[Moderated] Dowsing By Edge [Archive] - Page 3

edge

5th May 2007, 07:31 PM

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.

He doesn’t know about me except that I mine.

He does say that a nail is light enough that it will shot over to one side and at great speeds.
It's a spot that we also plan to mine, as he knows what's there.
It's worth a look.

If true then the copper veins must have some sort of charge?

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.
Nothing big,[metals] I would think, salts wouldn’t matter .

And Paula says,

How convenient, but being better than a baseball batter is still poor.

To many reality is a real pisser, therefore they have a so-called god....

Paul
Editing uncivil post. The question should be "What do you mean?"

Paulhoff

5th May 2007, 07:39 PM

If true then the copper veins must have some sort of charge?
A charge? When in the ground, please........

Paul

:) :) :)

And I see you're up to name calling again, please don't be childless.

BillyJoe

5th May 2007, 08:05 PM

A charge? When in the ground, please........

A charge? When in the ground? Please....

Paulhoff

6th May 2007, 06:04 AM

A charge? When in the ground? Please....
If I wanted it that way I would have done it that way, "When in the ground" was not a question thank-you it was a statement...............:confused:

Paul

:) :) :)

BillyJoe

6th May 2007, 07:12 AM

If I wanted it that way I would have done it that way, "When in the ground" was not a question thank-you it was a statement...............:confused:

Okay, I can see that, but I'll have to trust you meant that. Don't know if I do.

rtalman

6th May 2007, 08:06 AM

edgeLike e.e. cummings?
Sorry, my bad, billyjoe.

CynicalSkeptic

7th May 2007, 10:48 AM

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

Hell maybe a skeptic should take the challenge.
:)

Sounds good. Here's my claim: I have the power to nullify anyone's paranormal powers. i.e. when I am present during a controlled, double-blinded, demonstration of supernatural powers, those powers will fail to pass the demonstration.

Where's my $1M?

William Smith

7th May 2007, 11:50 AM

Sounds good. Here's my claim: I have the power to nullify anyone's paranormal powers. i.e. when I am present during a controlled, double-blinded, demonstration of supernatural powers, those powers will fail to pass the demonstration.

Where's my $1M?

Check's in the mail. I sent edge one, too.

(The last sentence reads for BillyJoe: I sent edge one two.)

edge

7th May 2007, 07:14 PM

Sounds good. Here's my claim: I have the power to nullify anyone's paranormal powers. i.e. when I am present during a controlled, double-blinded, demonstration of supernatural powers, those powers will fail to pass the demonstration.

Where's my $1M?

Luckly dowsing is not paranormal.
I'll take that bet lets go mining.

Jackalgirl

7th May 2007, 11:11 PM

...
You know why?
I can prove it in the field.
...

Okay, so when will you be ready to conduct a test according to JREF's standards for protocols? I'm personally not interested in the copper vein / magnetism test, because that's not what you've proposed to test for the Million Dollar Challenge.

When are you going to be ready to actually conduct (your next) Million Dollar Challenge test?

EHocking

8th May 2007, 07:27 AM

...You have to see it to believe it.
They say, other scientists that there is no measurable force when dowsing, that’s wrong.
I can measure it.Without wishing to derail this thread further...

HOW can you measure this force?

Tricky

8th May 2007, 05:23 PM

Without wishing to derail this thread further...

HOW can you measure this force?
Some time way back, Edge claimed that the attractive force from dowsing nearly ripped his rod out of his hands, even though he was wearing gloves. Unfortunately, when we suggested a test for this force, he failed to demonstrate it (and reported it honestly). He was not able to make a pendant of pure gold swing by dowsing at it, so this claim of strong force has never been substantiated by him.

He has further claimed that this force is unique because it does not adhere to Newton's 3rd law, in that it creates an action without any equal and opposite reaction, though he has failed to elaborate on this.

It is possible he will claim that he never said such things, and I'm not even sure I can find the posts to prove it (as I say, it was some time back) and I don't accuse him of lying. I think he truly may have forgotten much of what he has said, especially the parts that contradict each other.

Paulhoff

8th May 2007, 06:12 PM

Is it funny, how these rods don't do a dam thing when they are just laid down on the ground, they only work when in the hand, mmmmmmmm.

Paul

:) :) :)

rtalman

8th May 2007, 07:33 PM

If the power to dowse were in the witching rod, couldn't someone build a robot with sensors in it's armiture that could measure in microNewtons to carry the rod around?

edge

8th May 2007, 08:56 PM

Okay, so when will you be ready to conduct a test according to JREF's standards for protocols? I'm personally not interested in the copper vein / magnetism test, because that's not what you've proposed to test for the Million Dollar Challenge.

When are you going to be ready to actually conduct (your next) Million Dollar Challenge test?

Not sure.
We have up to a year to get together

SezMe

8th May 2007, 09:50 PM

edge, I'm going to be in your area next week. Check you PM.

BillyJoe

8th May 2007, 10:32 PM

your

Oh, I'm sorry SM, I though you were Paul, sorry. :D

Jackalgirl

9th May 2007, 02:01 AM

Not sure.
We have up to a year to get together

What's holding you up at this point?

EHocking

9th May 2007, 03:50 AM

Some time way back, Edge claimed that the attractive force from dowsing nearly ripped his rod out of his hands, even though he was wearing gloves. Unfortunately, when we suggested a test for this force, he failed to demonstrate it (and reported it honestly). He was not able to make a pendant of pure gold swing by dowsing at it, so this claim of strong force has never been substantiated by him.

He has further claimed that this force is unique because it does not adhere to Newton's 3rd law, in that it creates an action without any equal and opposite reaction, though he has failed to elaborate on this.

It is possible he will claim that he never said such things, and I'm not even sure I can find the posts to prove it (as I say, it was some time back) and I don't accuse him of lying. I think he truly may have forgotten much of what he has said, especially the parts that contradict each other.Ah. Post 529: 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. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2300444&postcount=529)

So here he claims to have measured the force using a set of balances but is unable to reproduce this claim.

have I got this right, edge?

BillyJoe

9th May 2007, 05:48 AM

Mainly the fact that dowsing doesn't work.

Assuming a conclusion before the test is even set up. :rolleyes:

Paulhoff

9th May 2007, 06:18 AM

Assuming a conclusion before the test is even set up. :rolleyes:
So how many tests must be done, that the people being tested are happy with the test conditions before the test, and then when they fail, again, they aren't happy with the test conditions and start pointing out the sillies reasons why they failed, how many? How many times do you have to ask them, how does it work, and they give all kinds of reasons not based on any know facts of nature? How come their rods only move when in someone’s hands, and never work on the ground, table, chair or anything else they are on?

Magnets work very will without the need of a handler.

Paul

:) :) :)

Cuddles

9th May 2007, 07:06 AM

Assuming a conclusion before the test is even set up. :rolleyes:

Yep. Is that some kind of problem? Every dowser that has ever been tested has failed. Edge himself has been tested and failed. Although he has applied again, he still does not appear to have any idea what he can actually do or how he could test it. Assuming anything other than that dowsing does not work would really just be silly. If someone can come up with some evidence that this conclusion is wrong, great. I'm not holding my breath.

edge

9th May 2007, 05:10 PM

edge

9th May 2007, 05:39 PM

Yep. Is that some kind of problem? Every dowser that has ever been tested has failed. Edge himself has been tested and failed. Although he has applied again, he still does not appear to have any idea what he can actually do or how he could test it. Assuming anything other than that dowsing does not work would really just be silly. If someone can come up with some evidence that this conclusion is wrong, great. I'm not holding my breath.

Wrong I know exactly what I can and cannot do and the reasons why.
It works very well when I’m mining and at that point you can visually see what it is your feeling because you are bringing it up.

After it's been clean, “the ground” there is a change in what I can feel, but always a speck or two remains. But it’s nothing like before.
There are many reasons for that.
It has to do with different layers of bottom.
For instance original bedrock being covered by “overburden,” creek rocks that actually get petrified and turn to cement, they are called conglomerates and are made of different size of rocks, and those deposits differ in size and thickness. Then blue clay can cover that, which is a false bottom that can also have metals deposited on it. There are 3 layers that can and have received gold and other metals. Then there can be multiple layering of the last two.

Three bottoms that can be holding but I can only penetrate to the first and hope to suck out the cracks in the second and never reach the third, but there are exceptions to that rule. Only bedrock is there, only conglomerate and bedrock, and then all three.

The best possible way is actually to test while mining but that's not perfect either.
Second best is to test on limestone I think.
The container test on that kind of bedrock.

edge

9th May 2007, 05:45 PM

Edge, dowsing doesn't work.

Come mining then we'll talk.
Cause I have a test for you and me side-by-side ok?

edge

9th May 2007, 05:47 PM

Read your letter Sezme, I will call later.

Tricky

9th May 2007, 07:33 PM

Wrong I know exactly what I can and cannot do and the reasons why.
That doesn't seem to be the case, because your methods keep changing and your reasons keep changing. If you knew exactly what you could do, you would have passed the challenge the first time, or you would have admitted you couldn't do it before you took the test.

It works very well when I’m mining and at that point you can visually see what it is your feeling because you are bringing it up.
This point has been covered many times. In an area where gold is present, an experienced prospector can usually find some amount of it. You claim you do better than others and it may even be true (though we have only your subjective opinion on this) but it could also be because you are a pretty good prospector. You have never shown us one single scrap of data that indicates that your dowsing helps you find gold.

After it's been clean, “the ground” there is a change in what I can feel, but always a speck or two remains. But it’s nothing like before.
This is a totally unverified claim. You would have to dig up and analyze thousands of cubic yards of soil and rock in order to verify this claim. Please understand, Edge, that we cannot believe what you "feel". We must see evidence. You have provided none.

There are many reasons for that.
It has to do with different layers of bottom.
For instance original bedrock being covered by “overburden,” creek rocks that actually get petrified and turn to cement, they are called conglomerates and are made of different size of rocks, and those deposits differ in size and thickness.
This is not "petrification", Edge. Rocks are already "petrified" because they are already made of rock. You may be talking about cementation, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with dowsing for gold, unless you are arguing that they are cemented with gold. Geologically, you are speaking gibberish.

If you are claiming that you can dowse for rocks, then that's going to be a pretty hard one to prove in a natural environment. You have to find a place where there are no rocks of any size, including clay size.

Then blue clay can cover that, which is a false bottom that can also have metals deposited on it. There are 3 layers that can and have received gold and other metals. Then there can be multiple layering of the last two.
Really? What are those three layers? What are they made of (something a little more specific than "blue clay" please.) Why only three? What makes them "receive" gold and other metals? I can see you have some experience with mineral veins, but your education is woefully inadequate for serious mining. My knowledge is also inadequate, since I'm a petroleum geologist, not a hard-rock geologist, but then, I don't claim to be able to find gold.

The best possible way is actually to test while mining but that's not perfect either.
Second best is to test on limestone I think.
The container test on that kind of bedrock.
Would it suffice to do the test atop a thick layer of limestone? I think that could be accomplished. There are many such beds in many parts of the country. You could do it atop some of the karst topography or the limestone offshore shelf of Florida if you wanted to go visit Randi again.

Honestly, Edge, all you have to do is dowse an area so that you know where the natural attractions are, then put your strong-attracting targets in a place where you're not getting those "signals". You could even use the exact same location for every test and merely test whether you could detect whether or not a large target had been placed there.

It is so very very simple, a really stupid person could do it. Since you are not stupid, I can only assume that you are avoiding this simple procedure because you know you will fail and are looking for excuses not to take the test. I really wish you would join us in the real world. There are plenty of amazing things to discover, even without magic.

Skeptic Guy

9th May 2007, 07:43 PM

Edge started this thread on May 24th, 2006 so it's coming up on a year now. Still no test, no evidence, no anything... but lots of posts.

edge

9th May 2007, 09:50 PM

SezMe I will call at 8:30 on friday night.

edge

9th May 2007, 10:17 PM

That doesn't seem to be the case, because your methods keep changing and your reasons keep changing. If you knew exactly what you could do, you would have passed the challenge the first time, or you would have admitted you couldn't do it before you took the test.

This point has been covered many times. In an area where gold is present, an experienced prospector can usually find some amount of it. You claim you do better than others and it may even be true (though we have only your subjective opinion on this) but it could also be because you are a pretty good prospector. You have never shown us one single scrap of data that indicates that your dowsing helps you find gold.

This is a totally unverified claim. You would have to dig up and analyze thousands of cubic yards of soil and rock in order to verify this claim. Please understand, Edge, that we cannot believe what you "feel". We must see evidence. You have provided none.

This is not "petrification", Edge. Rocks are already "petrified" because they are already made of rock. You may be talking about cementation, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with dowsing for gold, unless you are arguing that they are cemented with gold. Geologically, you are speaking gibberish.

If you are claiming that you can dowse for rocks, then that's going to be a pretty hard one to prove in a natural environment. You have to find a place where there are no rocks of any size, including clay size.

Really? What are those three layers? What are they made of (something a little more specific than "blue clay" please.) Why only three? What makes them "receive" gold and other metals? I can see you have some experience with mineral veins, but your education is woefully inadequate for serious mining. My knowledge is also inadequate, since I'm a petroleum geologist, not a hard-rock geologist, but then, I don't claim to be able to find gold.

Would it suffice to do the test atop a thick layer of limestone? I think that could be accomplished. There are many such beds in many parts of the country. You could do it atop some of the karst topography or the limestone offshore shelf of Florida if you wanted to go visit Randi again.

Honestly, Edge, all you have to do is dowse an area so that you know where the natural attractions are, then put your strong-attracting targets in a place where you're not getting those "signals". You could even use the exact same location for every test and merely test whether you could detect whether or not a large target had been placed there.

It is so very very simple, a really stupid person could do it. Since you are not stupid, I can only assume that you are avoiding this simple procedure because you know you will fail and are looking for excuses not to take the test. I really wish you would join us in the real world. There are plenty of amazing things to discover, even without magic.

You mean to tell me that you don't know what conglomerate is?
Every one here knows what that is.
It is over burden that the water action has moved onto a bench or usually creek bottom it has sat there with gold and natural lead along with iron and platinum and hasn't move for thousands of years usually it's creation started in pre-diluvium (sp.) times.
The mud that is stuck holding the rock together has turned to a black cement and it's sat there so long that the rock has turned black if you crack one open you can then see it's original color. Some of it will retain its original color because of the sand blasting action but mostly it’s black, kind of like concert with aggregate in it.
The rock that's cemented together varies in size from pea gravel to boulders 8" or more and then there's the type that can have various sizes in it.
It is a hard bottom.
Bedrock can be any type, solid.

On all those bottoms sits the stuff that has washed down and is still lose.
Along with the newest placer gold that's broke free from one of the veins or those bottoms.

Cuddles

10th May 2007, 03:02 AM

Wrong I know exactly what I can and cannot do and the reasons why.

As Tricky said, you very obviously do not know what you can do because otherwise you would be able to test it. And you certainly don't know the reasons why, because you do not have any effect that needs a reason.

William Smith

10th May 2007, 03:58 AM

Wrong.
I think it would have gone farther but scale was at it's limit.
It is reproducible any time.

Show us the set-up and then, please, just do it.

EHocking

10th May 2007, 04:01 AM

Wrong.
I think it would have gone farther but scale was at it's limit.
It is reproducible any time.Yet a year later it has not been reproduced? Uh Huh....

BillyJoe

10th May 2007, 05:40 AM

Yep. Is that some kind of problem? Every dowser that has ever been tested has failed.

We are not here dealing with every dowser that has ever been tested.
We are dealing with one specific dowser and his specific way of dowsing.
He doesn't have to carry everyone else's failure on his shoulders.

Edge himself has been tested and failed.

If you had spent the last 30 years convinced that something works because you have seen it work, and then someone sets up a test and that thing fails, would you immediately give up 30 years believing that that thing works as a result of this one test? Of course not. You would be an autumn leaf blowing in the wind. You would look for reasons why it failed. You would demand a restest that accounts for what you regard as methodological flaws in the testing procedure. Edge demands no less than you would.

Although he has applied again, he still does not appear to have any idea what he can actually do or how he could test it.

He has found a different type of dowsing rod that works better.
He has continued his search for "neutral ground" were his success rate might exceed that required to pass the test.
He has had about zero help from the JREF - how long is it now that he has submitted his protocol without any useful response?

Assuming anything other than that dowsing does not work would really just be silly. If someone can come up with some evidence that this conclusion is wrong, great. I'm not holding my breath.

You are assuming that edge will fail before he has had a chance to test his procedure. You don't have to hold your breath, just mark time and let this thing play out. What is your rush? There are plenty other things to amuse you on the forum in the mean time. There is no need to rush this project into a forgone conclusion.

Cuddles

10th May 2007, 07:11 AM

We are not here dealing with every dowser that has ever been tested.
We are dealing with one specific dowser and his specific way of dowsing.
He doesn't have to carry everyone else's failure on his shoulders.

Actually yes he does. He claims exactly the same as may other dowsers. All those who have been tested have failed. Therefore I assume he will fail.

If you had spent the last 30 years convinced that something works because you have seen it work, and then someone sets up a test and that thing fails, would you immediately give up 30 years believing that that thing works as a result of this one test? Of course not. You would be an autumn leaf blowing in the wind. You would look for reasons why it failed. You would demand a restest that accounts for what you regard as methodological flaws in the testing procedure. Edge demands no less than you would.

Irrelevant. We were not talking about Edge's beliefs, we were talking about mine. You said I was assuming the conclusion before the test. Yes I am, because the conclusion has happened many times before and I have no reason to believe this time will be any different. Edge's personal beliefs have nothing to do with this.

He has found a different type of dowsing rod that works better.
He has continued his search for "neutral ground" were his success rate might exceed that required to pass the test.
He has had about zero help from the JREF - how long is it now that he has submitted his protocol without any useful response?

He has been doing this for 30 years. He claims to know exactly what he can do and how it works. Yet he keeps having to change what he claims.

You are assuming that edge will fail before he has had a chance to test his procedure. You don't have to hold your breath, just mark time and let this thing play out. What is your rush? There are plenty other things to amuse you on the forum in the mean time. There is no need to rush this project into a forgone conclusion.

Rush? It's been nearly a year. It's been much longer since his first faliure. He has been doing this for 30 years. This must be some strange meaning of "rush" that I wasn't previously aware of.

Dumb All Over

10th May 2007, 07:20 AM

Come mining then we'll talk.
Cause I have a test for you and me side-by-side ok?
That's an interesting proposition. Explain this test you speak of. If it's a viable test, I just might fly out and take you up on that.

Tricky

10th May 2007, 11:28 AM

You mean to tell me that you don't know what conglomerate is?
Every one here knows what that is.
Everyone but you, apparently.

It is over burden that the water action has moved onto a bench or usually creek bottom it has sat there with gold and natural lead along with iron and platinum and hasn't move for thousands of years usually it's creation started in pre-diluvium (sp.) times.
That is so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin. Conglomerate refers to a type of sedimentary rock with coarse, poorly sorted pebbles. It can be formed in any number of environments, but they are almost always high-energy environments with rapid deposition, like channel deposits or submarine fans, since large particles settle out of suspension if energy is reduced.

The presence of conglomerate says little about it's age, as it could be recent or very ancient burial.

The term "pre-diluvian" (usually antediluvian) means "before the flood" and usually refers to the mythical flood mentioned in the bible. It has no significance as a geological term. I'm guessing you meant "alluvial (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alluvial)", but it's hard to tell with you.

The mud that is stuck holding the rock together has turned to a black cement and it's sat there so long that the rock has turned black if you crack one open you can then see it's original color.
I assume you are talking about the discoloration that occurs in rock due to weathering. Geologists always break a rock open to get a "fresh" sample of the rock, because weathering changes the characteristics of the rock. Cementation materials may be mud (clay) of various compositions, calcium carbonate, quartz or any number of other things. In areas where minerals are found, often the cement has been replaced diagenetically, mostly by the actions of subsurface fluids with great heat and/or pressure. This often results in concentration of minerals.

Some of it will retain its original color because of the sand blasting action but mostly it’s black, kind of like concert with aggregate in it.
The color depends on where you are and what minerals are available, but often weathered rock is darker than the unweathered rock. This may often be the result of biologic action, such as algae growing within the pores. And yes, conglomerate does resemble concrete (not concert) though much more poorly sorted and less uniform.

The rock that's cemented together varies in size from pea gravel to boulders 8" or more and then there's the type that can have various sizes in it.
It is a hard bottom.
Bedrock can be any type, solid.
Bedrock means the solid rock layer below which there is complete consolidation. It can be conglomerate or anything else. All the unconsolidated stuff above the bedrock is called "regolith".

On all those bottoms sits the stuff that has washed down and is still lose.
Along with the newest placer gold that's broke free from one of the veins or those bottoms.
I now understand what you mean, although it is a struggle. You really ought to take a course in basic geology, Edge. It could come in handy in your line of work. Misusing terms like "conglomerate" and "petrification" will only confuse people.

colin

10th May 2007, 12:42 PM

As far as retesting a failed dowser is concerned, this thread has been useless for a long, long time. (I don’t think Edge will do another controlled test… ever!)

Fortunately, the geology lessons are interesting. Thanks, Tricky!

Tricky

10th May 2007, 02:26 PM

As far as retesting a failed dowser is concerned, this thread has been useless for a long, long time. (I don’t think Edge will do another controlled test… ever!)
It depends. He has previously stated that he will only do a test under "natural" conditions, but has waffled from that stance a lot. One thing keeps it possible though: Edge would really like a million dollars.

Fortunately, the geology lessons are interesting. Thanks, Tricky!
You're very welcome, but it is I who should thank you for reading them. I will ramble on about this stuff all day if you let me. You want to see my cross-bedding pictures?

catbasket

10th May 2007, 02:48 PM

Fortunately, the geology lessons are interesting. Thanks, Tricky!
Seconded!

One of the great things about these forums is that I often find something interesting and/or edumacashunal in just about any old thread.

Come on edge, just re-take the test and prove all us skeptics wrong ... while winning the $million and becoming famous beyond your wildest dreams!

edge

10th May 2007, 08:55 PM

Here in this picture is a clay bottom, it brown in this section but if you penetrate it, it’s blue. Notice how some of it is above the water line.

Jackalgirl

10th May 2007, 09:21 PM

Here in this picture is a clay bottom, it brown in this section but if you penetrate it, it’s blue. Notice how some of it is above the water line.

Terrific. What's holding you up from conducting a test, edge? You say that this works reliably, yet somehow the conditions haven't been right for an actual test. If it works reliably, it should work, yes? So what's holding you up, and how long will it be before you can conduct a test?

Tricky

10th May 2007, 09:22 PM

Here in this picture is a clay bottom, it brown in this section but if you penetrate it, it’s blue. Notice how some of it is above the water line.
Gosh, that picture really tells a lot.

By the way, here's a picture of God. Really, it is.

BillyJoe

11th May 2007, 03:58 AM

Come on edge, just re-take the test and prove all us skeptics wrong ... while winning the $million and becoming famous beyond your wildest dreams!

Edge is doing the only sensible thing which is prove to himself that he can do it with sufficient success to suceed in a re-test before he actually re-takes the test. To do otherwise would be foolish and a waste of everyone's time.

BillyJoe

11th May 2007, 04:02 AM

As far as retesting a failed dowser is concerned, this thread has been useless for a long, long time. (I don’t think Edge will do another controlled test… ever!)

Oh, I don't know, we've had quite a bit of fun here.
Also, it might not be all edge's fault. The jref has not responded to his protocol for some three months now, other than to acknowledge receipt.

Cuddles

11th May 2007, 04:13 AM

Edge is doing the only sensible thing which is prove to himself that he can do it with sufficient success to suceed in a re-test before he actually re-takes the test. To do otherwise would be foolish and a waste of everyone's time.

So he knows exactly what he can do and how he does it, but in 30 years he hasn't managed to prove this even to himself? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

BillyJoe

11th May 2007, 04:24 AM

Actually yes he does. He claims exactly the same as may other dowsers. All those who have been tested have failed. Therefore I assume he will fail.

As I said we cannot expect edge to carry the weight of all the dowsers in the world on his shoulders. The other dowsers may be as useless in using the dowsing rod as you are using an electron microscope.

Irrelevant. We were not talking about Edge's beliefs, we were talking about mine. You said I was assuming the conclusion before the test. Yes I am, because the conclusion has happened many times before and I have no reason to believe this time will be any different. Edge's personal beliefs have nothing to do with this.

You misunderstood but I am happy to take the blame of a badly worded reply. I meant we must test edge as a completely new contestant. In the broard you can say that dowsing doesn't work, but that conclusion must be provisional and you must be prepared to change your conclusion if evidence supportive of dowsing is found. You should not be completely open-minded, but you must be prepared to consider the possibility that you may be wrong. If a particular individual - in this case, edge - says he can make dowsing work, you must be open-minded enough to consider his case. Sometimes that requires patience.

He has been doing this for 30 years. He claims to know exactly what he can do and how it works. Yet he keeps having to change what he claims.

Not really. He knows (or "knows" if you object) how to do it in the field. But he is looking to test it in a way suitable for winning the million dollar prize. This will necessarily be different from what he does in the field. Also, he has never before tried to quantitate his success. He needs to prove to himself that he can do it with a sufficient level of success to win the prize.

Rush? It's been nearly a year. It's been much longer since his first faliure. He has been doing this for 30 years. This must be some strange meaning of "rush" that I wasn't previously aware of.

He is not exactly receiving any help from the JREF, who have provided him with absolutely zero useful feedback. Maybe you could complain to them.

colin

11th May 2007, 06:30 AM

I’m not sure what kind of feedback the JREF could give Edge. Edge doesn’t seem to have a setup or a place for his test. Although after a year, 22 pages, and much side tracking, I may have missed it.
Let me see if I have this. In the past, Edge was looking for an area of bedrock with a regolith layer of non-alluvial conglomerate of sedimentary rock with coarse, poorly sorted pebbles, but is now focusing on a cementation of blue clay with a weathered brown exterior? Wasn’t limestone on the list once too?

Until Edge knows exactly what he needs for the test, I don’t see what the JREF would have to say to him. Was there a specific question that he asked and didn’t get a reply to?

(See Tricky’s posts above to see how badly I butchered the geology.);)

EHocking

11th May 2007, 07:06 AM

As I said we cannot expect edge to carry the weight of all the dowsers in the world on his shoulders. The other dowsers may be as useless in using the dowsing rod as you are using an electron microscope.The thing is, we don't need to be proficient with and electron microscope to be able to observe the results of one who is. Similarly, we do not need to be proficient in dowsing to observe that proponents, to date, have NOT shown any reasonable results to show that it works.
You misunderstood but I am happy to take the blame of a badly worded reply. I meant we must test edge as a completely new contestant. In the broard you can say that dowsing doesn't work, but that conclusion must be provisional and you must be prepared to change your conclusion if evidence supportive of dowsing is found. You should not be completely open-minded, but you must be prepared to consider the possibility that you may be wrong. If a particular individual - in this case, edge - says he can make dowsing work, you must be open-minded enough to consider his case. Sometimes that requires patience.While it is admirable that you are playing Devils Advocate here, there does come a point where the evidence is so overwhelming that you can take a position with a high degree of confidence that something is or is not feasible. For instance, my personal experience in exploration drilling in the oil and gas industry makes me wonder why companies (remember, they're ruthless, money grubbing b*stards) "waste" literally billions of dollars on seismic gathering and interpretation when they could hire a dowser for a couple of hundred. Further, over 22 years on all continents except Antarctica, I have yet to meet anyone in the industry who has come across ANYONE using dowsing to site a well - even a water supply well. And considering I'm an UL fan, I *have* asked the question during numerous bull sessions over a beer or two, and not found any shaggy dog stories on dowsing (although heard many others much more weird)Not really. He knows (or "knows" if you object) how to do it in the field. But he is looking to test it in a way suitable for winning the million dollar prize. This will necessarily be different from what he does in the field. Also, he has never before tried to quantitate his success. He needs to prove to himself that he can do it with a sufficient level of success to win the prize.This is the problem with most dowsers, though. They don't quantitate, every "hit" reinforces their belief and every miss they dismiss as being from some other cause...
He is not exactly receiving any help from the JREF, who have provided him with absolutely zero useful feedback. Maybe you could complain to them.You don't know this. In fact, if you go back to the start of this thread you will find a great number of posters attempting to help edge sort out a successful protocol - he keeps chooting off on tangents. The levitating key and anti-gravity copper seam just being the latest.

edge

11th May 2007, 03:59 PM

Wow! Short-term memory Problems seem to abide in here.

First off I am not in charge of the challenge, JREF is, they say when and where.
I started this thread when I did tests in that very spot in the picture.

I learn from dowsing, more facts every time I mine or test.

I am trying to figure out what type of bottom or bedrock contains the least amount of metals which maybe limestone. This is to do the double blind test JREFs way, this is for time constraints not mine but their limits.

Then the target should be the only noticeable hit therefore logic would state that I should get at least nine out of ten correct hits in a double blind test.
If it doesn't then even I will not pass that kind of test.

I may then state that I can't do it and I won't take up any more of your time because you all are set in your ways and happy with that kind of test.

Myself I see that when I tested last year without seeing the gold at the bottom of the creek buried under overburden I got ten out of ten correct hits to the positive result and 7 out of ten correct hits to the negative hits meaning not worth mining there and one correct hit or positive in a completely different location. Which means I am at 180% correct in the field.

Which means there's a flaw in placing targets in random locations to do a double blind test.
I know what the flaw is and why there's a flaw.

I need more time to find the best location.
I know where that is in the world but I need support to get to them or funding which the Japanese may offer me.
They must have a limestone quarry there.
The other best place is in Lansing Illinois.
To get there I need more money.
One more set of test by me to see if I can pass it JREFs way.
I can't mine on a large scale right now because of the laws that fish and game have imposed on miners.

Jackalgirl

11th May 2007, 05:26 PM

...I need more time to find the best location.
I know where that is in the world but I need support to get to them or funding which the Japanese may offer me.
They must have a limestone quarry there.
The other best place is in Lansing Illinois.
To get there I need more money.
One more set of test by me to see if I can pass it JREFs way.
I can't mine on a large scale right now because of the laws that fish and game have imposed on miners.

edge, you've stated many times before that this is a perfectly reliable technique and you use it all the time. How come it's reliable and works just fine when you just use it (i.e., without controls), but you have such difficulty in finding the perfect place for a test? If it works, then a controlled test should also work just fine in the regular places where you use this technique. Don't you see the conflict?

Spektator

11th May 2007, 05:39 PM

I'd think that if edge could demonstrate that his divining rod could exert a measurable pull on a scale--without anything touching it--that would be a perfectly good test. I may have misread or misremembered, but I think he said that he has done that.

William Smith

12th May 2007, 01:41 AM

Ah. Post 529: 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. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2300444&postcount=529)

So here he claims to have measured the force using a set of balances but is unable to reproduce this claim.

have I got this right, edge?

Wrong.
I think it would have gone farther but scale was at it's limit.
It is reproducible any time.

I'd think that if edge could demonstrate that his divining rod could exert a measurable pull on a scale--without anything touching it--that would be a perfectly good test. I may have misread or misremembered, but I think he said that he has done that.

(Bolding by me.)

@Everyone: Would edge presenting his set-up to this forum benefit his chances for a suitable Challenge protocol?

BillyJoe

12th May 2007, 06:44 AM

Seriously, can I have some? I have no idea what you mean by this, but it is clearly nothing to do with anything I have written.

Here is the sequence:

BillyJoe:
Edge is doing the only sensible thing which is prove to himself that he can do it with sufficient success to suceed in a re-test before he actually re-takes the test. To do otherwise would be foolish and a waste of everyone's time.

Cuddles:
So he knows exactly what he can do and how he does it, but in 30 years he hasn't managed to prove this even to himself? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

BillyJoe:
I don't want to impair you any further, you already cannot read.

You did not read the bolded bit.
Edge knows (or "knows" if you prefer) what he can do but he does not know if he can do it sufficiently well to pass the JREF re-test. Therefore he is testing himself before wasting everyone's time on a re-test.

The post you quoted was simply stating what Edge himself has said. He says he knows exactly what he can do. He says he knows exactly how he does this. He says he has been doing this for 30 years. And yet despite all this you say that he hasn't managed to prove to himself what he can do.

I let you correct this one yourself.

Perhaps it is you who should read what Edge has actually written.

Return to server. :)

EHocking

12th May 2007, 06:50 AM

(Bolding by me.)

@Everyone: Would edge presenting his set-up to this forum benefit his chances for a suitable Challenge protocol?If it is a claim that he thinks he could succeed at yes. Plenty have tried in this thread to clarify some of the details of protocols he's suggested in the past.

BillyJoe

12th May 2007, 07:01 AM

Until Edge knows exactly what he needs for the test, I don’t see what the JREF would have to say to him. Was there a specific question that he asked and didn’t get a reply to?

Edge sent in his protocol about three months ago and, besides a belated acknowledgement, after some considerable urging by forumites, that it has been received, there has been no further communication by the JREF.

Spektator

12th May 2007, 07:18 AM

Gzuzkryzt wrote:
Originally Posted by EHocking
Ah. Post 529: 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.

So here he claims to have measured the force using a set of balances but is unable to reproduce this claim.

have I got this right, edge?
Originally Posted by edge
Wrong.
I think it would have gone farther but scale was at it's limit.
It is reproducible any time.
Originally Posted by Spektator
I'd think that if edge could demonstrate that his divining rod could exert a measurable pull on a scale--without anything touching it--that would be a perfectly good test. I may have misread or misremembered, but I think he said that he has done that.
(Bolding by me.)

@Everyone: Would edge presenting his set-up to this forum benefit his chances for a suitable Challenge protocol?
Fantastic! There's no need to search for clear ground or worry about targets touching the ground. All we need will be edge, his dowsing rod, and a set of free-hanging scales. He will have to show that, without touching the scales in any way, he can use the rod to exert a 1/4 pound or greater force on one side of the scales ten times in a row. Since the effect can be reproduced at any time, edge can be tested next weekend.

BillyJoe

12th May 2007, 07:20 AM

The thing is, we don't need to be proficient with and electron microscope to be able to observe the results of one who is. Similarly, we do not need to be proficient in dowsing to observe that proponents, to date, have NOT shown any reasonable results to show that it works.

All I am saying is that, even if it is true that no other dowser knows how to use a dowsing rod, doesn't necessarily mean that edge also cannot. If he is convinced through 30 years of using a dowsing rod that he can make it work for him, and if he is preapred to put himself to the test, we must be prepared to set aside our prejudices or otherwise and see if he is able to do so. Shouting "DOWSING DOESN'T WORK" is less than useful.

While it is admirable that you are playing Devils Advocate here, there does come a point where the evidence is so overwhelming that you can take a position with a high degree of confidence that something is or is not feasible.

On the other hand, I'm talking about what position you should take if you are engaging a particular individual in a test. A dismissive attitude is unlikely to be helpful to anyone.

This is the problem with most dowsers, though. They don't quantitate, every "hit" reinforces their belief and every miss they dismiss as being from some other cause...

As I said, edge cannot be expected to answer for all dowsers. If edge is convinced that he can dowse successfully, if he is prepared to take a test (or initially test himself to see if he could succeed in a test) we must be prepared to set aside our assumptions about dowsers and dowsing in general and engage him in his endeavour.

You don't know this. In fact, if you go back to the start of this thread you will find a great number of posters attempting to help edge sort out a successful protocol - he keeps chooting off on tangents. The levitating key and anti-gravity copper seam just being the latest.

I was talking about the JREF, not posters on this thread or forum.

Paulhoff

12th May 2007, 07:31 AM

Every test of dowsing ability has so far found no effect from dowsing.
Tentative conclusion: Dowsing does not work.
This conclusion is tentative because if evidence becomes available that dowsing does work, you will be prepared to change your conclusion.
This is not a tentative conclusion in any sense, where is the theory by which dowsing is supposed to work by. These rods only so-called move in the operator’s hand, they never, ever, move by themselves. An open mind is open to evidence, where is this tested evidence.

Paul

:) :) :)

BillyJoe

12th May 2007, 07:58 AM

This is not a tentative conclusion in any sense, where is the theory by which dowsing is supposed to work by.

Everything is tentative in science.
Some things are almost certainly true because of the vast weight of positive evidence gathered over long periods of time.
Doubt can diminish almost, but never quite, to zero.
For practical purposes you take such conclusions to be true.
But when faced with an individual who claims to have contrary evidence, you must be sufficiently open-minded to engage this person in order to evaluate this evidence.

These rods only so-called move in the operator’s hand, they never, ever, move by themselves.

They may never ever have moved by themselves as far as you know.

An open mind is open to evidence, where is this tested evidence.

That is the subject of this thread. ;)

Paulhoff

12th May 2007, 08:35 AM

Everything is tentative in science.
Not like you say, there is a time that you stop throwing rocks up into the air from the surface of the earth to see if they will can back down. There has been no power source shown outside the the dower, that makes the rod move. If the rod moved by itself you would have something. It is the dower who moves the rod. If you don't understand this point, we have nothing more the talk about.

Paul

:) :) :)

EHocking

12th May 2007, 09:47 AM

All I am saying is that, even if it is true that no other dowser knows how to use a dowsing rod, doesn't necessarily mean that edge also cannot. If he is convinced through 30 years of using a dowsing rod that he can make it work for him, and if he is preapred to put himself to the test, we must be prepared to set aside our prejudices or otherwise and see if he is able to do so. Shouting "DOWSING DOESN'T WORK" is less than useful.

On the other hand, I'm talking about what position you should take if you are engaging a particular individual in a test. A dismissive attitude is unlikely to be helpful to anyone.

As I said, edge cannot be expected to answer for all dowsers. If edge is convinced that he can dowse successfully, if he is prepared to take a test (or initially test himself to see if he could succeed in a test) we must be prepared to set aside our assumptions about dowsers and dowsing in general and engage him in his endeavour.

I was talking about the JREF, not posters on this thread or forum.
Paulhoff has really answered for me. I work in an industry where dowsing, if it worked, could replace billions (yes BILLIONS) of dollars a year of seismic work - but it is not used.

There must be a fairly simple explanation for this - and it's not being unprepared to set aside our assumptions. You wouldn't believe some of the hare-brained ideas that crop up.

It's all well and good to keep and open mind, but not to the point where the brains fall out.

edge HAS been engaged in his endeavour by JREF before and it was demonstrated that he could not dowse as he stated he could.

We are NOT asking edge to answer for all dowsers - just his claim that HE can do it.

edge

12th May 2007, 11:15 AM

Paulhoff has really answered for me. I work in an industry where dowsing, if it worked, could replace billions (yes BILLIONS) of dollars a year of seismic work - but it is not used.

There must be a fairly simple explanation for this - and it's not being unprepared to set aside our assumptions. You wouldn't believe some of the hare-brained ideas that crop up.

It's all well and good to keep and open mind, but not to the point where the brains fall out.

edge HAS been engaged in his endeavour by JREF before and it was demonstrated that he could not dowse as he stated he could.

We are NOT asking edge to answer for all dowsers - just his claim that HE can do it.

I have never heard of any one dowse for oil?

I can see it for water as a living willow will seek it, but oil I doubt that it will seek it as it is not something that any tree can live on.
As far as minerals all living things need them and seek them, have a shot of "Gold Schloger".
Don't know if I spelled it right because it’s a German word, but we all have it in our bodies, “gold” so does the willow.
I did an experiment a long time ago where I attached a TEMs machine to a copper wire that was balanced on a stand to see if I could eliminate the human and organic components and the TEMs ran on a 9-volt battery.
The TEMs could get your body to move muscles to relieve backaches electrically.
I didn't have a clean room so air currents were a factor even though we closed off the room to eliminate any air currents that we could detect.
I think there was movement.
A gold nugget was placed as a target.
It was a slow reaction but it seemed to work.
I got what appeared to be a quarter-inch to a half-inch of movement.
The TEMs had several types of settings certain rhythms worked better than others.

When I found the right rhythm I repeated it several times with the same results.
My machine was crude.
So I don't know if what I seen was true.
But at least I'm tring.

EHocking

12th May 2007, 11:38 AM

Gzuzkryzt wrote:

Originally Posted by Spektator

Fantastic! There's no need to search for clear ground or worry about targets touching the ground. All we need will be edge, his dowsing rod, and a set of free-hanging scales. He will have to show that, without touching the scales in any way, he can use the rod to exert a 1/4 pound or greater force on one side of the scales ten times in a row. Since the effect can be reproduced at any time, edge can be tested next weekend.edge, how about it?

Question, edge.

What material were these scales you measured the 1/4lb force on made of?

If metal, why did they not influence the dowsing reaction?

EHocking

12th May 2007, 01:07 PM

I have never heard of any one dowse for oil?Yes, a fairly common claim with much anecdotal "evidence" but little foundation.
I can see it for water as a living willow will seek it, but oil I doubt that it will seek it as it is not something that any tree can live on.
As far as minerals all living things need them and seek them, have a shot of "Gold Schloger".
Don't know if I spelled it right because it’s a German word, but we all have it in our bodies, “gold” so does the willow.
I did an experiment a long time ago where I attached a TEMs machine to a copper wire that was balanced on a stand to see if I could eliminate the human and organic components and the TEMs ran on a 9-volt battery.
The TEMs could get your body to move muscles to relieve backaches electrically.
I didn't have a clean room so air currents were a factor even though we closed off the room to eliminate any air currents that we could detect.
I think there was movement.
A gold nugget was placed as a target.
It was a slow reaction but it seemed to work.
I got what appeared to be a quarter-inch to a half-inch of movement.
The TEMs had several types of settings certain rhythms worked better than others.

When I found the right rhythm I repeated it several times with the same results.
My machine was crude.
So I don't know if what I seen was true.
But at least I'm tring.yeah - not too sure that experiment is quite valid.

But - what of the scales and dowsing rod set up. How did you go about it and what caused the reaction that was measured on the scales.

BillyJoe

12th May 2007, 04:32 PM

Now you're just resorting to name calling. I fail to see how it's illiterate to consider a preponderence of existing evidence to be more weighty than a claimed but not demonstrated abilty that contadicts said evidence. Please explain.

Note to beginners: posts with smilies are not to be taken too seriously. ;)

But seriously now:

You said:
"It seems to me that the only way to change Cuddle's world view that dowsing doesn't work is to, well, show dowsing does work."

I said:
"He might be a recalcitrant bastard. ;) "

I was saying, in a joking sort of way, that there may be no way to change Cuddles world view. In fact, I doubt that a single successful test of dowsing would change his world view. He would look for methodological flaws in the testing procedure that could explain the impossible result - because he just knows that dowsing doesn't work. He would demand a retest. Hmmm...

I fail to see how it's illiterate to consider a preponderence of existing evidence to be more weighty than a claimed but not demonstrated abilty that contadicts said evidence.

You said:
"Arguing that, every time someone makes any claim whatsoever, one must discount all past experience seems somewhat naive."

Like Cuddles, you have not understood what I am saying but, like with Cuddles, I am happy to take the blame for lack of clarity. On the other hand, please point me to where I stated that "every time someone makes any claim whatsoever, one must discount all past experience". What I said was: given that dowsing has failed every test so far and that there does not seem to be any mechanism by which it can work, it is reasonable, from a practical point of view, to say that dowsing doesn't work but, when examining claimed new evidence from a particular individual, you should set that all aside (not "discount it" but "set it aside") in order to properly engage that individual. Otherwise you may not see the evidence because all you can see in front of your eyes is "DOWSING DOES NOT WORK".

Whhat do you think?

Please explain.

There is a infamous politician in Australia whose main plank is "Stop Immigration". She was once asked by an interviewer: "Are you xenophobic", and she answered: "Please explain". :D

regards,
BillyJoe

BillyJoe

12th May 2007, 07:39 PM

Not like you say, there is a time that you stop throwing rocks up into the air from the surface of the earth to see if they will can back down.

On ther other hand, if someone claims that he can make a rock stay up there (no tricks) and that he can demonstrate this, you should be prepared to suspend your disbelief for the moment and engage him in a demonstration.

There has been no power source shown outside the the dower, that makes the rod move. If the rod moved by itself you would have something. It is the dower who moves the rod.

If it cannot move on it's own, it must be the dowser who makes it move, yes. Is this the ideomotor effect or does the dowser have some special power? Edge says he has success with dowsing compared to without dowsing. This is not possible if it is the ideomotor effect. The difference can be elucidated by engaging him in a demonstration.

If you don't understand this point, we have nothing more the talk about.

That would be sad.
I think I understand, but I don't know if you do.

Jackalgirl

12th May 2007, 07:45 PM

Edge, if it works as you claim, then do it.

It should work regardless of how many controls you put on it. You should not have to have a "perfect place" or a "perfect time" if you claim that this effect works regularly and consistently for you, which you have done. Just set up the test in the place(s) where you can consistently, successfully dowse and do it.

If you can measure a pull, set up a protocol for it. Maybe not with JREF, but with one of the other skeptical groups. And do it. It doesn't help to tell us what you've done or how it works. Just do it.

Paulhoff

13th May 2007, 06:53 AM

Still, it doesn't seem to have made much difference. People seem to read what they want to read anyway.
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-05/051107.html#i6

That is from this week.

Just beating that long dead horse BillyJoe, dowsing is Woo-Woo no matter how you want to word it, no matter how many words you want to use and no matter how much you defended it. Also to have an open mind does not mean to put a hole in your head or to fill it with bogus facts. Not once has any of these dowers come up with a true theory on how this works. And to be a true theory other people would be able to follow the same experiments that the dowser has and would then get the same results. This does not happen BillyJoe, and if you don’t know why, then it is time to fill that open mind with some facts.

Paul

:) :) :)

EHocking

13th May 2007, 06:57 AM

...So, will you grant edge the same. He has been dowsing successfully for 30 years. He failed a test of dowsing in a situation which is unnatural for him. Based on his 30 years of success with dowsing, he is loathe to dismis dowsing based on this one test. He wants a retest just as you would...You are not being sceptical here.

edge "claims" he has been dowsing successfully for 30 years.

He has not demonstrated it in the field beyond personal anecdotes and has failed in a controlled test of his abilities. I think it is rather credulous, rather than fair minded, of you to state that "He has been dowsing successfully for 30 years".

BillyJoe

13th May 2007, 07:48 AM

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-05/051107.html#i6

That is from this week.

But Randi's just a tired old man.
What's your excuse.

But seriously I don't disagree, but you don't seem to get that.
I'm talking aqbout the approach to an individual who claims to have evidence.

Just beating that long dead horse BillyJoe, dowsing is Woo-Woo no matter how you want to word it, no matter how many words you want to use and no matter how much you defended it. Also to have an open mind does not mean to put a hole in your head or to fill it with bogus facts. Not once has any of these dowers come up with a true theory on how this works. And to be a true theory other people would be able to follow the same experiments that the dowser has and would then get the same results. This does not happen BillyJoe, and if you don’t know why, then it is time to fill that open mind with some facts.

"Still, it doesn't seem to have made much difference. People seem to read what they want to read anyway"

Oh well. :(

BillyJoe

13th May 2007, 07:59 AM

You are not being sceptical here.

edge "claims" he has been dowsing successfully for 30 years.

He has not demonstrated it in the field beyond personal anecdotes and has failed in a controlled test of his abilities. I think it is rather credulous, rather than fair minded, of you to state that "He has been dowsing successfully for 30 years".

Yes, sorry, I meant to add my usual (or "successfully" if you prefer). I was taking that as given at this stage of the discussion. I am looking at this from the point of view of edge. He considers that he has been dowsing successfully for 30 years and has failed the one test. He is not going to give up his 30 year belief in dowsing as a result of one failed test in circumstances markedly different to how he normally practices dowsing. He is looking into a possible retest in the field but says he will not proceed unless he can find "neutral ground" which he hopes will raise his success (or "success" if you prefer) rate sufficiently high to pass the test.

Paulhoff

13th May 2007, 09:00 AM

But Randi's just a tired old man.
What's your excuse.

But seriously I don't disagree, but you don't seem to get that.
I'm talking aqbout the approach to an individual who claims to have evidence.
Tired old man! You should be so tired, let's see, and I quote Randi "I′m off to Los Angeles this week, then going to Japan in June to test a bunch of "psychic" claimants…"

My excuse, knowledge, and hearing this BS for over 50 years.

As for approach, I do have to work with the public, if I did, like Randi does, it would be different, since I don't have to I can cut thru the crap.

Paul

:) :) :)

EHocking

13th May 2007, 12:17 PM

Yes, sorry, I meant to add my usual (or "successfully" if you prefer). I was taking that as given at this stage of the discussion. I am looking at this from the point of view of edge. He considers that he has been dowsing successfully for 30 years and has failed the one test. He is not going to give up his 30 year belief in dowsing as a result of one failed test in circumstances markedly different to how he normally practices dowsing. He is looking into a possible retest in the field but says he will not proceed unless he can find "neutral ground" which he hopes will raise his success (or "success" if you prefer) rate sufficiently high to pass the test.But this is merely one persons belief.

It has no standing in science.

There is no evidence for it beyond anecdotes.

Dowsing doesn't work, if it did, hundreds of companies around the world would save BILLIONS a year by replacing seismic campaigns and sacking reservoir engineers (expand that to mining and water) that interpret seismic surveys.

But they don't. Because dowsing has never proved itself to be a valid replacement for the current techniques used for locating mineral, hydrocarbon or water deposits.

It really is that simple. We can be supportive towards edge in helping him devise a suitable protocol to test his belief in dowsing - but that does not require us to give up our very certain knowledge that dowsing doesn't work.

Why *should* a sceptic take a different attitude to dowsing merely based on one person's belief? Just to appear "fair"? Being sceptical doesn't neccesarily mean sitting on the fence until the jury is in.

Same reason that I am an atheist and not an agnostic. Just because millions believe in their god, there is no reason for me to sit on the fence on my opinion of gods just to appear fair-minded.

nathan

13th May 2007, 02:38 PM

If that is true, why is he dismissing edge before even waiting to see what he has in the way of evidence.
I will leave that for him to explain, if he so desires.

So, will you grant edge the same. He has been dowsing successfully for 30 years. He failed a test of dowsing in a situation which is unnatural for him. Based on his 30 years of success with dowsing, he is loathe to dismis dowsing based on this one test. He wants a retest just as you would.

Edge claims he has been dowsing successfully for 30 years, but he has provided no evidence of this that rules out mundane explanations. Furthermore, his claims of his abilities appear to change, when questioned. That it has taken him over a year to *not* come up with a test protocol also leads me to conclude he does not know what he is doing beyond the simplistic 'finding gold'.

So, I do not see any outlier in the 'dowsing doesn't work' theory. I see an individual unskilled in the art of controlled testing.

BillyJoe

13th May 2007, 04:05 PM

I will leave that for him to explain, if he so desires.

Good move.
You are having trouble enough yourself. :D <-

Edge claims he has been dowsing successfully for 30 years, but he has provided no evidence of this that rules out mundane explanations.

Isn't that what we are attempting to do here - establish a protocol that could provide evidence to the unbelievers that he can dowse successfully?

Furthermore, his claims of his abilities appear to change, when questioned

For instance?

That it has taken him over a year to *not* come up with a test protocol also leads me to conclude he does not know what he is doing beyond the simplistic 'finding gold'.

For the third time now repeat after me so I don't need to tell you again:
edge has submitted his protocol to the JREF
It is the JREF who have not responded.

So, I do not see any outlier in the 'dowsing doesn't work' theory. I see an individual unskilled in the art of controlled testing

He has been through a controlled test so I guess he understands it at least a little bit :rolleyes: and the protocol he submitted to JREF, and which they have still not reponded to, includes controls and double-blinding.

The thing about edge is that he tries.
You could at least learn this from edge so that your visit here is not completely wasted. ;) <-

Paulhoff

13th May 2007, 04:16 PM

It is the JREF who have not responded.
The next time I see Jeff I will ask him about that.

Paul

:) :) :)

Jeff Wagg

13th May 2007, 06:00 PM

William Smith

13th May 2007, 06:13 PM

...
I talked with the TV producers secretary very interesting.

I talked with Edge a couple of weeks ago and invited him to talk to the producers of a Japanese TV show we're doing. It was pretty clear from talking to him that he's not ready to be tested, and the Japanese producer agreed.

Interesting, but with no meaningful result towards the proof of your claim, edge?

(From now on, I read your posts imagining the voice of Dale Gribble.)

colin

13th May 2007, 06:47 PM

I talked with Edge a couple of weeks ago and invited him to talk to the producers of a Japanese TV show we're doing. It was pretty clear from talking to him that he's not ready to be tested, and the Japanese producer agreed.

Gee. Who knew?

I think Edge should try an all natural hot air balloon with a wooden gondola that uses pure lead for ballast and go up until he’s confident there’s no gold dust (or gold colored paint) blowing in the air. Oh no, now the sunlight’s too golden!

Honestly, what should the JREF do to help him at this point? He won’t come up with a plan. He’ll try the Japan thing of he can get the money. (This I don’t understand because I thought he was very successful ‘dowsing in the field’, so he shouldn’t have problems with money.) Other than that, it’s just a ‘take my word for it’ type of thing. In other words, ‘crap’.

I think he’s just a lonely, deluded old guy looking for attention.

Jackalgirl

13th May 2007, 09:08 PM

Again, edge, why aren't you ready? What specificially is holding you up?

More importantly: Why is it that you obtain reliable results when you just go out and dowse (i.e., with no controls), but have so much trouble coming up with the right conditions for a test with controls?

Could it be that something else is going on? Could it be that you're have a highly-developed sense of understand insofar as it comes to prospecting (i.e., you're really, really good at it), and that you're recognizing the clues that indicate good sites in the terrain without realizing it? Have you tried prospecting without your dowsing rods? What would happen if you turned out to be just as good at obtaining results without them?

Edited to add: what I'm suggesting is this: ditch the rods and give it a try -- try, just for the sake of it, to go out, look a site over, and "guess". There may very well be absolutely nothing supernatural going on here -- you might happen to be an extremely talented natural prospector. Which, IMO, is far more interesting than dowsing.

edge

13th May 2007, 09:40 PM

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-05/051107.html#i6

That is from this week.

Just beating that long dead horse BillyJoe, dowsing is Woo-Woo no matter how you want to word it, no matter how many words you want to use and no matter how much you defended it. Also to have an open mind does not mean to put a hole in your head or to fill it with bogus facts. Not once has any of these dowers come up with a true theory on how this works. And to be a true theory other people would be able to follow the same experiments that the dowser has and would then get the same results. This does not happen BillyJoe, and if you don’t know why, then it is time to fill that open mind with some facts.

Paul

:) :) :)

Anytime you like I would show you without doubt that the bark twists off from the rods pull… not from me… not even subconsciously. Open your mind… I would like to meet someone who can explain the WHY.

This is a water dowser explaining what happens when it's a large attraction and once I was on ground that was loaded with gold and seen the same thing happen and I even seen the stick snap and break, that happens when you try to stop the reaction and lift at the same time, that tells you how much is there so I know that fisher isn't lying.

edge

13th May 2007, 09:49 PM

Jackalgirl

14th May 2007, 12:49 AM

I have and I'm not, why else would I use it?
You are talking about finding money, should I waste my labor?

I have a perfect test and protocol that I'll try to communicate to them.

I haven't given up on the one we have submitted to them just the location.
I will find it.

My point is, though, that you keep talking about how reliable dowsing is for you. How it works, how effective it is, how much you can find, etc., etc., etc. The implication is that this works in a wide variety of places.

So how come the test needs a perfect place? I'll grant you that you have to find a place that's reasonably free of interference for the target in particular, but I can't imagine that such a place would be so rare.

In other words: if your regular places are so full of interference as to cause problems with a test, how do you know that you're successful in dowsing? That is, if there's so much ore in an area that it would interfere with a test, how can you tell that when you're just dowsing regularly, the dowsing is actually working -- as opposed, say, you simply finding ore because there's so much there to be found?

EHocking

14th May 2007, 01:47 AM

This is a water dowser explaining what happens when it's a large attraction and once I was on ground that was loaded with gold and seen the same thing happen and I even seen the stick snap and break, that happens when you try to stop the reaction and lift at the same time, that tells you how much is there so I know that fisher isn't lying.How much gold is needed to evoke such a reaction from a willow twig?

Why not set up a protocol that uses that amount of gold so that it "masks" any other twitches on less that "neutral" ground?

William Smith

14th May 2007, 04:05 AM

...

I have a perfect test and protocol that I'll try to communicate to them.

I haven't given up on the one we have submitted to them just the location.
I will find it.

Edge, why would Jeff Wagg and the Japanese TV producer conclude you were not ready to be tested (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2600294#post2600294) when you allegedly have a "perfect test"?

Also, please show us the test set-up from your scale test where you allegedly measured the force of the movement of the dowsing rod.

Paulhoff

14th May 2007, 06:46 AM

The only thing that broke the stick was the dower edge, show me a stick that breaks on its own and not in the hand of someone. The stick is only a ruse that you are deceiving yourself with, because if you had these so-called powers the stick would not be necessary.

You are deceiving yourself edge, just like so many audiophiles do with their wires and other snake-oil contraptions. I’m sure you believe it, but people fool themselves in many difference ways. We all have been suckered one way are another and it hardest of all to believe that we can fool ourselves. But at some point when the evidence is overwhelming it is time to admit to ourselves, if no one else, that we were wrong.

Paul

:) :) :)

Spektator

14th May 2007, 07:17 AM

I still think that affecting a balace scale, which is reproducible at any time, according to edge, is the ideal test. Here's a preliminary protocol:
1. The requirements for the test shall be the dowser, the dowser's dowsing rod, and a set of free-hanging scales counterweighted with four ounces of metal, the type of metal to be agreed upon by the dowser and the observers. The scales shall be new, purchased especially for the test by the observers.
2. There shall be three observers: one appointed by the dowser, one a party appointed or authorized by the JREF, and a camera operator.
3. Before the test, the observers shall verify that the balance scales are in working order and are properly callibrated. This verification and callibration process will be recorded by the camera operator.
4. The camera operator shall be responsible for recording the procedure with two (2) video cameras,separated from each other so that each camera is focused on the free-hanging scale and so that at no time will the scale be blocked from view by the dowser's body, arm, etc.
5. The dowser shall, without touching the scale in any way with his body or with the dowsing rod, and without exerting any known force (air, magnetism, etc.), attempt to exert a force on the scale so that the pan with the counterweight will rise to a point of equilibrium or beyond equilibrium, and the empty pan shall fall to a point of equilibrium or below equilibrium.
6. This state of equilibrium or beyond (with the weighted pan high and the empty one low, or with both pans of equal height) shall last at least five (5) seconds. Momentary movements of the scale caused by accidental contact, vibration of the surroundings, air currents, static electricity, etc., shall be disregarded and shall not be considered a marker of success.
7. The dowser will make ten attempts. A total of eight successful runs (i.e. eight times during which the scales are clearly affected for five or more seconds) shall constitute a success. Three or more attempts with no effect shall constitute a failure.
Won't that be acceptable, edge?

EHocking

14th May 2007, 08:21 AM

I still think that affecting a balace scale, which is reproducible at any time, according to edge, is the ideal test. Here's a preliminary protocol:

Won't that be acceptable, edge?I don't think so. The original claim was that *the dowsing rod* exerted 1/4lbs pressure - so WAS touching the scales/pan.

edge

14th May 2007, 11:26 AM

I'm glad that JREF is giving me time.

The first thing that I'm going to do now is to check out the spot in nature that demonstrates levitation.

This will happen in a week or two.
I have to go buy a camcorder next payday.

Then I have to hike in 3 miles to the spot.

Now if the scales moved like you want them to that would mean that when I dowsed the metals would be pulled up from the bottom of the creek and surface on top of the overburden.
That's not what happens.
If it did that there would be no need for recovery systems.

What I did was to use a hanging scale with a string attached to the clip on the scales with a loop at the end and I used a large target under it I made sure that the scale was zeroed and then let the reaction occur, the force of the resistance was what I measured.
I did this with out moving my arms or hands as perfectly still as I could.
I did the same thing with my digital scale it is capable of reading a total of 200 penny weight I put it on the silver tray and I maxed it at over 200.

If it were a two-way effect the gold would jump out of the creek.
If it were to do that it would ruin my main theory.

So I'm looking at a natural phenomenon in the woods, which is like comparing a wing of a bird to how flight can occur.
Do you agree that this would be a phenomenon?

Dowsing demonstrates that levitation can occur; my point is that nature has a demonstration for everything that we can conceive of.
If this friend is telling me the truth then I have a basis for my theories.

I am also going to prove it another way, if they accept my new protocols.
And that is to send me two guys to camp with me and sluice for gold by hand. I will give them 10 spots that are good compared to ten spots that have nothing or not worth mining proving it two ways with a larger percent of correct hit and misses.
I would be willing to forfeit the money just for the sake of some creditability.
Mean while who ever is the choice for this experiment will have a 5-day vacation.
But they will also film and chose their spots to mine to see how hard it is to find gold.
They will have there own sets of tools supplied by me.

Some creditability is better than none.
Meanwhile I will continue to look for the proper testing spot as I described before on limestone for the original protocals I sent in.

I may have to go to Illinois to test and that’s why I took a second job.
Now, I can teach any one what they need to know to sluice in one day and the two volunteers can read up on it to make sure that they have the proper knowledge to get the gold on the bottom of the creek.
Their percentage will be low just on correct hits and high on incorrect hits.

The Japanese will get a copy of the film if true I have told them about the spot in nature as described to me, at which point they will come here and film it with their crews.

Oh, the silver tray, over rode the metal of the hanging scale, it was much larger.

If this was the Idomotor effect the pull should be the same any where you dowse in the world but it is not and I feel different reactions everywhere I go different strengths and many small hit’s large hits several large or small scattered hits and I have pulled up all that I feel to see it with almost nothing; “no hits left” we can also clean and rerun what’s left and that is another way to prove it at which point there are apsolutly no hits left.

If there is one hit left we can search for it till we get it and at that point there will be no hits or reaction, how much proof is up to you and I can prove it by teaching one of the observers or participants how to dowse and feel what I do.
My next payday is on the 23rd and 24th, the exploration will happen I will say on that weekend.

Should be interesting, Any comments Jeff Wagg? :)

Tricky

14th May 2007, 11:28 AM

I've got absolutely no idea why that first quote tag doesn't work. It is clearly written correctly.

Click the "Switch Editor" button http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/editor/switchmode.gif when something like that happens. It will reveal a lot about how your text looks with all the code in place. For example, here is what your quote looked like with "advanced" editor in place. (square brackets replaced by curly brackets)

{quote=Paulhoff;2598503}
{COLOR=black}BillyJoe, I sure hope in real life you not as naïve of the real world so you seem to be here. {/{/COLOR}quote}

As you can see, you somehow wound up with oddly nested brackets.

Hmm... "Oddly Nested Brackets"... Good name for a rock band.

Jeff Wagg

14th May 2007, 11:52 AM

Edge, this isn't the place to discuss protocol with me, as you know. Please contact me at jeff@randi.org.

Tricky

14th May 2007, 12:16 PM

I'm glad that JREF is giving me time.
You've had nothing but time. It's been two years or so since your first test.

The first thing that I'm going to do now is to check out the spot in nature that demonstrates levitation.

This will happen in a week or two.
I have to go buy a camcorder next payday.

Then I have to hike in 3 miles to the spot.
Save your money, Edge (unless you just really want a camcorder). Check out the place first. I'm reasonably sure you will see no levitation, as such things are unheard of in the real world. Sure, people can set up tricks to make it look like there is levitation, but I don't think they'd bother in such a remote location.

But of course, this has nothing to do with your dowsing test. Sounds to me like you're just killing time... again.

Now if the scales moved like you want them to that would mean that when I dowsed the metals would be pulled up from the bottom of the creek and surface on top of the overburden.
That's not what happens.
If it did that there would be no need for recovery systems.
What you are proposing is something that violates Newton's third law of physics -- an action for which there is no equal and opposite reaction. Since the greatest minds of all time have not succeeded in finding a violation to this law, you will understand why we doubt that you have stumbled across one.

The What I did was to use a hanging scale with a string attached to the clip on the scales with a loop at the end and I used a large target under it I made sure that the scale was zeroed and then let the reaction occur, the force of the resistance was what I measured.
I did this with out moving my arms or hands as perfectly still as I could.
I did the same thing with my digital scale it is capable of reading a total of 200 penny weight I put it on the silver tray and I maxed it at over 200.
So you're measuring the force that you exert on the stick. Can you see what is wrong with this procedure?

But it does illustrate something. If your rod pulls this kind of force for a large target placed underneath the scale, then why can't you simply have someone put an opaque cover over that target of a type that you agree would not block out that effect? So you see then, you have a very simple protocol just waiting for you to do it. All it requires is someone, out of your sight, to place or not place the target in the exact same location and you tell us whether your rod is getting that same force.

You see? Same location. Same target. Everything is the same except your knowledge of whether the target is there or not. Can you give a single good reason why you won't accept a protocol like this one? You claim you can measure the force. Just do it for the cameras.

If it were a two-way effect the gold would jump out of the creek.
If it were to do that it would ruin my main theory.
Your main theory needs to be ruined. It doesn't work. You see, that is what scientists do when they test theories. They throw out the parts that don't work and find something that does.

So I'm looking at a natural phenomenon in the woods, which is like comparing a wing of a bird to how flight can occur.
Do you agree that this would be a phenomenon?
Bird wings and flight are both natural phenomena. I think what you are saying is that you want not only the effect, but the explanation. Well, the explanation would be nice, but without the effect, is pointless. That is why Randi specifically states (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html):

PLEASE: Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, anecdotal evidence or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration.

Dowsing demonstrates that levitation can occur; my point is that nature has a demonstration for everything that we can conceive of.
If this friend is telling me the truth then I have a basis for my theories.

No it doesn't. You specifically said (just above) that you could not make the gold levitate out of the stream, so even in the extremely unlikely chance that your "friend" is telling the truth, it would say nothing about dowsing.

I am also going to prove it another way, if they accept my new protocols.
And that is to send me two guys to camp with me and sluice for gold by hand. I will give them 10 spots that are good compared to ten spots that have nothing or not worth mining proving it two ways with a larger percent of correct hit and misses.
That is simply not going to happen because it would prove nothing. You must have a specific target that is 100% verifiable. Not finding gold would not prove that there was no gold, only that you hadn't found it. Because if the existence of the target were in doubt, you would make excuses, just like you did last time.

Some creditability is better than none.
Then do it properly. At least you will get credit for honesty. I just described a protocol that would test something that you agreed you can do. So why won't you test that? Were you telling us the truth when you said you could measure the force? If so, then prove it. If you can't, then you were lying. (And note, I am not saying you were lying, only that IF you can't do what you say you can. I'm willing to be shown.)

Meanwhile I will continue to look for the proper testing spot as I described before on limestone for the original protocals I sent in.
Randi has already said that your protocols are unacceptable (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-08/081106inthemail.html#i7)and many of us here have tried to explain why. I do not understand why this is so difficult for you to comprehend.

I may have to go to Illinois to test and that’s why I took a second job.
Now, I can teach any one what they need to know to sluice in one day and the two volunteers can read up on it to make sure that they have the proper knowledge to get the gold on the bottom of the creek.
Their percentage will be low just on correct hits and high on incorrect hits.

The Japanese will get a copy of the film if true I have told them about the spot in nature as described to me, at which point they will come here and film it with their crews.

Oh, the silver tray, over rode the metal of the hanging scale, it was much larger.

If this was the Idomotor effect the pull should be the same any where you dowse in the world but it is not and I feel different reactions everywhere I go different strengths and many small hit’s large hits several large or small scattered hits and I have pulled up all that I feel to see it with almost nothing; “no hits left” we can also clean and rerun what’s left and that is another way to prove it at which point there are apsolutly no hits left.

If there is one hit left we can search for it till we get it and at that point there will be no hits or reaction, how much proof is up to you and I can prove it by teaching one of the observers or participants how to dowse and feel what I do.
My next payday is on the 23rd and 24th, the exploration will happen I will say on that weekend.
You are wasting your time and your money. Before you do anything about the challenge, you need to agree on a protocol. You seem to be laboring under the impression that the JREF will accept whatever bizarre dance you do as a proper test. I strongly suspect that this will not be the case.

nathan

14th May 2007, 02:16 PM

Isn't that what we are attempting to do here - establish a protocol that could provide evidence to the unbelievers that he can dowse successfully?
That is correct, however there seems to be little evidence that any movement is being made in that regard.

For instance?
For example, the supposed 1/4 pound of pulling power the rods have. That seems to have disappeared. There seems to have been numerous back and forth with Tricky about geology (thanks Tricky for the interesting geology lessons). Now there's something about levitation.
He has been through a controlled test so I guess he understands it at least a little bit. ... doesn't seem so.

The thing about edge is that he tries. As far as I can see he keeps missing the point.

BillyJoe

14th May 2007, 03:48 PM

Click the "Switch Editor" button http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/editor/switchmode.gif when something like that happens. It will reveal a lot about how your text looks with all the code in place. For example, here is what your quote looked like with "advanced" editor in place. (square brackets replaced by curly brackets)

{quote=Paulhoff;2598503}
{COLOR=black}BillyJoe, I sure hope in real life you not as naïve of the real world so you seem to be here. {/{/COLOR}quote}

As you can see, you somehow wound up with oddly nested brackets.

Hmmm...somehow I must have inserted the tail end of the color tag (which is visible only in the "advanced" editor), into the tail end of the quote tag.
I am glad to see it was not a paranormal event. :D

...on the other hand, I wonder how I did that :confused:

Hmmm...

Spektator

14th May 2007, 04:46 PM

I'm glad that JREF is giving me time.

(snip)
What I did was to use a hanging scale with a string attached to the clip on the scales with a loop at the end and I used a large target under it I made sure that the scale was zeroed and then let the reaction occur, the force of the resistance was what I measured.
I did this with out moving my arms or hands as perfectly still as I could.
I did the same thing with my digital scale it is capable of reading a total of 200 penny weight I put it on the silver tray and I maxed it at over 200.
(snip)

Very well, edge, let's go with your string and your scales and your target and refine the protocol in a way suggested by Tricky:

1. Required for the test: a target that the dowser agrees will cause his dowsing rod to exert at least 1/4 pound of force.
2. A set of ten identical containers (opaque and with opaque covers) large enough to completely contain the target.
3. "Null" material of identical weight to the target, but a material that DOES NOT attract the dowsing rod at all, small enough to be placed in the containers.
4. The scales and a string.
5. Two videocameras.
6. Two whistles.

PERSONNEL:
1. The dowser.
2. Two observers appointed by the dowser.
3. Two observers appointed by or acceptable to the JREF.
4. A videocamera operator.

PROCEDURE:
1. The camera operator will start the two videocameras recording.
2. The dowser will attach the string to the scale, as he has described.
3. In an open trial, the target and non-target materials will be placed in two containers, in plain sight of the dowser.
4. The dowser will verify that the target material attracts the dowsing rod with at least 1/4 pound of force and that the nontarget material has no effect on the rod.
5. The dowser will leave the area, together with the camera operator, one of his observers, and one of the JREF observers. Upon leaving the area, one of the observers will blow a whistle, one blast only.
6. On hearing the whistle, the remaining two observers will come into the test area and place the target material in one container and the dummy material in the nine remaining containers.
7. The remaining two observers will then place covers on all containers and will verify that the containers are, as far as possible, identical.
8. The observers will then use a random method of selection (e.g. coin tosses) to arrange the containers in a row, at least ten feet apart.
9. The observers will then blow the whistle, one blast only, and leave the area.
10. On hearing the whistle, the remaining two observers, the camera operator, and the dowser wil return to the area.
11. Taking turns, the two observers will move the containers to a spot beneath the scale. The dowser will test each one until he finds one that attracts his dowsing rod and exerts a 1/4-pound pull. That container will be set aside.
12. The team will then blow the whistle again, and the other two observers will return.
13. While being videotaped,the observer will open the container identified as containing the target.
14. If the container does indeed contain the target material, that is a hit; if it does not, that is a miss.
15. The test will be repeated potentially ten times, with the target being placed in a randomly-chosen container each time.
16. Eight or more hits will mean the dowser has succeeded. Three or more misses will mean the dowser has failed.

Since you say the effect is always reproducible,this should be an easy one for you to do. How about it?

EHocking

14th May 2007, 05:02 PM

Very well, edge, let's go with your string and your scales and your target and refine the protocol in a way suggested by Tricky:

1. Required for the test: a target that the dowser agrees will cause his dowsing rod to exert at least 1/4 pound of force.
2. A set of ten identical containers (opaque and with opaque covers) large enough to completely contain the target.
3. "Null" material of identical weight to the target, but a material that DOES NOT attract the dowsing rod at all, small enough to be placed in the containers.
4. The scales and a string.
5. Two videocameras.
6. Two whistles.

PERSONNEL:
1. The dowser.
2. Two observers appointed by the dowser.
3. Two observers appointed by or acceptable to the JREF.
4. A videocamera operator.

PROCEDURE:
1. The camera operator will start the two videocameras recording.
2. The dowser will attach the string to the scale, as he has described.
3. In an open trial, the target and non-target materials will be placed in two containers, in plain sight of the dowser.
4. The dowser will verify that the target material attracts the dowsing rod with at least 1/4 pound of force and that the nontarget material has no effect on the rod.
5. The dowser will leave the area, together with the camera operator, one of his observers, and one of the JREF observers. Upon leaving the area, one of the observers will blow a whistle, one blast only.
6. On hearing the whistle, the remaining two observers will come into the test area and place the target material in one container and the dummy material in the nine remaining containers.
7. The remaining two observers will then place covers on all containers and will verify that the containers are, as far as possible, identical.
8. The observers will then use a random method of selection (e.g. coin tosses) to arrange the containers in a row, at least ten feet apart.
9. The observers will then blow the whistle, one blast only, and leave the area.
10. On hearing the whistle, the remaining two observers, the camera operator, and the dowser wil return to the area.
11. Taking turns, the two observers will move the containers to a spot beneath the scale. The dowser will test each one until he finds one that attracts his dowsing rod and exerts a 1/4-pound pull. That container will be set aside.
12. The team will then blow the whistle again, and the other two observers will return.
13. While being videotaped,the observer will open the container identified as containing the target.
14. If the container does indeed contain the target material, that is a hit; if it does not, that is a miss.
15. The test will be repeated potentially ten times, with the target being placed in a randomly-chosen container each time.
16. Eight or more hits will mean the dowser has succeeded. Three or more misses will mean the dowser has failed.

Since you say the effect is always reproducible,this should be an easy one for you to do. How about it?Well done. I was also thinking - target material placed randomly beneath the scales and measure the reaction. Much more in keeping with the original claim. Few flaws in the appproach beyond the detail.

There's one "get out" for the dowser. Does it matter if the scales and weights themselves are metal? Should a more suitable material be found?

edge

14th May 2007, 06:50 PM

There's one "get out" for the dowser. Does it matter if the scales and weights themselves are metal? Should a more suitable material be found?
No that won't matter since the target is larger than the scales it will pull down instead of up.
You’re right as long as the spot that the targets are transferred to is neutral which would be easier to find than a large area that is neutral to set ten containers on a 3’x 3’ is better than 20’x 3’ or 20’x 4’ with all the contaners set in one area.
Now I must do a test to see if the scales will read the same force in the same spot here with out the target in place if it is less then we might have something.

The other containers can be empty, and each time I check I can leave the area as each one is brought to the exact same spot.

Here's what I see when the target is removed the stick still goes to 2 onces and 3 is the limit that is because under this house there is still gold in the ground and other metals. When the target is replaced it goes to four ounces, son of a beach, it takes more than one brain sometimes.

So the more neutral the ground the less it will pull the scales If I can find it, One once with out the target would be great but not really necessary and it all depends on where.
It can’t be any worst than this ground, which should be easy to find anywhere but here.

Spektator

14th May 2007, 07:15 PM

I disagree that the nontarget containers should be empty. A well-known stage conjuror does a trick in which one small container is filled with something heavy and placed among many empty containers. The stage magician can find the filled container almost every time because of a small but crucial difference between a container with something in it and an empty one--a non-dowsing difference. All containers need to be weighted with something.

edge

14th May 2007, 07:26 PM

Tricky said,

What you are proposing is something that violates Newton's third law of physics -- an action for which there is no equal and opposite reaction. Since the greatest minds of all time have not succeeded in finding a violation to this law, you will understand why we doubt that you have stumbled across one.

There is no violation; we just can't observe what it is on the earth.
It is still a small force that needs to be amplified to see the results while in the magnetic field of the Earth.
Or if you want to see it as it is, take it to a micro-gravity situation and the reaction should be movement across the span between the dowser and the target, and this just using 12 watts that you’re body produces.

The other way on Earth is to see if the dowsers weight increases when attracting to a target underneath him, while standing on a set of scales.
Which will be my next test, does it exert a force on the whole body that can be measured.

Oh and there's more, because of what dowsing does as you approach a hidden target in the field.

The closer you get to the target the stronger the pull.
I'll let you think about that and what that could mean, it's all electrical in nature.

edge

14th May 2007, 07:28 PM

Tricky

14th May 2007, 07:30 PM

Now I must do a test to see if the scales will read the same force in the same spot here with out the target in place if it is less then we might have something.
If you get the same reading/force with no target, then it means that dowsing doesn't work. If you can get a equally strong reading at any random location, in spite of the presence of a large target in close proximity, then I'm afraid your theories are shot to hell. How could you ever know if your dowsing rod was sensing a real target or something else?

Paulhoff

14th May 2007, 07:39 PM

The other way on Earth is to see if the dowsers weight increases when attracting to a target underneath him, while standing on a set of scales.
Why in the first place would a dowser be any different then anyone else? Also since all forces have been accounted for, what is this new, unneeded force?

Paul

:) :) :)

Paulhoff

14th May 2007, 07:45 PM

How could you ever know if your dowsing rod was sensing a real target or something else?
And why does this rod only work in the hand of someone? Why does it never fall faster over water, gold, etc since it is so attracted to them?

Paul

:) :) :)

Tricky

15th May 2007, 07:46 AM

And why does this rod only work in the hand of someone? Why does it never fall faster over water, gold, etc since it is so attracted to them?
I've actually heard an explanation of that which is clever, but still evidenceless. I'm not saying it here though. I don't want to give Edge any more excuses.

petre

15th May 2007, 09:36 AM

It seems he's got a good many tests in mind. With luck, one will demonstrate a previously unknown (at least, unknown to those here) force of the universe.

While the expected result of no deviate force will likely end only in another, "Perhaps dowsing simply doesn't work that way", it is interesting to wonder exactly what it might take to shorten the usual response by two words.

edge

15th May 2007, 11:49 AM

If you get the same reading/force with no target, then it means that dowsing doesn't work. If you can get a equally strong reading at any random location, in spite of the presence of a large target in close proximity, then I'm afraid your theories are shot to hell. How could you ever know if your dowsing rod was sensing a real target or something else?

Ok you missed something; the target I am using exerts a force of a quarter pound.
With out it in that same location it exerts 3 ounces, the reason is this house sits on ground that's never been mined under.
That's because I'm in this part of the country.
My brother and I did some testing and used gold nuggets 2 of them, last night.
The difference is the scale doesn’t bottom out at 4 ounces but about three and a half, close enough.
If we add some more gold it will bottom out at 4 but how much?

Now tonight we will test again and see how it goes.
The large target worked better and we need only one box to hide it and the target is either there or not.
So, one target, one container, one spot on the ground, and a random number generator is all we will need.
All the container needs to do is hide the target or hide the fact that there is nothing there.
I’m using a large silver tray so I’ll need a large box to cover it.
It is absolutely easier to lock onto.

I need a bathroom scale that I will buy to see if I can make it quicker and easier with out restrictions to the stick. It will have to be digital and able to measure in tenths of a pound.
That is not a problem.

What I’m finding is that the more I dowse the more it burns my hands and tires my arms, so the resistance to the stick caused by the amount of dowsing is painful, but the visual readings definitely helps.
This also requires me to be as still as I can be while the reaction takes place.
And that is hard to do, but I'll over come I sure.

When I dowse for gold in the creek it's five minutes or so not hours.

I think I can over come all that with a bathroom scale the reason why is I can lock in on a smaller target with out hindrece to the dowsing stick.

It was way more accurate especially for the lack of the target in the spot.

It gives me visual cue on the amount of force with or with out a target, it is way more accurate, especially when the number of times I’m dowsing makes a difference in my endurance, as it seems to matter.

I still may have to take a break and split it in two days, five tries at up to 50 readings is tiring. But I'm also going to try to fix that.

So anywhere I do the test I will have to calibrate the readings, which is not a problem now.

I will do a test in another spot where my initial reading when the target is not in place is less than three ounces so the wear and tear on me is less and my endurance will possibly last the whole test, in one session possibly.

I know that is probable from the test I did the other day on sandstone that we did.

What I need to do is shrink the target too, possibly to the gold we now have with the same results I only have to hold the dowsing stick till it gets to 3 and a half ounces when the target is there, instead of 4.

Anything that will shorten the test and my contact with it.
The scales have improved the way I read this 100%
Wow I hit one button on the key board and I got Italics>?

edge

15th May 2007, 11:56 AM

SezMe I called and I got an ansewer machine?

Patejdl

15th May 2007, 01:52 PM

Why did I brought up the topic of dowsing 2 years ago to my father??

My father, a long time integrity engineer of mines, tunels and anything that has to do with sub-ground is a long beleiver in dowsing. No matter what evidence I threw at him, no matter what test I did with him, he would never loose the faith in something that just doesn't work. I'm a pro 3d graphician and I have a small company. In my attempts I even offered my father to especially do a custom motion capture test with him if his hands were actually rotating when the rods were moving. Such tests would prove that his hands are simply rotating but even after that such a person would not beleive. He would say some BS about rods being antenas and hands the motors... blahblahblahblah

But the outcome was positive somehow. I'm also an expert in self-relaxation techniques and techniques that conquer psychosomatisation so once I gave him instructions on how to specificaly concentrate during the dowsing so he might cancel the ideomotoric effect. Well guess what... it worked.. exactly 15 attempts and his rods weren't doing anything. My father was baffled and spent the rest of the day thinking about it.

And the iresult after 2 years??

My father told me that I destroyed his dowsing capabilities. From that day.. his rods never crossed or went apart. But he still beleives he was able to do it :)

Maybe I found a cure for the dowsers :D But the psychological effect was more negative then positive :)

basicaly i'm a guy like you....

I beleive there are other inteligent races in the universe.
I beleive that this world is a jigsaw glued together by smoke&mirrors.
The only paranormal thing is that as a human I'm realizing my own existence and that i'm a single separate entity.
I don't buy the official 911 story - doesn't mean I beleive in conspiracy theories.
And I beleive Edge is a poor self-deceived soul :)

sorry Edge... I had to

BillyJoe

15th May 2007, 03:52 PM

basicaly i'm a guy like you....

:nope:

I beleive there are other inteligent races in the universe.
I beleive that this world is a jigsaw glued together by smoke&mirrors.
The only paranormal thing is that as a human I'm realizing my own existence and that i'm a single separate entity.
I don't buy the official 911 story - doesn't mean I beleive in conspiracy theories.

If you can believe in that, edge can believe in dowsing. :rolleyes:

Tricky

15th May 2007, 05:25 PM

Ok you missed something; the target I am using exerts a force of a quarter pound.
With out it in that same location it exerts 3 ounces, the reason is this house sits on ground that's never been mined under.
That's because I'm in this part of the country.
My brother and I did some testing and used gold nuggets 2 of them, last night.
The difference is the scale doesn’t bottom out at 4 ounces but about three and a half, close enough.
If we add some more gold it will bottom out at 4 but how much?
None of this is relevant. If the presence of a target in any way changes the dowsing result, then you have an easy test. Can you detect that change of result when you don't know whether or not the target is there, that is the only thing you need to answer.

I need a bathroom scale that I will buy to see if I can make it quicker and easier with out restrictions to the stick. It will have to be digital and able to measure in tenths of a pound.
That is not a problem.
A bathroom scale? Are you suggesting standing on the scale while you dowse? If so, that is far to imprecise. You can change your weight on a scale simply by shifting positions. Have you ever seen someone leaning this way and that on a scale to get the lowest reading possible? It's easy to do.

Paulhoff

15th May 2007, 05:25 PM

Yes, but his so-called beliefs have a foundation, edge's don't

Paul

:) :) :)

Patejdl

16th May 2007, 12:20 AM

Yes, but his so-called beliefs have a foundation, edge's don't

Paul

:) :) :)

The most important foundation for my beleifs is simply statistics.

When we talk science and dowsing. Why the heck nobody ever used a micro-gyroscope (even nano scale gyroscopes were created) in the dowsing testing?? Sure the outcome wouldn't help much because dowsers would instanly find an "explanation". I've come with a simple way by image-processing motion capture to detect even the slightest 0,0001 angle rotation (the accuracy depends just on the zoom/macro abbilities of the camera) so why other skeptics with more access to technology already didn't debunk the whole - rod moves by itself BS ??? It's only in the rotation of palms and non of the dowsers would use squeezing or other movements with fingers to acheive rotation - such dowsers knew they were fake and such probably do not exist.

Explaining the palm rotation would push the things ahead a bit. Not much .. just a bit.

Then there's medicine. I inherited some certain ugly gifts from my mother and those were strong inclinations to psychosomatisation (asthma, leaky-gut-syndrome, IBS, Acid reflux, cfs, dysautonomia.. you name it) and when the problems struck me years back I was quite angry with medicine because it didn't taught people how to learn to reverse the psychosomatisation effects or redirect them. Ever wondered why you feel the stress in your stomach?? Psychosomatisation :)
Medicine and psychology flawed the research on this.. they know they exist but somehow if it doesn't involve pills and all the expensive medicine, it's not being under proper research.

So again explaining some psychological aspects of body/mind reactions would also come in handy in this scenario. Again it would only push it further. Not much but enough for even more people to jump the non-beleiver ship :)

Paulhoff

16th May 2007, 06:11 AM

You haven't dismissed dowsing then?

He has not yet failed.
Dismissed it, there is no evidence for it.

He failed tests already, and he will continue to fail tests, there is no dowsing.

There is no signal from anything that he is testing. There is no input so there is no output, it is all that simple.

Paul

:) :) :)

Cuddles

16th May 2007, 06:47 AM

Four sentences, four responses:

Possibly I got you confused with someone else but I can't go back and see.

Can't? It seems a fairly simple matter to do so. Perhaps the word you were looking for was "won't".

You haven't dismissed dowsing then?

No. Based on the absolutely overwhelming evidence for the existing laws of physics and the fact that every single test of dowsing I have seen, including at least one of Edge, has failed I say that dowsing does not work. That is not dismissal, it is reason. If someone provides evidence that dowsing does actually work I will be happy to accept it, but as matters stand it is as certain as it is possible to be that dowsing does not work and therefore anyone who does not assume that any new tests will also fail has some serious issues with reality.

This thread is about edge's retest and we have not yet seen that evidence.
He has not yet failed.

He has been tested before. He failed. If he wants to provide some new evidence, great, but that does not change the evidence we already have.

BillyJoe

16th May 2007, 06:57 AM

Dismissed it, there is no evidence for it.

This thread is about whether or not edge has evidence for it.
You have dismissed it before waiting to see whether he has the evidence.

He failed tests already, and he will continue to fail tests, there is no dowsing.

So why are you still hanging about, if you've already decided the outcome?

There is no signal from anything that he is testing. There is no input so there is no output, it is all that simple.

You can say this and yet you have not even laid eyes on his device, let alone tested it to arrive at your conclusion. Therefore it is a foregone, unsubstantiated conclusion on your part. Therefore, if you turn out to be right, it will be no credit to you.
One day you will miss something important with this attitude.

Paulhoff

16th May 2007, 07:20 AM

This thread is about whether or not edge has evidence for it.
You have dismissed it before waiting to see whether he has the evidence.
How many pages do you need before you see that he has no evidence, 50, 100, never.

Paul

:) :) :)

BillyJoe

16th May 2007, 07:35 AM

Can't? It seems a fairly simple matter to do so. Perhaps the word you were looking for was "won't".

Can't. Don't have the time.

He has been tested before. He failed. If he wants to provide some new evidence, great, but that does not change the evidence we already have

This is the retest thread. He is trying to provide new evidence. What is gained by pre-empting the outcome. All it requires is a little patience.

If someone provides evidence that dowsing does actually work I will be happy to accept it...

Except that you will dismiss it before they have a chance to even present it.

...anyone who does not assume that any new tests will also fail has some serious issues with reality

On the other hand, you have some serious issues with how science should be done. Assume the outcome before you do your test?

as matters stand it is as certain as it is possible to be that dowsing does not work

A little chink in your armour? :)

edge

16th May 2007, 09:57 AM

I see you are still having rather serious issues with your reading comprehension. There are two rather major problems with your statment. Firstly, I have not dismissed anything. Secondly, we have already seen Edge's evidence. He failed.

That's old news.
I have never failed in the creek.
James can dowse therefore not to lose the million he has tested in a negative way.
He knows what I know of the negativity but that's going to change have you all not read my previous statements?

I wrote this to Sherry in Japan rather that rewrite here it is.
Just the other day something that a physicist had told
me got me thinking, he said there was no measurable
force and I decided to check that and found that there
was.
Not in a way that would instantly allow me to pass the
challenge but in the way that would give me a visual
cue on a scale that is repeatable as far as I know
anywhere.
In this way all ten or hidden containers must pass and
be placed one at a time in only one spot that I have
calibrated.
What I have discovered in recent days is that I can
measures the force with a hanging scale with out the
target and then with a target and get a calibration of
sorts and this seems to work excellently.
Where I'm at at home is the worst case scenario
because there is much gold and metals under my house.
So If I can do it here I can do it anywhere.

Here's how it works here.
I dowsed the spot I'm testing in and I get a reading
of 2 and a half to three ounces on the scale.
The scale is attached to a string attached to the end
of the dowsing stick.
I then placed a large target under the scale and dowse
it,I then get a reading of 4 ounces and this is
repeatable over and over.
With this method I will attempt the double blind test
here today to see if I can get the correct hits.
Dowsing this way for the test is very draining as I
must drain my energies with many attempts.
So I intend to do 4 out of ten today and stop and
three tomorrow and three the next day.

I may have to pick up the dowsing stick up to 40 times
today and start the reaction for the first days
testing.

When mining,I might dowse at the most 20 minutes to
learn what I need to know.
I verified that with a friend of mine that I taught
how to dowse from Hayfork that visited me yesterday.
We went to a spot on a Small creek yesterday with me
and he pick out a stick to check what I told him about
it as I dowsed it last winter.
He verified what I already knew that it was a very
Good place but the key here is that he did it in under
20 minute and was done.
I figure splitting the test into three days will allow
me to recover and be fresh.
It most definitely drains the forces from your body.

The bottom line is that I can and should be able to
calibrate the test any where I am.
This is a 100% improvement and allows also a visual
cue.
The place I'm at In Wearverville is the hardest and
just about any where Else should be better.
For instance In Tokyo I might get a reading of one
ounce without the target and two when the target is
there that would mean less drain on my energies and
then a shorter amount of time to do the test.

On the 26th or 28th I'm going to try to film that
other natural phenomenon that I told you about
in the wilderness as an example of levitation.
This is an addition to claims that I make. If true I
will send you a copy.

Patejdl, Tell your dad to get a willow stick and he'll be able to dowse even better than before, in the end put a silver based coin.
The L rods work but not as nearly as well as a Y shaped willow stick.
I have round sholders things like what you say roll off. :)
BillyJoe right on!
Pauloff be careful while on your scamp.
You may forget that brake and crash in your bathroom and make a mess!

Jackalgirl

16th May 2007, 03:51 PM

I have never failed in the creek.

Then do your test in the creek. You should stick with the container protocol for now. The problem with the scale protocol is that you will have to build in all kinds of controls to prevent things like accelleration and momentum from affecting the scale (i.e., if you bobble your hand, and the scale bobbles even more, and looks like it has an increased reading). Forget that stuff. It's much easier to simply demonstrate that you can find hidden targets. You can worry about trying to measure force later -- first, establish that there is an effect. THEN measure it.

Run your container test in the creek area. If it works, run it in your backyard, or a local park, or a park in a city nearby. If it works, call your local skeptic society and invite them over. This should not take much time.

William Smith

16th May 2007, 06:11 PM

That's old news.
I have never failed in the creek.
...

Great, edge.

Now simply do what you claim to be able to do in a test under controlled conditions.

If you have allegedly never failed, it seems fair to suggest you shouldn't fail now. And you would receive One Million Dollars. (Everyone: Please pronounce the last three words in your head with the voice of Dr. Evil.)

Patejdl

16th May 2007, 10:36 PM

Edge : Scientist told you there was a force??? How did he measure the force?? What kind of equipment did he use?? How strong was the force?? Did he meassured the hand rotation with enough sensitivity???

To look for a force you have to separate the hand movement/rotation from the predicted or ongoing rotation of the rod. If you are able to separate it you can look for anomalies that could be your "force".

But because I've seen how hard it is to devise a plan to meassure such a slight hand rotation precisely, I don't beleive such a random phoney scientist could come up with a good solution and clearly state that he found something. There are quite alot of variables. But the cool thing is.. based on the hand rotation you can predict very very easily or simulate very very correctly how the rod should be moving. If it moves differently than predicted or simulated.. well BINGO.. you got your force!!

We've came with the solution how to test it but never tested it. Such results would be irrelevant to you dowsers. Seconds after the result you would have 1000 of possible explanations. You see my brother is a programmer and by this time quite a pro in biomechanics. He worked with a company to produce a quite sophisticated image-processing motion capture system for helping understanding the leg/sking/muscle movement for building a more sophisticated biomechanic simulations. Not just "simple" motion capture but also simulation of bone/skin/muscle forces.

Your way of meassuring any anomalies is dead wrong and unscientific. If you weren't that simple minded you would understand that how such a test (hanging scale?? wtf) is biased and innacurate to show any force actually. How can you pass the test when you don't understand the simple analogies??? You're doomed and you will fail.....

btw my father's colleague is a dowser with 20 year experience.. they tried everything... it was maybe actually him who put the idea of him loosing the "capabilities" that caused him to be more aware of the hand motion and caused to loose his "powers"...

give it a spark, let it catch a flame, let it burn, and let it cool.. great way to treat and cure dowsing :D

Billy Joe : Relax ;)

Jackalgirl

17th May 2007, 01:35 AM

Edge, another note on the scale side:

Do not pay attention to the scale if the reading is momentary. You can test this right now: get out your dowsing rod, tied up the scale to the end as you mentioned before, and then deliberately bobble your hand. You'll notice the scale measurement change. It'll probably be a lot larger of an effect than what you've noticed in the field because your deliberate bobble is a conscious action, whereas what is probably happening in the field is unconscious.

If the pull in the field is sustained -- i.e., the measurement of pull increases and stays there for as long as you're holding the scale over the spot, then that's something you can set up as a test and should work just fine without you holding the rod.

But again, I would not even pursue that test yet, at least not in regards to the Challenge. Like I said before: establish that something is happening FIRST (i.e., that you can determine where a hidden target is located), then figure out how to try measuring it.

Cuddles

17th May 2007, 03:44 AM

Except that you will dismiss it before they have a chance to even present it.

Please either provide some evidence or withdraw your unsubstanciated accusations.

On the other hand, you have some serious issues with how science should be done. Assume the outcome before you do your test?

In what way does that affect the science? Is my scepticism going to magically cause him to fail? Do you think scientists go into research with absolutely no thoughts on what the results will be? No. They do research with the assumption that they will get a certain result. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. What exactly is your problem with this?

A little chink in your armour? :)

No. Perhaps if you understood what science actually is you would understand this.

Kenny 10 Bellys

17th May 2007, 05:27 AM

I think after years of tests and not a shred of evidence and not an iota of science behind it we can safely presume Edge is going to fail once again. For the hard of thinking out there let's recap...

Edge claims he can detect precious metals with a willow stick, all reputable science says it's impossible.
Edge claims he can detect gold, yet fails completely under test conditions.
Edge claims he detects gold for a living, yet is relatively poor. What's he doing with the gold he claims he finds?
Edge still finds it impossible to set up a basic test of his claimed paranormal abilities, despite numerous offers of assistance over the past years. There's always one more obstacle or permit or piece of equipment he needs, yet claims it always works perfectly when no one is looking.

I think with that track record we're safe in presuming that, in the unlikely event a test ever occurs, Edge will fail as surely as he did the last time. As surely as absolutely ever other dowser across the planet has failed when actually put to the test. Dont you think?

BillyJoe

17th May 2007, 05:32 AM

Cuddles: If someone provides evidence that dowsing does actually work I will be happy to accept it...

BillyJoe: Except that you will dismiss it before they have a chance to even present it.

Cuddles: Please either provide some evidence or withdraw your unsubstanciated accusations.

This from post #855:

Cuddles: I assume that any dowser who actually is tested will fail.

Even though you say that "if someone provides evidence that dowsing does actually work I will be happy to accept", you also say that you "assume that any dowser who actually is tested will fail". How is this not "dismissing it before they have a chance to even present it"?

Do you think scientists go into research with absolutely no thoughts on what the results will be? No. They do research with the assumption that they will get a certain result. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. What exactly is your problem with this?

The problem is that if you expect to find something, you very likely will find it. What happened to "falsification", the idea that you should try to falsify what you believe to be true? Isn't the idea to be a devil's advocate for your position, to try to prove it wrong?

petre

17th May 2007, 02:22 PM

This from post #855:

Even though you say that "if someone provides evidence that dowsing does actually work I will be happy to accept", you also say that you "assume that any dowser who actually is tested will fail". How is this not "dismissing it before they have a chance to even present it"?

The problem is that if you expect to find something, you very likely will find it. What happened to "falsification", the idea that you should try to falsify what you believe to be true? Isn't the idea to be a devil's advocate for your position, to try to prove it wrong?

The idea is to devise a test such that the expectations of the participants has no bearing on the outcome. That's the whole point of double-blinding in the first place. That way, an applicant can believe with all his heart that the abilities work, all the skeptics are free to doubt as much as they feel like it, but in the end it's the TEST that makes the truth clear.

BillyJoe

17th May 2007, 03:36 PM

The idea is to devise a test such that the expectations of the participants has no bearing on the outcome. That's the whole point of double-blinding in the first place. That way, an applicant can believe with all his heart that the abilities work, all the skeptics are free to doubt as much as they feel like it, but in the end it's the TEST that makes the truth clear.

That sounds fair enough. But what I'm saying is that the process of setting up a test without any methodological flaws that, at the same time, tests what the claimant says he can do, would be enhanced if everyone came to the table prepared to listen to the other person's position and prepared to have their own position proved wrong. Statements such as "Hey, edge, dowsing doesn't work" are unlikely to help in this process.

William Smith

17th May 2007, 04:37 PM

Dudes & Dudettes,

all that matters is edge taking a test which he and the JREF mutually designed and agreed to.

The results will say it all.

Edge dancing around like he does also says quite a bit. Nothing definitive, but enough to come to a reasonable conclusion using common sense.

TjW

17th May 2007, 08:28 PM

This from post #855:
<snippage by TjW>

The problem is that if you expect to find something, you very likely will find it. What happened to "falsification", the idea that you should try to falsify what you believe to be true? Isn't the idea to be a devil's advocate for your position, to try to prove it wrong?

Falsification of the hypothesis is part of the experiment design, not the experimenter.

edge

17th May 2007, 11:11 PM

I met SezMe this afternoon up in Coffee Creek at a resort that he and his wife, I take it are staying at.
I agreed for him to do the test on me.
I went there to see if I could recalibrate the scales and get different readings.
What I expected was either a lighter reading or a heavier reading and I got the better of the two, a lighter reading which allowed me not to have to dowse as long, and with a little more accuracy.

I’ll let SezMe tell you the details and the score.

I went to a spot, Jackalgirl, and mined, I snipped and panned for about two hours maybe longer just using geology and instinct I got three specks and three smaller pieces.
I didn’t do well at all.
It is an immense task, way more labor to find it that way.

There’s a lot of gold in Coffee Creek, that creek is loaded.

Edge dancing around like he does also says quite a bit. Nothing definitive, but enough to come to a reasonable conclusion using common sense.

I’m a good dancer.

Some one got this wrong, “the physicist”
Said, “no measurable force”.

Jackalgirl

18th May 2007, 12:58 AM

BillyJoe

18th May 2007, 04:57 AM

Falsification of the hypothesis is part of the experiment design, not the experimenter.

What, so the experiment sets itself up then? :confused:

Paulhoff

18th May 2007, 05:44 AM

He has not demonstrate his ability in a controled test, what is so hard to understand.

Paul

:) :) :)

BillyJoe

18th May 2007, 07:12 AM

"has to demonstrate his ability" is the phrase I used and it refers to the future (ie the retest) not the past (original test).

(Even your "has not demonstrate his ability" needs a 'd' to make it past tense.)

How hard is that?

petre

18th May 2007, 08:26 AM

That sounds fair enough. But what I'm saying is that the process of setting up a test without any methodological flaws that, at the same time, tests what the claimant says he can do, would be enhanced if everyone came to the table prepared to listen to the other person's position and prepared to have their own position proved wrong. Statements such as "Hey, edge, dowsing doesn't work" are unlikely to help in this process.

The purpose of such statements (you'll offen see variations, like "That's impossible", "You're wrong", or even "It's true!") is to demonstrate that people can continue to repeat anything over and over and, as you note, it results in nothing productive.

What WOULD be productive is identifying anything which is unexplainable, and examination reveals that it is reproducable in controlled conditions. Edge has worked hard in this respect, but it seems some in the forum here wish him to spend more time finding something paranormal than relating personal experiences that have led him to his beliefs. These experiences may be more or less convincing depending on the listener, but in no case have they (yet) been helpful in identifying anything unexplainable AND reproducable.

Kenny 10 Bellys

18th May 2007, 08:52 AM

Me again, BillyJoe. Been here since the start, actually. :)

Edge has already spectacularly failed a simple prelim JREF test, which is why he's a lot more cagey about it this time (dancing around, as it's been called). His confidence in his abilities was undoubtedly high when he walked in the room, yet he still scored no better than guessing so I'd say personal feelings and preconceptions of outcomes dont matter one iota when you're claiming to defy the laws of physics.

Whether he or the testers go into it with a closed mind doesn't matter if they've both agreed what they're looking for in terms of a definite hit. He will fail, just as all dowsers fail, because it cannot work in a non-magical universe. You incessant arguing that it would be nice if we all hoped it would work meansnothing and cloud the issue. He states there is a measurable force, then we should be able to measure it and we'll see one way or the other.

Edge, if you really are looking to measure a force by dangling something on the end of your dowsing stick you're going to get all sorts of readings. A live load like that will exert far more momentary force than if it were a steady force and will be of no use. I'd go back to the original claim and simply play 'hunt the gold' under 10 identical pots, which is far easier to set up and control. You claim you can detect gold with a forked stick, have at it.

Paulhoff

18th May 2007, 08:52 AM

TjW

18th May 2007, 09:29 AM

What, so the experiment sets itself up then? :confused:

No.
Consider an example from outside dowsing. Let's say I have some electronic equipment that doesn't work. I look at the fuse, and it looks fine.
Nevertheless, I set up an experiment. I decide that I'll measure the resistance of the fuse.
If the resistance is above some specified value, then my hypothesis that the fuse is okay will be falsified.
The falsification is in the design of the experiment. It's possible to pass the test, and it's possible to fail the test.

What anyone thinks about the likelyhood of the outcome matters not at all. I could hold forth for hours on a forum about the wonderful experiences I've had with this brand of fuse, and how I'd never seen one that had failed, and how unlikely it is that this one will test bad, and so forth and so on.
That won't affect the measurement.

On the other hand, if I look at the fuse, and the inside of the glass is blackened, and I can see there's a gap in the conductor, if I think to myself: "Well, that's not going to work", am I being less than skeptical? After all, my experience with blown fuses has always been with other fuses, not this particular one. This particular one might work with a gap in the conductor. I can still do the experiment.

Having done the experiment, and finding the fuse is doesn't conduct at all, I can do the experiment again.

I might not, in this second test, be quite as likely to expect the fuse to pass the test. This doesn't affect the falsification inherent in the experiment. If the fuse passes sufficient current at the rated voltage (the definition of a good fuse), it will pass the test.

Whether a fuse fails or passes the experiment -- falsifies the hypothesis or not -- is part of the experiment design, not the experimenter or the experimenter's expectations.

edge

18th May 2007, 09:56 AM

This is with a scale (a spring scale, I assume) tied to the end of a string, the other end of which is tied to your dowsing rod?

Was the "reading" a steady reading -- i.e., a steady pull on the spring? Or was it a momentary reading?

This is counter weight scale the kind used for letters and small packages.

It is steady and about the same each time with a little variation, but not much.
It is steady enough to rely on and I must be very still, I have to now only rely on the visual cue, which is hard to do.
I can't stare at it and must concentrate on staying still.
It is the same empty and the same when the target is present pretty much over and over.

The difficulty in the original test was finding ten neutral spots verses 1 empty or close to neutral spot.

It is easier for all the containers to pass the one spot and get the same base line than many in one area.
This way you really need one target one container and one placebo target for when the container is on an empty pass just to save time.

It’s either or empty or it’s holding the target.
For instance if the number chosen by the number generator is five, then I would have to check the box and walk away 4 times then the real target is placed and on that fifth time I have to say it’s there, that would end that session and the next round could begin.
There would be no sense to dowse the remaining empty containers.
If how ever I missed it the same thing or they would let me go on and what would be the sense other than to guess wrong and that is, established when I chose wrong.
A miss is a miss and that would shorten the test by hours.

Although I could re-dowse the train of containers and maybe get it right on the second pass if I didn’t choose any of the ten passes for the target.

I’m hoping that I can get the same or similar results with a scale I can stand on with more accuracy.
This frees up the dowsing stick and would allow a faster pass; I could lock in the target quicker.
The length of time that I dowse takes its toll on my body, when I dowse for gold on the creek I’m walking and moving. It only takes a few minutes to know what’s going on.

Spektator

18th May 2007, 03:12 PM

(snip)I’m hoping that I can get the same or similar results with a scale I can stand on with more accuracy.
This frees up the dowsing stick and would allow a faster pass; I could lock in the target quicker.
The length of time that I dowse takes its toll on my body, when I dowse for gold on the creek I’m walking and moving. It only takes a few minutes to know what’s going on.

edge, you won't find a bathroom scale with that kind of accuracy. We have a digital scale that reads out in tenths of pounds (tenths, 1.6 ounces, go figure), and after just about five minutes of fiddling around, standing on it stepping off, stepping on again, I found that out of twelve tries, I never got exactly the same weight twice in a row. According to the scale, my weight varied over .6 of a pound, depending on exactly where I was standing and how I distributed my weight on the scale (taking more on my toes, then more on my heels, shifting more to the right foot or more to the left, etc.). Even when I tried hard to duplicate the previous reading exactly, I was over or under by .1 pound or more.

BillyJoe

18th May 2007, 03:27 PM

The purpose of such statements (you'll offen see variations, like "That's impossible", "You're wrong", or even "It's true!") is to demonstrate that people can continue to repeat anything over and over and, as you note, it results in nothing productive.

At best it "results in nothing productive", at worst it is a denigrates or simply dismisses the person making the claim. Hit and run.

What WOULD be productive is identifying anything which is unexplainable, and examination reveals that it is reproducable in controlled conditions. Edge has worked hard in this respect, but it seems some in the forum here wish him to spend more time finding something paranormal than relating personal experiences that have led him to his beliefs. These experiences may be more or less convincing depending on the listener, but in no case have they (yet) been helpful in identifying anything unexplainable AND reproducable.

Edge comes across as an identity or person more than many others on this forum I think because he relates his personal experiences. I find him interesting as a result. For example, while others just want him to get on with the test, I am actually interested in his exploration of the levitation phenomenon, even though it has only tangentially anything to do with the subject of this thread. I am interested in what he finds and how he reacts to what he finds.

Jackalgirl

18th May 2007, 03:41 PM

This is counter weight scale the kind used for letters and small packages.

It is steady and about the same each time with a little variation, but not much.
It is steady enough to rely on and I must be very still, I have to now only rely on the visual cue, which is hard to do.
I can't stare at it and must concentrate on staying still.
It is the same empty and the same when the target is present pretty much over and over.

I'm sorry, edge, I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you rephrase? Are you saying that you observed a marked difference? Or that using the scale didn't work?

I agree with what's been said about using a bathroom scale. It's not accurate enough and you can just shift around and get different readings.

Warning bells still go off when you talk about having to find neutral ground. If the ground in this creek is so saturated with gold that you can't easily do a proper controlled test there, how do you know that dowsing is what's going on when you aren't doing a test?

BillyJoe

18th May 2007, 03:44 PM

Things after the test that that will be used to explain why the dowser failed.

Moon is in the sky, moon isn’t in the sky. Sun to high in the sky, sun to low in the sky. There is too much metal around the test site. The TV stations are to close, the radio stations are to close, the cell-phone tower is too close, all of them are to close. The ground is to wet, the ground is to dry. It is the wrong time of the day for the test. I’ve been feeling weak lately. These are not the right shoes for dowsing. The test has put to much pressure on me, and I don’t feel relaxed. The whatever is whatever and that’s why whatever.

If you could have said "Things after the test that that have been used to explain why the dowser failed".
But you did say "explain" and not "excuse". :)
(Maybe it was a typo though :D )

When edge failed the original test, I think he explained it as being because he was not in his natural environment. In this thread, he has been spending a lot of time looking for "neutral ground" so, if he fails the retest, he will not be able to use these sorts of explanations. It is possible he may not be able to find ground neutral enough to pass the JREF test, in which case a test will probably not proceed. What we will be able to deduce from this it that his claimed powers are at most not sufficiently strong to pass the MDC. I suspect edge will admit as much, because he has already several times said that this could be the case.

Time will tell though.There is no point in pre-empting the outcome.

BillyJoe

18th May 2007, 03:51 PM

Warning bells still go off when you talk about having to find neutral ground. If the ground in this creek is so saturated with gold that you can't easily do a proper controlled test there, how do you know that dowsing is what's going on when you aren't doing a test?

The JREF demands a hit rate which edge has not been able to achieve. He has achieved 60% in his self-testing, but the JREF demands 80 or 90%. He is therefore attempting to find an area sufficently free on interference and with sufficient stores of gold that his success rate will exceed that required in the MDC. He has said that he will not proceed with the test unless his self-testing exceeds the required percentage. What would bw the point. Hence his obsession with finding "neutral ground".

Paulhoff

18th May 2007, 04:29 PM

If you could have said "Things after the test that that have been used to explain why the dowser failed".
But you did say "explain" and not "excuse". :)
(Maybe it was a typo though :D )

I did write "explain", because these are the kind of things that a dower will say. They are not excuses to the dowser, they believe what they say to be true. Also you will never hear these words from the dowser, "Gee, dowsing doesn't work" no matter how many tests they take.

Paul

:) :) :)

Tricky

18th May 2007, 05:00 PM

The JREF demands a hit rate which edge has not been able to achieve. He has achieved 60% in his self-testing, but the JREF demands 80 or 90%. He is therefore attempting to find an area sufficiently free on interference and with sufficient stores of gold that his success rate will exceed that required in the MDC. He has said that he will not proceed with the test unless his self-testing exceeds the required percentage. What would be the point. Hence his obsession with finding "neutral ground".
I don't think the JREF demands anything specific as a "hit rate". It all depends on the protocol. What is needed is enough samples to get a statistically meaningful anomaly, and I have only passing knowledge of statistics, so I can't meaningfully address this.

Although it doesn't say in the Swift column about Edge's original test (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html), since he was dowsing 10 locations with one target, I think a result of about 30% in twenty trials would have been sufficient to allow him to proceed to the final test. As it was, he got 10%, exactly what chance would have predicted.

If you're using a simple yes/no setup (same location every time but the target is there only half the time) then you would need a lot more trials to get a statistically significant sample, for example, for a hundred trials, 70% might qualify, for a thousand trials, 60% might qualify. With only a handful of trials, you'd need a much higher percentage of hits to beat "random chance" as a reason for success.

Note though that since the rules have changed, there is no longer a "preliminary" test with lower controls. If Edge takes the formal test, it will be under extremely strict conditions with a very significant success ratio needed. That success ratio, of course, will have to be negotiated in setting the protocols that must be agreed upon by both parties.

Spektator

18th May 2007, 05:15 PM

BillyJoe, I'm the one who suggested an 80-90% hit rate, not the JREF. I based that on edge's saying his procedure was reproducible at any time, and since he claimed an even higher percentage than that, I thought it was fair.

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

I did 110% correct hits....(snip)

Trouble was, that "test" was just going out and looking for gold in any amounts, even trace amounts, and I never did understand how he got 110%.

SezMe

19th May 2007, 12:58 AM

As edge mentions in #974, we did get together to do some testing. A friend was there with a camera to document the whole thing. I hope to get the photos soon (a couple of days?) and I'll write the whole thing up so we have something concrete to wrangle about. Stand by ....

BillyJoe

19th May 2007, 01:44 AM

I did write "explain", because these are the kind of things that a dower will say. They are not excuses to the dowser, they believe what they say to be true.

Sounds like you've put your feet into the shoes of the dowser. :)

There are any number of posters who would have used the word "excuse", putting an unnecessary slant that is not justified by the evidence at hand. No matter how firmly you believe dowsing to be BS, if the test doesn't debunk the claim of dowsing, you cannot take that conclusion away from that test. As best, if the test fails, all you can say is that, under these particular testing conditions, using this particular testing protocol, with this particular dowser on this occasion, the claim of dowsing is not proven.

You may wish it to be otherwise, but to claim otherwise is unjustified.

Also you will never hear these words from the dowser, "Gee, dowsing doesn't work" no matter how many tests they take.

I'm not sure how many take multiple tests.
I think there have been occasions where they have taken one re-test, but I would be doubtful that any would take more than that.

After a single failed test, and after 30 years of believing in dowsing, it would be pretty hard to expect them to suddenly proclaim that dowsing doesn't work . After all, even you cannot say that (see above qualification). Everyone is entitled to a re-test. Even after a failed re-test, all you can expect, at best, is that they have a better appreciation of the limits of dowsing.

BillyJoe

19th May 2007, 01:48 AM

BillyJoe, I'm the one who suggested an 80-90% hit rate, not the JREF. I based that on edge's saying his procedure was reproducible at any time, and since he claimed an even higher percentage than that, I thought it was fair.

Okay. In any case, edge is trying to prove to himself if he can pass the test and what circumstances (neutral ground) before actually takes the test.
I see Tricky has clarified the situation above.

Trouble was, that "test" was just going out and looking for gold in any amounts, even trace amounts, and I never did understand how he got 110%.

I think we agreed that he was joking. :)

BillyJoe

19th May 2007, 01:51 AM

Note though that since the rules have changed, there is no longer a "preliminary" test with lower controls. If Edge takes the formal test, it will be under extremely strict conditions with a very significant success ratio needed. That success ratio, of course, will have to be negotiated in setting the protocols that must be agreed upon by both parties.

I thought edge was bound by the old rules.
Is the preliminary test now excluded for everyone?

BillyJoe

19th May 2007, 02:13 AM

Me again, BillyJoe. Been here since the start, actually. :)

:o

Edge has already spectacularly failed a simple prelim JREF test, which is why he's a lot more cagey about it this time (dancing around, as it's been called).

That's you're interpretation. Edge says he is looking for neutral ground (see above posts).

His confidence in his abilities was undoubtedly high when he walked in the room, yet he still scored no better than guessing so I'd say personal feelings and preconceptions of outcomes dont matter one iota when you're claiming to defy the laws of physics.

Well, let's see if he can provide evidence that he can do as he claims. Then we can worry about what laws of physics it defies.

Whether he or the testers go into it with a closed mind doesn't matter if they've both agreed what they're looking for in terms of a definite hit

It's just that it may be hard to agree on a protocol unless you are able to engage the claimant.

He will fail, just as all dowsers fail, because it cannot work in a non-magical universe.

And this sort of dismissal won't help one iota in engaging the claimant.

You incessant arguing that it would be nice if we all hoped it would work meansnothing and cloud the issue.

I'm arguing for a position of neutrality actually.

He states there is a measurable force, then we should be able to measure it and we'll see one way or the other.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what he is trying to do at present.
But this is a side issue to the actual test. Randi is interesting in testing edge on what he says he can do, not reasons for how he does it.

Patejdl

19th May 2007, 02:56 AM

With current knowledge, the probability that dowsing only exists in the mind of the human is atleast 90%. With advancements in the neurological and physics field in the future will be able to tell that with no less than 99,9% accuracy that dowsing has no direct link to our physical world and exists as an separate entity in the separate world of the human mind.

The direct link thing is important. If the dowsing effect in the brain of the person could affect the physical world by enabling the person to be able to explore the physical world and be able to localize stuff then it's a direct link. If the dowsing effect in the brain has no way of scanning the real physical world, then it gives fake signals to arms which rotate and move the rods/sticks/pendulums. A fake synthetic link.

With advancements in the neurology&physics the certainity of stating that dowsing only exist in the brain will raise definitely over 99,99% and we will see a decrease in the people trying to dowse. But the number of people trying to dowse will never ever be 0 if the whole dowsing idea won't be forgotten over time.

So what is the strategy for now?? Wait for advancements in all scientific fields and quietly without hesitation do the tests on kooks to convince as much people as possible that trying to dowse will not give you any better chance of success than by a chance.

So let's test these people.. but let's be gentle to these pour souls and enjoy the feeling that we're doing alteast something for the society's hunger for upgrades and more advanced living.

BillyJoe

19th May 2007, 04:05 AM

BJ: What, so the experiment sets itself up then? :confused: No.
Consider an example from outside dowsing. Let's say I have some electronic equipment that doesn't work. I look at the fuse, and it looks fine.
Nevertheless, I set up an experiment. I decide that I'll measure the resistance of the fuse.
If the resistance is above some specified value, then my hypothesis that the fuse is okay will be falsified.
The falsification is in the design of the experiment. It's possible to pass the test, and it's possible to fail the test.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think these situations are analogous. The several posters in this thread who have said: "Dowsing doesn't work" are leaving absolutely no room for doubt. I don't think your "It looks fine" is in the same category.

What anyone thinks about the likelyhood of the outcome matters not at all. I could hold forth for hours on a forum about the wonderful experiences I've had with this brand of fuse, and how I'd never seen one that had failed, and how unlikely it is that this one will test bad, and so forth and so on.
That won't affect the measurement.

Again, I doubt if you would dismiss the possibility as completely are those posters dismiss dowsing. I can trust you to set up a proper test of the fuse which, in any case, is straight forward. I could not trust the above posters to set up a proper protocol for testing the claims of a particular dowser, or to interpret the results properly.

On the other hand, if I look at the fuse, and the inside of the glass is blackened, and I can see there's a gap in the conductor, if I think to myself: "Well, that's not going to work", am I being less than skeptical? After all, my experience with blown fuses has always been with other fuses, not this particular one. This particular one might work with a gap in the conductor. I can still do the experiment.

Personally, I'd wouldn't waste my time testing that fuse, I'd throw the damn thing out. ;)
It's altogether different when you're testing someone else's claim. If someone claimed that he has a blown fuse that nevertheless works, and if he was making this claim in all seriousness, I would be prepared to set aside what my experience has shown me to be true up to that point in time, and test the fuse. I imagine we wouldn't have to discus the testing protocol in this instance.

Having done the experiment, and finding the fuse is doesn't conduct at all, I can do the experiment again...I might not, in this second test, be quite as likely to expect the fuse to pass the test.

Throw the bugger out already :D

This doesn't affect the falsification inherent in the experiment. If the fuse passes sufficient current at the rated voltage (the definition of a good fuse), it will pass the test....Whether a fuse fails or passes the experiment -- falsifies the hypothesis or not -- is part of the experiment design, not the experimenter or the experimenter's expectations.

The falsification is inherent in the experiment as you say. But the exact nature of the claim being made has firstly to be established and the experimental protocol that tests that particular claim, and to which the claimant agrees, still needs to be set up. This is no problem with a fuse because I imagine that everyone will agree what is meant by the claim that the fuse doesn't work, and I imagine that everyone will agree on how to test a fuse. But I think testing a particular dowsing claim of a particular dowser is just a little more complicated. We will need to determine what it is exactly that the claimant claims to be able to do and then come to an agreement with the claimant about how that claim could be tested.

Spektator

19th May 2007, 06:26 AM

(NOTE: I pointed out that edge had claimed 110% success)
snip....
I think we agreed that he was joking. :)
Sorry, I missed that memo. I suppose edge was also joking when he claimed:

(snip)
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....(snip)

Hey, maybe the whole "dowsing" thing is a great big joke.

TjW

19th May 2007, 02:07 PM

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think these situations are analogous. The several posters in this thread who have said: "Dowsing doesn't work" are leaving absolutely no room for doubt. I don't think your "It looks fine" is in the same category.

Again, I doubt if you would dismiss the possibility as completely are those posters dismiss dowsing. I can trust you to set up a proper test of the fuse which, in any case, is straight forward. I could not trust the above posters to set up a proper protocol for testing the claims of a particular dowser, or to interpret the results properly.

Personally, I'd wouldn't waste my time testing that fuse, I'd throw the damn thing out. ;)
It's altogether different when you're testing someone else's claim. If someone claimed that he has a blown fuse that nevertheless works, and if he was making this claim in all seriousness, I would be prepared to set aside what my experience has shown me to be true up to that point in time, and test the fuse. I imagine we wouldn't have to discus the testing protocol in this instance.

Throw the bugger out already :D

The falsification is inherent in the experiment as you say. But the exact nature of the claim being made has firstly to be established and the experimental protocol that tests that particular claim, and to which the claimant agrees, still needs to be set up. This is no problem with a fuse because I imagine that everyone will agree what is meant by the claim that the fuse doesn't work, and I imagine that everyone will agree on how to test a fuse. But I think testing a particular dowsing claim of a particular dowser is just a little more complicated. We will need to determine what it is exactly that the claimant claims to be able to do and then come to an agreement with the claimant about how that claim could be tested.

I don't think you do understand what I'm saying.

How can you be so dismissive of a blown-fuse-that-works. Throw it out indeed. A friend of my cousin's hairdresser needed a fuse, and all they had was one just like that, and they put it in and it worked fine. So you can see there is evidence that it could work. This is a special blown-fuse-that-works. Of course, it doesn't always work, which makes it more special. So just testing with a meter wouldn't be fair. It doesn't respond to meters. In fact, it's safe to say this fuse is so special that no matter what you propose to test it, there will be some reason why that test was not a fair test of this particular fuse.

Dowsing, if not this particular dowser, has been tested over and over again.
Fuses with gaps in them, if not this particular fuse, have been tested over and over again. They don't work. Dowsing doesn't work.

I'm sure you would set aside your previous experience for the first person who in all seriousness said they had a blown fuse that works. How about the thousandth, when all the previous claimants had not only not been able to show you that it worked, but continued to claim it did after being shown that it didn't?

You don't have to trust anyone regarding test protocols. You can evaluate any protocol yourself, and point out anything you consider to be a flaw. That's how science works. If you'll notice, many of the posts to Edge have been pointing out why the tests Edge has tried are flawed.

But the claimant doesn't need to agree to take a test for it to be a valid test. If I test a 3 ampere fuse by supplying the fuse with the rated voltage, current-limited to 2.99 amperes, that's a fair test of a fuse whether the owner of a "special" fuse happens to agree or not.

Indeed, in many cases, of which dowsing is just a subset, the willingness of a claimant to take the test is inversely proportional to the validity of the test.

I'm glad you agree that the falsification is in the experiment, not the experimenter. Will you now stop complaining that anyone who expresses an opinion on the likely outcome of an experiment is not being skeptical?

edge

19th May 2007, 04:18 PM

TjW says,

Fuses with gaps in them, if not this particular fuse, have been tested over and over again. They don't work. Dowsing doesn't work.

A fuse only works when it's blown or when it’s whole.
A fuse can only be shown to work when it's destroyed and then it's no good.

The one way for sure to know if dowsing works is to see, when mining, if it does work then you might have something.
There may be a second way then if it does.
When mining, the spot, either is workable or it is not, if it is not then look for the good spot to replace the bad spot.

How many fuses do you have to go through till you find one that works or till the mechanism is fixed?
If the mechanism is broke that stops it from doing its job that is to pass current, which is positive, which the fuse does or to stop it, which is negative.
Both being a positive function.
Two functions for each, fuses and dowsing it’s either there or not.
They either work or they don’t, when have you tried it, or tested it?
Dowsing for gold does two things negative and positive.

It's either telling you there's nothing, which is a correct negative or that there is something, which is a correct positive.
:)

politas

19th May 2007, 08:13 PM

Dowsing for gold does two things negative and positive.

It's either telling you there's nothing, which is a correct negative or that there is something, which is a correct positive.
:)Well, that's not quite right, there are in fact four results for a gold-dowsing experiment:

A. Dowsing says there is gold, and there is gold
B. Dowsing says there is gold, but there is no gold
C. Dowsing says there is no gold, but there is gold
D. Dowsing says there is no gold, and there is no gold

If you only check for gold in a sample when dowsing says there is gold, then you have meaningless results. You need to compare the ratios of A/B and C/D. If A/B is a higher ratio than C/D, there is an advantage in dowsing. Otherwise, dowsing doesn't work. How many samples you would need to check to make a significant statistical correlation is a question for better mathematicians than myself.

Czarcasm

20th May 2007, 11:50 AM

Well, that's not quite right, there are in fact four results for a gold-dowsing experiment:

A. Dowsing says there is gold, and there is gold
B. Dowsing says there is gold, but there is no gold
C. Dowsing says there is no gold, but there is gold
D. Dowsing says there is no gold, and there is no gold
But these four results are not equal in probability, are they?

TjW

20th May 2007, 12:21 PM

Also being left out is:

Conventional geology says there is a greater likelyhood of gold, etc.

No one that I know of argues that dowsers never find the desired target, just as no one argues that blind pigs can't find acorns, or that stopped clocks don't occasionally display the correct time.

So, among other things, the use of geological knowledge to discover the target needs to be controlled for, if one is to test dowsing.

politas

21st May 2007, 12:21 AM

But these four results are not equal in probability, are they?Well, that would depend a lot on how much gold is in the soil generally. Comparing the two ratios allows you to test the effectiveness of dowsing regardless of the likelihood of gold being present.

politas

21st May 2007, 12:23 AM

Also being left out is:

Conventional geology says there is a greater likelyhood of gold, etc...

Yes, to be a good test, you need to blind the source of the samples.

edge

21st May 2007, 08:05 AM

Yes, to be a good test, you need to blind the source of the samples.

Calibrating the scales does that; it gives you a base line and allows measurement of what’s there so then lack of target is known and then when target is there that is known too.
Now it is visible and provable both ways.
If the Target is there or not, correct negative hits, correct positive hits, all through weights, both proven with scales.

When dowsing for gold this is exactly what I do avoid the lack of gold and find the collection spots of gold.

Right now my percentage is between 60% and 77% and I still have four sets of ten picks to go to make 10 tries.

Tricky

21st May 2007, 08:25 AM

So, among other things, the use of geological knowledge to discover the target needs to be controlled for, if one is to test dowsing.
Correct. And it is easy to do that. Simply place a target box (which the dowser does not know whether or not it contains gold) at the same exact location for every trial. That way all geological "influences" are controlled because the only thing different in the trials is the presence of gold within the target box. This is so extraordinarily simple that even Edge understands it. He understands it so well that he goes to great lengths to make excuses for not taking this simple test. I suspect this is because he knows he will fail.

Jackalgirl

21st May 2007, 08:21 PM

Correct. And it is easy to do that. Simply place a target box (which the dowser does not know whether or not it contains gold) at the same exact location for every trial. That way all geological "influences" are controlled because the only thing different in the trials is the presence of gold within the target box. This is so extraordinarily simple that even Edge understands it. He understands it so well that he goes to great lengths to make excuses for not taking this simple test. I suspect this is because he knows he will fail.

This should also work for, say, 10 boxes, especially if edge has dowsed the area first and found the spots where interference is likely to be minimal.

Kenny 10 Bellys

22nd May 2007, 01:59 AM

...which is why it is included in almost every protocol and test for dowsers.

Edge did it the first time he sat the test, checking the area and declaring it free from interference and then checking he could detect the 'gold' when he knew perfectly well under which cup it was hidden. It all worked 100% fine when he knew where the gold was, but when the blind test started he scored no better than someone guessing. Only then did he start blaming local conditions, gold coloured ink on books nearby, etc, etc despite the fact that he had agreed beforehand that it was clear and his magic stick was working perfectly.

The claim is a clear and simple one, the test should be equally clear and simple but Edge continues to dance around the meat of it while BillyJoe continues to argue semantics and philosophy on his behalf in the face of the overwhelming evidence that dowsing simply does not and can not work.

politas

22nd May 2007, 06:00 AM

Calibrating the scales does that; it gives you a base line and allows measurement of what’s there so then lack of target is known and then when target is there that is known too.Calibrating what scale? You are typically vague, here.

Now it is visible and provable both ways.
If the Target is there or not, correct negative hits, correct positive hits, all through weights, both proven with scales.What are you weighing, exactly? Are you weighing every sample, whether your dowsing tells you there is gold or not?Are you testing your dowsing on samples without knowing where they are drawn from?

When dowsing for gold this is exactly what I do avoid the lack of gold and find the collection spots of gold.

Right now my percentage is between 60% and 77% and I still have four sets of ten picks to go to make 10 tries.These are meaningless numbers without clearly explaining your testing methodology.

edge

22nd May 2007, 08:34 AM

It all worked 100% fine when he knew where the gold was, but when the blind test started he scored no better than someone guessing.

With the scale there's no more guessing.
So far there is no ground anywhere that is void of a reading either strong or weak but it is the weak spot that will work better to demonstrate this phenomenon.
For instance I got an ounce reading in the first place that i tested in when the target was absent and four when the target was introduced and placed.
Coffee Creek it was a quarter ounce.
And the new place here it is about a half an ounce when the target is absent.
This is the base line when the target is introduced in the new spot it only goes to about three, and there are still variances of a few grams so it's not perfect with the target but pretty darn close when it's not there and more so each and every time.

BillyJoe sees something that you might not.

The claim is a clear and simple one, the test should be equally clear and simple but Edge continues to dance around the meat of it while BillyJoe continues to argue semantics and philosophy on his behalf in the face of the overwhelming evidence that dowsing simply does not and can not work.

The only evidence that you have is one form of testing while I have done many at least 11 different types, my best one if you missed it was to actually mine and test with a 6 inch dredge 21 picks negative positive and 11 positive read back for the scores.

Now there's a way not only to feel it but prove it each and every time that there is a measurable force that I can rely on.
But there are still a small amount of variables so my score isn't 100% but with in the parameters that I stated on the protocol, which is, a 60% correct score.

Right now Out of 42 containers or picks I’m at 79% correct, I’m able to show correct empty or full.
We are on the next set of tests that will be 100 sets of containers or passes with the stick.

We did our first set of 10 yesterday after we finished the previous test.
For the next three days we will do three a day.
That’s thirty scans a day and let me tell you that it is draining on the body and that the human body is the flaw and it is what causes the variables, and the nonconsitancy of the gravity field.
Way too hard to explain but I now know why no one has passed the challenge for dowsing.
Just showing the difference over and over should be sufficient for the challenge that there is a measurable force.
I’ll have to rewrite the protocol, but I will do the test too.
And I now can go any where to prove it.

Tricky said,
I suspect this is because he knows he will fail.
I don't know yet but my odds just increased at least 90% that I will pass.
Since you can see into the future maybe you should take the challenge,
Mr. negativity.
I forgot you were in the oily business.

Tricky

22nd May 2007, 09:13 AM

I don't know yet but my odds just increased at least 90% that I will pass.
Since you can see into the future maybe you should take the challenge,
Mr. negativity.
I forgot you were in the oily business.
I'll take that bet. You're giving 10:1 odds on your success, right?

My negativity, Edge, is based on the observation that no dowser (including you) has ever succeeded before. Frankly though, I think it is unlikely you will ever take the Challenge again because you have not cleared a protocol with them, nor do you seem to be attempting to do so.

I'm sorry if they haven't written you back, but if that is the case, then you need to call them again and again until you get an answer. Instead, you are meandering around talking about things like levitation.

politas

22nd May 2007, 09:36 AM

Cuddles

22nd May 2007, 09:42 AM

Well, assuming that the original letter Edge sent counts as the opening of this application, he currently has two days left before it is closed. Edge, you any closer to actually being tested?

William Smith

22nd May 2007, 02:47 PM

...
I’ll have to rewrite the protocol, but I will do the test too.
And I now can go any where to prove it.
...

Please do rewrite the protocol, edge, stating clearly what you can do under which conditions. Tell us what you would consider a success and what you would consider a failure.

Then do as you said:

...
And I now can go any where to prove it.
...

edge

24th May 2007, 01:04 PM

Well I was hoping that SezMe was going to post soon but not a peep.
His friend Ellen was suppose to do a write up on the events and I would like to view it too.
I talked to the owner of the resort they stayed at and I can dredge it in September.
So far that was the best spot to test in.

I'm waiting to hear about the filming of the anomaly at Deer Lick Springs.
It is private property and the owner has to give permission.

SezMe

24th May 2007, 02:29 PM

edge, I haven't gotten the pictures that Brian took in spite of e-mail requests for them. They are essential for my write-up. If you have been in touch with them, please ask that they send the pics to me via e-mail. Thanks.

William Smith

24th May 2007, 05:03 PM

With the scale there's no more guessing.
So far there is no ground anywhere that is void of a reading either strong or weak but it is the weak spot that will work better to demonstrate this phenomenon.
For instance I got an ounce reading in the first place that i tested in when the target was absent and four when the target was introduced and placed.
Coffee Creek it was a quarter ounce.
And the new place here it is about a half an ounce when the target is absent.
This is the base line when the target is introduced in the new spot it only goes to about three, and there are still variances of a few grams so it's not perfect with the target but pretty darn close when it's not there and more so each and every time.

BillyJoe sees something that you might not.

The only evidence that you have is one form of testing while I have done many at least 11 different types, my best one if you missed it was to actually mine and test with a 6 inch dredge 21 picks negative positive and 11 positive read back for the scores.

Now there's a way not only to feel it but prove it each and every time that there is a measurable force that I can rely on.
But there are still a small amount of variables so my score isn't 100% but with in the parameters that I stated on the protocol, which is, a 60% correct score.

Right now Out of 42 containers or picks I’m at 79% correct, I’m able to show correct empty or full.
We are on the next set of tests that will be 100 sets of containers or passes with the stick.

We did our first set of 10 yesterday after we finished the previous test.
For the next three days we will do three a day.
That’s thirty scans a day and let me tell you that it is draining on the body and that the human body is the flaw and it is what causes the variables, and the nonconsitancy of the gravity field.
Way too hard to explain but I now know why no one has passed the challenge for dowsing.
Just showing the difference over and over should be sufficient for the challenge that there is a measurable force.
I’ll have to rewrite the protocol, but I will do the test too.
And I now can go any where to prove it.

Tricky said,

I don't know yet but my odds just increased at least 90% that I will pass.
Since you can see into the future maybe you should take the challenge,
Mr. negativity.
I forgot you were in the oily business.

I reread your post, edge, and I got confused about the sections I highlighted.

If you are as you claim "with in the parameters that I stated on the protocol, which is, a 60% correct score", I conclude that you are good to go, claiming 79% - 33 out of 42 - correct hits.

Hence, no rewriting of the protocol necessary, you "can go any where to prove it".

Or am I missing something here?

Tricky

24th May 2007, 07:29 PM

I reread your post, edge, and I got confused about the sections I highlighted.

If you are as you claim "with in the parameters that I stated on the protocol, which is, a 60% correct score", I conclude that you are good to go, claiming 79% - 33 out of 42 - correct hits.

Hence, no rewriting of the protocol necessary, you "can go any where to prove it".

Or am I missing something here?
I was not able to discern his true meaning either, but after years of this, I despair of Edge making himself clear.

However, one thing did occur to me. If he is (as he said at one point) using ten containers of which only one has a real target, then he has a one-in-ten chance of hitting the target. Of course, he knows this, so he's going to say "not the target" more often than not. I suspect it is possible that he is counting these "not the target" guesses as hits, even though he should get them right 90% of the time. Such a flawed way of counting would vastly pump up his "average of hits".

No, I don't know that this is true, but I find it a lot more likely than the possibility that dowsing works.

Maybe he can clarify, but I doubt it.

William Smith

24th May 2007, 07:42 PM

I was not able to discern his true meaning either, but after years of this, I despair of Edge making himself clear.

However, one thing did occur to me. If he is (as he said at one point) using ten containers of which only one has a real target, then he has a one-in-ten chance of hitting the target. Of course, he knows this, so he's going to say "not the target" more often than not. I suspect it is possible that he is counting these "not the target" guesses as hits, even though he should get them right 90% of the time. Such a flawed way of counting would vastly pump up his "average of hits".

No, I don't know that this is true, but I find it a lot more likely than the possibility that dowsing works.

Maybe he can clarify, but I doubt it.

I didn't consider that, Tricky. Seems your experience with edge pays off.

Edge?

Aepervius

25th May 2007, 05:02 AM

I was not able to discern his true meaning either, but after years of this, I despair of Edge making himself clear.

However, one thing did occur to me. If he is (as he said at one point) using ten containers of which only one has a real target, then he has a one-in-ten chance of hitting the target. Of course, he knows this, so he's going to say "not the target" more often than not. I suspect it is possible that he is counting these "not the target" guesses as hits, even though he should get them right 90% of the time. Such a flawed way of counting would vastly pump up his "average of hits".

No, I don't know that this is true, but I find it a lot more likely than the possibility that dowsing works.

Maybe he can clarify, but I doubt it.

This would be a bit like blindly shooting at a target and announcing beforehand that you will miss 9 time out of 10... I assume, after *partially* reading this thread, that his next step will be to shoot, then to paint the target around the bullet hole...

colin

25th May 2007, 05:55 AM

Three hundred and sixty days.

One thousand replies.

Inches forward on the last mile of the track.

Edge:

Well I was hoping that SezMe was going to post soon but not a peep.
His friend Ellen was suppose to do a write up on the events and I would like to view it too.
I talked to the owner of the resort they stayed at and I can dredge it in September.
So far that was the best spot to test in.

And more excuses… Priceless!:D

steenkh

25th May 2007, 06:04 AM

And more excuses… Priceless!:D
Not priceless. Edge has made a demonstration for SezMe, and he has hinted that it went well, but SezMe has not hinted anything at all. We are all waiting for SezMe's report.

catbasket

25th May 2007, 01:17 PM

One premise that I have is seeing it work in the field therefore there must be a fair test to prove it.

There was a fair test, you failed.

Thanks?
As I think you suspected, thanks not required. Just pointing out how long this sorry affair has been dragging on.

Do you remember this, which Tricky said in the Seeing Is Believing thread way back in February 2006?

But the truth is, Edge is actually a nice guy overall, and I truly wish him the best. I don't want him to throw his life away on this hopeless pursuit. I'd like to think that the things that I and other skeptics saky to him make him reconsider. I could be wrong. They may make his resistance to reality even stronger, but I hope not.

Sadly, it seems to me, you are throwing your life away on this hopeless pursuit. Ho hum, your life to do with as you wish ... but it does seem such a waste.

Tricky

25th May 2007, 11:10 PM

The real test is in the field.
One premise that I have is seeing it work in the field therefore there must be a fair test to prove it.
Edge, if you can't detect a big honkin' lump of gold that is inches from your dowsing rod, whether it be in an office, in a field, on top of limestone, on top of sand, in a treehouse or in a Faraday cage, then you ought to be honest enough to stop making excuses and admit that you can't dowse for gold.

That is the gist of it. You are presented a lump of gold. Can you find it without visual clues when there are only ten possible places where it could be? If you cannot answer that question "yes", then you can't dowse for gold.

The more excuses you give and the more off-topic rambling you emit just makes it ever more clear that you are afraid to take a clear and straightforward test.

Now if you want to admit this and get on with your life, I, for one, will call you a man of honor.

SezMe

25th May 2007, 11:54 PM

I've yet to follow up with my report on my meeting with edge and I apologize for that. I have e-mailed the person who took the pictures and have not heard back from him. I have just PM'ed edge to ask him if he can lean on the guy who took the pictures to send them to me. If I do not hear anything in a couple of days, I will call the camera guy directly to see what the problem is. If the pictures are not going to be available by some time next week, I'll write up the whole thing without the pics as best I can and publish it here. This would be a real let-down for me because this is one situation where the old adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words" really is true.

Please stand by.

Patejdl

26th May 2007, 02:08 AM

Edge just one question since I've found a way how to capture banking/rotation/tunnel rotation of the whole hand through a quite nifty and smart motion capture process. That means if you had a rod in your hand (the Y stick is sometihng different and cannot be tested this way) I could check the the data and tell you in any time of the test if the rod was actually moving differently to the conditions in the hand. If the rod moved differently to the conditions then voila we have our "force". If it didn't well we can assume with a 100% probability that the "force" we're seeing is just generated by the hand. Seems tricky but my technique worked like charm because it's simple and effective.

What would happen if the "meassurable force" was actually created by your hands and not the rod itself. Many dowsers claim that the sticks moves by itself and thus generates it's own movement created by "dowsing" forces.

What would you do if I could prove that the rod doesn't move on itself and is rotated by the hand's banking/rotation/tunnel rotation.

edge

26th May 2007, 11:11 AM

(the Y stick is sometihng different and cannot be tested this way)
Wait a minute, why not?
They say it's the Idiomoter effect.

But could you do this for a devise that eliminates the human element and the organic stick?
The human element is a flaw.
We would need a very clean room.

edge

26th May 2007, 11:13 AM

edge

26th May 2007, 11:16 AM

Tricky I will state what my findings are as I test this.
When I'm satisfied I will then make a determination
So far as I can tell it is reliable to a point and that where the percentages come in.
So far I’m above my averages.

Tricky

27th May 2007, 08:59 AM

Tricky I will state what my findings are as I test this.
When I'm satisfied I will then make a determination.
Unless we know your exact methodolgy, your findings and determinations are worthless. In the years I've been talking to you, you have never come up with a precise protocol, and you have never given a satisfactory explanation as to why you won't use any of the precise protocols that others have provided.

So far as I can tell it is reliable to a point and that where the percentages come in.
So far I’m above my averages.
That means exactly nothing. Percentages of what exactly? Averages of what exactly?

edge

28th May 2007, 08:46 AM

SezMe I called and left a message and no response.
You have to remember that it is a holiday weekend at a resort he's probably booked up and very busy.
I will go there when I can and I would like to retest there.
I if I can will work the ground with a dredge as he has given me permission to dredge in the month of September after season.
I'm thinking that if it's as good as I think it is, after dowsing there that I might do the test there for JREF, because I can pay for their stay there with what I mine to Brian as payment for the cabins.
This would be for a 10 day period.
Just got to tie up all the lose ends.
In the last two weeks I have found a great deal of information about dowsing and my averages are excellent especially here as this is the worst case scenario to test at even though they are just above what I said is my average.

Unless we know your exact methodology, your findings and determinations are worthless. In the years I've been talking to you, you have never come up with a precise protocol, and you have never given a satisfactory explanation as to why you won't use any of the precise protocols that others have provided.

The protocols that others have provided have been bias to the skeptics and really don't cover what all is involved.
Mining with the method of dowsing really answers it all.
I have sent a second protocol, which covers all the aspects of dowsing that is positive, to Jeff.
You guys have helped me to see a few things and even helped me in ways I can't explain yet but you are bias as skeptics so your test or protocols are one sided.
What I have to determine when mining and dowsing is all the information I receive what to skip and where to mine, both positive end results have to be determined.

Paula you have nothing that is of value to contribute other than nonsense.
You are so far off its funny how locked up in your beliefs you are.
One word come to mind you are, stagnant .
I may have the answers one-way or the other and JREF are not the only ones that will benefit either way win or lose.
I will have the answer, you just can’t understand all the implications if I’m right, and if I’m wrong then what I have to say may finally put it to rest as I am probably the most knowledgeable person on the planet about dowsing.
If I’m right there is much more to do and learn.

Paulhoff

28th May 2007, 09:05 AM

Paula you have nothing that is of value to contribute other than nonsense.
You are so far off its funny how locked up in your beliefs you are.
One word come to mind you are, stagnant .
I may have the answers one-way or the other and JREF are not the only ones that will benefit either way win or lose.
I will have the answer, you just can’t understand all the implications if I’m right, and if I’m wrong then what I have to say may finally put it to rest as I am probably the most knowledgeable person on the planet about dowsing.
There is nothing but nonsense about dowsing to begin with so there is nothing but nonsense to talk about then taking about it. Also as for you being the most knowledgeable person on dowsing, you are not, because you buy into that BS and this if nothing else, shows us how little you know. As for you being right, please don't hold your breath, I will not be losing any sleep over this. And after you fail again, and you will, I am curious to hear your new excuses.

If I’m right there is much more to do and learn.
You almost have that right, it should be, "I'm wrong, so there is much more for me to do and learn".

Paul

:) :) :)

People who need Resort to name calling are more then 99% wrong.

William Smith

28th May 2007, 09:36 AM

...
Mining with the method of dowsing really answers it all.
...

Especially when you finally do it again under controlled conditions.

Will that "answer it all", even if you fail - again - to do what you claim to be able to do?

I have sent a second protocol, which covers all the aspects of dowsing that is positive, to Jeff.
...

Would you mind posting the protocol here, edge?

edge

28th May 2007, 10:05 AM

Especially when you finally do it again under controlled conditions.

Will that "answer it all", even if you fail - again - to do what you claim to be able to do?

Would you mind posting the protocol here, edge?

Let Jeff answer and then I will post the answer and the protocol.
I sent it a couple of days ago so it should come soon.

Spektator

28th May 2007, 01:09 PM

I tried to create an unbiassed test protocol, edge. What's wrong with this one?
1. The requirements for the test are the dowser; his dowsing rod; a target that he is sure he can detect, small enough to be concealed within a covered plastic container; ten such containers, all identical and all with the same kind of cover; nine dummy targets of a similar weight to the real target; and a scale as specified by the dowser. There will also be four observers, two chosen or accepted by the JREF,two chosen or accepted by the dowser, a camera operator, and two video cameras, set up to capture the test from different angles.
2. In an initial callibration run, the video cameras well bestarted and the dowser will ascertain that only the real target produces the effect on the scale that he expects and that none of the dummy targets do; during this callibration run, the containers will initially be open so that the dowser can see the contents, but before the measurement is made, the tops of the containers will be put in place so that physical conditions in the actual tests will be identical to those in the callibration run.
3. Before the actual test runs, the dowser must agree that he is satisfied his dowsing rod and the scale are performing as expected.
4. The cameras will be stopped. The dowser, the camera operator, and two of the observers (one chosen by or accepted by the JREF, one chosen by or accepted by the dowser) will leave the area.
5. The remaining two observers will, by a randomly-generated process, determine the order in which the containers will be tested. The containers will be temporarily numbered 1-10 (by means of Post-It notes, for example). These two observers will then notify the dowser, the camera operator,and the other two observers that the test is ready, and they will leave the area.
6. The dowser, the camera operator,and the first two observers will return. The cameras will be started. Taking turns, the two observers will bring the containers, one by one, to the area beneath the scale. If the dowser wishes, the identifying Post-It number will be removed prior to dowsing the container, but the observers will keep a record of the order in which the containers are dowsed,and the Post-It will be re-applied as each container is dowsed.
7. No container will be open until all ten have been dowsed.
8. At the completion of each run,the containers will be opened. A "hit" will be counted ONLY if the dowser has successfully identified the target. Any other outcome is a "miss."
9. The process will be repeated for ten runs. A successful test will require the dowser to identify the target correctly at least six times out of ten tries. Six, seven, eight, nine, or ten "hits" will constitute a successful test. Any other outcome will constitute a failure.

It may need refining, but you need to start someplace. How should it be improved? (One thing I'd suggest: the dowser does NOT get to learn whether he's hit or missed until all ten turns are over.)

politas

28th May 2007, 04:28 PM

The protocols that others have provided have been bias to the skeptics and really don't cover what all is involved.
Mining with the method of dowsing really answers it all.

The purpose of a test of dowsing is to cut out all other factors that might be affecting the result. If your proposed protocol does not do that, it is unlikely to be accepted.

Spektator

28th May 2007, 04:28 PM

Something else that occurs to me: It's also a "miss" if the dowser incorrectly identifes a dummy target as the real one. Otherwise it would be possible, of course, for the dowser to say "that's it" with each target for ten times in a row and "hit" every time! So I think for each run the dowser should have only one "that's it." If the dowser could identify five out of ten possibles as the target, that radically changes the odds!

Also, I'd prefer it if the targets were shuffled randomly, being placed in different containers for each run of ten. Try as hard as you can, you're not going to get ten absolutely identical containers. Even if the dowser were not consciously trying, he might subconsciously pick up on one container that had some small irretularity, mark, or flaw; and if the target were always in that one, he'd be much more likely to "hit". So the dowser should make sure that the presence of a target in one container will not "contaminate" the container if it is removed and a dummy target is placed in its stead.

If that were the case, the containers might be numbered from 1-10 on the bottom (where the dowser could not see the number) before the test began; that would really be better than stick-on numbers anyway, unless a Magic Marker-inscribed number would give a false positive reading, and I can't see how it possibly could.

Cuddles

29th May 2007, 05:36 AM

I have a question. Has Edge actually applied for the challenge?

I just looked over the start of the thread, although I haven't read the whole thing. As far as I can see, Edge has sent some letters and e-mails to Jeff, but up until at least mid-January had still not actually sent in an application.

Paulhoff

29th May 2007, 06:13 AM

Edge, this isn't the place to discuss protocol with me, as you know. Please contact me at jeff@randi.org.

Paul

:) :) :)

Paulhoff

29th May 2007, 06:14 AM

Tricky

29th May 2007, 07:02 AM

In the last two weeks I have found a great deal of information about dowsing and my averages are excellent especially here as this is the worst case scenario to test at even though they are just above what I said is my average.
Average of what? You have never clearly explained how you are determining your "average".

The protocols that others have provided have been bias to the skeptics and really don't cover what all is involved.
Yes they do. You say you can detect gold. Somebody puts gold in front of you. You detect it. If you can't do that, then everything else you say is BS.

Mining with the method of dowsing really answers it all.
No, it answers nothing, since the only way to tell if there is gold or not (or how much) is to excavate the entire area to the depth of what you claim your dowsing can detect, then painstakingly examine every single grain of rock. That would be stupid when it is so easy to be sure there is gold by simply placing it there. Even if you are getting some extraneous readings from sources other than the placed target, you should still be able to find the target at a rate better than random. If you can't, then simply can't find gold by dowsing at a rate better than random.

I have sent a second protocol, which covers all the aspects of dowsing that is positive, to Jeff.
That doesn't sound like a protocol at all. That sounds like more of your "explanations". The JREF has said before (and James Randi told you in person) that they are not interested in explanations. They want you to say what you can do then demonstrate it in a way in which the results are unambiguous. The question must be "Did the dowser find the target?" and the answer must be "Yes" or "No". If your protocol does not include such "aspects" then I find it extremely unlikely that JREF will accept it.

You guys have helped me to see a few things and even helped me in ways I can't explain yet but you are bias as skeptics so your test or protocols are one sided.
You are correct. They are biased toward gathering clear-cut evidence. Waffly, excuse-filled results are discriminated against. Them's the breaks, Edge.

If I’m right there is much more to do and learn.
Yes, that is true, but we must get past that really big "IF" first, and so far, you have made zero progress in that direction.

edge

29th May 2007, 11:52 AM

The question must be "Did the dowser find the target?" and the answer must be "Yes" or "No". If your protocol does not include such "aspects"

And did the dowser correctly identify when the target is not there both are positives for mining, do you put in and mine or not.
This is what happens when dowsing did I miss something and leave the gold behind did I by-pass a load?
The scales tell me when the target is there or not....
It still, isn't fool proof, Out of a 100 tries on the worst ground the worst neutral spot at this property I'm at 58% correct for both when the target is there and not.
But this is the worst-case scenario for doing the test, here, and I got worst results inside the house where we tested the scales the first time.
In all three locations there were different calibrations.
From what I know now when the ground is more toward the neutral the better the results.

But thanks to SezMe the Coffee Creek spot so far has been the best-case scenario.
There at that spot I got totally better numbers as far as the calibrations, less pull means less of a drain to my bodily system, physically it’s tiring in two different ways.

The scales change everything but only to a point and there still is a flaw.
We call it a ghost reading.
I think I know why and I can’t fix that except to get a better spot.
Even then I will still miss some.
But not while mining.

Spektator, a lot of it is up to JREF, they will say yes or no.
What I'm doing is making it as simple as possible as this testing is very time consuming.
One container in one spot is all that's needed and I have done 100 single tests and there is no way to know whether it's there or not.
A toss of the coin makes it fair as the target may be there 7 times or 1 time.
According to you all I will get 10% right when the target is there and I will get 10% right when it isn't and I'm saying I will get 60% or better so that is 40% over what the result should be.
You can't say that I can guess because the target isn't there 90% of the time because each set of ten is different then.
Why I can't get over 60% goes into theory but that's my advantage to know.

I can tell you this that moving a target on and off the spot that I choose changes the pull slightly each and every time.
I’m still waiting for SezMes’ results.
It’s hard to get people to work with you, pictures aren’t really necessary.

Spektator

29th May 2007, 12:54 PM

.....Spektator, a lot of it is up to JREF, they will say yes or no.
What I'm doing is making it as simple as possible as this testing is very time consuming.
One container in one spot is all that's needed and I have done 100 single tests and there is no way to know whether it's there or not.
A toss of the coin makes it fair as the target may be there 7 times or 1 time.
According to you all I will get 10% right when the target is there and I will get 10% right when it isn't and I'm saying I will get 60% or better so that is 40% over what the result should be.
You can't say that I can guess because the target isn't there 90% of the time because each set of ten is different then.
Why I can't get over 60% goes into theory but that's my advantage to know.

I can tell you this that moving a target on and off the spot that I choose changes the pull slightly each and every time.
I’m still waiting for SezMes’ results.
It’s hard to get people to work with you, pictures aren’t really necessary.

edge, you simply can't count anything but detecting the gold in the setup I described. If you say the target is there and it is there, you get 100% on that try. If you say the target is there and it is not there, you get 0%. You don't get any percentage points by saying the target is not there if it is not there--you MUST concentrate on the positives, not the negatives, since in my suggested test you would know going in that nine times out of ten the target would not be in place. If in six tries you detect the target every time, you've won; if in ten tries you fail to identify the target for times but do detect it six times, you've won.

Paulhoff

29th May 2007, 01:39 PM

Could you imagine winning a sharp shooting tournament for the most shots missed by the shooter because he said he was going to miss the shot.

Paul

:) :) :)

edge

29th May 2007, 02:41 PM

Spektator said,edge, you simply can't count anything but detecting the gold in the setup I described. If you say the target is there and it is there, you get 100% on that try. If you say the target is there and it is not there, you get 0%. You don't get any percentage points by saying the target is not there if it is not there--you MUST concentrate on the positives, not the negatives, since in my suggested test you would know going in that nine times out of ten the target would not be in place. If in six tries you detect the target every time, you've won; if in ten tries you fail to identify the target for times but do detect it six times, you've won.

That is still an option as we are looking at those stats too.
How ever I will need ground with a neutral area like the one at Coffee Creek.
It is still possible, but I would also have to still scan 100 targets and preferably in one spot like I described.
The plan is to go back and check again and do the test both ways.

I don't have to say much Paul as I am going by what is shown by the scale.
But I still have to know when it's not there.
Key words," to know".

William Smith

29th May 2007, 05:20 PM

...
And I now can go any where to prove it.
...

...
How ever I will need ground with a neutral area like the one at Coffee Creek.
...

Anyone, please let me know if I edited edge's post unfairly:

...
And I now can go any where to prove it.
...

...
How ever I will need ground with a neutral area like the one at Coffee Creek.
...

Just to be sure:

...
And I now can go any where to prove it.
...

...
How ever I will need ground with a neutral area like the one at Coffee Creek.
...

In case somebody missed it:

...
And I now can go any where to prove it.
...

Paulhoff, you will have to agree, won't you: One couldn't make this stuff up.

(One lesson the late great R.A. Wilson taught me, was that when faced with the amount of human stupidity, I could either choose to laugh or cry. Guess what I'm doing now.)

Tricky

29th May 2007, 07:41 PM

However, one thing did occur to me. If he is (as he said at one point) using ten containers of which only one has a real target, then he has a one-in-ten chance of hitting the target. Of course, he knows this, so he's going to say "not the target" more often than not. I suspect it is possible that he is counting these "not the target" guesses as hits, even though he should get them right 90% of the time. Such a flawed way of counting would vastly pump up his "average of hits".
Sadly, it looks like I may have been on to something here.

Spektator

29th May 2007, 08:53 PM

Marcus

30th May 2007, 11:17 AM

Forgive me if this has been covered already, but I have just read the transcript of Edge's first challenge. He agreed beforehand that the conditions were right for dowsing, and went on to prove it by being successful in the open test. Why would JREF be interested in a second challenge? It seems to me he has already proved in spectacular fashion that he is unable to detect gold.

steenkh

30th May 2007, 02:00 PM

Forgive me if this has been covered already, but I have just read the transcript of Edge's first challenge. He agreed beforehand that the conditions were right for dowsing, and went on to prove it by being successful in the open test. Why would JREF be interested in a second challenge? It seems to me he has already proved in spectacular fashion that he is unable to detect gold.
The JREF is not interested in a second challenge, but according to the challenge rules, a claimant is free to try again after one year.

William Smith

30th May 2007, 02:52 PM

Forgive me if this has been covered already, but I have just read the transcript of Edge's first challenge. He agreed beforehand that the conditions were right for dowsing, and went on to prove it by being successful in the open test. Why would JREF be interested in a second challenge? It seems to me he has already proved in spectacular fashion that he is unable to detect gold.

He did prove it at that particular point in time, in that particular test, at that particular location, if you catch my drift.

Only edge's verbose vagueness - along with a strictly mathematical chance - suggests that he might succeed this time.

Alas, the process of developing a new protocol seems quite telling, doesn't it?

Tricky

30th May 2007, 04:00 PM

Forgive me if this has been covered already, but I have just read the transcript of Edge's first challenge. He agreed beforehand that the conditions were right for dowsing, and went on to prove it by being successful in the open test.
Edge's explanation was an admission that he had lied to Randi on the day of the test. He said something to the effect of "I didn't come all that way to not be tested", so he faked his "readings" in the open test, even though he knew that he wasn't able to dowse in that room. He was hoping for a lucky streak in the closed test.

"That makes no sense", you might say, and you'd be right. It would have been better if he had told the truth from the beginning. If he knew something was messing him up, then he would be crazy to take the test under those conditions, but I suppose the lure of a million dollars makes people do strange things.

In my opinion, Edge didn't lie on the open test in Randi's office. He lied later when he told us he had intentionally faked the open test. Either way, it was a lie about a significant aspect of the test, and that makes his protests seem a little weak.

colin

31st May 2007, 06:25 AM

Yes--if I just randomly guessed, look what I can do:

The target, unknown to me, is in container 7.

I guess as follows, knowing nine of the containers are duds:

1-no
2-no
3-yes!
4-no
5-no
6-no
7-no
8-no
9-no
10-no.

Okay, I missed number 3 and number 7, but hey, I was correct on all the others! I scored 80%, right?

No, of course the ONLY thing that counts is correctly identifying the target. I scored 0%. I hope edge understands this.
If that is what he means, that is just insulting. (To be honest, I don’t always understand his posts. I guess my Edge comprehension skills are lacking.) By just greatly making it easier for him to randomly guess, he either thinks that we are really stupid and/or he is really clever. I suspect neither is true.

And speaking of insulting:

but you are bias as skeptics so your test or protocols are one sided.

Trying to honestly and fairly test you for the claim you have made is not bias. Also, it is particularly insulting to call us bias when you appear to be trying to cheat.

Anyhow, why can’t we test for both the positive and the negative?

1. Use one container.

2. 50% of the time it will have gold in it and 50% it will not.

3. Each trial will consist of ten attempts.

4. Which attempts will have gold will be randomly selected by drawing five cards from ten shuffled playing cards, numbered 1-10, at the beginning of each trial.

5. Do ten trials.

6. He states “Yes, it contains gold” or “No, it does not contain gold” for each attempt.

7. No results will be given until all ten trials are completed.

Edge, could you get 80% or more right in that scenario?

Or has that already been covered?

Spektator

31st May 2007, 06:52 AM

(snip)
[1. Use one container.

2. 50% of the time it will have gold in it and 50% it will not.

3. Each trial will consist of ten attempts.

4. Which attempts will have gold will be randomly selected by drawing five cards from ten shuffled playing cards, numbered 1-10, at the beginning of each trial.

5. Do ten trials.

6. He states “Yes, it contains gold” or “No, it does not contain gold” for each attempt.

7. No results will be given until all ten trials are completed.

Edge, could you get 80% or more right in that scenario?

Or has that already been covered?

Thanks, Colin, but I have a problem with that--I don't think there should really be any pre-set number of times the target will be present. Think of it as ten coin flips: if I say "heads" every time, I ought to score pretty close to fifty per cent just by random chance. If a dowser says "Target!" every time, his/her score would be fifty per cent--which in other circumstances the dowser could point to saying "Well above average!" Perhaps your suggested protocol could be altered: Maybe by a random selection that chooses numbers from 1 to 10, the actual number of times a target might be present could be generated, without the knowledge of the dowser or the observing team. Example: The target-placing team rolls a ten-sided die and number 4 comes up. The Elf mage casts a protection spell---sorry, just had a flashback to college. Ahem. They will then know that the target will appear four times in the whole run of ten. Then by a coin flip they decide which half the first target appears in: heads, it's in boxes 1-5, tails in 6-10. they continue narrowing it down until they determine which times they will place the container in the box, which times it will remain empty.

I'm sure this can be further improved---not to bias the test against edge, but to guarantee that it is a double-blind test that will present results that are statistically significant.

colin

31st May 2007, 07:50 AM

^^Thanks! I'm still learning the ropes on this protocol stuff.:)

edge

31st May 2007, 08:28 AM

These are the changes,

So we will leave it the way it was sent in by me.
100 passes each set is split into 10 boxes and ten
sets.
I must pick out the target 6 out of 10 times and only
the target.
I will try to get enough gold for a target so I can
shrink the target and the containers to make the test
less bulky.
Just like I did it in the office only in one spot not
ten containers in ten spots.
The only difference is the box is on the same spot or
ten boxes will pass and sit in the same spot one at a
time as I scan each box.
I will split the test up or not depends on the feel of
the spot.
If It's reading, when empty, is low I might do the
whole test in one day.

The scales sit in one spot and can be hung off a
tripod.
Now I have to find the place to do the test in.
I may go to Florida to do the test.
I will know in a month or two and I will be testing
one spot here at Coffee Creek.
The JREF team my come here if I can set it up or I
might go to them since I can now calibrate the scales
anywhere.
The exact date will be determined by me.
I will try to give you an advance notice of 2 weeks.

The other way they would want me to do 10,000 scans.
That would be too time consuming.
Or to hit 95% my way which I can't prove here at home.
It's to bad that the really good spot is 40 miles from here and at a place that's a resort.

Cuddles I have 1 year since my application was sent.

The worst case place, here my house, my numbers wind up being the oppisit because we tested that way here. 40%
So I will need the most neutral spot in any given location and then test it first, sounds simple but it is not.

This is the way we did it the other way, which matches what happens when mining.
First try out of ten and a coin is flipped heads is always, the target is there, and tails is, when it is not.
Although I didn't know any of that.
So the metal appeared like this.
for instance the metal in set three, of ten, appears 5 times in random order.
Set three 5 times.
Set four it appears 2 times.
Set five 6 times
Set six 6 times.
Set seven 4 times.
Set eight 7 times.
set nine 4 times.

There is no way of guessing when and where plus I have to know when it is not there to get the hit right.
What I have to do now is test their way on a better spot and repeat that twice, if I get it right twice then it's a matter of giving them a two-week notice.
So far it looks like I have one spot that's pretty good but I will look for another.
Now that I have a visual way of knowing that should be easy to find.

Cuddles

31st May 2007, 10:23 AM

Cuddles I have 1 year since my application was sent.

Which was when? I don't have time to reread this entire thread (and doing so would probably cause me to lose the will to live), but as I said in my last post, despite this thread now being over a year old there is no mention of an actual application as recently as the end of January this year. Did you apply more recently than this? Or longer ago and just didn't mention it? Have you actually applied at all?

edge

31st May 2007, 10:26 AM

Which was when? I don't have time to reread this entire thread (and doing so would probably cause me to lose the will to live), but as I said in my last post, despite this thread now being over a year old there is no mention of an actual application as recently as the end of January this year. Did you apply more recently than this? Or longer ago and just didn't mention it? Have you actually applied at all?

I think it was about Febuary 18th or there about.

Yes I did.

William Smith

31st May 2007, 05:36 PM

Equally, just you saying it works doesn't make it so.

Until you demonstrate an effect, it is mere anecdote.

A fish tale.

edge

1st June 2007, 11:43 AM

A fish tale.

WELL I NEED ONE MORE SET OF STATISTICS FROM SezMe TO GET AND GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
BUT ONE OF YOUR OWN SEEMS TO HAVE GONE QUIET.

Lance Katcher

1st June 2007, 12:57 PM

Hi Edge it Lance Katcher goodluck

Lance Katcher

1st June 2007, 01:01 PM

Good luck and hi cuddles

Lance Katcher

colin

1st June 2007, 01:23 PM

WELL I NEED ONE MORE SET OF STATISTICS FROM SezMe TO GET AND GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
BUT ONE OF YOUR OWN SEEMS TO HAVE GONE QUIET.
Yeah, he’s right. Where is the now ‘infamous’ report? :confused: :D

William Smith

1st June 2007, 03:59 PM

WELL I NEED ONE MORE SET OF STATISTICS FROM SezMe TO GET AND GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
BUT ONE OF YOUR OWN SEEMS TO HAVE GONE QUIET.

Did I touch a nerve, edge?

Yelling on your part will neither shut me up nor help your case.
Simply prove under controlled conditions what you have claimed numerous times: That you can find gold with your dowsing rod.

You have been claiming this for years.
There's a million dollars - and bragging rights - waiting for you.

[Jack Bauer]

Do it! Now!

[/Jack Bauer]

William Smith

1st June 2007, 04:05 PM

...
And I now can go any where to prove it.
...

If you want to go Kobe Bryant on us several more times: Fine.

Just do not expect me to take you seriously any more and do expect to receive the appropriate treatment for someone who continues to make the same unsubstantiated claim over and over and over.

SezMe

1st June 2007, 10:50 PM

William Smith

2nd June 2007, 02:18 AM

I FINALLY got some of the pictures so I'll start my write up of my get together with edge. However, the pictures are not of very good quality but I think they might be made much more useful with some color, etc adjustment. Are any of you good at graphics manipulation? If so, shoot me a PM if you'd like to see what can be done to improve them. Or if someone here at JREF is good at it but doesn't inhabit this thread, please have them get in touch with me.

Thanks.

Oh, and for all you doubters, ya know, sometimes things are just not under our control, eh?

Treble_head seems good at graphics manipulation.

Tricky

2nd June 2007, 06:36 AM

edge

2nd June 2007, 11:48 AM

Hi Edge it’s Lance Katcher goodluck

Thanks Lance and welcome to my nightmare.

And for the rest I wasn't yelling just in a hurry.

Had to go to work they should put the cap locks somewhere else.
What you assume to be true isn’t.

You know I keep thinking that JREF is into knowing for sure, that means tests and experiments but they are not and I keep forgetting that.

It's just that their comfortable with the statuesque, they want to keep it that way.

I'm right and your wrong you want to bet I have a million bucks to prove that you’re wrong.
You are, Doubters of everything not known.

When I do take the challenge again I will want to pass that means knowing everything about what I'm doing.
My last piece of information that I'm looking for is the ghost reading and that's theory.
But low and behold with all the experiments that I'm doing I think I have the answer.
What causes the last problem with taking the test with a removable target on and off a spot, what makes dowsers fail?
Ghost readings?
Now I know how to make that stop now.....

The thing that is surprising is no other dowsers have posted on this thread.

Now if you don't like to read anything on this post you are welcome to leave.

No one is funding me there is no scholarship even if I was to prove that it doesn't work and put it to rest once and for all, it's all me, so it's taking some time as I have to live and pay the bills at the same time.

I came close a couple of times in the respects of saying no it doesn't work, in other words you almost had me convinced and I almost said screw it.
But then something I did as an experiment showed me something new.
That's what experiments do.

I come in here and document what I have found out about dowsing and to pass the time to keep me as nimble on the keyboard as I am able to be.

If we knew everything there is to know about science then we wouldn't still be burning fossil fuels and using rocketry for energy would we?

Dowsing interacts with the human and the gravity field I find this to be fascinating since we know very little about gravity.

But of course the JREF and you Put it to bed right?

1. Last years testing with a dredge proved that it works perfectly well in the field.
Why is that? Out of 21 picks I got 100% in good places and 80% in bad places.
Those targets are there and have been there and are only moved from the spot once!
Once cleaned out the readings in those spots change dramatically to nil or very close to that because of certain variations and flaws in the bottom of the creek.
Pieces of metals under the false bottom, or where even the dredge can't get to it to bring it up can bring doubt.

2. Several double blind test I have done here, above me and on the ground have proven that 10% correct hits of a target is a false statement.
I even had one friend place two targets with out me knowing during the double blind test we did, to see how good I am, and I was able to discern that he did.
My score in that test was higher than expected.

3. My numbers indicate that there is a better than 50% chance to show it really works, If I was not able to hit above 50% then the point would be moot.

4. Physics say there is no measurable force, wrong!
Calibrations indicate that it is different from place to place.
It indicates what is there naturally and that it changes when a target is placed on the exact same spot.
It also confirms my theory that, the more neutral the ground is the easier it is to pick out a movable target.
If it were all Idomotor effect then the calibrations of the scale wouldn’t change from place to place….
Very hard to achieve, neutrality, and I’m in the worst place to be able to find it.
But it can be done even here, so a place like Florida is good as long as I find the right spot and that is more likely now as the neutral spots are better there than here.

If you can’t see what I am doing and why just by these 4 statements then you are double blind.
Paula you are triple blind and brain washed so there!

SezMe I would like to see the before and after pictures.

EHocking said,
Equally, just you saying it works doesn't make it so.

Until you demonstrate an effect, it is mere anecdote.

I can if you are interested.
I will when the time is right to do the double blind test for JREF but if you need to know right now that can be arranged.

nathan

2nd June 2007, 01:15 PM

Dowsing interacts with the human and the gravity field I find this to be fascinating since we know very little about gravity.
Well, beside the point that you've yet to prove dowsing actually works, I think we know quite a lot about gravity.

4. Physics say there is no measurable force, wrong!
Calibrations indicate that it is different from place to place.
It indicates what is there naturally and that it changes when a target is placed on the exact same spot.
It also confirms my theory that, the more neutral the ground is the easier it is to pick out a movable target.
If it were all Idomotor effect then the calibrations of the scale wouldn’t change from place to place….

What is your evidence that there is such a force? You've yet to describe your experimental design in any understandable way. Why would the ideomotor effect produce a constant deflection? The whole point of the ideomotor effect is that it varies.

edge

2nd June 2007, 01:24 PM

The whole point of the ideomotor effect is that it varies.

It also confirms my theory that, the more neutral the ground is the easier it is to pick out a movable target.

edge

2nd June 2007, 01:43 PM

Just really really really no respect for any more weaseling, contradicting, evading and doing anything to dodge a retest.

I'm not dodging anything they missed the window of opportunity remember March April?

But I'm glad they did.
When I do this I intended to pass.
In a short time I will have a conclusion to dowsing I may even take up your side but I doubt it according to the evidence I see through testing the dowsing effect.

I am very, very close to knowing all that I need to know to do this so I intend to find out everything I can while I can.
I think I explaned that in the above post, one more thing to know.

Actually, I'd just like to see someone get tested again.
Then you have to wait so do I.

edge

2nd June 2007, 03:32 PM

These are the things we are hammering out.

--- Alison Smith <alison@randi.org> wrote:
> Mike Guska,>
> Again, 60 out of 100 can be random chance. You will
> either have to increase
> your success rate, or the test would have to be
> repeated again and again to
> ensure your success rate never changed, which I
> believe would take too much
> time.>
> Can you increase your success rate or no?>
> Thank you for writing,>
> Alison

My ansewer,

Alison,
My success rate is higher.
I don't see how it can be random chance since the JREF
says I won't hit it right but 1 out of 10.
Which they bragged about for 7 years now.
They accepted 70 % the last time 7 out of 10 correct
for the target for a million.
I was planning on **% as a surprise.

One test, what's passable, you tell me.
I'm willing to do up to 300 passes on the targets, but
once I make a guess it will be faster because we can
go to the next set of ten tries.Weather you tell me or
not that I was right or wrong, do you follow?
I rather not know till 10 of 10 are done.
That also may be three different weekends to pull off
300 scans, I don't know what you are willing to do, I
would have to go to Fort Laderdale three times from
Brevard County which I could theoretically do.
Say you do three separate tests of 10, that's up to
300 scans by me if the target shows up randomly in
spot ten every time, but it won't.
That will make it quicker.
There's no sense if the metals in 4 and I pick 4 that
I should have scan 6 more empties for that round.
Or if I make a wrong choice.
That set of 10 is over and we can go to the next set
of 10 choices.
So now using 70% as the number, if I get 7 out of 10
right the first time and 6 out of 10 the second time
and 9 out of 10 the third time those numbers should be
combined to get an over all average for those tests
for the win agreed?

Now I have one more experiment to do to find out about
the ghost readings that I get from a movable target.
Briefly here's what I know, I have to wait a certain
amount of time after a target is in position that will
probably hold true through out our tests.
When it's removed, for a period of around 5 minutes
has to pass before the field is back to a reading by
the scale that there is no target.We could then
proceed to the next round of 10 tries.
Your number generator for this test could be a set of
ten cards.
If I can get the test right and this is what it
is{ghost readings} I should get at least 90% correct.
If that happens I should be able to walk away with a
90% and win instantly yes or no?
That will be the goal of the first test of 100 scans.
Other wise we would have to continue to the next set
of 10 and then the third.
As long as the numbers average 70% we are good to go.
We will know by the numbers if I can pull it off in
percentages the next set of ten or twenty to be able
to maintain 70% and continue.
There are two flaws the human element and the gravity
field.
Both are different every time you try for a target
that is moved on and off a spot.
But there are none when mining the gold and other
metals they are there then they are not.
These are things you need to know and thanks for
putting up with me.
If you need to know more read the last couple of pages
on the Edge and dowsing post, It's in the million
dollar challenge thread. it might help you to
understand better, maybe not let me know if you do
read it.
Mike

Paulhoff

2nd June 2007, 04:00 PM

Dowsing interacts with the human and the gravity field I find this to be fascinating since we know very little about gravity.
No the human body does not interact with gravity any differently then anything else does in known universe. And this BS about knowing very little about gravity, we seem too able to send probes to the other planets with no problem.

It is the same old BS, just because we don't know everything does not mean we don't know anything.

Paul

:) :) :)

William Smith

2nd June 2007, 04:18 PM

Thanks Lance and welcome to my nightmare.
...

Nightmare?

You have to do a controlled test to prove an ability you have repeatedly claimed you possess. Upon success, you receive One ****** Million Sacagaweas.

Nightmare?

SezMe

2nd June 2007, 04:51 PM

I'm thinking maybe you should post them without any manipulation. You don't want anybody to claim that you tinkered with them to remove evidence. Anybody who wants to can download them from here and play with them.

Besides, one thing that is common to all "paranormal evidence" is bad photography.

Good point but sometimes a little manipulation can bring out details otherwise hidden. That said, I think a good compromise is to include both so the skeptical observer can draw his/her own conclusions.

William Smith

3rd June 2007, 05:32 AM

...
I came close a couple of times in the respects of saying no it doesn't work, in other words you almost had me convinced and I almost said screw it.
...

How could we have convinced you, when you have repeatedly claimed it does work?

The only reason for us being able to convince you - by e.g. pointing out that there had to be a previously undiscovered law of physics for dowsing to work - would be that you know already you are fooling yourself with distorted perception, but stick with an unproven theory in which you have invested a great deal of time and effort.

How else could we have convinced you, when you have repeatedly claimed it does work?

EHocking

3rd June 2007, 05:49 AM

EHocking said,

:
Equally, just you saying it works doesn't make it so.

Until you demonstrate an effect, it is mere anecdote.

I can if you are interested.
I will when the time is right to do the double blind test for JREF but if you need to know right now that can be arranged..Look me up when you're in London next.:)

In the meantime work on finalising a test with JREF.

EHocking

3rd June 2007, 12:47 PM

...So now using 70% as the number, if I get 7 out of 10
right the first time and 6 out of 10 the second time
and 9 out of 10 the third time those numbers should be
combined to get an over all average for those tests
for the win agreed?I don't think JREF should or would agree to averaging your score. In the example above you would arrive at an average of 7.33 "hits".

You cannot select 7.33 targets.

The proper way to calculate would be, using the above example, 70% of 30 possible targets is 21.

ie, you need to get 21 or better "hits" to win and in this example you have got 22 - thus a "win".

Simpler, cleaner, easier to demonstrate, no confusion with the maths.

edge, you *do* have a problem with percentages - you're statements that you have been 110 and 180% correct demonstrate this, so I would suggest that you stick to number of correct guesses.

Tricky

3rd June 2007, 07:07 PM

The whole point of the ideomotor effect is that it varies.
It does vary. It varies directly in accordance with whether or not you have been shown where the target is.

It would be interesting to see the videos of your first test when you unfailingly showed a response right over the target on the "open" test when you knew where the gold was. That response was, you now claim, faked so that you could get to the finals.

Video might show if there was a differece in the nature of the response when it was real (on the test you failed) versus faked (on the open test). Did the responses look the same? If so, is the ideomotor effect that easy to fake? Since you are the only person who has admitted to faking the ideomotor response, I was hoping you could enlighten us on how you did it and made it look so convincing, because in the past, you have told us that the force "nearly ripped the rod from your hands".

It also confirms my theory that, the more neutral the ground is the easier it is to pick out a movable target.
Several suggestions have been made, including suspending the target in the air so there is no "ground" at all to give you a false response. You have refused to take any of these suggestions without giving any good reason for doing so.

But I'll say it again. If dowsing cannot detect the difference between a piece of ground that has no obvous gold and a piece of ground upon which there is a large target of gold, then dowsing doesn't work.

Patejdl

4th June 2007, 05:31 AM

edge

4th June 2007, 11:04 AM

Measurable force?? Force of the hand or the force of the stick?? Gravity?? Argh.. what is this?? Kindergarten???

No point in talking with Edge about physics, statistics or even simple logic.

The only good question for Edge is that what he's going to do if he fails again?? What excuses will he find?? What new quack theories will he come up with?

Really Edge, what will you do after failing again??? I'm curious :)
Argh.. is the only thing that you said that is right.

I guess you don't read?

So we know all there is to know?

Question should be what are you going to think if I show it works and pass?

I can answer that.
Your excuse will be chance?
Remember in the church of skepticism 10% is what you claim that a dowser will hit.
Even if the win is 90% and I get 89% you will still say chance, there is no chance on the creek only hard labor, unless you dredge for it, or mine with heaver equipment, where the machine does the labor, it’s a hard task.

Another hour or two with SezMe and he would have been able to Dowse and see and feel.

In case you don’t comprehend here it is again.

1. Last years testing with a dredge proved that it works perfectly well in the field.
Why is that? Out of 21 picks I got 100% in good places and 80% in bad places.
Those targets are there and have been there and are only moved from the spot once!
Once cleaned out the readings in those spots change dramatically to nil or very close to that because of certain variations and flaws in the bottom of the creek.
Pieces of metals under the false bottom, or where even the dredge can't get to it to bring it up can bring doubt.

2. Several double blind test I have done here, above me and on the ground have proven that 10% correct hits of a target is a false statement.
I even had one friend place two targets with out me knowing during the double blind test we did, to see how good I am, and I was able to discern that he did.
My score in that test was higher than expected.

3. My numbers indicate that there is a better than 50% chance to show it really works, If I was not able to hit above 50% then the point would be moot.

4. Physics say there is no measurable force, wrong!
Calibrations indicate that it is different from place to place.
It indicates what is there naturally and that it changes when a target is placed on the exact same spot.
It also confirms my theory that, the more neutral the ground is the easier it is to pick out a movable target.
If it were all Idomotor effect then the calibrations of the scale wouldn’t change from place to place….
Very hard to achieve, neutrality, and I’m in the worst place to be able to find it.
But it can be done even here, so a place like Florida is good as long as I find the right spot and that is more likely now as the neutral spots are better there than here.

If you can’t see what I am doing and why just by these 4 statements then you are double blind.

Tricky you are lying.
It would be interesting to see the videos of your first test when you unfailingly showed a response right over the target on the "open" test when you knew where the gold was. That response was, you now claim, faked so that you could get to the finals.

Video might show if there was a difference in the nature of the response when it was real (on the test you failed) versus faked (on the open test). Did the responses look the same? If so, is the idomotor effect that easy to fake? Since you are the only person who has admitted to faking the idomotor response, I was hoping you could enlighten us on how you did it and made it look so convincing, because in the past, you have told us that the force "nearly ripped the rod from your hands".

I knew the moment that I scanned the room that it was going to be difficult.
Scanning the target was easy as I could see it.
I thought that I could over ride the ghost scans.
I went by information that my teacher had told me...
He was wrong and did not know as much then as I do now.
I said after going that far I needed to see what the test was all about and duration of it for my endurance.
I then say that the more you dowse the more sensitive you get and tired.....
That was then this is now,
I have a chance for a million and you don't........
From a failure I learned what to avoid next time and what caused it.
In the church of skepticism you will lie and say I have excuses, while I give you the facts of many experiments that verify what I have found out.

I have no idea what makes you so angry and rude to people that make these claims, I feel that if there is ever a win you want to be the first to know because that would drive some of your distain and hatred right out of your bodies so that you can change.
You want to see proof but are unwilling to go to the sources to see and try.
This source is on the river not in an office.
With in a couple of hours here,” and that’s about as long as it would take”, you would be convinced.
There was a place in the 80s that I mined at that the gold deposits, when dowsing, would break the sticks, the ground contained that much it would twist its self from its skin or bark when the stick is green, when it’s dry and old they would break.

Now that is verified by another dowser who dowses for water that you and I quoted several pages back on this post as he describes now what I did several years ago.

So far only one of you skeptics had the balls to meet with me where I could show you what the deal was and how immense the task was standing on the rivers and creeks.

Mining can physically hurt your body and any short cut to find the money helps immensely versus going at it blindly.

Geology as the only means of finding gold worked in the old days but doesn’t work always in this point and time as the obvious is not so obvious because the old timers cleaned out those spots along with the Chinese immigrants who also dowsed for it.
Not to mention those giant dredges they had in the 30s and 40s that went through this area.
Last years test was done on a major spot that one of those dredges sat on and striped it clean, my task was to see and get what they missed.
No one there thought that I would find much of any thing even they were wrong.

There is no way to fail when actually mining and dowsing, while testing a movable target the rules change but not on the field where it should be tested, to know for sure.
But that’s too hard for JREF they don’t have the time or the money.

But I may document that with film.
I think it’s funny that you all say 10% but now are upping the ante.
Their not so brave any more, we’ll see.

Tricky says,
I can fake the response.
I have tried and it’s impossible, I should be able to do that with one hand on the dowsing stick also but can’t.
Can’t even fake it with two hands.
So tell me Tricky what’s your explanation for it working when two people complete the circuit, I would like to hear this one.
The same pull the same direction that one person gets and the same reaction in the same place where there is nothing how come the responses are the same for nothing then something with one and then two people, L.M.A.O.?
It needs a complete circuit to work.

SezMe was shown this.

Argh.. is how I feel!

SezMe

4th June 2007, 12:01 PM

Another hour or two with SezMe and he would have been able to Dowse and see and feel.
Nope. (TM by prewitt81).

Tricky

4th June 2007, 12:10 PM

Tricky you are lying.
I don't believe I am. I recall quite clearly what you said after you failed.

I knew the moment that I scanned the room that it was going to be difficult.
Scanning the target was easy as I could see it.
I thought that I could over ride the ghost scans.
You never mentioned a single thing about this to the testers. Why not? You were specifically asked if the room was okay and you said it was. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

I went by information that my teacher had told me...
He was wrong and did not know as much then as I do now.
I said after going that far I needed to see what the test was all about and duration of it for my endurance.
I then say that the more you dowse the more sensitive you get and tired.....
That was then this is now,
I have a chance for a million and you don't...
I have about the same chance as you.

From a failure I learned what to avoid next time and what caused it.
In the church of skepticism you will lie and say I have excuses, while I give you the facts of many experiments that verify what I have found out.
Then prove me wrong if you can. We will see who is lying. I've outlined a number of simple tests you could take. You have not accepted a single one of them. Have you made excuses? What other possible explanation is there?

You want to see proof but are unwilling to go to the sources to see and try.
This source is on the river not in an office.
BS. Why don't you put the target next to a river then? What is your excuse for not doing that? If the source is gold, it can be in a river or in an office, on the ground or in the air, on top of limestone or on top of granite. You say you can dowse for gold, Edge, not rivers.

With in a couple of hours here,” and that’s about as long as it would take”, you would be convinced.
If you come up with a reasonable protocol, I'd consider it. So far, you have never been able to coherently describe your protocol. Neither have you accepted any of the ones that have been suggested. If you can find gold under a properly double-blinded test, I will believe you. So far you have given no indication whatsoever that you even understand what that means.

There was a place in the 80s that I mined at that the gold deposits, when dowsing, would break the sticks, the ground contained that much it would twist its self from its skin or bark when the stick is green, when it’s dry and old they would break.
Yeah, I've heard these tall tales before. Too bad you can't seem to show any of this stuff happening.

Back in the 80's I could lift a one-ton weight with a single hand. Oh, you want me to show you? Sorry. I have to find the perfect place first.:rolleyes:

Now that is verified by another dowser who dowses for water that you and I quoted several pages back on this post as he describes now what I did several years ago.

So far only one of you skeptics had the balls to meet with me where I could show you what the deal was and how immense the task was standing on the rivers and creeks.
Come up with a proper test and I'll consider it, Señor Huevos Grandes.

Mining can physically hurt your body and any short cut to find the money helps immensely versus going at it blindly.
You don't have to mine to dowse. If you could accurately find gold by dowsing, you'd never have to mine another day in your life.

Geology as the only means of finding gold worked in the old days but doesn’t work always in this point and time as the obvious is not so obvious because the old timers cleaned out those spots along with the Chinese immigrants who also dowsed for it.
Not to mention those giant dredges they had in the 30s and 40s that went through this area.
Last years test was done on a major spot that one of those dredges sat on and striped it clean, my task was to see and get what they missed.
No one there thought that I would find much of any thing even they were wrong.
Spare us the lesson in "Edge's Alternate History". If those spots still produced commercial amounts of gold, they'd still be mining them. Or else, you would have all the money you'd ever need.

There is no way to fail when actually mining and dowsing, while testing a movable target the rules change but not on the field where it should be tested, to know for sure.
I'm assuming you think that sentence made sense.

But that’s too hard for JREF they don’t have the time or the money.
Nobody is going to put up a lot of money just to allow you to nurse your delusions. If the someone in the test doesn't know BEFORE the test starts whether or not there is gold, then it cannot be a double-blind test. The result of a single dowsing response must be "correct" or "incorrect". It cannot be, "let's dig and pan and see what we find". If you think that the sort of test you describe will ever be acceptable, then you will forever be making excuses. Of course, this is exactly what I expect you to do.

Tricky says,
I can fake the response.
I have tried and it’s impossible.
BS again. You did it at your first test. You even admitted it.

So tell me Tricky what’s your explanation for it working when two people complete the circuit, I would like to hear this one. The same pull the same direction that one person gets and the same reaction in the same place where there is nothing how come the responses are the same for nothing then something with one and then two people, L.M.A.O.?
My response is "Learn to write a comprehensible sentence."

My further response is, "You say you can dowse for gold. There is gold under one of these ten targets. Find it."
What? You can't? LMAO.

It needs a complete circuit to work.

SezMe was shown this.
SezMe still hasn't written up his observations. I think I'd rather hear from him just exactly what he was "shown". You have a habit of remembering things differently than they happened.