends any money to do this.
But I may also say bring it on, and at that point you'll know that I have the numbers of correct hits to proceed.

I made it up there to check on the neutrality of the ground using the L rods and there are several choices as to where to place the targets.
I ran out of time but this is one step, and I have one to go.

Finding a friend up there to spend the time is difficult as they are pressed for cash in that town.
The overall test can last up to three hours.
I’m calling people today to see if I can get a commitment on that.

The test may not take that long if it’s undoable.
If it is I’ll know right away then we are looking at several hours.


Now, as to your letter of application; Is there a reason you aren't showing it to us? Certainly you are within your right to keep it private, but we really could help you polish up the wording and stuff. No offense, but your writing really isn't very good, which is one reason why we can always tell when you are pasting stuff you haven't written.


I already have shown it to you and it is simple to understand.
I will post anything that they want to work out on here or the other thread about the applications.
It'll probably be about our timing, you, Sezme and myself to actually run the test.

Here it is,

So I will do a hidden container test like at the office except on the bank on the creek.
The difference is the target will be on the ground hidden by the container but most likely the lids of the containers that I already have.
The target will be an 1885 silver dollar you know the large ones.
The dowsing rods or the attractors are radio antennas that are L rods.
Totally insulated from my body.
I will dowse ten containers ten times in each category open and close and I will say that I will get 60% correct.
Then the next test that will be the formal I will repeat the process.
I will be allowed two days for those tests so that I may be able to stop and rest when I feel the need to or continue the next day for the formal test.
This test will occur when I think it is reasonably warm enough to stay on the bank of the creek long enough to get one set of testing done. That could be as soon as Feb. or March.
It also depends on the volunteers’ scheduling and mine.
We can use cell phones to communicate when one team is ready to leave the test area and one team with myself is ready to go to the testing area.

After the tests we can have a little party if the participants wish.
Edge

How’s that? It’s good I think.

And the addendum,
They can’t be moved because the lids will be placed in a small hole ten of them.
One of them will be hiding the dollar or what ever target I use such as a nugget ect.
They will be in a straight line, and next to the holes will be a 2x12 board approximately 10 or 20 feet long so that all that walk there can’t disturb the ground.

They can however if they want change or lift each target lid to re-disturb the area around each of the holes slightly so that they are changed some what on each of my tries so there is a change to each of the holes or spots.
In this way I won’t be able to tell anything that is noticeable with one change of the coin from spot to spot.

:)

[Tricky]

Tricky, are you and Sezme still up for the test if it happens?
I could be, if you and the JREF hammer out the details.

They haven't contacted me yet and that's good, the weather is still a factor and as soon as it's clear enough I will test myself on that particular bank.
Remember when you are testing yourself that even for a single blind test, you must have at least one other person. The dowser must not know where the target is located.

I may end it before anyone spends any money to do this.
But I may also say bring it on, and at that point you'll know that I have the numbers of correct hits to proceed.
Fair enough.

Finding a friend up there to spend the time is difficult as they are pressed for cash in that town.
The overall test can last up to three hours.
I’m calling people today to see if I can get a commitment on that.
For your self-test, you don't absolutely have to have a neutral person, as long as you are being completely honest with yourself. Green Eyes could be the other person.

There might be a way you can even do a kind of test by yourself, but again, it requires scrupulous self-honesty. I think you can to that.


Take ten identical, opaque plastic or other non-breakable containers with tight-fitting caps. (Brightly colored, if possible.)
Into one container, put your target.
Into the other nine, put something of about the same weight and density. A stone from the surrounding area would be good since it would not contain anything that would give a false result.
Put the caps on the containers and place them in a group on an open sheet, like a, tray, a pizza pan or a board.
Stand on one edge of the testing area with your back to it and the tray of containers in your hands.
In one move, fling the tray backwards, throwing all the containers in the air behind you such that they all land some distance apart. (You may have to practice this to get a good spread.)
Turn around and locate the containers on the ground (Now you know why I suggest brightly colored or fluorescent).
Dowse to find the one container that contains the target.
After you have opened one and only one container, record the results.
Reseal the one container (make sure it looks exactly the same as the other containers) and repeat the test exactly as you did before. Try not to pay attention to any features (such as weight) that would key you as to which container has the target.
DO NOT dowse until you find the correct container. You must have exactly one result per test.For a lot of reasons that should be obvious, this cannot be the protocol for the formal test, but if you can do this test, trying to make sure that you do not accidentally discover a pattern that is unrelated to dowsing and trying to make sure that you do it exactly the same way every time, you should be able to get a reasonable approximation of a blind test.

I already have shown it to you and it is simple to understand.
I will post anything that they want to work out on here or the other thread about the applications.
It'll probably be about our timing, you, Sezme and myself to actually run the test.

Well, February is already gone. March is roaring by. I'm going to be out of pocket at the end of April to the beginning of May. But this is a moot point until you and the JREF agree on a protocol. You might try e-mailing them to ask them when they will be getting back to you.

Here it is. Tricky's comments in red.

So I will do a hidden container test like at the office except on the bank on the creek. How will you decide the placement of the targets? Will they be equally spaced? (ed. Ah, I see you address this in your "addendum".)

The difference is the target will be on the ground hidden by the container but most likely the lids of the containers that I already have. I suspect you will need sealable containers since the uneven ground might allow visual contact with the target. Opaque plastic bowls or something like that should do


The target will be an 1885 silver dollar you know the large ones. That's fine.


The dowsing rods or the attractors are radio antennas that are L rods. Fine.

Totally insulated from my body. I don't know what this means. Just wearing gloves, or will you be "insulating" from visual contact as well?

I will dowse ten containers ten times in each category open and close and I will say that I will get 60% correct. You left out lots of steps here, such as how the targets are randomized, how the double-blinding is done, how the results are recorded and things like what safeguards you will take against "sensory leakage" (getting hints from non-dowsing things).

Then the next test that will be the formal I will repeat the process. Under the new challenge rules, there is no "formal" test. There is just one open and one closed test. You have less than three weeks to get in under the old rules, and I suspect this won't be doable. The only difference (speaking only for my understanding. I am not a JREF spokesman) is that the closed test is much more extensive. I suspect that ten tests will not be enough because the chances of success by random chance are too high, but again, that is something you and the JREF will have to hammer out.

I will say that I will get 60% correct. That should be more than enough provided you have a sufficient number of tests.

Then the next test that will be the formal I will repeat the process. See above. Nobody ever got past the preliminary, so it was eliminated to go straight to the "formal" which just means "better control". Since this test is for a million dollars, you can be pretty darn sure the JREF will insist on lots of control.


I will be allowed two days for those tests so that I may be able to stop and rest when I feel the need to or continue the next day for the formal test. I don't know if that will be acceptable or not. For control purposes, you need to keep everything the same. If you require two days for the test you will probably have to do another open test on the second day. Honestly, I cannot see why this test would exhaust you at all. It should take only a few hours.


This test will occur when I think it is reasonably warm enough to stay on the bank of the creek long enough to get one set of testing done. That could be as soon as Feb. or March. Unlikely. If you aren't able to get this done before April, you will have to use the new challenge rules (http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-01/011207challenge.html), which will be extremely difficult. You will have to get media coverage and also you will have to have an endorsement by someone of an academic nature. (See the link for more info).


It also depends on the volunteers’ scheduling and mine.
We can use cell phones to communicate when one team is ready to leave the test area and one team with myself is ready to go to the testing area.
Again, more specifics will be needed as to when and where the targets are placed and by whom.

And the addendum,
They can’t be moved because the lids will be placed in a small hole ten of them. If you use sealed containers, the containers can be easily moved from hole to hole. You haven't indicated whether or not the holes will be covered. In a properly conducted test, all ten of the containers will be moved after each test and the person moving them won't know which container has the target in it, lest he unintentionally leave subtle hints. This is the "sensory leakage" I was talking about.

One of them will be hiding the dollar or what ever target I use such as a nugget ect. The others will need to have an item of similar weight in them. There should be no way that the person placing the targets can tell which container has the actual target in it.


They will be in a straight line, and next to the holes will be a 2x12 board approximately 10 or 20 feet long so that all that walk there can’t disturb the ground.
They can however if they want change or lift each target lid to re-disturb the area around each of the holes slightly so that they are changed some what on each of my tries so there is a change to each of the holes or spots.
In this way I won’t be able to tell anything that is noticeable with one change of the coin from spot to spot. That is why all targets need to be placed between each test. Even if you don't disturb the ground, there might be tracks, etc. If all ten places are "disturbed" by a person who doesn't know which place contains the target, then this possibility of him giving hints is eliminated.

After the tests we can have a little party if the participants wish.
Sounds like fun.

How’s that? It’s good I think. It still needs a lot of work.

[Jackalgirl]

Hi, edge --

Make sure you read Tricky's questions, in red. He's pointing out, in essence, that your proposed protocol is not detailed enough. Remember my post about peanut butter & jelly instructions?

Please re-write the protocol, but this time imagine the following scenario:

you're writing for someone in another country. That person will be recreating your test, and someone will be taping it. The goal is to have video tapes of you and this person to look exactly the same.

So you have to be absolutely, nauseatingly detailed about it.

[edge]

I had this written by 3:00 yesterday but some one, I found out from my server, dug a hole down in L.A. and severed a major line and knocked out the connection to the intranet, that’s 700 miles or so from here.
It is a reminder of how dependent we are on 100-year-old technology, electric and phones.

I was reminded on a cold day about four days ago about this very thing when the power went out for about 6 hours.
Not only in this town but the whole county was down.
No heat, no TV, no computer, no lights, we are all so vulnerable, on the large scale.
This is the very reason I’m looking into dowsing and I’ll stop here.


The containers never get moved that's how it worked in the office.

In the field there will be ten holes in the ground instead of containers.
Each hole needs only be 6x6 inches.
The metal that I use for the target must be grounded.
Each hole will have a small lid in it to cover the bottom of the empty hole and the one with the target in it.
The coin is the only thing moving on each try that I make, they the team hiding the coin in the spot produced by a number generator will be placed and recorded by the first team one person from JREF and one from my team.

Then the second team, that's one person from JREF and I, will go to the test area and I will do my thing.
We can hide the whole test area with a tarp and the board that we walk on can be marked 1 through 10 it will give me an Idea where the spots are and what number I should call out for the location.
I won't be able to see the lids or the ground.
The ground won’t be disturbed because we are walking on a 2x12 whatever length I need to span the test area parallel to the holes that we dug. The holes will also be in a straight line with about a four-foot separation between each of the holes.
x…….x………..x……..….x…….….x……….x……….x………...x….….…x……… .x
1!!!!!2!!!!!!!!3!!!!!!!!!!4!!!!!!!!5!!!!!!!6!!!!!! !7!!!!!!!!!8!!!!!!!!9!!!!!!!10!!!

No sensory leaks.
X marks the holes and the “!” is the board with corresponding numbers.
The Xs get covered by a tarp. One long tarp.
I don't want to know anything about hits or misses till the test is over.

It's really pretty simple.
I had more of your red print answered but lost it when the servers’ lines were severed, I’ll try to answer them in the next hour.

[edge]

Honestly, I cannot see why this test would exhaust you at all. It should take only a few hours.


This is what I know, It’s draining, If I say more than that, for you it is unproven theory.

The hole is the container, the lid is the cover.
The tarp covers all of the holes and surrounding dirt.
If I choose the right spot I should get 90% or so, even 100%.
By dumbing down the sensitivity of the instruments the "L rods",
and grounding the target I should be able to prove that dowsing works.

I did 110% correct hits in winning spots and 70% or 80% correct hits in loser spots dredging.
The thing that threw me off on the losing spots were a chocker cable and a piece of a fender together in one spot this lead me to believe there was a pocket and a stringer there.
Then there was what I thought might be another pocket but was a load of lead, 5 ounces of lead at which point I thought I might be wrong about those spots and possibly they were winners, In other words I changed my mind and was hoping they were winners.
So my first instincts were right. So I didn't get 100 % on the loser spots, only 80%.


I hope this is clear enough to you.

[edge]

Jackalgirl
You are right,
So you have to be absolutely, nauseatingly detailed about it.

It's so simple when you mine, no one knows till you dig up the spot.
In this way my friends, that mined with me seen and stuck with me.

They know now exactly what I know, that when mining it works but they have tested me in the past and think it may not be provable when moving a target around on the ground.
Except for I have gone one step further like I said on my previous post with the L rods and grounding of the target.

One more thing I think is important, is that a copper coil with A CHARGE RUNING THROUGH IT MIGHT BE THE BEST TARGET.
It might over ride everything that's near it in the ground.
A target like that would be difficult to use in the field, but not near housing.
That will require more experimenting on my part and some way to power a coil.

[BillyJoe]

Is the JREF running scared?
How long is it now since edge first put in his application?
(Unless anyone can refute that - no, I'm sure it's been confirmed.)
No reply of any kind to date.
(Unless anyone can refute that.)
Are they stalling till after April Ist?

Do they not realise that they must, in all good conscience, test anyone who has applied before April 1st?

Can someone please explain the silence?
Jeff?

thanks,
BillyJoe

[edge]

Is the JREF running scared?
How long is it now since edge first put in his application?
(Unless anyone can refute that - no, I'm sure it's been confirmed.)
No reply of any kind to date.
(Unless anyone can refute that.)
Are they stalling till after April Ist?

Do they not realise that they must, in all good conscience, test anyone who has applied before April 1st?

Can someone please explain the silence?
Jeff?

thanks,
BillyJoe


I just wrote Jeff a letter and explaned it to him.
He should read this post or maybe they have.
I need a couple of days anyway let see what he says.

Here's the letter.

Hey Jeff,
This is Edge can you tell me the status of my application for the challenge?
If my out line of the protocols are not sufficient you can go to the last page of my post and read or read the whole thing and I think it's pretty much self explanatory.

Also tricky and Sezme are willing to do the tests for you if you choose them to be your representatives.

Also note that weather is a factor as I need to run one more set of tests myself, which means simply if I can’t prove that dowsing will give the results I’m looking for that I may say forget it or I may say bring it on.
This Tuesday I will know for sure.
Mike Guska.

[edge]

Billy Joe if it wasn't for this test i ran last year I would have said screw it.

I did 110% correct hits in winning spots and 70% or 80% correct hits in loser spots dredging.
The thing that threw me off on the losing spots were a chocker cable and a piece of a fender together in one spot this lead me to believe there was a pocket and a stringer there.
Then there was what I thought might be another pocket but was a load of lead, 5 ounces of lead at which point I thought I might be wrong about those spots and possibly they were winners, In other words I changed my mind and was hoping they were winners.
So my first instincts were right. So I didn't get 100 % on the loser spots, only 80%.

This kept me going. :) And the fact that you brainiacs gave me several good Ideas, so you will get credit too, If I win.

11 good hits,One was on a completly different property and I went right to it, that was # 11.

[Spektator]

(snip)I did 110% correct hits in winning spots and 70% or 80% correct hits in loser spots dredging.(snip)....


Edge, you might want to have someone, preferably not Tai Chi, look over your statistics.

[Paulhoff]

I did 110% correct hits in winning spots
edge how can you get 110% correct, that would be like trying 100 times and getting 110 tries right.

Paul

:) :) :)

[edge]

All talk and no proof makes edge a dull boy.
:) It's true. :)
No it's not clown. ;) Paul 7 out of ten is 70% correct 11 out of 11 is 110%. get it?

[Paulhoff]

No it's not clown. ;) Paul 7 out of ten is 70% correct 11 out of 11 is 110%. get it?
NO, 11 out of 11 is 100% and I do get it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Jackalgirl]

...7 out of ten is 70% correct 11 out of 11 is 110%. get it?

Edge, that's not correct. Here is how to calculate percentages:

number of correct guesses divided by the total number of tries times 100 = percentage

So:

7 / 7 = .70 x 100 = 70 = 70%

You can't go over 100% unless you have more correct guesses than tries, which isn't logical at all in your setup. Eleven correct guesses out of eleven tries means you got them all right; i.e., your accuracy is 100%.

Another example: if you got 7 out of 11 correct, you'd have:

7 / 11 = .6363636363... x 100 = 63.6363...% (or, rounded up, 64%).

[edge]

18 out of 21 right.

[SezMe]

Yeah, edge, I'm still up for it but only once an agreeable protocol is established. We're not there yet...by far.

[Tricky]

18 out of 21 right.
Wow! 180%

[BillyJoe]

It's alright guys...

I told edge to write about that 110%. :D
He said you wouldn't fall for it, but I told him you were sure to.
Sorry, edge, seems you're wrong after all.

:D

[LongFuzzy]

So:

7 / 7 = .70 x 100 = 70 = 70%



You sure about that?

-LF

[edge]

It's all in the wording.
Each test consists of ten tries.
There were two types ten of non producers and 11 of producing, which means I had 9 more to do to finish the second set of producers. 100 +10=110% correct hits.

I’m on a streak. If there are only 7 tries and you get 7/7 that’s 100%….

[BillyJoe]

You sure about that? [7 / 7 = .70 x 100 = 70 = 70%]I'm sure it was just a momentary lapse of reason. ;)

[Grimoire]

There were two types ten of non producers and 11 of producing, which means I had 9 more to do to finish the second set of producers. 100 +10=110% correct hits.
Huh? Percent means, literally, "per 100", or also "out of 100". When you say you got 110% correct, you are saying that if there were 100 chances, you got 110 of them correct. This doesn't grok.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are actually saying. Could you explain again, in different words, how you got 110%?

[BillyJoe]

I'm pretty sure this is going to have some sort of intellectual twist to it, we're just too clever to see it.

[sinclairmcevoy]

Why would someone about to win a million bucks be worried about gas and hotel expenses? Sounds like you're searching for reasons to not be able to take the test. Read ALL the rules, take the test, claim the prize. Besides, if you can find a half ounce of gold in one day, you can afford a cheap motel room!

[edge]

That was fast.

[edge]

Why would someone about to win a million bucks be worried about gas and hotel expenses? Sounds like you're searching for reasons to not be able to take the test. Read ALL the rules, take the test, claim the prize. Besides, if you can find a half ounce of gold in one day, you can afford a cheap motel room!

I'm not worried about it.
I'm thinking of seeing if they can stay at the Hayfork Hotel, it is haunted, I wonder if they'll see anything?
My good friend that owns it doesn't rent any of the rooms any more but I'm sure he would be willing.
The other option is the Big Creek Motel.
I wouldn't let them drive back down to the valley twice in a day.
The hotel is about 123 years old and is the hub of the town, in the past especially.
The motel, I'm not sure of the motel it’s a lot newer.
It could be very interesting.

[SezMe]

edge, you're way, way ahead of yourself. Focus on the protocol. All else will come in due time.

[BillyJoe]

I didn't catch the assicons.....but they're sitting in my email :D

(If you'd've left out the one that's been around, they may may have left the rest alone ;) )

[edge]

It was pretty funny, you want me to pm the letter to you?
Or did you get it in your e-mail too.

[BillyJoe]

No, what I meant was that, by the time I got back to this thread through my email link, your post had already been censored. However, when I looked back at the email, there it was - your post before it had been censored.

[SezMe]

edge, can we get back to refining the protocol?

[edge]

No, what I meant was that, by the time I got back to this thread through my email link, your post had already been censored. However, when I looked back at the email, there it was - your post before it had been censored.

All right!
I'll send you something else when I get time, don't want to play with fire too much here.
I have to go to work now though.

edge, can we get back to refining the protocol?

I think we have to hear from the JERF team now and Tuesday will be a big day for me as I check whether I can take the test.
I’ll be back later today.

[BillyJoe]

I think we have to hear from the JERF team now...Someone said recently that Jeff had acknowledged receipt of your application but are you saying that he has not communicated with you directly? I mean how long has it been? Do you even know whether your application will automatically lapse on April 1st unless it is finalised?

[SezMe]

Do you even know whether your application will automatically lapse on April 1st unless it is finalised?
Good question. Jeff, can you give us a status report on edge's app?

[edge]

Someone said recently that Jeff had acknowledged receipt of your application but are you saying that he has not communicated with you directly? I mean how long has it been? Do you even know whether your application will automatically lapse on April 1st unless it is finalised?

Good question.
I mailed it in the middle of February I think it was about the 12th it's been in their possession for about a month.
I can't remember whom but someone on this post said they talked to Jeff and Jeff was in communication with me, which is false one way or the other.
I'm not hard to find.
It's ok though I will know better on Tuesday, after that I will communicate with
Gary Schwartz, at the University of Arizona if need be. In this way I can have what the new rules want of me.
I may not need to and there is still plenty of time.
I need a little more time myself.
As far as the protocol I believe it's pretty good as it stands now.
If they think I have some way of cheating I am willing to take a lie detector test and or be hypnotized with the use of truth serum.
Jeff this is my e-mail if PMn me isn’t what you want to do.
Dowsing4gold @yahoo.com or @ hotmail.com.

The difference is it is on my turf, which I have examined and I know what I’m talking about.
I showed you the PM I sent Jeff. He got that a couple of days ago.
There’s still 20 days till the first.

Do you even know whether your application will automatically lapse on April 1st unless it is finalized

That’s why I mailed it before I was ready because I didn’t see anything about that stated in the new rules article.?.AnYbody know?
Good question.

[BillyJoe]

Gary Schwartz.Excellent choice!
But I doubt that the JREF will see it that way. :D

If they think I have some way of cheating I am willing to take a lie detector test and or be hypnotized with the use of truth serum.Again, the JREF is unlikely to see any merit in using lie detector tests (I assume you mean polygraph tests), hypnosis, or truth serum. I'm not even sure what truth serum is.

[Jeff Wagg]

I apologize for not keeping up on threads here. I simply don't have time. Please communicate with me via challenge@randi.org for challenge related things. PMs on the forum will not be answered in a timely fashion.

All challenges postmarked before April 1 will be processed under the OLD rules. So Edge, you are fine. I'm sorry it's taking so long, but I'm wearing a great many hats these days and I've had to focus on other things.

[edge]

I apologize Mike.. things are just crazy busy here. Your application is at the forefront.. we haven't forgotten about you.

Jeff


Originally Posted by edge
Hey Jeff,
This is Edge can you tell me the status of my application for the challenge?


Cool!

[edge]

Excellent choice!
But I doubt that the JREF will see it that way. :D

Again, the JREF is unlikely to see any merit in using lie detector tests (I assume you mean polygraph tests), hypnosis, or truth serum. I'm not even sure what truth serum is.

I can't remember the name of it, but there is such a thing, wines a good one.
Wine for everybody!
;)

[Klaymore]

7 / 7 = .70 x 100 = 70 = 70%

You meant to say 7/10, right? 7/7 is 100% correct.;)

Oh, you caught it already... sorry!

[Cuddles]

I can't remember the name of it, but there is such a thing, wines a good one.
Wine for everybody!
;)

You're probably thinking of sodium thiopental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_thiopental), also known as sodium pentathol(tm). It's a barbiturate mainly used as an anaesthetic. This class of drugs reduces higher brain functions, and so some people theorise that it makes people less able to lie, since lying is "more complex" than the truth. There is basically no evidence to back this up. It is about as reliable as a polygraph and no self-respecting organisation would ever bother with it.

Interestingly it is also used in the US for lethal injections and for euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands.

[Tricky]

You're probably thinking of sodium thiopental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_thiopental), also known as sodium pentathol(tm). It's a barbiturate mainly used as an anaesthetic. This class of drugs reduces higher brain functions, and so some people theorise that it makes people less able to lie, since lying is "more complex" than the truth. There is basically no evidence to back this up. It is about as reliable as a polygraph and no self-respecting organisation would ever bother with it.

Interestingly it is also used in the US for lethal injections and for euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands.
He's probably thinking of Veritaserum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potions_in_Harry_Potter#Veritaserum).

[SezMe]

Bumpa de bump. Where we at, edge?

[BillyJoe]

edge applied before April 1st so he has all the time in the world.
For the moment he is waiting for the weather to clear.
Patience please.

[SezMe]

I know he made the deadline, BillyJoe, but the weather shouldn't be preventing him from improving his protocol. This test he is talking about is just a side issue (show?) IMO.

[edge]

Still haven't heard anything.
I'm at about 50% after testing with the silver dollar on the bank.
After about five tries I start feeling what else is in that bank, so I'm going to test with a target that is about 200% bigger surface area to see if it will over ride the other smaller signals in the ground.
This will mean I have to change my covers and that the test will be bulkier.
I may have to go to a different part of the country as I described earlier, limestone deposits.
Thick limestone bedrock.

I think I have up to a year.

One more test on that bank in a week or so will tell me what I need to know.
Mean while I need 10 covers that are 18 inches by 12, probably cardboard.
Still mining is the only way that I can prove it.
We'll see.

[Spektator]

.....
Still mining is the only way that I can prove it.
We'll see.

Edge, I am not trying to goad or mock you, but really, if that is the only way you can prove it....shouldn't you be wealthy by now?

[BillyJoe]

Edge, I am not trying to goad or mock you, but really, if that is the only way you can prove it....shouldn't you be wealthy by now?If you can make $20 per week without dowsing and $100 per week with dowsing, it could be concluded that dowsing works AND you will not be wealthy using it. :rolleyes:
(Keep up, Spektator, we have been over this before. :mad: )

[edge]

Edge, I am not trying to goad or mock you, but really, if that is the only way you can prove it....shouldn't you be wealthy by now?

I will do it on the Trinity river this year so I will run one more test with the dredges.
I still have a chance to hit.
I’m already wealthy.

If you can make $20 per week without dowsing and $100 per week with dowsing, it could be concluded that dowsing works AND you will not be wealthy using it.

Most people that mine can't find the stuff, I seem to have no problem and I do well.
Now I have to try a river that's ten times the volume as the creek.
Pounds of gold are pulled from this river. I will have fun trying.
I already know where I’m going, and I have backup spots.
When I pan and sluice I make those figures, dredging is a different story.
It’s going to be a good year.
You guys do know that I work too?

[TjW]

If you can make $20 per week without dowsing and $100 per week with dowsing, it could be concluded that dowsing works AND you will not be wealthy using it. :rolleyes:
(Keep up, Spektator, we have been over this before. :mad: )

Or it could mean that some weeks you make twenty dollars and some weeks you make a hundred dollars and you're still not rich.

[BillyJoe]

Or it could mean that some weeks you make twenty dollars and some weeks you make a hundred dollars and you're still not rich.Then you would average $60 per week. :rolleyes:

[Cuddles]

Pounds of gold are pulled from this river. I will have fun trying.

So what you're saying is that other people find lots of gold here, but if you find any it will be because of dowsing? I think you'll find this a pretty good demonstration of why the JREF won't accept an uncontrolled test of mining that you propose.

[Spektator]

Edge, last year you said you would be pulling pounds of gold at one of your sites...but then you said you couldn't find it in the amounts you expected.

Why did you abandon the "hanging targets" protocol, when you were getting such good results?

[edge]

Edge, last year you said you would be pulling pounds of gold at one of your sites...but then you said you couldn't find it in the amounts you expected.

Why did you abandon the "hanging targets" protocol, when you were getting such good results?

I'm not done playing yet.

[edge]

The 11th spot that I picked was a lode.
I went there and the guy that bought the property, was who I was in partnership with.
He was a bipolar and I had to leave the second night from the deal and never looked back.

I worked there for one day, the more gold he seen me pull up, the weirder he got, so I pulled out that night.

I threw the gold from that day, back onto the property when I finished for the day.

But it was there boys.

I would have to give you several pages on this story but I walked away from it.
In about six hours I produced about a half a once, about $300.00 or so.
I just created the hole to work in and I left. The next day I would have doubled that Everyday for 2 months.
So onward and upward.
Here’s what happened.
He didn’t believe me when i dowsed it and his father in-law was down stream from this spot.
He had been there for about three or four weeks, then I showed up to actually work there.
He was getting about ten specks a day,
Nothing.
I told them that the gold wasn’t where he was mining, the month before, but they didn’t pay attention.

As soon as I hit bottom I was getting color.
It was the best I had seen in a long time. A rusty layer of hard pack red rust layer on the bottom that looked like a small conglomerate, but it wasn’t and the dredge was able to bring it up and it was holding.
It varied from about 18 inches to an inch thick.

I had found where the giant dredge had stopped.

This layer looked like bottom but wasn’t. The bottom looked like the same thing but blue conglomerate it was pristine and on it was older gold and bigger.
My line was following an old stand of trees but after the winter they were gone and it was exposed.
No one ever hit this 100-yard stretch.
The trees were from 25 to 40 years old.
As soon as I left guess who’s dredge was in my spot?

He claimed that I was on the property across the creek, and made a big deal out of it, Turned red eyed, I have never seen anything like that, and total change of character.

I had gone over where the lines where with him on the creek and I was in the exact spot that I had told him a month earlier on two occasions.Where I needed to be.Where I would set in.

There was one tree that marked the channel perfectly, it was topeled over and I was on this side of it and Vince's people were on the other.
They were doing alright then nothing.

What he didn’t know was that I knew Vince from having coffee and breakfast with him in the mornings and he was a new property owner too.
The man who owned Vince’s property before he did is Claude, the owner of the Hotel.

So I asked him what I should do with Vince’s gold since he claimed I was stealing it.
Should I give it to Vince I said and He said yes so I flung it out of the pan onto Vince’s’ part of the creek.I said there he has it back I was just looking at it!
What he didn't know was I already talked to Vince and he didn't care.

I thought those eyes were going to pop out of his head, and he then stormed off with cell phone glued to his ear, it was the funniest thing I had seen all day.L.M.A.O....
Since I was all of a sudden on Vinces property I told Vinces freinds to take the line I had and go forward which they did, and the dude and the father inlaw put in and went to the right.They had no choice at that point.
Still L.M.A.O. So was Vince.

This is how three days go by for nothing.
I pulled out from where I did my test. Dismantled.
Put in that night, put the machine together the next morning, worked mining for the day and then pulled out that night and set it on the bank were I started.
I had a friend help me that night; he and 1 or 2 others predicted that would happen just by knowing of him.

The next day we put it together.
That day I didn't mine.

This is when I went back to my old spot and tried the spots I by passed and hoped I was wrong about them.
But I wasn't.

That’s my luck.
So that’s why I dowse.
Too bad I couldn’t dowse his brain.
This was the first time I have had trouble and I hope my last because most owners are pretty cool.
I won’t have any problem this year and I’m on a big river and in the wilderness.
The owners of this claim said go have fun.

Truth! :)

[Jackalgirl]

The 11th spot that I picked was a lode.
I went there and the guy that bought the property, was who I was in partnership with.
He was a bipolar and I had to leave the second night from the deal and never looked back.

<snip>

I'm sorry, I'm terribly confused -- how does this impact the execution of your demonstration, edge?

[petre]

In about six hours I produced about a half a once, about $300.00 or so.
I just created the hole to work in and I left. The next day I would have doubled that Everyday for 2 months.


Day 1: 1 oz.
Day 2: 2 oz.
...
Day 59:

Not bad. Even if one of those two months was a short February, that'd be about 9 trillion tons of gold on the last day (worth over $172 quintillion)! If he could just work at it 9 more days after that, he'd succeed in converting the entire mass of the earth into gold. I'd say a Midas like that could probably win the challenge.

[Spektator]

Day 1: 1 oz.
Day 2: 2 oz.
...
Day 59:

Not bad. Even if one of those two months was a short February, that'd be about 9 trillion tons of gold on the last day (worth over $172 quintillion)! If he could just work at it 9 more days after that, he'd succeed in converting the entire mass of the earth into gold. I'd say a Midas like that could probably win the challenge.

Like the old chestnut I heard, I think in a statistics class: A laborer offers to work for a month (twenty-eight days) if the employer will only pay him one cent the first day, double it the second day, double it the third day, and so on.

At the end of twenty-eight days the employer will owe the worker a total of $2,684,354.55. That's even more than I earn per month.

[edge]

Duh, 1 once everyday, approximately.

[Paulhoff]

Like the old chestnut I heard, I think in a statistics class: A laborer offers to work for a month (twenty-eight days) if the employer will only pay him one cent the first day, double it the second day, double it the third day, and so on.

At the end of twenty-eight days the employer will owe the worker a total of $2,684,354.55. That's even more than I earn per month.


Duh, 1 once everyday, approximately.

edge is lost with this one.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Spektator]

Duh, 1 once everyday, approximately.

One ounce every day? Or will you find something once a day? It's unclear.

[Pope130]

Edge,
I can't seem to find a formal application. Have you formaly applied, and if so when? Going by the date of the OP you may be running into the one year time limit soon.

Robert

[BillyJoe]

Jeff has acknowledged receipt of edge's application - still no reply, though, after a couple of months.

[Pope130]

Jeff has acknowledged receipt of edge's application - still no reply, though, after a couple of months.

Billy Joe,
Thanks. I'd just noticed the original post is about ten and a half months old and was wondering how long the official clock had been ticking.
Robert

[edge]

u sticks are female!

I did a test on sand stone type bedrock at the top of Buckhorn pass.
I got better results because of the neutrality of the ground.
I am now going to try limestone bedrock or a quarry, which should do it.
One other place would be a thick ash deposit.

Jeff has made me an offer to do the test in Japan for a TV show.
I am waiting to hear from them.
They should have a limestone quarry there.

Tricky is there any metals in Limestone?
I need to know if I’m right. :)

[Skeptic Guy]

May I ask what do you mean "neutrality of the ground"?

[edge]

Skeptic Guy, "neutrality of the ground"?

Tricky is there any metals in Limestone?
I need to know if I’m right.

[Skeptic Guy]

Yes, makes perfect sense.

[edge]

While I have been here in Ca. in this town,
Some one has been telling me there’s a place where the copper veins are on either side of a creek running through this gorge, He says,
And I quote, you can throw a screwdriver or a set of keys and they will levitate 6 to 8 feet above the water flow.

I am going to check it out and film it.
It’s a 3-mile hike to the spot.

Any way, do you think it’s possible?

[Skeptic Guy]

Not in the least.

[EHocking]

While I have been here in Ca. in this town,
Some one has been telling me there’s a place where the copper veins are on either side of a creek running through this gorge, He says,
And I quote, you can throw a screwdriver or a set of keys and they will levitate 6 to 8 feet above the water flow.

I am going to check it out and film it.
It’s a 3-mile hike to the spot.

Any way, do you think it’s possible?Just as possible as dowsing actually working...

[Paulhoff]

These things always work 100 percent of the time, but then there are the real tests, that old reality is a real pisser.

Paul

:) :) :)

[SezMe]

Any way, do you think it’s possible?

Absolutely....as long as there is not a skeptic within 1000 miles whose bad vibes will ruin the whole effect.

[edge]

Absolutely....as long as there is not a skeptic within 1000 miles whose bad vibes will ruin the whole effect.

We'll see when I get the chance to go, I'll let you know.

If a skeptic has that kind of power then where does it come from?

Hell maybe a skeptic should take the challenge.
:)

[Tricky]

Tricky is there any metals in Limestone?
I need to know if I’m right. :)
Pure limestone is calcium carbonate, but in the real world, there is virtually nothing that is pure. You can find metal salts in almost any kind of rock on earth, but the amount may vary greatly. Limestone is not as likely to contain pure metals (as opposed to metallic salts or other compounds) as many other rocks, but it's not impossible. The world is a big place.

But I don't really know what you're asking. Certainly metals can be found in the same areas where limestone can be found, but that doesn't mean the metal came from the limestone.

And then of course, you have to define "metal". Most of the elements in the periodic table are classified as some kind of metal.

[UnrepentantSinner]

May I ask what do you mean "neutrality of the ground"?

That the best results occur in Sweden or Switzerland.

[Tricky]

He says,
And I quote, you can throw a screwdriver or a set of keys and they will levitate 6 to 8 feet above the water flow.

I am going to check it out and film it.
It’s a 3-mile hike to the spot.

Any way, do you think it’s possible?
No, that is so close to being impossible as to qualify. If there were magnetic pulls, the keys or whatever metal would have to be perfectly balanced from all sides. If you don't believe me, try suspending a piece of metal between two magnets. It always gets pulled to the one that is closer or stronger.

The only time you can make something "levitate" is if you have two magnets with the same poles held in place and facing each other with one above the other, but you have to have something to hold it in position, or it will simply flip over and they will join. Again, if you want to test this, try suspending one magnet over another without anything to hold the upper magnet.

And of course, keys and screwdrivers are generally not magnets, so this wouldn't work for them anyway.

Your "friend" is either deeply misguided or is lying or is yanking your chain so he can laugh at you. Don't waste your time on this.

[Skeptic Guy]

That the best results occur in Sweden or Switzerland.

Ah, that makes as much sense as anything else!

Now if we could just figure out how veins of copper can cause hardware to "levitate".

[BillyJoe]

Ah, that makes as much sense as anything else!.


Actually, edge makes perfect sense to me.
You just need to be around a bit.
He is an acquired taste.

[BillyJoe]

Don't waste your time on this.


No, I think edge needs to do this thing.
He needs to push his finger into the wound as it were.
(oops, sorry, that's probably not a good analogy)
Let him go and report back.
I think we can trust him to be honest about what he finds.

BJ

[BillyJoe]

These things always work 100 percent of the time, but then there are the real tests, that old reality is a real pisser.


Edge claims only 60% success.
Also, he has to prove it to himself before going public.
Also, I don't find reality a "real pisser"

:rolleyes: