Dowsing By Edge

[Spektator]

(snip)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.
(snip)


edge, this isn't accurate. If you have a one-in-ten chance of finding a target, then you could expect somewhere around 10% just by chance--on some runs it might be higher, on some lower, but the more runs you do, if chance alone is operating, ten per cent would be about the average to expect. However, if the test is set up differently, so there was a one-in-five placement of the target, then you could expect 20% hits by chance; if it was one-in-three, then 33% hits by chance, and so on. This is oversimplified, but not as much as saying "a dowser will hit 10%."

And yes, if you set 90% as a cutoff for success, then 89% is still a failure. Goal lines shouldn't move in a football game or in a dowsing test.

And no matter what the test score, it doesn't indicate that you can't or shouldn't hunt for gold in the creek--of course you're free to do that, whether you score 0 or 100. It's just that in the former case, you wouldn't have proved that dowsing will help you find gold in the creek.

[edge]

SezMe what does this mean?
(TM by prewitt81).
Trade mark by? Prewitt81 a person?
So illuminate us Illuminator?

Tricky anybody can twist any one elses words.

Spectator said,
And yes, if you set 90% as a cutoff for success, then 89% is still a failure. Goal lines shouldn't move in a football game or in a dowsing test.

Sure for the money they offer but what would you think then?

[Spektator]

If you scored 89% consistently in a series of double-blind tests that requrired 90% for a win, I'd think, "Gee, edge came so close."

[edge]

prewitt81 is a poster here. He sometimes responds to gibberish with a simple, "Nope" so I thought I would emulate him here but wanted to give him credit. It was a lightheated note, that's all.

That's what I figured.
Took a second or two.
So when we going to see this write up, and I hope you had a good time up here.
This is some beautiful country up here and the weather is the best.
Looks like some rain today.
It took me several shots to get the tree.

Spektator said,
If you scored 89% consistently in a series of double-blind tests that requrired 90% for a win, I'd think, "Gee, edge came so close."

Ok fair enough what would you think about dowsing then?

[William Smith]

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

I've read this post four times and I still can't make heads or tails in how it relates to the question asked by Mrs. Smith.

Can someone help me, please?



SezMe, should I not hold my breath any longer waiting for your write-up?

[edge]

That thumbnail is now click able, I don't know why all of a sudden but let me try a couple of more now.
They in my computer can be magnified three times.
Back view of the 6" dredge.

[edge]

One more.
That size goes 2xs.
Now it's running with Rob at the nozzel, He' hard to see in the shadows.
The next one is me and the 5" dredge.
The first one won't click, lets see if the 5 will.

[edge]

Those two won't and I'll see if they can come from my Yahoo photo album and expand.

[edge]

What is so hard to understand?

They accepted 70 % the last time 7 out of 10 correct
for the target for a million

[Tricky]

Nice pictures, Edge.

You forgot to include the one where you successfully dowse for gold.

[Spektator]

Well, edge, I'd think "Hmm. This one test is evidence for dowsing. Now all the other double-blind tests ever done have failed to support dowsing. I wonder if the test is replicable."

[Tricky]

Tricky anybody can twist any one elses words.
LOL. I suppose it is inevitable when the words come already pre-twisted.

But seriously, if I have misinterpreted you, please clarify if you can. I will retract them if you can show me where I've twisted your words.

[edge]

Well, edge, I'd think "Hmm. This one test is evidence for dowsing. Now all the other double-blind tests ever done have failed to support dowsing. I wonder if the test is replicable."

I would think that it would be. I would have to take a break in-between the 100 scans, it wears you out that's for sure.
The results are even more astounding when you are mining.
The pictures are from the spot that I tested in last year.
I got one more to work and I think I know what I did when I copied to my computer.

[edge]

LOL. I suppose it is inevitable when the words come already pre-twisted.

But seriously, if I have misinterpreted you, please clarify if you can. I will retract them if you can show me where I've twisted your words.

How do you pre-twist truth?

Here's an example, 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.



First off no one said there were videos not me not JREF.
No , Me, I showed a response over the target and several empty containers also James witnessed that, more than one response in the open test.
I also showed him how it can over come gravity too and that was with the heavy copper stick.
During the testing after I got sensitive, it also, as I walked the room pointed up at the ballasts of the florescent lights.
That threw me for a loop, but I already knew it was possible when they came on.
Along with all the other things that run in that office.

We could do this forever but this is one example.

[EHocking]

If you scored 89% consistently in a series of double-blind tests that requrired 90% for a win, I'd think, "Gee, edge came so close."Please stop confusing edge with percentages.

If the tests are set up correctly he should NOT be able to score 89%.

If there are 10 targets (as per his set up) and the requirement was 90%, then he would be required to get 9 correct out of 10 passes.

18 out of 20 passes

27 from 30 etc.

8 out of 10 passes would be a fail.

He CANNOT get 8.9 passes correct out of 10. It is physically impossible.

Anything else is pissing about with maths.

[catbasket]

If there are 10 targets (as per his set up) and the requirement was 90%, then he would be required to get 9 correct out of 10 passes.

18 out of 20 passes

27 from 30 etc.

8 out of 10 passes would be a fail.

He CANNOT get 8.9 passes correct out of 10. It is physically impossible.

Anything else is pissing about with maths.
Sorry to piss about with maths, but -
Keep going, keep going.
90 out of 100 passes.
89 out of 100 passes would be a fail, and 89%.

[EHocking]

Sorry to piss about with maths, but -
Keep going, keep going.
90 out of 100 passes.
89 out of 100 passes would be a fail, and 89%.OK, OK. I'm not going to nitpick your maths, but, in my defence, I was only limiting my maths to the limits of edge's proposal, which was 3 x 10 trials (of choosing from 10 targets a trial).

In that instance, 89% is not only *physically* possible, but even his suggestion of averaging the results make it *mathematically* impossible.

(unless I've screwed the maths again:) )

edge has stated that 3 sets of trials would take 3 weekends. Can you really see JREF entertaining his delusion for 10 weekends?

[Paulhoff]

He finds gold in a creek, wow, I bet it was at a bend in the creek where the water was slower, gee, and not far from a mountain, golly batman.

Paul

:) :) :)

[EHocking]

In the past when discussing tests designed to demonstrate better than 1:10,000 probability outside of chance, I've used the following table.
http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html

According to Table II on this page, edge only needs to perform 10 passes.

If he achieves his stated 70%, or 7 correct from 10 trials, this meets the requirements of the preliminary test - 1:10,000.

This could be performed, as edge has previously stated, in one weekend and no need for further trials to pass the preliminary stage.

To pass the final test - 1:1,000,000 he would only need 8 correct from 10 trials.

[catbasket]

edge has stated that 3 sets of trials would take 3 weekends. Can you really see JREF entertaining his delusion for 10 weekends?
I doubt they'd agree to three weekends!

[EHocking]

I doubt they'd agree to three weekends!See previous post:D .

Could it be edge is making things harder for himself than is necessary?

[William Smith]

In the past when discussing tests designed to demonstrate better than 1:10,000 probability outside of chance, I've used the following table.
http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html

According to Table II on this page, edge only needs to perform 10 passes.

If he achieves his stated 70%, or 7 correct from 10 trials, this meets the requirements of the preliminary test - 1:10,000.

This could be performed, as edge has previously stated, in one weekend and no need for further trials to pass the preliminary stage.

To pass the final test - 1:1,000,000 he would only need 8 correct from 10 trials.

Thanks for the link, EHocking.

On that note, how do you guys interpret Alison Smith's statement "Again, 60 out of 100 can be random chance." Could it be that she responded to edge's proposal of dowsing the "misses", i.e. containers which do not hold any gold?

60 hits for the gold out of 100 tries - while hardly testable - seems good enough for me.

Edge would be hired instantly, with an annual seven digit salary, IFhe could do that.

[Tricky]

How do you pre-twist truth?
I said the words came "pre-twisted". It was a joke about your inability to form coherent sentences.


First off no one said there were videos not me not JREF.
Neither did I. I said I wished I could see them. I didn't know whether they existed or not. Randi usually tapes his tests, so I was hoping that this was no exception.

No , Me, I showed a response over the target and several empty containers also James witnessed that, more than one response in the open test.
Really? It must have happened awfully quick, because Randi says (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html):
On the "open" tests, Mr. G. took an average of 2 1/2 minutes for each determination; on the "blind" tests, he spent an average of 8 1/2 minutes on each one. Sounds like you zipped right through the open test, Edge, without being distracted by false readings.

I also showed him how it can over come gravity too and that was with the heavy copper stick.
I sincerely doubt you showed him anything about gravity, though it appears you did have a lot of theories.
During the dowsing process, he kept up a running commentary to me on such matters as a rare "Indian root" with which he was familiar and which was a sure cure for the 'flu, a special crystal he carried on his person to ensure his good health, and a few "free energy" machines that he thought I should know about. Not wishing to become involved in any distracting activity, I resisted discussing these matters with him at that time.
Gosh. You were babbling. Who would have expected that.:rolleyes: But since you can overcome gravity, why can't you make a simple gold pendelum swing without touching it? That's a lot easier than heavy copper sticks.

During the testing after I got sensitive, it also, as I walked the room pointed up at the ballasts of the florescent lights.
That threw me for a loop, but I already knew it was possible when they came on.
As I recall, that excuse came several weeks after the test. At the time, you had different excuses.
Now, following the tests, Mike said that he'd found, all through the trials, that his stick was being "distracted" by the "gold" lettering on a double set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the shelves located near cups #1 and #2. Remember, he'd "tuned" his forked stick specifically to react to gold. We told him later that there was no gold in that location, either, since the book lettering is done with a bronze-powder ink.
Now perhaps you merely failed to mention any of this business about fluorescent lights to Randi. (My, your dowsing rod certainly does seem to point to a lot of things that aren't gold.) I sincerely doubt this was mere oversight. I think you came up with the excuses later, just as you have come up with excuse after excuse on why you cannot take a simple test.


We could do this forever but this is one example. Well this example turned out to be a big bust for you. Maybe you have some better ones.

Still, it is possible you might find me confusing what you say now with what you said before. You change your story more often than a presidential candidate during primary season. You'll have to forgive me if I don't always stay current on your delusion-du-jour. (What happened with the levitation place, by the way?)

But I believe you are basicly honest, Edge. I think you do not truly mean to contradict yourself, you just simply cannot help it and cannot remember what you said or did in the past. As Mr. Randi said:

As I've said before many times, I have found that dowsers are generally very honest folks, and their firm convictions about the reality of their dowsing powers are examples of genuine self-delusion.I think you are the shining example of this.

[SezMe]

SezMe, should I not hold my breath any longer waiting for your write-up?

It's done in draft form. I'll let it sit for a day or two then read it again to make sure it is complete. When I get the pics back from trable-head, I'll make it available.

Yeah, I know it's taken a long time. Sorry for that but Real-Life sometimes calls.

[EHocking]

Thanks for the link, EHocking.

On that note, how do you guys interpret Alison Smith's statement "Again, 60 out of 100 can be random chance." Could it be that she responded to edge's proposal of dowsing the "misses", i.e. containers which do not hold any gold?I don't know. edge, can you supply the email/proposal that evoked this response from Alison?

As far as I can tell, 10 passes over 10 targets would require edge to correctly identify the target 7 times in order that that his results beat random chance at a probability of 1:10,000.

70% which is his claim.

With only 5 passes - he needs to be correct 5 times (100%) which is not his claim.
60 hits for the gold out of 100 tries - while hardly testable - seems good enough for me. In this scenario (if it is 100 trials using 10 targets each trial) he only needs to get 24 correct to satisfy the preliminary pass requirements (regardless of his 70% claim in my opinion). But not a reasonable test, as you suggest.

I can only think that edge and Alison have crossed wires, or, as you say, NOT discussing a test where selecting the correct target from a choice of 10 each time is the protocol.

edge, can you clarify with the post/email that prompted Alison's reply?

Edge would be hired instantly, with an annual seven digit salary, IFhe could do that.That's *my* Occam's Razor for dowsing. Billions spent annually on seismic and geophysics, but not one dowser hired...

[Spektator]

If it's a run of ten, and each time the target randomly may or may not be in the container (coin flip), then the likelihood is that a dowser could call it correctly roughly 40-60% of the time--like calling "heads" or "tails."

I'm not so sure that dowsing, or divining, is that great an idea, anyway.....

For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you....

[edge]

Bronze powder, Actual metal in the ink?
How do you know what I showed him Tricky were you there?
I'm standing with James Randi while the partners are hiding a target and i guess i'm not suppose to talk to him.
His job was to be sure I didn't cheat, I guess there were too many things going on for him to talk with me?
Chewing bubble gum and walking comes to mind.


I sent this after they wouldn't accept the negative positive test for correct hits,
What I found with this is still a 60% correct hit ratio anyway even though there were misses of the metal.
The {ghost readings.}

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

This is what she was responding to ,

On 5/30/07, mike guska <dowsing4gold@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Alison,
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 spot.
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.
Mike Guska

As you see I went to 70% after this letter.

I'm hoping to get 90 or a 100 the first time so that I can walk away from the negativity.

Paul why would I want to mine where some one else has mined, in an obvious place for nothing.
Of course there’s mountains here and a river or creek?
The gold isn’t always where you think.

[edge]

I would like one test and that's it for the money.
I assumed they already accepted the first proposal at 60% hits on the metal, as they asked me to go to Japan.
But when I made the statement that even there we need to go to a limestone quarry they said I wasn't ready?
I don't get that?
And now that 6 out of 10 wasn't enough?

[edge]

If it's a run of ten, and each time the target randomly may or may not be in the container (coin flip), then the likelihood is that a dowser could call it correctly roughly 40-60% of the time--like calling "heads" or "tails."

I'm not so sure that dowsing, or divining, is that great an idea, anyway.....

A diviner is some one who contacts spirits, fortuneteller, or to foretell the future not a dowser.
There is nothing supernatural about dowsing.
This is what has kept this mystical.
Old definitions.
Are metals spirits and what about water?
Is a willow stick a supernatural agent?

Although this brings up a lot of questions about the forms of physics that are demonstrated by UFOs and they can be explained as spirits.
The fallen ones or angels.
This is one of the explanations of UFOs. They also can defeat gravity.
The dowsing stick as I said can demonstrate this.
We may not be allowed to know this information.
If so the keeper of the suppression of this knowledge is who?
Interesting!

I haven't tried a test where I flip a coin to see if what you are saying is true, I am going mostly by what the scales are showing and by feel too.
Maybe one of you guys could run a test to see what the numbers are?

In the old days I would have been burned at the stake according to you.

You bring up some good questions,
Honey don't light that matc l;ero9=3yo,\\%$%^(_
.................................................. ..........................................

[Spektator]

A diviner, according to the Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary, is
diˈviner noun

a person who has or claims a special ability to find hidden water or metals.

[Patejdl]

Great! And does Edge know if he was successful or not?? What if he was successful and the guys testing him will lie on purpose.. to not let the world know of this wonderfull dowsing gift which Edge understands so good :D

Damn you skeptics!!!!!

:boxedin:

[edge]

Here’s something of interest and we checked this.
The larger silver tray reads 3 ounces in one spot, add three silver dollars and it then reads 4 ounces.
Take that away and one real nugget of gold that weighs 2 and a half penny weight reads one ounce add a fake nugget that is copper and 18 karat plating the scales reads 1 and a half ounces.
Different readings on different targets.
There's a couple of other tests I should do because I'm using silver in the end of the stick, I am wondering if the reaction would be higher with gold in the end of the stick against the same targets.

Shouldn’t the idomotor effect be the same?

Patejdl yes and we are waiting for his report also his wife girl friend Ellen was doing a report or write up on what took place to be reported someplace?
Maybe for class I don’t know.
I would like to see that too.

It's interesting to note that lightning mostly comes from the ground and travels upward.
I think some of it is cloud to cloud, but it probably originates from the Earth first.

I think that dowsing is a key to alternate energy source more force out for less energy in.
This is one of the reasons it's so tiring when done for long periods of time.

It points the way, so to say.

[Patejdl]

Edge, please for the sake of all humankind. Type "ideomotor" in your popular search engine and for atleast 1 minute start reading what you will see after clicking the links. Then you will UNDERSTAND why can ideomotor VARY and that it cannot be CONSTANT... well CAN but not if you.... nooooo I'm just too tired.. this is so freaking bad... and stop with your theories please!!! :boggled: :covereyes

[Tricky]

How do you know what I showed him Tricky were you there?
I'm just going by what was said in the write-up. They actually made a written record. You didn't. Some times your memory does funny things, like making something you imagined into the truth.

Bronze powder, Actual metal in the ink?
Edge, if metal or fluorescent lights are a problem for you, then you should have never agreed to take the test inside a building. But you said everything was acceptable, didn't you? The excuses started coming after you failed.

I'm standing with James Randi while the partners are hiding a target and i guess i'm not suppose to talk to him.
Actually, no. Some people might make the excuse that they were "distracted by the conversation" so they couldn't dowse correctly. Failed dowsers will use almost anything for an excuse, so Randi was trying to keep your excuses to a minimum.

His job was to be sure I didn't cheat, I guess there were too many things going on for him to talk with me?
Chewing bubble gum and walking comes to mind.

Since your memory seems to be failing again, you might consider reading the application (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html)again.

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

[edge]

Great! And does Edge know if he was successful or not?? What if he was successful and the guys testing him will lie on purpose.. to not let the world know of this wonderfull dowsing gift which Edge understands so good :D

Damn you skeptics!!!!!

:boxedin:

I think SezMe is an honorable man.
He hasn't given me the details.
I walked away knowing the %.

[edge]

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

Yes in the written contract.

Talking is talking give it a break.
I can only change the present and the future that was then this is now.
You need to care about now.

[Tricky]

I can only change the present and the future that was then this is now.
You need to care about now.
I do care about now. I would like you to stop making excuses and take the challenge now. There have been a number of excellent protocols suggested for you.

[edge]

I do care about now. I would like you to stop making excuses and take the challenge now. There have been a number of excellent protocols suggested for you.

Right this minute?
What's the big hurry?
If I had a mill in my pocket right now I would say get your ass up here right now but I don't so in time I will take it.

You have only heard part of the results of testing and what I know, I can't reveal all of what I know.

What's so hard about the protocal?
The only differance is the containers must pass under one spot or only one container in one spot.
The percentage is the same 70%.

[CynicalSkeptic]

Here’s something of interest and we checked this.
The larger silver tray reads 3 ounces in one spot, add three silver dollars and it then reads 4 ounces.
Take that away and one real nugget of gold that weighs 2 and a half penny weight reads one ounce add a fake nugget that is copper and 18 karat plating the scales reads 1 and a half ounces.
Different readings on different targets.

Shouldn’t the idomotor effect be the same?

Not necessarily. If you are aware the target has changed, you may be subconsciously altering the ideomotor effect. Now, if all this happened double-blinded, it might me significant.

[Tricky]

Right this minute?
What's the big hurry?
LOL what was it you said? Oh yeah.
You need to care about now.
You really need to try to stay focused edge. You can't seem to remember what you said ten minutes ago.

If I had a mill in my pocket right now I would say get your ass up here right now but I don't so in time I will take it.
If you had a mill in your pocket, you probably wouldn't care about the challenge.

You have only heard part of the results of testing and what I know, I can't reveal all of what I know.
Why not? Will our tiny little brains explode?

What's so hard about the protocal?
It isn't. So why don't you tell us what your protocol is exactly, including the parts where you double blind the test. As far as I can tell, you've never submitted a clear protocol.

The only differance is the containers must pass under one spot or only one container in one spot.
The percentage is the same 70%.
70% of what, exactly? Please try to be clear.

[edge]

Not necessarily. If you are aware the target has changed, you may be subconsciously altering the ideomotor effect. Now, if all this happened double-blinded, it might be significant.

It has in three different locations however I would like to try several more places to verifiy.
Two more different locations with different readings as the base line reading are in order, at least.
It all takes time and money.
I want to make sure I have all the facts that I can get.

Tricky says,
70% of what, exactly? Please try to be clear.

7 of ten or 70 out of 100 or 70% correct hits on the metal.

Damn my brain just exploded.

[Tricky]

Tricky says,
70% of what, exactly? Please try to be clear.

7 of ten or 70 out of 100 or 70% correct hits on the metal.

Damn my brain just exploded.
How many targets? Ten? Just one? How is the metal placed so as to ensure no sensory leakage (i.e. "hints" of whether or not it is there.) What are you using for a target? What are you using to enclose the target? How are you double-blinding the tests (ensuring that you have no contact whatsoever with the person who knows whether the target contains metal)? Who is recording the responses? How are you randomizing the process for determining when/where to place the target? How are you making sure that you don't know the results of any attempts until all the attempts are complete?

These are some of the parts of your protocol that you haven't told us. If you like, some of us here will help you set up this protocol.

[catbasket]

Right this minute?
What's the big hurry?

You'd better get a move on - if you're not tested before the heat death of the universe there will not be a $million to win.

Tick tock. (Though the sound of the pages of a calendar turning would be more appropriate).

[EHocking]

Thanks for the link, EHocking.

On that note, how do you guys interpret Alison Smith's statement "Again, 60 out of 100 can be random chance." Could it be that she responded to edge's proposal of dowsing the "misses", i.e. containers which do not hold any gold?Frankly - I don't know. I certainly can't work it out from the correspondence I've read.
60 hits for the gold out of 100 tries - while hardly testable - seems good enough for me. Remarkably, it's nowhere near.

*If* we're talking about 10 trials, with 10 boxes each trial and 1 target hidden in 1 of those boxes, there's a 9 in 10 chance of *not* hitting the target. From the table, to achieve a score more significant that random chance at odds of 1:10,000, you'd have to do a minimum of 15 trials and get 149 of 150 correct.

Edge would be hired instantly, with an annual seven digit salary, IFhe could do that.
My Occam's Razor on dowsing is just that.

Billions spent annually on seismic and geophysicts - not one dowser hired.

[EHocking]

How many targets? Ten? Just one? How is the metal placed so as to ensure no sensory leakage (i.e. "hints" of whether or not it is there.) What are you using for a target? What are you using to enclose the target? How are you double-blinding the tests (ensuring that you have no contact whatsoever with the person who knows whether the target contains metal)? Who is recording the responses? How are you randomizing the process for determining when/where to place the target? How are you making sure that you don't know the results of any attempts until all the attempts are complete?

These are some of the parts of your protocol that you haven't told us. If you like, some of us here will help you set up this protocol.As far as I can see, and edge's posts seem to back this, what he wants is that the targets in the trials are placed in exactly the same spot each time he does a pass with his willow wand.

It's not actually an unreasonable demand.

He claims that it is difficult to find an area not "contaminated" by material that confuses his dowsing, so wants the test to be on ground that does not throw up confusing signals to him.

Process he has suggested is that once this virgin ground is found that the test is done with the targets placed on the same spot.

He's proposed two ways to do it.

1. One box on one spot - never moved.
3rd party/testers place (or do not place) the target in the box.
He dowses and states whether the target is in place or not.

2. TEN boxes, one with the target inside, are placed one by one on the
spot edge has determined to be the test area.
He dowses and states whether the target is in place or not.

One trial consists of 10 boxes being dowsed.
One trial consists of the target ONLY being placed in one of the boxes.

If only 5 trials are conducted, he'll have to get it right 5 out of 5 to be significantly greater than random chance at 1:10,000
http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html (Table II)

To achieve his 70% he would have to perform 10 trials and get it right 7 times. This also satisfies the required result to show significance greater than random chance at 1:10,000.

Option 1 would be the least time consuming. It's a more physically demanding (moving boxes etc) process, but it could be done, and rules out edge complaining that, when he loses, the site had "contaminants" giving out interfering signals.

But the MOST time consuming part of it so far (1 year) has been edge (not) finding a suitable test site.

[EHocking]

I think SezMe is an honorable man.
He hasn't given me the details.
I walked away knowing the %.Sorry to be negative here edge, but I doubt that you walked away knowing the % since you have demonstrated a distinct lack of knowledge of how to calculate percentages. I suggest that you stick to numbers of hits vs numbers of tries. THis way much fewer errors are made in assumptions.

SezMe - has your write up been completed yet? People seem to be referring to it, but I can't see it?

Anticipation is killing me!:drool:

[Cuddles]

He claims that it is difficult to find an area not "contaminated" by material that confuses his dowsing, so wants the test to be on ground that does not throw up confusing signals to him.

The problem is that his claim of needing "neutral" ground is not consistent with his claim that he regularly finds significant amounts of gold.

[Tricky]

The problem is that his claim of needing "neutral" ground is not consistent with his claim that he regularly finds significant amounts of gold.
Exactly.

Edge, are you reading this?

If you need "neutral ground" in order for your dowsing to work, then it would be impossible for you to find gold by dowsing because you could hardly find any ground less neutral than one that has gold occurring naturally. If you say you can isolate the gold in such areas, well, that's exactly what the test is trying to get you to show.

So if you say you can find gold in certain places then do the test in those places. Go to a place where you have found gold before because you know dowsing works to isolate areas with gold there, right?

But of course if your dowsing can't tell the difference between gold and bronze paint on book pages or between gold and fluorescent lighting, well then your dowsing is just crap. There will never be any place that you will not have something you can use for an excuse.

Oh, and what happened with the techniques of putting a piece of gold on the tip of the dowsing rod to "tune" it to gold? Doesn't that work anymore? How do you keep the dowsing rod from detecting the gold on the tip?

[Paulhoff]

They always say before the dowsing test that it is always to easy, they say there is nothing to it, they just have to whip out the stick and wham-o, there it is, the gold, yea it is real easy.

After another failed test. Gee, that tree is too close, the ground is too wet, to dry, to anything. The moon is out, the sun is out, the universe is out etc, just think of anything for an excuse.

Paul

:) :) :)

[edge]

If you need "neutral ground" in order for your dowsing to work, then it would be impossible for you to find gold by dowsing because you could hardly find any ground less neutral than one that has gold occurring naturally. If you say you can isolate the gold in such areas, well, that's exactly what the test is trying to get you to show.


I need it to run the test successfully.

There is probably no such thing as totally neutral.

But the closer the better the results for the test, this I know.

I have found ground less neutral than other spots.

It's easy to find one spot anywhere I go verses ten spots in any one area.

You,

If you need "neutral ground" in order for you’re dowsing to work.

Me,
Neutral ground when mining is ground I pass by so in a sense yes.
I also need to find the ground that is holding where the readings get heavy, the more reaction the better the less the better for a target that is on and off the same spot.

You,
. If you say you can isolate the gold in such areas, well, that's exactly what the test is trying to get you to show.

Me,
I need isolation of the target to test but not to mine.
Think of it as a clean room.
No interferences no excuses.
All provable with a scale and numbers.

I have to go do a side job be back later on.

[EHocking]

...I have found ground less neutral than other spots....Great! That means there ARE neutral spots that you have found.

Go to the ground that is MORE neutral.

Pick it as a spot to perform The Challenge.

Take The Challenge.

It's been a YEAR.

[Tricky]

I need isolation of the target to test but not to mine.
That is total BS. You have said you always found gold when you used your dowsing skills. If you can find scattered amounts of gold dust and nuggets, then you should be able to go to the same location find a large, solid target inches from your dowsing rod with nothing between the target and your rod except a thin layer of paper or glass. Are you going to tell me that "it doesn't work like that?" Clip that to the first three words, and you're right.


Think of it as a clean room.
No interferences no excuses.
All provable with a scale and numbers.
Think of it as edge never finding a room that is clean enough for him.
Think of it as nothing but excuses.
Think of it as failure to ever provide any evidence.

[Miss Anthrope]

That is total BS. You have said you always found gold when you used your dowsing skills. If you can find scattered amounts of gold dust and nuggets, then you should be able to go to the same location find a large, solid target inches from your dowsing rod with nothing between the target and your rod except a thin layer of paper or glass. Are you going to tell me that "it doesn't work like that?" Clip that to the first three words, and you're right.



Think of it as edge never finding a room that is clean enough for him.
Think of it as nothing but excuses.
Think of it as failure to ever provide any evidence.

Boy that's harsh.

And true.:eusa_clap:

[CynicalSkeptic]

Would a parking lot work?

Or can you dowse, and sense gold/metal/whatever through concrete & asphalt?

[catbasket]

Or on an ice shelf? Is there a JREF Antarctica branch?

[Spektator]

Or on an ice shelf? Is there a JREF Antarctica branch?

If I recall correctly, once edge said that no spot in Florida was neutral because of the minerals under the ground there--but he never would tell us which minerals under the ground were the problem. That's a good point, though: if the dowsing rod can detect gold in mining country, it should be able to detect ANY kind of gold, whether occurring naturally or placed there for a test.

By the way, my brother the minister let me look up the word "diviner" in one of his huge Bible commentaries. It helpfully gave as definition 3 "one who uses a divining rod." "Divining rod" is in turn described as "a rod or device intended to indicate the presence of water or minerals."

From Micah:
The seers will be ashamed and the diviners disgraced.

[edge]

If I recall correctly, once edge said that no spot in Florida was neutral because of the minerals under the ground there--but he never would tell us which minerals under the ground were the problem. That's a good point, though: if the dowsing rod can detect gold in mining country, it should be able to detect ANY kind of gold, whether occurring naturally or placed there for a test.

By the way, my brother the minister let me look up the word "diviner" in one of his huge Bible commentaries. It helpfully gave as definition 3 "one who uses a divining rod." "Divining rod" is in turn described as "a rod or device intended to indicate the presence of water or minerals."

From Micah: Exactly where in Micah?

What do think I should do?

I can't find a big enough spot there to do the test with all ten contaners in any given area, but I might find one, even there.

Same rule applies here.
Same rule on concrete or asphalt.

What denomination is your brother?

A skeptic invoking the Bible to a believer, something is wrong with this picture?

Tell the truth, why would you do that?

[edge]

Evidence , we'll see.

Think of it as edge never finding a room that is clean enough for him.
I'm albe to do that acually.

Palu , what ever.

I don't understand the anger you are having? :)

[Tricky]

Exactly where in Micah?

Michah 3:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=40&chapter=3&verse=7&version=31&context=verse)
The seers will be ashamed
and the diviners disgraced.
They will all cover their faces
because there is no answer from God.

What do think I should do?
I suppose that depends on whether or not you are a Christian. If you are, then according to your religion, you may be dowsing a path to Hell.

I can't find a big enough spot there to do the test with all ten contaners in any given area, but I might find one, even there.
In the wide outdoors you can't find ten spots without "interference"? How the heck do you ever find gold with that rod?

Same rule applies here.
Same rule on concrete or asphalt.
What rules? You've never given us "rules", at least nothing vaguely consistent. How about on a frozen lake (since a trip to Antarctica is probably out of the question)?

A skeptic invoking the Bible to a believer, something is wrong with this picture?

Tell the truth, why would you do that?
It is a source you might accept, since you don't seem to be able to accept the input of skeptics.

[Patejdl]

Frozen lake?? Antarctica?? No way man!! :D

There's like tons of water in those places. Don't you think the crazy amount of water would interfere with specificaly gold tuned dowsing rod???

:dl:

Edge, still don't want to use the time left in your life to become a real geologist??

[Patejdl]

Conclusion:

Dowsing cannot be tested in the way to be shown working. Maybe it exist or doesn't.
What is sure that it's such a LAME "paranormal effect" (or whatsoever thing) that it never seem to be working positively more than averaged 11 % (or 10?? aaah who gives a heck). Therefore such an effect is absoultely inefective and unusable for the real life world.

It's as effective as using a tenis ball at bowling. Even that looks more effective as dowsing.

So there's really no need to use... even if it exists or not.. it's lame.. no need to use it.. you'll be better off with guessing.

Conclusion conclusion : Let's ignore Edge until he makes a clear logical protocol and then just say YES or NO. And then after testing just say the %. No need to spend any more energy even talking about it.

[Spektator]

My brother is a minister in a mainstream Protestant denomination (and has been for twenty years), and we'll leave it at that. And who said I was a religious skeptic, anyway? You want me to truthfully answer the question "Why would I refer to biblical injunctions against diviners?" I wanted to ask you to stop and think about the positions you hold, edge. It seems to me they are contradictory.

Anyway, if the one-container model works, fine, let's go with that. I still think your protocol is unclear. We've tried to help several times, but you say we propose biassed protocols.

Yet you are remarkably unforthcoming on details: How big is your target? "Silver plate, silver dollars, gold," these are all vague. Exactly how big, in inches, would the container have to be to conceal the target? If it's round, what's the diameter? Six inches? Twelve inches? Twenty? If it's rectangular, what are the dimensions of the container top? Four by six inches? Six by ten inches? Help us out a little bit here, edge.

And let's nail down the number of times a target will even appear. Will every run have one in ten?

[catbasket]

Taken out of context but, hey.

What do think I should do?

Agree a protocol and take the test.

[William Smith]

Lest we forget:

This is the JREF One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge subforum

Edge claims dowsing works, in his case it helps him find gold. He claims he has had more success with his dowsing method than with conventional methods.

He has an incentive of One Million US Dollars to prove his theory, by doing two simple tests under controlled conditions. Total test duration for both: Considerably less than eight hours/a day's work.

This thread represents edge's efforts to prove his claim after he has failed to do so in 2002. (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html) He came back claiming willing to be retested.

With the incentive of One Million US Dollars

206 posts by edge.

Chance to participate in a TV show/prove claim in front of big audience: Blown.

No acceptable protocol yet.

Not even for One Million US Dollars.






"Could this be any more obvious?"
[/Chandler Bing]

[edge]

Talk about making crap up?

There is no way they would televise the whole test on a TV show at a minimum of 4 hours.
This is the letter I sent Sherry,

Dear Mr. Guska,

Hope this email finds you doing well.

I apologize for not getting back to you sooner.
It took some discussions amongst the production staff to make a decision
whether we can acomodate your request or not within the limited time frame.

After our detailed discussion with JREF members, we've came to a
conclusion that at this point, it is not possible for us to provide you with
the protocal that you'll be satisfied with.

Meanwhile, we're planning to produce series of shows featuring Mr. Randi,
and One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, so if the timing works out,
we would like to reconsider your test on our show.

Thank you very much for your time and patience.


Sincerely,

Sherry ********
production coordinator
TV ***** Productions
*-**-**-*** ************
******, Tokyo, 181-0013 Japan
phone: **-***-**-****
fax: **-***-**-****


This is what I was requiered to send her before I recevied that letter,

Hi Sherry,
I'm coping and pasting your document here.

Name: Mike Guska aka Edge

Address: P.O.251 Weaverville Ca 96093

Contact number:530-623-3967

Passport number: None

Date of Birth: 2/2/54

Occupation: Carpenter, Cook, Pipe fitter, Air
Conditioning

Your availability to travel to Tokyo, Japan on
6/1/2007 thru 6/5/2007:

Available yes Not Available

Please share with us the following:

What is your paranormal ability?
Dowsing for gold and other metals

How can you demonstrate your ability?
Through mining and possibly the J.R.E.F. test.

How long have you had this ability?
About 20 years.

Where/When do you exercise your ability?
When I want to make extra money and go to the creeks
or rivers.

How often do you exercise your ability?
Once a week, or ten times a week sometimes not for
months and years.
I test it some times in different ways for more proof.
At home and the creek.


I also sent you back some more information along with
some pictures.
This should help you visualize what we do.

The dredge is a 6 inch and that's as big as I have
mined with.
The pan is the smallest tool.
What I don't have is a picture of the sluice box,
with that tool I would be shoveling and running
material, about twenty, 5 gallon buckets with the
sluice box.

There is a lot to know about mining and dowsing.
I could probably do the J.R.E.F.'s test in 3 to 5 days
with the sluice box to prove dowsing works, if
dredging it would take 60 to 70 days and their test
with hidden targets would take 3 to 4 hours.


I was ready as can be.

"After our detailed discussion with JREF members," so what exactly did they say?

What they both knew at that point is the test was to be done out side not in a studio.
JREF should have followed through; it was after that I discovered the way to measure the reaction.
I would have only gone by feel, however they apparently accepted the 60% thinking I would be fooled into doing it in a studio, wrong.
That would have been a repeat of what happened in 1999.
I asked on the phone to do it in a limestone quarry.
The JREF is on a vacation and simply didn't want to work for it is my conclusion as I know they are reading what I say and are aware of what I require per say my original protocol, which they thought I would forget.

Now that 60% is chance all of a sudden.
Lets see what they say; most dowsers can only expect a 10% hit ratio.
They know if they put me in the right set of circumstances I might be blinded by the pomp and ceremony.
Not!
I told She sherry that I would need to get there a couple of days before the JREF team and to find the right spot to do the test in.
That they would have to film the test when they got there and that was all good since they couldn’t show the whole thing anyway on the program, probably segments and they were good with that.

Now I’m waiting to here from JREF still and they’ll probably up the odds some more, watch.
I know they are reading what I say and I told them to.
There’s a good chance they will lose now and are wondering if what I’m saying is true.
It is.
Truth is truth and crap is crap.


Do not publish private information without the explicit permission of the individual involved, and make sure that one of the administrators is aware of it first.

I've left your personal information intact, since you have every right to present it if you want. If you decide you want your personal information removed, please contact one of the mod team and we'll do it immediately.

[Spektator]

(snip)
Truth is truth and crap is crap.



And the truth is, as you have been told over and over and over, that looking for gold in a creek is not, and indeed cannot, be a controlled double-blind test (and please don't pretend you don't know what "double-blind" means). The truth that is truth, edge, is that in order to be tested, you have to come up with a protocol for a simple controlled double-blind test--the container test would suffice, but you'll probably never do that.

I grew up having two grandfathers. One had knocked around all over the country and had done a little bit of everything. The other was an immigrant from Germany and worked in the medical field. Both of them taught me things.

Grampa (the first one) took me out gold-panning with him. We were in north Georgia, not far from Dahlonega, where there had been a gold strike in the early 1800s. Without using a dowsing rod, Gramps always came back with a little gold. He showed me where to look in the creek beds, how to use the pan, and lo and behold, even I, at the tender age of seven or eight, found a few little particles of gold. His secret? "I know where to look," he said.

Papa (the second one) always told me "It's important not just to know what you know, but to think about how you know it. You know there are no such things as witches flying on broomsticks, ja? Then tell me how you know that."

I think together the old guys did a good job of giving me some very basic education.

[Paulhoff]

I think together the old guys did a good job of giving me some very basic education.
Yes, it is called, drum roll please……….., “Critical Thinking”, something not taught enough in is world and in the U.S.

Paul

:) :) :)

[EHocking]

Talk about making crap up?
...
I was ready as can be.Not obvious from THIS thread. You haven't been ready for over a year now - why are you attempting to scapegoat these people?
...
I asked on the phone to do it in a limestone quarry.
So you DO have a location that the Challenge could be carried out.

One problem down, now for the protocol.
...Now I’m waiting to here from JREF still and they’ll probably up the odds some more, watch.Wrong - the probabilities are purely dependent on your proposed protocol and your expected success rate.

If you say 70%, but the actual success rate required is lower they should inform you - if not, someone here will argue your case. I would for example, since it is one of the prime conditions of The Challenge rules.

Ask them if you are allowed to discuss the protocol here - plenty of people will check that the numbers are good and explain them to you if you feel they are not.

I know they are reading what I say and I told them to.
There’s a good chance they will lose now and are wondering if what I’m saying is true.No they are not. They are waiting for you to stop dodging and settle a protocol and location for The Challenge.
It is.
Truth is truth and crap is crap.
...Exactly.

Sort the testing protocol.

Find that limestone quarry - it's been a year...

Pass the test and THEN you can tell JREF to shut up. Calling them cheats and blaming THEM for the delay is disingenuous of you.

Until then, well you said it, crap is crap.

One last question. DO you have a protocol that you would be comfortable with and that JREF have initially accepted or are willing to accept for discussion?

If so. Post it here (or start a new thread here specifically for it) for discussion. Many of us WILL point out what the correct odds for success are, and provide independent proof of the calculations so you can be sure JREF will not cheat you (as you implied above).

[edge]

Pass the test and THEN you can tell JREF to shut up. Calling them cheats and blaming THEM for the delay is disingenuous of you.

You all said I wasn't ready, at the time I was willing.
As far as saying they are cheats I never said that I said they know and changed the percentage.
At the time in Japan 60% was the number and now it's 70%.
As far as the protocol it's the same as in 1999, the difference is one spot and the scales, which I had to add in, target will appear only 10 times out of 100.
If you know how they run it what's so hard to understand?

EHocking said,
Not obvious from THIS thread. You haven't been ready for over a year now - why are you attempting to scapegoat these people?
And this,
No they are not. They are waiting for you to stop dodging and settle a protocol and location for The Challenge.

My application has only been in since February.
First the protocol, then the location.
Like I said I may go to them now, as far as a limestone quarry that would probably be ideal but not necessary as I can find a spot any where now, but only one spot at a time.
Not ten spots.
I can't figure how you can't understand this?

They have to say yes not me, and Jeff does read in here, how better to know what their up against.

As you can see by my the post above.

One last question. DO you have a protocol that you would be comfortable with and that JREF have initially accepted or are willing to accept for discussion?


It's not me that's uncomfortable, like I said I assumed that they were comfortable with the first protocol at 60% since that would have been it in Japan.
But now they are not.
So I upped it to 70% and if I hit 90% I would win right away, if I hit 70% the first time if they needed more proof then two more sets of 100 passes with the metals appearing another 20 times is ok with me plus the three could be factored together to get an over all %.

In other words if I hit 70 then 60 then 80 it's still 70%...

How simple can it be then I have to make a decision and hopefully soon on a date.
There's more to than that as you all pointed out, I would if they came here, have to support them financially, to do that here I would have to mine the money which is a possibility, but now with the visual of the scale and what I have learned the day after the let down of Japan is that I can do it in Florida and cover only my expenses.
Things still have to be worked out here in that regard, and it's a month away till I can mine on a scale that will support the operation and the expenses of the two members of the jref team, that includes housing and all that is involved.
You see in Japan it would have been easy to find the right spot at a quarry they must have several.
Most of my testing has proven to me that 60% is doable, and now70% is doable but I expect more.
If it was under 50% then I would say it doesn't prove it so what's the point.
But it shows me that it is provable.

So you DO have a location that the Challenge could be carried out.


Yes I do but it's at Coffee Creek and I can't mine there till Septemeber.
Rules of the owner.
That is a better month to do it in Florida also because of the Heat of the day there, it's much cooler then.

Thanks for offering your help big E.

Pass the test and THEN you can tell JREF to shut up.
That's not my style and not necessary.

[colin]

target will appear only 10 times out of 100.


The number of times the target appears should be randomized. The way it is now, you already know that the target probably won't be there.

Do you get a ‘hit’ when you say the target isn’t there?

[William Smith]

...
My application has only been in since February.
First the protocol, then the location.
Like I said I may go to them now, as far as a limestone quarry that would probably be ideal but not necessary as I can find a spot any where now, but only one spot at a time.
Not ten spots.
I can't figure how you can't understand this?
...


Apart from the obvious fun you provide with making such an edge-wise statement:

Do you need said limestone quarry or not? If you say "probably be ideal but not necessary" it suggests you do not need it. The "probably" is hilarious.

Why did you require a limestone quarry for the test in Japan then?

Requesting something you later admit you don't need suggests: You do not want to be tested.
Or: You do not have any idea what you are talking about because you contradict yourself repeatedly.

[edge]

Why did you require a limestone quarry for the test in Japan then?

That was before learning that the scales worked.
It still maybe the most neutral ground and the best spot, but will I have time to find out?

[edge]

The number of times the target appears should be randomized. The way it is now, you already know that the target probably won't be there.

Do you get a ‘hit’ when you say the target isn’t there?

That's up to them, they will do that and no they would require way,
more testing that way.

[William Smith]

That was before learning that the scales worked.
It still maybe the most neutral ground and the best spot, but will I have time to find out?

So you now can successfully dowse anywhere by using the scales?

[Tricky]

Yes I do but it's at Coffee Creek and I can't mine there till Septemeber.
I know you've been told this before, Edge, but it doesn't seem to be getting through.

It is extremely unlikely that JREF is going to accept any protocol which involves mining. The reason is simple. You cannot prove that you can detect the difference between gold and no-gold because you cannot prove there is no gold in the places in the places where you don't get a dowsing response. All you can show is that you didn't find any gold while mining in those places.

If you cannot understand that, then it appears that the definition of a double-blind test is completely beyond your powers of comprehension. What you are suggesting is not a double-blind test. JREF will require a double-blind test. Unless you and JREF can come to an agreement on the protocol, then you are just wasting your time. Or perhaps you are just jacking everyone around, knowing that you have absolutely no intention of ever taking the Challenge again.

[EHocking]

You all said I wasn't ready, at the time I was willing.Willing perhaps - but the protocol was very flawed. You were NOT ready and you are STILL not ready.
As far as saying they are cheats I never said that I said they know and changed the percentage.
At the time in Japan 60% was the number and now it's 70%.I disagree. Percentages changed with your claims and you proposing different protocols. This is quite valid. But, as I said, if you claim 70% for a protocol and this is way beyond what would normally be regarded as minimum for significance beyond random chance, I certainly am prepared to point it out to you and also take it to the JREF testers to justify.
As far as the protocol it's the same as in 1999, the difference is one spot and the scales, which I had to add in, target will appear only 10 times out of 100.
If you know how they run it what's so hard to understand?The test with the scales willl not work. Too many uncontrollable variables. Drop it, you'll not get anywhere. As simple as possible is best. Your proposal of a single site and a series of boxes of samples is better. Sort that one out. Ignore the scales attempt and the "proof by sluicing". Not going to happen. The potential results will NOT be obvious without qualifications of the circumstances. Both parties (as per the Challenge Rules) need to be happy that the results speak for themselves. These two demonstrations are NOT obvious.
EHocking said,

My application has only been in since February.
First the protocol, then the location.
Like I said I may go to them now, as far as a limestone quarry that would probably be ideal but not necessary as I can find a spot any where now, but only one spot at a time.
Not ten spots.
I can't figure how you can't understand this?I understand this. My question is, since you state above you can find a spot anywhere now - why don't you propose one? 10 spots are not required to satisfy the conditions under which you wish to be tested.

Pick a spot that you're happy with, then you can proceed. JREF are not balking on choice of location, YOU are.
They have to say yes not me, and Jeff does read in here, how better to know what their up against.I disagree. You have not proposed a test site for JREF to say yes TO. You have been AVOIDING this persistently. Pick a site. THEN you might have justification in claiming JREF are holding up the process.
As you can see by my the post above.

It's not me that's uncomfortable, like I said I assumed that they were comfortable with the first protocol at 60% since that would have been it in Japan.
But now they are not.
So I upped it to 70% and if I hit 90% I would win right away, Wrong.

Preliminary - 1:10,000 - 7 hits from 10 trials (of 10 boxes and 1 target per trial)
Final - 1:1,000,000 (and the money) 8 hits from 10 trials with the same protocolif I hit 70% the first time if they needed more proof then two more sets of 100 passes with the metals appearing another 20 times is ok with me plus the three could be factored together to get an over all %.Again, no.

Pass the preliminary first (at 7 hits from 10 trials) to be eligible for the final Million Dollar test.

Pass the Final test at 8 hits from 10 trials and the money's yours.

The two tests are independent of each other, since the required success rates are different.
Prelim - better than random chance at 1:10,000.
Final - better than random chance at 1:1,000,000.
In other words if I hit 70 then 60 then 80 it's still 70%...The two stages of the Challenge are independent. FOr your info - the preliminary will require a minimum of 5 trials passing over 10 boxes. Your numbers above are irrelevant. I also think that total success from potential success will be a smarter measure (ie, say 7 out of 10, 6 out of 10, 8 out of ten rather than doing percentages). That way no one can argue over the calculation of percentages.
How simple can it be then I have to make a decision and hopefully soon on a date. What decision do you have to make before settling a date?
There's more to than that as you all pointed out, I would if they came here, have to support them financially, to do that here I would have to mine the money which is a possibility, but now with the visual of the scale and what I have learned the day after the let down of Japan is that I can do it in Florida and cover only my expenses.
Things still have to be worked out here in that regard, and it's a month away till I can mine on a scale that will support the operation and the expenses of the two members of the jref team, that includes housing and all that is involved.
You see in Japan it would have been easy to find the right spot at a quarry they must have several.Sorry? You haven't found a spot in your area for a year and you're making the excuse that you could find a spot in Japan nearly immediately? Colour me sceptical on that claim, edge
Most of my testing has proven to me that 60% is doable, and now70% is doable but I expect more.You don't need more that 7 hits in 10 trials to pass the preliminary. If it's doable as you claim. Do it.
If it was under 50% then I would say it doesn't prove it so what's the point.
But it shows me that it is provable.On this you are right. 5 out of 10 is not a significant success beyond random chance at 1:10,000.
[re a chosen location]Yes I do but it's at Coffee Creek and I can't mine there till Septemeber.Great. You have your location. 1 down. Sort the protocol and set a date in September.
Rules of the owner.Offer him 1% of the Prize for holding it on his property. $10,000 is a great incentive!
[/quote]That is a better month to do it in Florida also because of the Heat of the day there, it's much cooler then.[/quote]OK - so propose a location in Florida. What would it take?
Thanks for offering your help big E.No problems, little e. I've had a long interest in the claims of dowsers (I'm in the oil field), so am willing to help you with the math so that you can be sure you're getting a fair deal.

You claim above you have a location. Sort a protocol. Your proposal that the test boxes must be placed in a single location proposal could STILL be worked. Don't use it as an excuse not to do this - throw the details at us here. There are enough smart and willing people to work out a solid protocol for that proposal.
Quote:
Pass the test and THEN you can tell JREF to shut up.

at's not my style and not necessary.With respect, edge, my comment was in response to your statement:
Quote:
I know they are reading what I say and I told them to.
There’s a good chance they will lose now and are wondering if what I’m saying is true.

You imply that JREF are running scared from your claims.

My statement stands (if reworded) prove them wrong and that what you are saying is true. THAT will shut us all up. (actually it wouldn't, it would have us all reassessing our view on the validity of dowsing).

[edge]

I know you've been told this before, Edge, but it doesn't seem to be getting through.

It is extremely unlikely that JREF is going to accept any protocol which involves mining. The reason is simple. You cannot prove that you can detect the difference between gold and no-gold because you cannot prove there is no gold in the places in the places where you don't get a dowsing response. All you can show is that you didn't find any gold while mining in those places.

If you cannot understand that, then it appears that the definition of a double-blind test is completely beyond your powers of comprehension. What you are suggesting is not a double-blind test. JREF will require a double-blind test. Unless you and JREF can come to an agreement on the protocol, then you are just wasting your time. Or perhaps you are just jacking everyone around, knowing that you have absolutely no intention of ever taking the Challenge again.

Oh my God I can't believe that you don't get it?

The mining operation will pay for the stay at a cabin on Coffee Creek at the place ZseMe stayed.
The double blind test is the ten containers at that location.
Two Jerf members can stay there for free if it happens that way and works out, probably for two days or longer if you wish it's possibly how I will pay expences?
other wise I will bein Flroida probably at the end of September after the last day of dredging season.
There is no way of knowing what I can do at this moment.
Right now I'm working three different jobs.
I even have the time to post and that reminds me sezme?"Small caps"

I typed slow so you can get it.

JEEZ?

[edge]

I disagree. Percentages changed with your claims and you proposing different protocols. This is quite valid. But, as I said, if you claim 70% for a protocol and this is way beyond what would normally be regarded as minimum for significance beyond random chance, I certainly am prepared to point it out to you and also take it to the JREF testers to justify.

I agree but if you want, go for it.
The changes that I made from the original proposal aren't the issue because now it doesn't change the objective of finding a target the way they want, for the gold.

The test with the scales willl not work. Too many uncontrollable variables. Drop it, you'll not get anywhere. As simple as possible is best. Your proposal of a single site and a series of boxes of samples is better. Sort that one out. Ignore the scales attempt and the "proof by sluicing". Not going to happen. The potential results will NOT be obvious without qualifications of the circumstances. Both parties (as per the Challenge Rules) need to be happy that the results speak for themselves. These two demonstrations are NOT obvious.


You would have to see to believe it.
Read above what I said to tricky.

Good stuff, i'll be back.

Oh I got the camcorder to go to the field.
I have to pull my stuff off here 'my computor" and up grade my windows to get the progarm to run in here.
I probably do that tomorrow.

[Tricky]

Oh my God I can't believe that you don't get it?

The mining operation will pay for the stay at a cabin on Coffee Creek at the place ZseMe stayed.
That makes no sense. You should mine when you can and save the money. If you try to do the test and mine at the same time, you'll hurt your income. You can do the test anytime. It doesn't have to be in "mining season".

The double blind test is the ten containers at that location.
That answer is incomplete as well. Knowing the number of containers does not explain how the test is double-blinded.

Two Jerf members can stay there for free if it happens that way and works out, probably for two days or longer if you wish it's possibly how I will pay expences?
None of this addresses any of the protocol issues. Unless you get a protocol approved, it is pointless to worry about expenses. There won't be any expenses unless you can agree to a test. Any arrangements you make are worthless unless you can agree on a protocol.

I can't believe you don't get it.

Right now I'm working three different jobs.
Why can't you earn enough by mining to last you for the whole year? Something tells me that even with your dowsing, you're not finding significant amounts of gold. That ought to tell you something.

I typed slow so you can get it.

JEEZ?
And you ignored or didn't "get" anything I said, nor answer any of my questions.

What is your exact protocol, edge? Focus on exactly what the three people will do to make sure the test is double blinded. There are several people here who will help you refine it to something the JREF might accept. As it stands, you are no closer to being retested than you were four years ago.

[EHocking]

...Oh I got the camcorder to go to the field...
Speaking of camcorders.

Where's the video of the spanners levitating over that copper deposit?

[William Smith]

...
What is your exact protocol, edge? Focus on exactly what the three people will do to make sure the test is double blinded. There are several people here who will help you refine it to something the JREF might accept. As it stands, you are no closer to being retested than you were four years ago.

Specific claim:

Proposed test/number of trials:

What means success/failure:

Location:

Date:



Edge, can you provide specific information to the above points? (Remember, no theories please. Just cut to the chase. There's a million reasons to do so, isn't there?)

[Spektator]

Let's do a completely hypothetical sample proposal:

Specific claim:
With any ordinary deck of cards, new and unmarked, I can choose the Ace of Hearts without ever seeing the faces of the cards, only the backs, with 60% or greater accuracy.

Proposed test/number of trials:
Ten trials, using ten different decks of cards; I will pay for the cards, but the JREF representatives may purchase them at any location of their choice.


Process:
The trials will be videotaped. Without my being in the room, one JREF observer will open a deck of cards, place them face-down on a large table, and scatter them. That observer will leave the room and signal me. I will come in with a second observer and without touching or disturbing the cards in any way, I will choose a card that I believe is the Ace of Hearts. Without looking atthe card or showing it to me, the observer will place the card in an opaque envelope which will remain on the table, in view of the recording video camera. We will leave the room and signal the second observer, who will come into the room, gather that deck of cards and place a rubber band around them and leave them on the edge of the table, in view of the recording video camera. The process will then be repeated ten times. At the end of that time, with both observers present, the ten cards I have chosen will be taken from the envelope and examined.

What means success/failure:
If I succeed in choosing the Ace of Hearts from a scattered, face-down deck on an opaque surface six times or more out of ten attempts, I have succeeded. If I choose the Ace of Hearts five times or fewer out of ten attempts, I have failed.

[I would add:]
Verification:
At the end of the tests, we will examine each deck of cards to make sure that each had at least, but no more than, one Ace of Hearts.

Location:
My home at 123 Fake Street, Springfield, USA

Date:
July 1, 2007.
-------
That was easy--it took five minutes to dream up. Your turn, edge.

[i]Note: I do not claim the ability to find the Ace of Hearts. This has been a hypothetical exercise. Thank you.

[Tricky]

That's the sort of thing we're looking for, Spek. It describes the exact steps taken, how it is double-blined and how it is scored.

For a test like this, I doubt an "open" test would be needed, whereby you ran a couple of trials with the cards spread out "face-up", but it might be useful to prevent excuses. You would tell the claiment, "use only your power, not your eyesight to pick the ace of spades".

Since there is only a 1 in 52 chance of actually picking the ace of spades, I think that you don't need six correct picks to show a statistical significance. Three out of ten would probably be enough.

[William Smith]

...
Location:
My home at 123 Fake Street, Springfield, USA
...


I had a rough day at work and this made laugh. Thanks, Spektator. :)



Your proposal seems by the book.
Edge?

[edge]

Speaking of camcorders.

Where's the video of the spanners levitating over that copper deposit?

I'm working on it.
My neighbors not ready and has been having leg problems, but he is still willing to make the three mile hike to the area.

I asked him about next week some time and he's willing.
I plan on taking a compass too, if real then there should be strange readings.

[edge]

That reminds me how long does it take for a skeptic to write a document and post some pictures?
Sez I?
I'm still waiting.
I would like the results.

[William Smith]

Is it premature to mention edge's failure to address the protocol issues (posts #1223, #1226 & #1227) but instead responding to a post addressing the "levitation of keys"?

Throw me a bone here.


Edge?

[edge]

My job here is to pick 7 of 10 correct hits if I hit 9 out of 10 correct hits I win if I get 7 the first time they have the right to do 2 more sets of tests and if the average is still 7 out of 10 or higher I still win.

Everything else is their job.

The only change is the containers are to pass on one spot that I pick and I pick the target.
We used one box.
You know about the scales over that one spot.
It is connected to the dowsing stick.
When they agree to this I’ll say where and when.

I can't make it any easier to explain unless I show you a video, or SezMe posts his pictures.

We'll see if Alison can understand this as I e-mailed her the same message.
She's working with Jeff.

[William Smith]

My job here is to pick 7 of 10 correct hits if I hit 9 out of 10 correct hits I win if I get 7 the first time they have the right to do 2 more sets of tests and if the average is still 7 out of 10 or higher I still win.

Everything else is their job.

The only change is the containers are to pass on one spot that I pick and I pick the target.
We used one box.
You know about the scales over that one spot.
It is connected to the dowsing stick.
When they agree to this I’ll say where and when.

I can't make it any easier to explain unless I show you a video, or SezMe posts his pictures.

We'll see if Alison can understand this as I e-mailed her the same message.
She's working with Jeff.

Those three points are just off the top of my head:

1. What is the purpose of this one box?
2. How and why exactly do the scales come into play?
3. What specific target do you pick?



The more important issues, given the assumption the JREF agrees to this:

Have you set a location where you can perform - and succeed - by hitting at least seven out of ten trials with your above, um, protocol?

How many trial runs have you performed at said specific location, and how many successful hits did you register?

Were those trial runs double-blinded, and how did you do that?

[SezMe]

That reminds me how long does it take for a skeptic to write a document and post some pictures?
Sez I?
I'm still waiting.
I would like the results.
Yeah, by now my credibility about a report on our meeting has sunk to a level below that of your levitating "spanner". Honestly, I am really embarrassed. I heard from treble_head on Friday that he would be sending the pictures to me but as of now (late Sunday evening, local time) I've not gotten anything. One lives in hope.

[Tricky]

My job here is to pick 7 of 10 correct hits if I hit 9 out of 10 correct hits I win if I get 7 the first time they have the right to do 2 more sets of tests and if the average is still 7 out of 10 or higher I still win.

Everything else is their job.
Your first job is to agree with the testers on a protocol. Without that, you have no other "jobs".


The only change is the containers are to pass on one spot that I pick and I pick the target.
Could you please rephrase that in English?

We used one box.
You know about the scales over that one spot.
It is connected to the dowsing stick.
When they agree to this I’ll say where and when.
Since you have said nothing about how the experiment is going to be randomized or double-blinded, I wouldn't expect that anyone is going to agree to this.

And what use is the scale? Isn't the movement of your dowsing rod enough to indicate the force? Since you don't use a scale when you are dowsing in the field, you must know when you have a "hit" or not without using a scale. But if you use a scale, exactly how much of a force are you going to call a "hit"? How long does this force have to be exerted? You see, adding a scale just increases the number of things you can use as excuses. If you can't tell when you have a response, then you can't dowse.

By the way, what are you using for a target?

I can't make it any easier to explain unless I show you a video, or SezMe posts his pictures.
You could make it easier to understand if you would simply and directly answer the questions that people have asked you. Also, write up a step-by-step protocol. There are many here who would be glad to help you with this.

[Tricky]

Yeah, by now my credibility about a report on our meeting has sunk to a level below that of your levitating "spanner". Honestly, I am really embarrassed. I heard from treble_head on Friday that he would be sending the pictures to me but as of now (late Sunday evening, local time) I've not gotten anything. One lives in hope.

Sez, I'm confident that you could write an adequate description of the trial even without the pictures. Just leave blank spots to insert the pictures later.

[William Smith]

Sez, I'm confident that you could write an adequate description of the trial even without the pictures. Just leave blank spots to insert the pictures later.

Second.

[edge]

Since you have said nothing about how the experiment is going to be randomized or double-blinded, I wouldn't expect that anyone is going to agree to this.

I have you just don't remember.
And like I said they will do that just like they did before.

Some else made a claim to me and I am going to investigate it.

What are you embarrassed about Sezme?

Ten Tricky says,And what use is the scale? Isn't the movement of your dowsing rod enough to indicate the force? Since you don't use a scale when you are dowsing in the field, you must know when you have a "hit" or not without using a scale. But if you use a scale, exactly how much of a force are you going to call a "hit"? How long does this force have to be exerted? You see, adding a scale just increases the number of things you can use as excuses. If you can't tell when you have a response, then you can't dowse.


That's my business, I thought I explained this.
Dowsing in the field is one thing and to test a moving target is another, back up and read what I say.
Each spot has a different calibration in numbers.

Don't let peer pressure bother you SezMe.

[William Smith]

My job here is to pick 7 of 10 correct hits if I hit 9 out of 10 correct hits I win if I get 7 the first time they have the right to do 2 more sets of tests and if the average is still 7 out of 10 or higher I still win.

Everything else is their job.

The only change is the containers are to pass on one spot that I pick and I pick the target.
We used one box.
You know about the scales over that one spot.
It is connected to the dowsing stick.
When they agree to this I’ll say where and when.

I can't make it any easier to explain unless I show you a video, or SezMe posts his pictures.

We'll see if Alison can understand this as I e-mailed her the same message.
She's working with Jeff.

Those three points are just off the top of my head:

What is the purpose of this one box?
How and why exactly do the scales come into play? (Even with what you call a "moving target" it should suffice to notice the movement of your dowsing stick towards determining a "hit", since the scales cause more variables as Tricky already explained.)
What specific target do you pick?



The more important issues, given the assumption the JREF agrees to this, which I doubt very much:

1. Have you set a location where you can perform - and succeed - by hitting at least seven times in ten tries with your above, um, protocol?

2. How many trial runs have you performed at said specific location, and how many successful hits did you register?

And the most important point: 3a. Were those trial runs double-blinded? 3b. How did you do that?

Forgive me if I ask you to repeat what you might have already stated. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you are saying, because your grammar is a bit unconventional - which I do not hold against you.
I'm trying to help by providing an answer sheet for my above inquiries. I noted some hints in brackets:

1. (Please answer "Yes" or "No".) ___

2. I did ___ trial runs. I achieved ___ hits. (We'll calculate the percentage for you if you provide the data.)

3a. (Please answer "Yes" or "No".) ___
3b. (Please describe shortly how you ensured proper double-blinding.)

[Tricky]

Ten Tricky says,

That's my business, I thought I explained this.
No, you never explained it fully. You rambled on about something involving the ideomotor effect, talking about it as if it were a force. In any case, involving a scale will require you to indicate exactly what reading on the scale will signify a positive response. That's just asking for trouble, in my opinion, because it requires constant attention to the scale and a lot of interpretation as to whether a spike were due to the dowsing or just you moving around. It sounds like you are preparing a ready-made excuse for when you fail.

Why is it that you, the person who claims to have this talent, cannot simply tell us if you sense a hit or a miss? That is, after all, what we are trying to test. Now are you telling us that you can't do this, and must use a scale to know whether or not you're getting a positive response?

As Randi indicated in the challenge rules, we don't care about your explanations or if there is a force or not. All we care about is whether or not can you find gold. Everything else is misdirection and BS.


Dowsing in the field is one thing and to test a moving target is another, back up and read what I say.
While you are dowsing, the target is not moving, so this makes no difference. And please don't start up on "ghost readings". That is just another excuse. If you want to claim gold leaves "ghost readings", that can be tested for too.

Each spot has a different calibration in numbers.
So what? Whatever the "calibration", you are bound to get a stronger response with a gold target than without it, right? To calibrate, simply dowse the area before the test starts to establish your baseline. When you put a gold target down, your dowsing response should be higher than that baseline. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

[Marcus]

If I am understanding this correctly, Edge is still claiming to be able to detect gold inside a container. So what is the problem? One container, one spot, a person Edge doesn't see places a lump of gold, or a rock, inside. No need for Edge to know how many times gold will be inside, any correct answer will count.As many tries as are required. I fail to see how such a test could take more than a week or 2 to set up. Edge can pick any spot he wants, I'm sure JREF can find someone in the area to administer the test.

[William Smith]

If I am understanding this correctly, Edge is still claiming to be able to detect gold inside a container. So what is the problem? One container, one spot, a person Edge doesn't see places a lump of gold, or a rock, inside. No need for Edge to know how many times gold will be inside, any correct answer will count.As many tries as are required. I fail to see how such a test could take more than a week or 2 to set up. Edge can pick any spot he wants, I'm sure JREF can find someone in the area to administer the test.

(Bolding by me.) And yet this thread is going on for more than a year - and counting.



Marcus, please do yourself the favour and read all of edge's posts in this thread. Go on, I dare you.
After you finished and have successfully resisted to ram a fork in your hand, you will start to understand why the JREF changed the qualifications for applicants.

[colin]

If I am understanding this correctly, Edge is still claiming to be able to detect gold inside a container. So what is the problem? One container, one spot, a person Edge doesn't see places a lump of gold, or a rock, inside. No need for Edge to know how many times gold will be inside, any correct answer will count.As many tries as are required. I fail to see how such a test could take more than a week or 2 to set up. Edge can pick any spot he wants, I'm sure JREF can find someone in the area to administer the test.
And does anyone know what the percentage for random guessing would be in the above scenario? I’m assuming 50/50

[Marcus]

And does anyone know what the percentage for random guessing would be in the above scenario? I’m assuming 50/50

It also doesn't matter how many times gold is placed in the container, as long as Edge has no knowledge of it. My question is, if 100 tries are taken, how many correct answers are needed to achieve the 1 in 10,000 standard?

[William Smith]

It also doesn't matter how many times gold is placed in the container, as long as Edge has no knowledge of it. My question is, if 100 tries are taken, how many correct answers are needed to achieve the 1 in 10,000 standard?

Does this help? (http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html)

[EHocking]

My job here is to pick 7 of 10 correct hits if I hit 9 out of 10 correct hits I win if I get 7 the first time they have the right to do 2 more sets of tests and if the average is still 7 out of 10 or higher I still win....Wrong, wrong, wrongity, wrong.

I'll say this again for you.

To meet the preliminary test conditions you need to achieve a result that is better than random chance of 1:10,000.

If you pass the preliminary, the FINAL test must show results better than random chance at 1:1,000,000

So.

Preliminary: 7 correct out of 10 trials required.
One trial = 10 boxes with 1 target randomly placed.

Final: 8 correct out of 10 trials required.
One trial = 10 boxes with 1 target randomly placed.

All your blather of optional tests and averaging the results is just that - blather.

If you sincerely want to be tested, read the bolded text. Commit it to memory. Read it again.

[Marcus]

Does this help? (http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html)

Yes, thanks. Acording to these tables, 70 correct answers would be needed.

[SezMe]

Sez, I'm confident that you could write an adequate description of the trial even without the pictures. Just leave blank spots to insert the pictures later.

Second.

OK, I've done what I can to make the photos useful, inserted them in my write-up and now have an 8-page pdf file for your amusement and edification. How do I make it available to you?

[EHocking]

OK, I've done what I can to make the photos useful, inserted them in my write-up and now have an 8-page pdf file for your amusement and edification. How do I make it available to you?If I PM my email address - could I get a copy? If you want, I could host it somewhere for www download.

[Tricky]

OK, I've done what I can to make the photos useful, inserted them in my write-up and now have an 8-page pdf file for your amusement and edification. How do I make it available to you?
I'd say that if you don't have your own web space available, put the pictures on one of those free hosting servers. Then make a post with text only and link the pictures to that site.

Or go to the JREF "computer help" subforum and let the whiz kids tell you how to do it.

[SezMe]

If I PM my email address - could I get a copy? If you want, I could host it somewhere for www download.

Yes, do send me your address, especially if you can make it available for the other JREFers who are interested.

[William Smith]

Yes, do send me your address, especially if you can make it available for the other JREFers who are interested.

Me, me, me, me, me.

[/Agent Smith]

[edge]

Wrong, wrong, wrongity, wrong.

I'll say this again for you.

To meet the preliminary test conditions you need to achieve a result that is better than random chance of 1:10,000.

If you pass the preliminary, the FINAL test must show results better than random chance at 1:1,000,000

So.

Preliminary: 7 correct out of 10 trials required.
One trial = 10 boxes with 1 target randomly placed.

Final: 8 correct out of 10 trials required.
One trial = 10 boxes with 1 target randomly placed.

All your blather of optional tests and averaging the results is just that - blather.

If you sincerely want to be tested, read the bolded text. Commit it to memory. Read it again.

Well that's even easier.
Now I need them to say it!

[William Smith]

My job here is to pick 7 of 10 correct hits if I hit 9 out of 10 correct hits I win if I get 7 the first time they have the right to do 2 more sets of tests and if the average is still 7 out of 10 or higher I still win.

Everything else is their job.

The only change is the containers are to pass on one spot that I pick and I pick the target.
We used one box.
You know about the scales over that one spot.
It is connected to the dowsing stick.
When they agree to this I’ll say where and when.

I can't make it any easier to explain unless I show you a video, or SezMe posts his pictures.

We'll see if Alison can understand this as I e-mailed her the same message.
She's working with Jeff.

Those three points are just off the top of my head:

What is the purpose of this one box?
How and why exactly do the scales come into play? (Even with what you call a "moving target" it should suffice to notice the movement of your dowsing stick towards determining a "hit", since the scales cause more variables as Tricky already explained.)
What specific target do you pick?



The more important issues, given the assumption the JREF agrees to this, which I doubt very much:

1. Have you set a location where you can perform - and succeed - by hitting at least seven times in ten tries with your above, um, protocol?

2. How many trial runs have you performed at said specific location, and how many successful hits did you register?

And the most important point: 3a. Were those trial runs double-blinded? 3b. How did you do that?

Forgive me if I ask you to repeat what you might have already stated. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you are saying, because your grammar is a bit unconventional - which I do not hold against you.
I'm trying to help by providing an answer sheet for my above inquiries. I noted some hints in brackets:

1. (Please answer "Yes" or "No".) ___

2. I did ___ trial runs. I achieved ___ hits. (We'll calculate the percentage for you if you provide the data.)

3a. (Please answer "Yes" or "No".) ___
3b. (Please describe shortly how you ensured proper double-blinding.)

I sent edge a PM quoting these two posts, making sure they do not get overlooked. I asked him to respond in this thread.

[edge]

Welcome Marcus

No I didn't overlook your post GzuzKryzt I'm just too tired to ansewer.
I'll try in the morning.

[Cuddles]

Well that's even easier.
Now I need them to say it!

No. You need you to say it. Along with the rest of the protocol. That you then send to the JREF. The ball is in your court Edge, and has been for the last year.

[EHocking]

I touch on this in my write-up. The real edge is, IMO, somewhat accurately reflected in his writing. He rambles a lot and even in person does not give clear, concise responses to direct questions. That said, I also think he is a bit of an old backwoods miner type. He should have lived in the 1800s. :)

Links to SezMe's write up can be found here. (http://uk.geocities.com/ehocking@btinternet.com/jref/edge.html)

[catbasket]

The link to the pdf doesn't seem to work.

[colin]

Preliminary: 7 correct out of 10 trials required.
One trial = 10 boxes with 1 target randomly placed.

Final: 8 correct out of 10 trials required.
One trial = 10 boxes with 1 target randomly placed.


But I thought he wanted only one box kept in the exact same, perfect place – not ten actual boxes.

And shouldn’t the number of times the target is used be randomly selected? If he wants a ‘hit’ even when he says the target isn’t there, and he knows the target isn’t there 90% of the time...well...:rolleyes:

Or I’m I misinterpreting something?

[colin]

How about this:

1. Edge finds his perfect spot.
2. Only one container will be used and it stays on the perfect spot.
3. 10 playing cards, numbered 1 to 10, are shuffled.
4. 1 card is drawn and that is how many times the target will appear in the first 10 run trial.
5. Reshuffle all the cards.
6. Draw a number of cards equal the number on the card drawn in step 4. These are the runs when the target will be placed in the container.
7. Edge enters the area and starts the first run. He says if there is or isn’t a target in the container and gets a ‘hit’ each time he is correct.
8. Repeat for 9 more trials.
9. 70% correct is needed for a successful (preliminary round) outcome.

If it’s done outside in a quarry, I guess a tent or curtain may be needed for Edge to go to after each run.

Does that sound about right?

[EHocking]

The link to the pdf doesn't seem to work.Fixed - a simple capitalisation of edge screwed it.

[EHocking]

How about this:

1. Edge finds his perfect spot.
2. Only one container will be used and it stays on the perfect spot.
3. 10 playing cards, numbered 1 to 10, are shuffled.
4. 1 card is drawn and that is how many times the target will appear in the first 10 run trial.
5. Reshuffle all the cards.
6. Draw a number of cards equal the number on the card drawn in step 4. These are the runs when the target will be placed in the container.
7. Edge enters the area and starts the first run. He says if there is or isn’t a target in the container and gets a ‘hit’ each time he is correct.
8. Repeat for 9 more trials.
9. 70% correct is needed for a successful (preliminary round) outcome.

If it’s done outside in a quarry, I guess a tent or curtain may be needed for Edge to go to after each run.

Does that sound about right?The problem with this is that at step 4 you are changing the odds of each trial. Thus the conclusion in 9 is going to be incorrect (and no, I cannot work out the odds).

1. Edge finds his perfect spot.
2. Only one container will be used and it stays on the perfect spot.
3. 10 playing cards, numbered Ace to 10, are shuffled.
4. A card is drawn one at a time. If the card drawn is an Ace, the target is placed in the box. If not, a dummy target is placed in the box.
5. After each card is drawn and tartget/dummy placed in the box, edge enters the area and says if there is or isn’t a target in the container and gets a ‘hit’ each time he is correct.
8. Repeat for the rest of the 10 cards.

This constitutes one trial with 1/10 chances of the target being in the box.

9. 5 such trials would require 5 successful guesses from 5 trials to meet the 1:10,000 odds of the Preliminary test.

10. 10 such trials would require 7 successful guesses which meets both the Preliminary test requirements AND edge's boast of a 70% success rate.

[colin]

^^
But if only an ace puts in the target, doesn’t that mean 90% of the time there’ll be no target, and he’ll say, “No target” each and every time and most likely be right? (He wanted credit for negatives too.)

[Dumb All Over]

Fixed - a simple capitalisation of edge screwed it.
It still doesn't seem to work.

ETA- Now it works (the pdf, not the dowsing). My bad. Reading now...

[colin]

I guess that’s why protocols and tests need to be done well.

“A” for effort, though! :)

[Dumb All Over]

90% accurate. I'm speechless.

[Blue Bubble]

When I try to access EHocking's PDF file, I get:

Sorry, this site is temporarily unavailable!
The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer.Access to this site will be restored within an hour. Please try again later.

I can hardly wait, given Dumb All Over's "90% accurate. I'm speechless" quote.

[Dumb All Over]

Not many people will be able to download the pdf today as the site has limited "allocated data transfer".

SezMe conducted ten trials. Mike Guska correctly identified the target during nine of the ten trials. I'd say that's well beyond chance.

[IXP]

As I understand it:

Edge's protocol consists of 10 trials.
Each trial consists of dowsing 10 boxes (or one box 10 times) and the target is in one and only one of these 10.
For each trial (of 10 boxes) Edge will identify which of the 10 has the target.

So Edge's output is the number 1 thourgh 10 for each trial. If the target was in that box with that sequence number, then Edge has a hit. Probability of getting any trial right by chance is 0.1

7 or more out of 10 right is a win.

IXP

[Oualawouzou]

90% accurate. I'm speechless.

I am even more speechless that he can do a test on the fly at a few hours notice and get 90% right, and yet still cannot free himself up a single day to run a double-blind test designed by people used to come up with foolproof experiments.

SezMe, quick question: where was the other target while Edge was dowsing? I didn't see it mentionned in your write-up. It wasn't clear either what was the position of Mike's assistant relative to the box and everything else.

[edge]

Not many people will be able to download the pdf today as the site has limited "allocated data transfer".

SezMe conducted ten trials. Mike Guska correctly identified the target during nine of the ten trials. I'd say that's well beyond chance.

Dowsing works!

[colin]

SezMe, quick question: where was the other target while Edge was dowsing? I didn't see it mentionned in your write-up. It wasn't clear either what was the position of Mike's assistant relative to the box and everything else.
In addition, did you see the dime or was it completely covered with tape?

[edge]

Thanks SezMe, It gives me more information.

That spot was the best-case scenario.
The place where we tested here is the worst case, here the test proved 58%.
There's a difference in the ground, “more neutral", and that does make a difference all verifiable through the scale. We did it in three spots so far and the percentage increased in each. 40% 58% 90% I wish we could have done more in the 90% spot, that will happen later.
What I have to do now is get a smaller target and go to gold as the target.

I have two nuggets which add up to an once and a half pull on the scale it must bottom out at four, that means I need about a quarter once of gold.
I need about 4 more pennyweights of gold or more for a more compact test.

They will only do a test on hits on a target out of ten X ten tries.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2683706#post2683706)
Not many people will be able to download the pdf today as the site has limited "allocated data transfer".

SezMe conducted ten trials. Mike Guska correctly identified the target during nine of the ten trials. I'd say that's well beyond chance.


Dowsing works!

It didn't in this case beyond random chance, which is what you need to beat to succeed in the Challenge.

In fact, when the target WAS there - you only scored 2/3 - 67% - BELOW your boasted success rate.

Stop getting all excited everyone, this demonstration was no more exciting that choosing heads or tails from 10 coin flips.

Exactly the same odds.

As hard as it may seem - this is WITHIN CHANCE of 1:100 so not even NEAR the Preliminary requirements.

Check out these tabes (AGAIN!) (http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html) and you will see that a guess that has a 50/50 chance of being right, would need a score of 10 out of 10 to be beyond random chance at odds of 1:100.

For the Preliminary using the demonstration's mode of selection, he'd have to get 15 right from 15 to beat odds of 1:10,000

And for the final - he'd have to get better than 28 from 30, and this is where it gets complicated. A score of less than 3 correct is ALSO outside random chance.

This is why you should stick to 1 target in 10 - and only look for the presence of the target.

I very much doubt JREF would agree to a test that only had a 50:50 chance of being right in it.

[edge]

I didn't get to read all of it though.
It blinked out.

The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer.
Access to this site will be restored within an hour. Please try again later.
http://

Darn it!

[EHocking]

^^
But if only an ace puts in the target, doesn’t that mean 90% of the time there’ll be no target, and he’ll say, “No target” each and every time and most likely be right? (He wanted credit for negatives too.)Yes, but in this case, 90% correct is STILL within random chance, and then, only at odds of 1:100.

See my previous reply to edge for a fuller account.

[EHocking]

I didn't get to read all of it though.
It blinked out.

The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer.
Access to this site will be restored within an hour. Please try again later.
http://

Darn it!Sorry - looks like GeoCities can't cope with the traffic. I've asked for the original to reduce the size of the PDF and see if that helps.

Anyone got an alternate site?

Could we attach it to this thread?

[edge]

There are no guesses and no cheating.

So I had to rewrite this again. She doesen't understand so I have to elaborate some.

Alison,
Instead of ten spots on the ground that I pick and say
are good for a container to be placed on, ten of them.

I pick one spot and you will set one of the containers
on that spot one at a time, they are on the ground.

There are no ten spots anywhere that will work at
once.
I will only find one.
The way I do this is scan an area and find the weakest
spot or attraction or reaction.
No metals under me to confuse with a response as a
target.
As close to neutral as possible a dead zone, blank
spot, a place were IF I WHERE MINING , I wouldn’t
mine.
So that there is a difference, that’s readable by a
scale, that’s hanging off a tripod, over the spot that
I choose.
I the idea is that I will get very little pull on the
stick and when attached to the scale what I’m looking
for is a reading that’s less than a quarter of an
once.
When the target is there I need it to show more.

I may find one neutral spot, where the targets empty or
not can sit on, one at a time and pick the one with the
metal, silver, gold what ever the target maybe.

Each pass of ten containers is one of ten passes
that's a total of 100 scans.

Each pass of 10 will have one target show up in any of
the random numbered container from one to ten.

There are ten cards you blindly chose one that will
represent the container that you will place the target
in.
While you are doing this I will be out of sight and
hearing range, here we used the house.

Each time you place a container in the spot I will
leave and you all will call me back when you have
switched the containers, 1 through 10.
Unless I pick lets say number 5 at that point that set
of ten is done and we will start with the next set of
10 after which you will choose a new card for the next
placement of metals or target.

The metal target should fit in a thirty five
millimeter film can, that will be placed into a 11
once coffee can all are plastic.

You can then use a placebo target that represents the
metal in volume or size to me its irrelevant. We can
have 9 more film cans with placebos that are void of
the metal and all can contain the same plastic or
rubber placebos. But it must be plastic or rubber.
Or to make it easy you can use bubble gum.

You can record anything you want, any way you want.

From this point I must hit 7 of 10 correct now what do
I have to do after this test to win?
How many more tests to prove?

Mike

So the test in this way is only hits on the target.

[catbasket]

I the idea is that I will get very little pull on the
stick and when attached to the scale what I’m looking
for is a reading that’s less than a quarter of an
once.
When the target is there I need it to show more.


Edge, that's not how your demonstration for SezMe worked -
(Section 5.4 Decision Criteria)
The calibration phase established a background “force” of ¼ ounce and a target force of 1 ounce. Yet, in nearly all the trials, these benchmarks were ignored. Many times (no, I did not write down the final stabilization reading) the scale read 2 ounces or above yet Mike would declare (correctly) that the target was not there. During one trial (#7, I think) Mike declared that the rod was “just not grabbing” him like it had done before so, in spite of the scale reading he (correctly) declared that the target was absent.
It seems like you were deciding whether or not the target was there not by the apparent force shown on the scale but by some other method. Any comments?

[Marcus]

In this demonstration, there is a 50/50 chance of a correct pick, assuming everything is on the level and edge has no idea how many times the gold will be there. According to the tables, 70 correct guesses out of 100 would meet the requirement of 1 in 10,000, 10 readings is not going to show anything. Success with 50 readings would certainly get my attentions, but not 10.

[Dumb All Over]

I did take statistics in college but that was over a lifetime ago. Also, I'm not the best mathematician in the world. Can someone help to boil these statistics down so that a dummy like me can understand them.

The test described is very akin to flipping a coin, so I guess each trial would have a 50/50 chance of being correct. Is it statistically significant that edge was able to correctly guess nine of ten times? I admit it was premature of me to declare 90% accuracy. Sensationalism sells.

[Reno]

A Dowsing Demonstration by Edge
1 Introduction
My mate and I planned a mid-May vacation in northern California in the vicinity of where Edge
(hereinafter Mike) lives. Before leaving, he and I exchanged phone numbers and we were finally
able to contact each other. So on Thursday, May 18th late in the afternoon, Mike and his brother,
Danny, drove to where I was staying and we spent a couple of hours dowsing. My sincere thanks
to Mike and Danny for going a considerable distance out of their way on very short notice in order
to meet with us and conduct this demonstration.
Mike had a specific goal in mind for this demonstration, namely, to ascertain whether his dowsing
had to be calibrated for different dowsing locations (more on what “calibration” means below).
My main goal was to get a definitive understanding of kind of test Mike is proposing because I
could not get a clear picture of it from his postings on the JREF forum. Secondarily, I wanted to
do an informal test to see how it would go. And, finally, I wanted to meet “edge” because he
seemed to be an interesting guy.
2 Preliminaries
After introductions and a brief discussion of Mike’s background, we began with Mike just
dowsing in the general area of our cabin. I asked what he thought was “forcing” his dowsing rod
and, after some discussion, it turns out he thinks that somehow gravity is affecting what he is
dowsing for and that his dowsing rod picks up this change in gravity. As an aside, I would note
that Mike (edge) in person is very much reflected in his postings. He could not, in my opinion,
articulate a clear explanation of his “theory” of dowsing.
At one point, Mike offered to have me dowse. I declined. But I did put my finger along the
dowsing rod as he did some dowsing. He does grip the dowsing rod quite firmly.
3 Demonstration
As I mentioned, this was not a well planned, formal test. We did not know until the earlier in the
day when we met that we would even be able to get together at all. So everything we did was
done in an ad hoc manner.
First, I’ll describe the equipment that Mike and Danny brought with them then I’ll describe the
testing protocol we established and subsequently conducted.
3.1 Equipment
“Equipment” is a too highfaluting word for what we had to work with - but please don’t
misinterpret my comment. We had what Mike could muster up at a minutes notice and I had
little but pen and paper to add to the mix. As mentioned above, this was ad hocracy at its
finest.
Mike brought with him:
• His dowsing rod
• A silver tray
• A large cardboard box
• A small scale typically used to weigh envelopes in order to ascertain the correct
postage to use.
The best picture I have
of his dowsing rod is
shown in Figure 1. I
had my friend with the
camera take a close-up
picture of the rod itself
but that picture, sadly,
seems to have been
lost.
The dowsing rod is a
“carefully selected”
(quoting Mike) branch
from a willow tree.
The “head” of the rod
is about 9 inches long
w h i le the two
branching limbs are
about 24 inches long.
The tip of the head of the rod is wrapped in black electricians tape. When queried about this,
Mike indicated that the tape holds a USA dime to the dowsing rod. As I understand it, this
dime, in combination with the dowsing rod itself, is what allows Mike to detect gravity
changes. In response to a
question by my friend with
the camera, Mike stated
that if he removed the
dime, this same dowsing
rod would then become a
more traditional water
dowsing rod.
The silver tray (shown
on the right in Figure
2) would become the
t a r g et o f o u r
demonstration. Mike
brought this tray
Figure 1
Figure 2
because he had found it in a hidden location at his sister’s house using this dowsing rod so he
knew that it would affect his dowsing.
The cardboard box was used to conveniently carry Mike’s equipment but it also served as a
component of our demonstration (see the next section). By the way, the “arms” of the
dowsing rod are visible above the plastic drain pan.
The scale is shown in
Figure 3. It measures
the downward force
exerted by whatever is
attached to it. It is a
simple, mechanical
device; its most
import ant characteristic
relevant to
this test is that the
reading marks are not
linear. The indicator
runs from 0 to 90
d e g r e e s wh i c h
indicates a force of
from 0 to 4 ounces.
But 1 ounce is at 45
degrees, 2 ounces is at
67.5 degrees and 3
ounces is at 79.25
degrees and 4 ounces
(its limit) is at 90
degrees.
3.2 Demonstration Protocol
In broad terms, the protocol consisted of these steps:
• Selecting a demonstration site
• Setting up the equipment
• Defining the demonstration process
• Pre-trial calibration
Figure 3
• Trials
• Post-trial calibration
3.2.1 Selecting a demonstration site
First, Mike needed to verify that the porch of our cabin was not contaminated by
anything that would affect his work. He walked along the porch area while dowsing and
stated that there was nothing under the porch that would interfere with his efforts.
3.2.2 Setting up the equipment
This step was critical for me to achieve my goal because I was finally able to see and
understand what Mike is actually proposing for the MDC.
First, Mike hung a (bent out of shape) ordinary coat hanger from a beam in the roof of
the porch. The hook of the coat hanger hung at the lowest point which you can see at
the very top of Figure 3. As shown in that figure, the scale was directly attached to the
coat hanger.
A thin, light string, (barely) visible at the bottom of Figure 3, hung down from the scale.
A loop at the bottom of this string was used to attach the head of the dowsing rod to the
scale.
The targets of the dowsing are shown in Figure 2. The “target” is the silver tray. The
“dummy” was a RubberMaid drain pad taken from the cabin kitchen. The cardboard
box was used to disguise which item was in the target area by placing the target inside
the box.
3.2.3 Defining the demonstration process
After brief discussions, we agreed upon a protocol that would have either the target or
dummy put in the box outside of Mike’s view. Mike would then dowse for the target
using the scale as an indicator of its presence or absence. Each trial would have Mike
state without equivocation whether the target was there or not. There would be ten
trials.
Before the trials began, there would be two calibration trials in which Mike would know
whether the target was there or not.
3.2.4 Pre-trial calibration
In Mike’s presence, I put the dummy target in the box and Mike dowsed. Danny would
stand to Mike’s right on the ground just off the porch as seen in Figure 4 (although he
was not standing there when this picure was taken.) And read off the scale reading.
When the scale stabilized, it read ¼ ounce. This took about 15 seconds (based on my
memory alone - I did not have a stopwatch with me). Figure 4 shows Mike while
actually dowsing.
I then put the tray in the box in Mike’s presence and he dowsed again. This time the
stabilized scale reading was 1 ounce.
Note that this process was central to meeting Mike’s goal. He reports that similar trials
in other locations have resulted in a dummy reading of 3 ounces. Thus, Mike concludes
that the calibration of his dowsing process is site specific.
3.2.5 Trials
Out of sight of everyone, I flipped a quarter 10 times. I decided before starting that
heads would equate to dummy and tails would equate to target.
For each trial, Mike and Danny would go back behind the cabin as we put either the
dummy or the target in the box. I stood where I could see both Mike and Danny at the
rear of the cabin while my mate made the placement to make sure there was no way they
could see what she was doing. In fact, in one trial, she purposely dropped the trey on
the porch while putting the dummy in the box to see if Mike was using a sound clue.
Since I observed each trial, this was only a single-blind experiment. That is me in the
foreground in Figure 4.
Each trial proceeded with Mike doing the dowsing and Danny reading off the scale
value as sort of a running commentary, like a race track announcer. In fact, to me it
seemed as if Danny was encouraging Mike to get a high value.
Figure 4
After the scale reading stabilized, the trial would end and Mike stated clearly “dummy”
or “target”. Interestingly, the time to stabilization increased as we went through the
trials; note, again, that this is a subjective judgement because I did not have a stop watch
with which to time each trial. At first, it seemed that stabilization would occur within
15-30 seconds. By the end, it was taking about a minute. A couple of times Mike
would have to stop, shake off his tension and resume the dowsing.
After the fifth trial, Mike was getting fatigued so we took a couple minute break. This
fatigue consists of his having to stand perfectly still during each trial and having to grip
the dowsing rod firmly in each hand. I have no doubt that this effort is, in fact,
fatiguing.
Here are the results:
Trial In Box Mike Result
1 Dummy Dummy True
2 Dummy Dummy True
3 Dummy Dummy True
4 Target Target True
5 Dummy Dummy True
6 Dummy Dummy True
7 Dummy Dummy True
8 Target Target True
9 Target Dummy False
10 Dummy Dummy True
By this series of tests, Mike scored 90% correct.
3.2.6 Post-trial calibration
After this series of trials, we did one more calibration test with Mike knowing the tray
was in the box. He correctly stated it was there.
4 Post-Demonstration Activities
After this set of trials, we did some “fun” dowsing just for the hell of it. These activities have no
probative value but I report them here for completeness.
Since Mike asserts that he is detecting metals (not just gold) I asked him to dowse my car. He did
for a couple of seconds by holding the dowsing rod over the trunk of the car. The rod did not dip.
We then walked down by Coffee Creek (a vigorously flowing stream at this time of year due to
snow melt) which is just out of sight over the spare tire of Mike’s vehicle in Figure 1. Mike’s
dowsing revealed that there were several locations where gold existed. Interestingly, when doing
this dowsing, the rod responded instantaneously and dramatically by dropping to near vertical.
I should note that this area was extensively hydraulically mined for gold in the 1800s. In fact, not
100 yards upstream there is a huge (30 feet high by 100 feet long) rock pile left over from
previous mining operations.
5 Notes
I offer these in no particular order of importance to give my full sense of this demonstration.
5.1 Demonstration
I have used the word “demonstration” here instead of “test” deliberately. I do not consider
this exercise to have been a test in the sense that Randi would use the term. My goal, as
stated, was simply to get a better understanding of what Mike asserts that he can do by
actually observing the dowsing process that will, presumably, be the basis of his current
MDC.
Expanding on that thought, I had not been able to get a clear sense of what Mike is actually
proposing he can do with his dowsing based on his posts on the JREF forum. Now that I have
seen Mike in action, I have a much better appreciation of what he claims to be able to do. I
hope I have conveyed a clearer idea of how he proposes to be tested in this document so that
we can focus on the MDC test protocol.
5.2 Mike
My impression of Mike in person very much reflects what you see on-line. He is a voluble
guy who has trouble putting his thoughts in clear order. We’ll have to deal with that fact.
5.3 Demonstration Protocol
There are so many holes in the protocol that we used that RoadToad could drive a truck
through it. Did the cardboard box have a hole in it? Was Danny somehow giving clues to
Mike? Did the trey (which I did not inspect at all) have a magnet in it?
5.4 Decision Criteria
The calibration phase established a background “force” of ¼ ounce and a target force of 1
ounce. Yet, in nearly all the trials, these benchmarks were ignored. Many times (no, I did not
write down the final stabilization reading) the scale read 2 ounces or above yet Mike would
declare (correctly) that the target was not there.
During one trial (#7, I think) Mike declared that the rod was “just not grabbing” him like it
had done before so, in spite of the scale reading he (correctly) declared that the target was
absent.
In retrospect, I was really stupid to not get Mike to state - and adhere to - his decision criteria
before we actually began the trials..
5.5 What’s going on?
I will offer two distinct impressions of Mike (and Danny).
I conclude Mike really believes that he can dowse. Danny is most certainly a believer so that
ANY test that involves him must be rejected out of hand. Mike can, in a wink of an eye,
explain away any inconsistency and just plow ahead as if he is actually dowsing.
My mate, however, was absolutely furious with me regarding this whole episode. She was
convinced that Mike and Danny ran a scam on me and that I was a total fool to even let the
whole experiment proceed. She’s convinced that Mike (and Danny) are scammers of the first
order and knowingly made an absolute jerk out of me.
Who knows?
6 Photos
I did adjust the photos contained in this report in order to show as much detail as possible.
This manipulation merely consisted of using the standard image adjustment tools in Corel’s
Paint Shop program. I have the originals and would be happy to make them available should
anyone want them.

[William Smith]

There are no guesses and no cheating.

So I had to rewrite this again. She doesen't understand so I have to elaborate some.

Alison,
Instead of ten spots on the ground that I pick and say
are good for a container to be placed on, ten of them.

I pick one spot and you will set one of the containers
on that spot one at a time, they are on the ground.

There are no ten spots anywhere that will work at
once.
I will only find one.
The way I do this is scan an area and find the weakest
spot or attraction or reaction.
No metals under me to confuse with a response as a
target.
As close to neutral as possible a dead zone, blank
spot, a place were IF I WHERE MINING , I wouldn’t
mine.
So that there is a difference, that’s readable by a
scale, that’s hanging off a tripod, over the spot that
I choose.
I the idea is that I will get very little pull on the
stick and when attached to the scale what I’m looking
for is a reading that’s less than a quarter of an
once.
When the target is there I need it to show more.

I may find one neutral spot, where the targets empty or
not can sit on, one at a time and pick the one with the
metal, silver, gold what ever the target maybe.

Each pass of ten containers is one of ten passes
that's a total of 100 scans.

Each pass of 10 will have one target show up in any of
the random numbered container from one to ten.

There are ten cards you blindly chose one that will
represent the container that you will place the target
in.
While you are doing this I will be out of sight and
hearing range, here we used the house.

Each time you place a container in the spot I will
leave and you all will call me back when you have
switched the containers, 1 through 10.
Unless I pick lets say number 5 at that point that set
of ten is done and we will start with the next set of
10 after which you will choose a new card for the next
placement of metals or target.

The metal target should fit in a thirty five
millimeter film can, that will be placed into a 11
once coffee can all are plastic.

You can then use a placebo target that represents the
metal in volume or size to me its irrelevant. We can
have 9 more film cans with placebos that are void of
the metal and all can contain the same plastic or
rubber placebos. But it must be plastic or rubber.
Or to make it easy you can use bubble gum.

You can record anything you want, any way you want.

From this point I must hit 7 of 10 correct now what do
I have to do after this test to win?
How many more tests to prove?

Mike

So the test in this way is only hits on the target.

I'll have to let this sink in some more, but at a first glance it does not look all bad.

The major problem I see at this point is the total test time: 100 scans + rest and recovery time + putting the targets in place + ensuring proper double-blinding (which in this case means lots of walking) = Way too much for one day.

How long do you need on average for a scan in this context, edge?



And to get back to my former point:

1. Have you set a location where you can perform - and succeed - by hitting at least seven times in ten tries with your above protocol?

2. How many trial runs have you performed at said specific location, and how many successful hits did you register?

And the most important point: 3a. Were those trial runs double-blinded? 3b. How did you do that?

Forgive me if I ask you to repeat what you might have already stated. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you are saying, because your grammar is a bit unconventional - which I do not hold against you.
I'm trying to help by providing an answer sheet for my above inquiries. I noted some hints in brackets:

1. (Please answer "Yes" or "No".) ___

2. I did ___ trial runs. I achieved ___ hits. (We'll calculate the percentage for you if you provide the data.)

3a. (Please answer "Yes" or "No".) ___
3b. (Please describe shortly how you ensured proper double-blinding.)

[EHocking]

There are no guesses and no cheating.

So I had to rewrite this again. She doesen't understand so I have to elaborate some.edge, your elaboration really on makes things more complicated. Regardless, I'm prepared to attempt to write up a protocol based on your past posts, if you could answer a couple of questions.

1. Can you select 2 sites that you would be willing to be tested at? One as a back up - you have to give JREF an option. Site only needs to be large enough to place a single box on as per your preferred protocol.

If you can't - why not? You demonstrated for SezMe on the porch of a cabin with no problems.

2. Do you *have*, positively *have* to use the scales? If yes, the readings will play no part in the protocol, it will merely be an additional accessory for your use only.

Why the scales? You don't use them in the field or in the middle of a creek when dowsing for gold. Why for the Challenge?

3. Will you allow JREF (or whomever tests you) to inspect the dowsing rod and ALSO allow them to remove anything you attach to the tip? One stipulation would be that anything attached to the tip will be inspected BEFORE a test is performed and attached while being witnessed by the testers.

4. How much time do you have before this JREF Challenge application runs out?

I think that's it for the moment.

I'll write up a protocol as per your post I'm replying to and let's get it out in the public domain here to get hammered out.

[William Smith]

SezMe, thank you for the write-up. Your mate seems allright.

Thumbs up to EHocking and Reno.



And a tip of my hat to you, edge. You have again stepped up to the plate. In a small league, but nonetheless.
Now let's hammer out a protocol and secure you a run at the Million.

[Tim Harrod]

Thanks SezMe, It gives me more information.
I have two nuggets which add up to an once and a half pull on the scale it must bottom out at four, that means I need about a quarter once of gold.

I need about 4 more pennyweights of gold or more for a more compact test.



Man... if only there were a reliable method of finding gold.

[Dumb All Over]

Dowsing works!
Mike, I want you to know how much I appreciate this post. You have a good sense of humor.

[petre]

I did take statistics in college but that was over a lifetime ago. Also, I'm not the best mathematician in the world. Can someone help to boil these statistics down so that a dummy like me can understand them.

The test described is very akin to flipping a coin, so I guess each trial would have a 50/50 chance of being correct. Is it statistically significant that edge was able to correctly guess nine of ten times? I admit it was premature of me to declare 90% accuracy. Sensationalism sells.

With 10 trials, the odds of getting them all correct by chance is 0.097%, and the odds of getting 9 correct is 0.97%, for a total just over 1% by chance alone (as has been noted) of getting 90% or more correct. Significant enough to investigate further, but not quite worth a million bucks. He'd have missed the required target by 1, since a perfect score would have been needed to reduce it to a 1/1000 chance.

By my math, 100 trials would allow for a success of at least 66 to fall under the 1/1000 target. A 70% success rate will suffice there.

What I also like is that the results of the flips had a large number of dummy trials. A person guessing randomly would usually balance their guesses more than that.

[Dumb All Over]

Thank you, petre.

EHocking's explanations did not go unnoticed, either. Both of you are clear and make perfect sense.

[SezMe]

SezMe, quick question: where was the other target while Edge was dowsing? I didn't see it mentionned in your write-up. It wasn't clear either what was the position of Mike's assistant relative to the box and everything else.

Good questions.

The "other" target was put inside our cabin, out of view of Mike, Danny or me. I would estimate that the other target was ~20 feet away from the dowsing area. To be more complete, we were staying at a cabin that had a front porch that you see in the pictures. Out of view of any of the pictures, there is a single, front door into the interior of the cabin. After the selected target was put in the box, the other target was taken inside the cabin, out of view of all participants, and covered with a small blanket.

Regarding where Danny stood: Look at Figure 4. Mike is standing on the porch in front of the box. The open end of the box is toward the camera. Danny would stand on the gound (~2 feet below the porch level) just to Mike's right. See that huge cup on the bench? Danny would be just to Mike's right of that.

It's too bad that you can't see the string, the scale and Danny during the test. The guy who was taking the pictures (the proprietor of the resort) was pressed to get something else done and didn't have much time to devote to picture taking nor did he seem to be interested in taking photos from many different angles. To paraphrase Rummy, you go into an ad hoc dowsing test with the resources you have, not the resources you want.

Could Danny somehow have seen into the box and given Mike a clue as to what was there. Yes. But I do not think that was happening, mostly because Danny (IMO) sincerely does not believe that Mike needs clues. Could there have been a hole in the box that would allow Mike to see into it. Yes. Again, we worked with what we had.

I would reemphasize that I considered this to be a "demonstration", not a test. I was just trying to figure out what Mike was doing with the scale he talks about and what he means by calibration. If we all now have a better concept of what these terms mean, then my write-up contributes to the thread.

[SezMe]

In addition, did you see the dime or was it completely covered with tape?
No, I did not see the dime; it was completely covered by the tape. I did not ask Mike to untape the dime to prove to me that it was there.

Sitting here responding to you as a particpant in the demonstraton, my response is "who cares?" The presence or absence of the dime is immaterial to the outcome of the experiment. Dimes don't affect gravity.

Sitting here responding to you as a skeptic with the opportunity for hindsight, my response is "D'oh, SezMe, you're an idiot." Mike could have put a magnet at the head of his dowsing rod and I should have eliminated that possibility. I did not - my bad.

That said, here is why I don't think this is an issue. I did look at the tip of the dowsing rod and whatever was wrapped inside the tape was, well, about the size of a dime. Unless it was a very powerful magnet, it would not have had much of an affect due to a small tray ~ 4 feet away. I think Mike's ideomotor effect and the need for him to keep his hands perfectly still vertically would be much more influencial than the effect of a magnet he might have hidden in the head of his dowsing rod.

[SezMe]

Please read my pdf. Reno's post, while capturing the text accurately, does not include my pics which I think are essential to understanding the whole write-up.

[SezMe]

With the benefit of hindsight and time, here is the most important question I have regarding this demo.

The pre-trial calibration phase showed a "background" force on the scale of ½ ounce and a "target" force of 1 ounce. Yet some of the trials showed a scale reading greater than 1 ounce yet you stated that the target was not there. On what basis did you, Mike, make your determination of the presence/absence of the target other than the reading on the scale.

Another matter that I can't understand is why my car did not affect your dowsing rod. You were much closer to it and it has a couple of orders of magnitude more metal mass than your tray.

[Reno]

Please read my pdf. Reno's post, while capturing the text accurately, does not include my pics which I think are essential to understanding the whole write-up.

Agreed. The reason I posted the text was to give the people who couldn't get to the pdf because of the limited bandwidth a little something to tide them over til they managed to get to the pdf.

[edge]

First let me address this.

My mate, however, was absolutely furious with me regarding this whole episode. She was
convinced that Mike and Danny ran a scam on me and that I was a total fool to even let the
whole experiment proceed. She’s convinced that Mike (and Danny) are scammers of the first
order and knowingly made an absolute jerk out of me.
Who knows?


What you have witnessed is what it is.

I have to adapt to it continuously as I learn more.

If I have a person with me he will be with one of the JREF members and the other JREF member will work with me.
That ends that.

I learned many things from that experience too, at Coffee Creek.

The calibration phase established a background “force” of ¼ ounce and a target force of 1
ounce. Yet, in nearly all the trials, these benchmarks were ignored. Many times (no, I did not
write down the final stabilization reading) the scale read 2 ounces or above yet Mike would
declare (correctly) that the target was not there.

That information is private and too hard to explain right now for my use only.
If I win all that I know will be revealed and then you’ll know.
This is what gives me an edge.


During one trial (#7, I think) Mike declared that the rod was “just not grabbing” him like it
had done before so, in spite of the scale reading he (correctly) declared that the target was
absent.
In retrospect, I was really stupid to not get Mike to state - and adhere to - his decision criteria
before we actually began the trials..
5.5 What’s going on?

When Danny and I got there we traveled 40 miles or so to do another set of tests, that day we had already done about 40 passes on our own tests, 4 sets of ten which were exactly the same all correct hits counted.
I was extremely drained, the testing takes from your energy in two ways, electrical and physical, the reason to hold on tight is to get maximum results from the scale.

In retrospect, I was really stupid to not get Mike to state - and adhere to - his decision criteria
I assume you mean to use the scales?
I use feel to clarify what’s going on along with the readings which are hard to see as they are small, I can kind of see the arrow pointer and where it is pointed but numbers are important too, more information.
It's all for my use any way.

My impression of Mike in person very much reflects what you see on-line. He is a voluble
guy who has trouble putting his thoughts in clear order. We’ll have to deal with that fact.


Every day I test even now; there are changes and more to learn.
I tried to cram as much information in your brain as I could I had an hour and a half or so.
I wish that we had ten runs of what we did there.
We only did one.
Had I really thought about it I would have had Dan and Ellen switch positions.
The other thing I would have changed if we had the time to do ten runs of ten is that we would have gone only for the target.
That would have to be one strong magnet!

GzuzKryzt
1. Have you set a location where you can perform - and succeed - by hitting at least seven times in ten tries with your above, um, protocol? Yes

2. How many trial runs have you performed at said specific location, 10
and how many successful hits did you register? See SezMes post
This is not the same location as I am giving you above this location is the best case.
At the worst case place I am at 58%.

And the most important point: 3a. Were those trial runs double-blinded?
They where as blind as two people could do them.


3b.How did you do that?
First there was a tarp where the target was placed then I walk around a corner, next the other person would draw a card one through ten and that was the time the target would be placed if it was three I would be scanning the first two times against an empty container, then it would show up.
Each time I would walk away he would wait exactly a certain amount of time before calling me back to scan each container, he would time each move the same.
With the large target it was easier to use one box.
Believe me I couldn’t tell if it was there or not, in either place.
The other person kept the score and I didn't know anything till the ten scans were done.

The other way that we did it was when I picked we ended that round of ten.
One test was for the metal the other was for all the correct hits, no target and target.
The metal shows up more times but the odd thing is that the percentage of metal hits correct against the wrong works out to about the same, as the overall average of the two combined.

For instance if the metal shows up 50 times I get it right 30 times, with the negative correct hits and the positive correct hits I go it 58 correct hits this is out of 100. Close to 60%.

The place before that was worse, so it got better as we found better base line numbers by the scale which proves my point about more neutral ground.


The scale is a visual breakthrough.
I need to find a new place to run another set of tests that reads the same as Coffee Creek, the base line of a quarter ounce.
I believe I can find this most anywhere now, one spot that’s void of readings.
Dan’s back if Fl., Now, I need an assistant to continue.

[edge]

Absolutely right, because Dan has mined with me.

Could there have been a hole in the box that would allow Mike to see into it. Yes. Again, we worked with what we had.


I still have the box there’s no holes.

What I showed you was real.




With the benefit of hindsight and time, here is the most important question I have regarding this demo.

The pre-trial calibration phase showed a "background" force on the scale of ½ ounce and a "target" force of 1 ounce. Yet some of the trials showed a scale reading greater than 1 ounce yet you stated that the target was not there. On what basis did you, Mike, make your determination of the presence/absence of the target other than the reading on the scale.

Another matter that I can't understand is why my car did not affect your dowsing rod. You were much closer to it and it has a couple of orders of magnitude more metal mass than your tray.

The next day when we did some more experiments.
I'll try to explain this but it's hard to put into words.

It goes with this theory of mine, the initial readings are light, after about three scans of the area for the base line and then the target I get a maximum reading.
The more I dowse the more sensitive I get to a point.
As I tested there I figured this out and proved it to Dan the next day when we continued testing we witnessed the change in the scale to be sure.
Things we talked about on the way home.

So I used what I know on the creek, remember me trying to pull up on the stick?
It's what I do on the creek to know how heavy it is, how much gold is there.
I did this with the non-target tries too.
That showed me the differences.
The heaviest spots will break the stick or twist the bark apart from the heart if they are green.
In A sense I have to warm up.
The next thing we had to do was to figure out what the ghost readings are, the wrong totally readings, the misses and the reasons why which we had to theorize.

If we were correct then there has to be a time limit and there is.

When the metal appears on a spot then disappears why does it still read like it's there when it’s not?
This is where gravity is involved, so after a certain time it must dissipate and go back to normal or what the base line was.

With a target appearing one out of ten when that set of ten is done I must wait a certain time before the next set of ten starts.

How many times did it appear?
And I still got it right?
To prove there is a force here I have to know these things I won’t be fooled again.
I may only have one more shot here.

The car, is way less of a pull than the silver on the tray, It was far enough away.
I could have made the stick bend over it but that wasn’t the demonstration I had in mind that’s why we walked to the creek, no car there.
The gold in the creek when the stick was aimed in that direction over rode both cars.
Heavy elements are a key factor.
Had we set up the test 5 feet from the car there would then had been a major flaw in the test I would have not got the 90%.

[edge]

edge, your elaboration really on makes things more complicated. Regardless, I'm prepared to attempt to write up a protocol based on your past posts, if you could answer a couple of questions.

1. Can you select 2 sites that you would be willing to be tested at? One as a back up - you have to give JREF an option. Site only needs to be large enough to place a single box on as per your preferred protocol. Yes

If you can't - why not? You demonstrated for SezMe on the porch of a cabin with no problems.

2. Do you *have*, positively *have* to use the scales? If yes, the readings will play no part in the protocol, it will merely be an additional accessory for your use only. That's right and yes.

Why the scales? You don't use them in the field or in the middle of a creek when dowsing for gold. No, Why for the Challenge? First it will assure the best spot by the numbers.

3. Will you allow JREF (or whomever tests you) to inspect the dowsing rod and ALSO allow them to remove anything you attach to the tip? One stipulation would be that anything attached to the tip will be inspected BEFORE a test is performed and attached while being witnessed by the testers. No problemo.

4. How much time do you have before this JREF Challenge application runs out? Next Febuary I think a year from them receving it.

I think that's it for the moment.

I'll write up a protocol as per your post I'm replying to and let's get it out in the public domain here to get hammered out.

Sounds good.
They will never find me cheating so no problem.:)

[SezMe]

That information is private and too hard to explain right now for my use only. If I win all that I know will be revealed and then you’ll know. This is what gives me an edge.

See, edge, this is precisely what frustrates us. Why in the world would the information be "private"? If you do devise a protocol for the MDC, the information cannot remain private. But thanks to this comment, I now know why your nic is "edge". Cute; I like it. :)

When Danny and I got there we traveled 40 miles or so to do another set of tests, that day we had already done about 40 passes on our own tests, 4 sets of ten which were exactly the same all correct hits counted. I was extremely drained, the testing takes from your energy in two ways, electrical and physical, the reason to hold on tight is to get maximum results from the scale.

That is not my memory. You told me you had to pick up Danny from work so I doubt that he had participated in 40 tests...unless that is his work. And when we first met you were quite animated and did not complain of fatigue. I mean, being lighthearted here for a moment, we started out having some fun, devised a set of trials and proceeded to do them. Never did you state that fatigue from previous trials that day played a role in your performance.

You DID state that you were feeling fatigued during our trials and we DID pause for 5-10 minutes at that point to give you some time to recoup.


I assume you mean to use the scales? I use feel to clarify what’s going on along with the readings which are hard to see as they are small, I can kind of see the arrow pointer and where it is pointed but numbers are important too, more information. It's all for my use any way.

But, edge, what is "feel"? How does it "clarify" what's going on? More specifically, the calibration trials established "absence" to be ¼ ounce and "presence" to be 1 ounce. Can you give us a clear explanation why a reading of, for example, 2 ounces in one trial resulted in your stating (correctly) that the target was not there when the calibration trial indicated that it was, in fact, there?

Had I really thought about it I would have had Dan and Ellen switch positions.

Actually, I agree. We could have done any number of variations on the basic protocol we used. For example, we could have had eliminated BOTH Ellen and Danny from the trials and seen what the result was. We could have done any number of things. This is a perfect illustration of why this was a "demo" not a preliminary test. We did what we could with what we had - I would hope that no one would quibble with that. BUT, that said, I would hope that you would recognize the conditions under which we did our test implies that the results must remain inconclusive. Interesting? Yes. Conclusive? No.

The scale is a visual breakthrough. I need to find a new place to run another set of tests that reads the same as Coffee Creek, the base line of a quarter ounce. I believe I can find this most anywhere now, one spot that’s void of readings.

While the scale may be a "visual breakthrough" is a protocol nightmare. As I stated to you as we departed, you have to use a scale that you cannot see and the recording of the "stability" point is unknown to you. You will have to state what scale reading translates to "presence" or "absence" of the target before the test begins.

One final point, edge. I would hope that this demo and the subsequent critical discussion of it in this thread would help you formulate a precise MDC protocol. If not, our time together, while certainly fun and illuminating, will have been for naught.

[EHocking]

Sounds good.
They will never find me cheating so no problem.:)Ah, chaeating and being *caught* cheating are two different things!:p

edge, an aside. You've brought up the word cheating a couple of times. I want to state clearly that I am not and have not ever accused you of cheating. Any protocol I'll try to come up with will be designed so that you CANNOT be accused of cheating, I assure you.

Also, when I use the word "guesses" it is only due to the lack of a better word. It seems to get your goat as well. I'm not running you down by using the word, if you have a preferred word I'll use it in the future.

As for my previous post - could you answer each of the number items please? I need to be clear on them so I can come up with a protocol that reflects what you say you can do and under conditions that you believe you can achieve the success you claim.

I've got an outline protocol, but I want to seed it with a few clauses for both you and JREF so that all bases are covered.

You claime your JREF contact still hasn't grasped what you are claiming from your correspondence with them, I believe that I can clarify your position and your intended Challenge if you will clarify the numbered points for me.

How much time do you have before the offer expires? Feb 2008?

[EHocking]

..While the scale may be a "visual breakthrough" is a protocol nightmare. As I stated to you as we departed, you have to use a scale that you cannot see and the recording of the "stability" point is unknown to you. You will have to state what scale reading translates to "presence" or "absence" of the target before the test begins.I agree.

The scales reading should not be a condition in the protocol. If edge wishes to use them fine, but the "yay" or "nay" call will not be dependent on readings, nor will any readings be taken by the testers, the call on yes or no will be entirely edge's.

I would suggest in the protocol that a 2nd person reading the scales will NOT be allowed. The 2nd person is a variable that JREF cannot control and I would be surprised if they agreed to it at all.

edge. Comments?

[EHocking]

...[re:scales]That information is private and too hard to explain right now for my use only.
If I win all that I know will be revealed and then you’ll know.
This is what gives me an edge.That's why I'd be inclined to remove the scales as equipment in the test - if you fail it gives you an excuse for failure, *especially* if someone not known to you gives you the readings. You *could* claim that they did not feed you the readings correctly and thus JREF cheated on the Challenge.

Remember, all this talk of cheating cuts both ways. We need to remove the *possibility* that either party can cheat the other. This is not an accusation of lack of integrity of either party, it is a requirement to remove the possibility of that accusation post-test.

I suggest that you lose the idea of using the scales *during* the test.
FIne, perhaps for you to determine the suitability of a site, but NOT an indicator to be recorded for the test. I think JREF would stipulate that. Also, you don't use it when panning for gold, why is it necessary for the test?
...I need to find a new place to run another set of tests that reads the same as Coffee Creek, the base line of a quarter ounce.So. COffee Creek is a contender for a site for the test?
I believe I can find this most anywhere now, one spot that’s void of readings.Great - choose two, since you can find a spot anywhere. That's one problem out of the way.

Sites for the test are chosen!

[edge]

SezMe,

The next day when we did some more experiments.
I'll try to explain this but it's hard to put into words.

It goes with this theory of mine, the initial readings are light, after about three scans of the area for the base line and then the target I get a maximum reading.
The more I dowse the more sensitive I get to a point.
As I tested there I figured this out and proved it to Dan the next day when we continued testing we witnessed the change in the scale to be sure.
Things we talked about on the way home.

So I used what I know on the creek, remember me trying to pull up on the stick?
It's what I do on the creek to know how heavy it is, how much gold is there.
I did this with the non-target tries too.
That showed me the differences.

Even here the initial readings start out about three quarters of a ounce that's with an empty container, the target starts out at about two and a half ounces.
After about three passes the non-target readings end up at two ounces and the target maxed at four ounces.

The same thing happened there.
It does peek out and stop, if I am confused then I lift up using my arms to see if it's heavy if the metal was there, if it's light then it's not.

We where doing tests here for about six days or so at about 30 to 40 passes on one container.

The important thing for me was to see the target show 4 ounces at your spot, but because the initial reading was low I didn't have to go as far as 4 ounces for the metal.

Like I said it's hard to explain.

The deeper the scale goes the harder it is to do.

If I could find a spot with no reading at all before the target is placed, then I think I could get 100%, but so far that is something I haven't found.
I wouldn't have to go deep at all.

It would make it so much faster and less fatiguing.

Dan was on vacation and we did some mining with the sluice and pans.
He was here the year before when we dredged with the 5 inch.

I will address your questions next Ehocking.
I have to walk Odie now.

[edge]

EHockings says,

The scales reading should not be a condition in the protocol. If edge wishes to use them fine, but the "yay" or "nay" call will not be dependent on readings, nor will any readings be taken by the testers, the call on yes or no will be entirely edge's.

For my use only.

I would suggest in the protocol that a 2nd person reading the scales will NOT be allowed. The 2nd person is a variable that JREF cannot control and I would be surprised if they agreed to it at all.

edge. Comments?

Only if it's the JREF member, that hangs with me, if they allow it, or I'll have to get better glasses.
Basically I can tell by the position of the arrow indicator.
What we were doing is trying to get it down to specifics.
But there are variables even using the scales.
I can work with that either way.

[edge]

That's why I'd be inclined to remove the scales as equipment in the test - if you fail it gives you an excuse for failure, *especially* if someone not known to you gives you the readings. You *could* claim that they did not feed you the readings correctly and thus JREF cheated on the Challenge.

Remember, all this talk of cheating cuts both ways. We need to remove the *possibility* that either party can cheat the other. This is not an accusation of lack of integrity of either party, it is a requirement to remove the possibility of that accusation post-test.

I suggest that you lose the idea of using the scales *during* the test.
FIne, perhaps for you to determine the suitability of a site, but NOT an indicator to be recorded for the test. I think JREF would stipulate that. Also, you don't use it when panning for gold, why is it necessary for the test?


It is a measurement of the force.
There is a fine line to be able to tell a little from a lot.
I am starting to use both the feel and the numbers.
My scores are higher and more reliable.

Lets see when I'm mining the metals have been there awhile and not moved back and forth on a spot.

When removed and I dowse the spot there is a drastic change.
Put the metals back and it would change again but it wouldn't be quite the same.
This is what causes false readings and those are always different.
I will always get a good reading till the metals are placed on the spot, I can pick it out but then the very next time that I scan it appears to be there but it's not.
It has to do with the Ghost readings.
It's very difficult to explain, but we have tested for this.

For instance the target is removed and the spot is empty instead of 4 ounces I might get 3.3, which dissipates back to where it should be in a few minutes.
Then I get the real reading.
The scales help me with that; the empty reading is very reliable, it’s when the metal is placed there and removed then I have problems, but if I wait for a few minutes it’s back to a normal reading.
When I rushed the test to save time I didn’t do well when I took my time the correct hits increased drastically. We watched the numbers.


If all my theories are correct about how this is working then I will have it down to an art and a science.
I have to make sure, why no one has passed the test.


I see a full moon that might affect me and I see it on this post.
I can't dowse when there's a paula full moon out.
Throws me off.

[Paulhoff]

I see a full moon that might affect me and I see it on this post.
I can't dowse when there's a paula full moon out.
Throws me off.
The moon is always full, just because you don't see the dark side, doesn't mean it is not there. Light does not make more gravity.

Paul

:) :) :)

[edge]

But gravity makes more light.
:)

[EHocking]

{re: use of scales}...If all my theories are correct about how this is working then I will have it down to an art and a science.
I have to make sure, why no one has passed the test.
OK. I believe I have got your wish/approach to use of scales. Let me modify my proposed protocol to accomodate.

Could you please answer each of the numbered questions from my previous post? Again, to help refine a preliminary protocol that will suit all demands of a preliminary MDC.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2684798&postcount=1290

Apologies. I've just read your response and realised that you didn't sort the quoting function. I will reread it. Modify a protocol (overnight) in light of your answers and post here for discussion.

Are you OK with us thrashing out a protocol here in public?
Should we start a new thread to ONLY discuss the ins and outs of a protocol once I have edge's acknowledgement that I've captured his claim correctly?

[Paulhoff]

But gravity makes more light.
:)
NOT

Paul

:) :) :)

[EHocking]

EHockings says,


For my use only.

Only if it's the JREF member, that hangs with me, if they allow it, or I'll have to get better glasses.
Basically I can tell by the position of the arrow indicator.
What we were doing is trying to get it down to specifics.
But there are variables even using the scales.
I can work with that either way.Would you be willing, if a balance/scales are absolutely necessary, for me to propose a type of scale that is just as sensitive, but is easier to read?

ie. a scale/balance over the target area that you can read without aid of an assistant?

Something like a spring balance : http://www.scales-r-us.com/images/abbagreen-model-16-l.jpg . for the test we could mark with paint/highlight, 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, etc ounces on it and you would not require an assistant.

This is mere a quick google. I could probably find something more suitable - but if we can find a suitably sensitive scales/balance that you can read from 3 ft (ie length of the dowsing rod) would that be ok?

Or this digital one? http://www.scales-r-us.com/images/kern-mh10-10kg-hanging-scale-l.jpg (http://www.scales-r-us.com/images/kern-mh10-10kg-hanging-scale-l.jpg) . Divisions are 10g = 0.35 ounces.

I have no doubt we could finance this.

*I* would pay the £30 on the proviso the test went ahead.

[Spektator]

I think edge should be encouraged by the results of the demonstration--but again, in a test like this, it's only fair to count the actual hits, especially if the dowser has reason to believe that the target will be absent more than it is present. Otherwise it's too much like the coin-flip example.

Good luck on clarifying the protocol! I can't think of anything much else to add than the suggestions I made earlier.

[GimmePepsi]

Please read my pdf. Reno's post, while capturing the text accurately, does not include my pics which I think are essential to understanding the whole write-up.

I still don't get anywhere when I click your pdf link. I just get "The web page you are trying to access doesn't exist on Yahoo! GeoCities." I've been trying since yesterday.

[edge]

Something like a spring balance : http://www.scales-r-us.com/images/ab...model-16-l.jpg . for the test we could mark with paint/highlight, 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, etc ounces on it and you would not require an assistant.

Yes that's a good one.

The other one is cool too.

They will have one of the JREF team members shadow me anyway.

One real good tell would be if I stood on a scale to see if I could affect it?
If there is a real force then there should be a change.
It would have to tell in small increments.
I would have to stand real still get the base line then make the reaction happen.
Like Spektator said shifting and moving changes them easily.
I need to use a scale like they have at most recycle places.
Something to keep in the back of my head.
The whole dowsing stick that I have is about, 25 inches long.
Getting old sucks I probably need Bifocals now.

Yes I backed up and tried the link and it still doesn’t come up.
Try this one, 50 MB disk space, this may give you more space ?

http://www.freeservers.com/
I can't believe that I have a web site still, wow.
I'll have to see if I can find the others I practiced building them at several different ones and different ways.
It appears to be a good way to use and store text and photos on remote servers. I must have five or so and it's been 5 years.

Here’s the link.
http://dowsingforgold.freeservers.com/

[EHocking]

Something like a spring balance : http://www.scales-r-us.com/images/ab...model-16-l.jpg . for the test we could mark with paint/highlight, 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, etc ounces on it and you would not require an assistant.

Yes that's a good one.

The other one is cool too.

They will have one of the JREF team members shadow me anyway.

One real good tell would be if I stood on a scale to see if I could affect it?No it is not. too many variables and not indicative of your claim.

Please stick to one claim at a time.

I will only be working on your claim that you can dowse one target from 10 choices, 70% of the time.

Please stop derailing your OWN protocol thread.

[edge]

It's for me not the test but after sleeping on it It should prove to be true also.
Just more insentive in a positive manner.

Hey do you guys know if I can run two seperate windows on two different drivers, drive c and drive e.
Millinnium and XP.
The XP would be strickly for the camcorder moives.
I would'nt have to crash the whole thing.

[EHocking]

It's for me not the test but after sleeping on it It should prove to be true also.
Just more insentive in a positive manner.

Hey do you guys know if I can run two seperate windows on two different drivers, drive c and drive e.
Millinnium and XP.
The XP would be strickly for the camcorder moives.
I would'nt have to crash the whole thing. Lose Millenium. Put your apps and system on one drive and use the other for video storage and, if you have the room, the video processing while editing.

[William Smith]

So, you seem to have everything in place, edge.

What did the JREF respond?

[edge]

I think this is all she needs, Makes me wonder about her knowledge

of the test?

Thank you for the clarification. from before.
Next question,

Will you be able to identify the substance in the film cannister? Or merely say if there is a substance or not?

Thank you again,

JREF Challenge Desk

My response,
Hi Alison,
You ask,
Will you be able to identify the substance in the film
canister? Or merely say if there is a substance or
not?
I will identify only the gold or silver, and I have to
know for my self that it's void of metals.

Only the target will be identified.

The target metals will appear ten times in random
order
once in each set of ten.

Mike

They know this?

EHocking said,
Lose Millenium. Put your apps and system on one drive and use the other for video storage and, if you have the room, the video processing while editing.

Me,
Yes the slave drive will have plenty, plus plenty for storage.
It will be strickly for pics. and movies.

[William Smith]

I think this is all she needs, Makes me wonder about her knowledge

of the test?

Thank you for the clarification. from before.
Next question,

Will you be able to identify the substance in the film cannister? Or merely say if there is a substance or not?

Thank you again,

JREF Challenge Desk

My response,
Hi Alison,
You ask,
Will you be able to identify the substance in the film
canister? Or merely say if there is a substance or
not?
I will identify only the gold or silver, and I have to
know for my self that it's void of metals.

Only the target will be identified.

The target metals will appear ten times in random
order
once in each set of ten.

Mike

They know this?

EHocking said,
Lose Millenium. Put your apps and system on one drive and use the other for video storage and, if you have the room, the video processing while editing.

Me,
Yes the slave drive will have plenty, plus plenty for storage.
It will be strickly for pics. and movies.

Once again, I do not understand what this post is about. I could guess, though.
Edge, can you get around to use the quote button?

[Spektator]

Edge, I think what is being asked is this:

Will you identify gold? Will you identify silver? Or will you just identify the target as having gold or silver present?

That is, you dowse a container. Your dowsing rod indicates to you that it has a target in it. Which of these do you then say?

1. "This container has one of the target metals in it."

2. "This container has silver in it."

or

3. "This container has gold in it."


If you feel you can distinguish between silver and gold, that might be something you'd want to add to the protocol. If you cannot distinguish between gold and silver the protocol should specify that, too.

If the target that you want to have put in the container in fact has BOTH gold and silver in it, you should specify that.

[EHocking]

The target metals will appear ten times in random
order
once in each set of ten.
A couple of more questions for you edge.

1. Will the target be gold or silver?

2. Will the target be a nugget, ingot, flakes or jewelry, or a combination?

3. What is the minimum weight you need to use?

4. What is the intended weight you will use?

5. When the canisters are stored away from the test site, do they need to be separated from each other? If so, what distance is required between the canisters when they're being "stored"

6. How far from the test site can the "storage" location be. This location is where the random selection of canisters is arranged.

7. How much time does the test site need to be clear of targets between each pass? You mentioned that it needs time to settle (or similar wording).

8. How much time do you need for each pass over each canister to divine it's nature. Please give min / max estimate.

9. Lastly, and it's a biggie, if you had to do the test with 10 canisters at a time placed in a test area, how far apart would each of the canisters be from each other so as not to interfere?

The reason for 9 is that, I estimate that the protocol you are preferring (one test site, one canister at a time) might take 10mins per pass. That equates to 100mins per trial of 10 passes.

Or 20 hours for the Preliminary Challenge - it would have to be 10 hours a day over 2 days to perform this part of the Challenge.

That's 10 hours with no breaks.

I just don't think it's feasible.
You claim that the process is fatiguing - I can't see you doing this for 10 hours.
Over 10 hours *others* will get tired and this will lead to mistakes in recording and sticking to the protocol.

If you want to get this done - I would suggest deciding on the minimum area for point 9. That is, 10 canisters in one place at one time.

A trial like that could be completed in only 3hrs TOTAL.

I have a protocol for your preferred method - but it is way too time consuming and I don't think anyone will agree to it (for the reasons above).

10. Alternative would be to select 1 from 5 at a time - but that would require 80% success for the Preliminary and 100% for the $1MM

11. The Sticker. If you were to pass the Preliminary stage (above), the success rate for the Final stage and the $1MM requires an 80% success rate, ie 8 right from 10 trials.

If you claim that your success rate is only 70%, how do you expect to win the Final stage for the $1MM?

[edge]

EHocking says,
A couple of more questions for you edge.

1. Will the target be gold or silver?

2. Will the target be a nugget, ingot, flakes or jewelry, or a combination?

3. What is the minimum weight you need to use?

4. What is the intended weight you will use?

5. When the canisters are stored away from the test site, do they need to be separated from each other? If so, what distance is required between the canisters when they're being "stored"

6. How far from the test site can the "storage" location be. This location is where the random selection of canisters is arranged.

7. How much time does the test site need to be clear of targets between each pass? You mentioned that it needs time to settle (or similar wording).

8. How much time do you need for each pass over each canister to divine it's nature. Please give min / max estimate.

9. Lastly, and it's a biggie, if you had to do the test with 10 canisters at a time placed in a test area, how far apart would each of the canisters be from each other so as not to interfere?

The reason for 9 is that, I estimate that the protocol you are preferring (one test site, one canister at a time) might take 10mins per pass. That equates to 100mins per trial of 10 passes.

Or 20 hours for the Preliminary Challenge - it would have to be 10 hours a day over 2 days to perform this part of the Challenge.

That's 10 hours with no breaks.

I just don't think it's feasible.
You claim that the process is fatiguing - I can't see you doing this for 10 hours.
Over 10 hours *others* will get tired and this will lead to mistakes in recording and sticking to the protocol.

If you want to get this done - I would suggest deciding on the minimum area for point 9. That is, 10 canisters in one place at one time.

A trial like that could be completed in only 3hrs TOTAL.

I have a protocol for your preferred method - but it is way too time consuming and I don't think anyone will agree to it (for the reasons above).

10. Alternative would be to select 1 from 5 at a time - but that would require 80% success for the Preliminary and 100% for the $1MM

11. The Sticker. If you were to pass the Preliminary stage (above), the success rate for the Final stage and the $1MM requires an 80% success rate, ie 8 right from 10 trials.

If you claim that your success rate is only 70%, how do you expect to win the Final stage for the $1MM?



1 It can be whatever combination.

2 Same as above.

3 Doesn't matter but over a quarter ounce.

4 If it's all gold a quarter once or more.

5 No they can be together but they need to be at least 30 feet away, especially the target.

6 At least 30 feet.

7 Two to four minutes.

8 If it's a good spot or better than where SezMe and I tested a couple of minutes.

9 Can't be done all at once But you never know, that way I would have to move the scales each time on all ten spots, they would all have different base line numbers and we would need to know all of this.
It would take much longer.


10 It might only take 3-4 hours to do half then the next day the same.
For the final test, the same thing.


If you claim that your success rate is only 70%, how do you expect to win the Final stage for the $1MM?

On the right piece of ground I might get it all correct.

If I got the first five right then the next 1 through 10 would require the 80 % which would shorten the test.

We are otherwise looking at 4, 4 hour days Then again it might be only one day if the numbers go like this,
I miss 4 times off the bat, it's over.

This is why if they send 2 representatives we could take our time, after all it’s for a million bucks, If they are really interested to know, but I would have to talk to the owner at the resort and line that out then it could happen while I mine there in September.
I would pay for it with my half of the gold we mine.
The JREF would have to then have film on it, which is entirely up to them.
I don't know how much they would trust their reps.

I would spend lets say 2 hours a day then go dredge to pay for it all.
Then the next day do the test for 2 hours and then mine and so forth.
However it depends on what kind of a deal I can make with him 'the owner".
They would get to stay for about 5 or 6 days.

I will probably have to go to Fort Lauderdale and find a park or a spot on the beach.
In this way they can meet with me and go home or back to the office.

I will pay for their stay and their food all they have to do is get here.

It might be a good mini vacation for James and some one willing, or who ever to be here.
I figured Tricky or SezMe could, but who ever the volunteers would be, would have to be cleared by the JREF.

We can do anything.

The two options they have, come here or I go to Florida.
September or October would be Ideal in either location.
October in Florida.

It won't be so hot out side and September is the month that I can be at the resort," The Bonanza Creek resort".

I’m not going to be rushed this time.



Spectator says, Edge, I think what is being asked is this:

Will you identify gold? Will you identify silver? Or will you just identify the target as having gold or silver present?

That is, you dowse a container. Your dowsing rod indicates to you that it has a target in it. Which of these do you then say?

1. "This container has one of the target metals in it."

2. "This container has silver in it."

or

3. "This container has gold in it."


If you feel you can distinguish between silver and gold, that might be something you'd want to add to the protocol. If you cannot distinguish between gold and silver the protocol should specify that, too.

If the target that you want to have put in the container in fact has BOTH gold and silver in it, you should specify that.


Remember the last test I had combinations in one container and they weren’t concerned so one container will hold both or one of the metals.

The person that I'm communicating with "Alison" should already know this.

As long as I have one of my team members with one of their team members and one with me, I have no problem.

[William Smith]

EHocking says,




1 It can be whatever combination.

2 Same as above.

3 Doesn't matter but over a quarter ounce.

4 If it's all gold a quarter once or more.

5 No they can be together but they need to be at least 30 feet away, especially the target.

6 At least 30 feet.

7 Two to four minutes.

8 If it's a good spot or better than where SezMe and I tested a couple of minutes.

9 Can't be done all at once But you never know, that way I would have to move the scales each time on all ten spots, they would all have different base line numbers and we would need to know all of this.
It would take much longer.


10 It might only take 3-4 hours to do half then the next day the same.
For the final test, the same thing.




On the right piece of ground I might get it all correct.

If I got the first five right then the next 1 through 10 would require the 80 % which would shorten the test.

We are otherwise looking at 4, 4 hour days Then again it might be only one day if the numbers go like this,
I miss 4 times off the bat, it's over.

This is why if they send 2 representatives we could take our time, after all it’s for a million bucks, If they are really interested to know, but I would have to talk to the owner at the resort and line that out then it could happen while I mine there in September.
I would pay for it with my half of the gold we mine.
The JREF would have to then have film on it, which is entirely up to them.
I don't know how much they would trust their reps.

I would spend lets say 2 hours a day then go dredge to pay for it all.
Then the next day do the test for 2 hours and then mine and so forth.
However it depends on what kind of a deal I can make with him 'the owner".
They would get to stay for about 5 or 6 days.

I will probably have to go to Fort Lauderdale and find a park or a spot on the beach.
In this way they can meet with me and go home or back to the office.

I will pay for their stay and their food all they have to do is get here.

It might be a good mini vacation for James and some one willing, or who ever to be here.
I figured Tricky or SezMe could, but who ever the volunteers would be, would have to be cleared by the JREF.

We can do anything.

The two options they have, come here or I go to Florida.
September or October would be Ideal in either location.
October in Florida.

It won't be so hot out side and September is the month that I can be at the resort," The Bonanza Creek resort".

I’m not going to be rushed this time.



Spectator says,

Remember the last test I had combinations in one container and they weren’t concerned so one container will hold both or one of the metals.

The person that I'm communicating with "Alison" should already know this.

As long as I have one of my team members with one of their team members and one with me, I have no problem.

How did you come up with the answer to #6?

If you propose to go to Florida in October, I assume you mean 2007, doesn't that make your whole fuss - which has now stretched for months (!) - about the "perfect" location/spot meaningless?



Also, a testing team very likely will not agree to a test duration of five or six days. You know that.

You also know - very well - that you have to pay for all expenses. These demands/propositions smell of you wanting to have your proposal rejected.



Why not simply go to Fort Lauderdale and do your thing?
Is it the attention you're getting?
Is it the bathing in the light of James Randi?
Is it the joy of leading people like us in circles over and over and over?
Is it the deeply rooted fear of knowing that you have chased a delusion for like 20 years?



There's a million dollars waiting for you, edge.

Do what you claim to be able to do and they're yours.

[EHocking]

No wonder Alison is having problems understanding - you can't even answer all my questions, and I understand what you want....

I'll summariseEHocking says,
1. Will the target be gold or silver?
1 It can be whatever combination.

Please state precisely how you will come up with the combination.
2. Will the target be a nugget, ingot, flakes or jewelry, or a combination?
2 Same as above.
This is NOT the same as above.
Question was: Nugget, ingot, flakes, jewelry or a combination? ie, what state will the metals be in?
3. What is the minimum weight you need to use?
3 Doesn't matter but over a quarter ounce.
It does matter - you state the dummy targets must be of equal weight to the gold/silver target. So is that 1/4oz minimum or OVER 1/4oz minimum?
4. What is the intended weight you will use?
4 If it's all gold a quarter once or more.
If it is all silver. What is the intended weight you will use?
If it is a combination of gold and silver. What is the intended weight you will use?
5. When the canisters are stored away from the test site, do they need to be separated from each other?
5 No they can be together but they need to be at least 30 feet away, especially the target.
OK
6. How far from the test site can the "storage" location be.
6 At least 30 feet.
OK
7. How much time does the test site need to be clear of targets between each pass?
7 Two to four minutes.
Good. A simple kitchen timer will suffice for that.
8. How much time do you need for each pass over each canister to divine it's nature. Please give min / max estimate.
8 If it's a good spot or better than where SezMe and I tested a couple of minutes.
Please state minimum and maximum time, as asked.
9. Lastly, and it's a biggie, if you had to do the test with 10 canisters at a time placed in a test area, how far apart would each of the canisters be from each other so as not to interfere?

9 Can't be done all at once But you never know, that way I would have to move the scales each time on all ten spots, they would all have different base line numbers and we would need to know all of this.
It would take much longer.
Please answer the question asked.
If it HAD to be done with 10 targets at a time, how far apart would they need to be placed?
10. Alternative would be to select 1 from 5 at a time - but that would require 80% success for the Preliminary and 100% for the $1MM
10 It might only take 3-4 hours to do half then the next day the same.
For the final test, the same thing.
Question was, would you be willing to try for 1 from 5 targets each time, given the success rates that I quoted you would need to pass?

Please answer the question posed.
11. The Sticker. If you were to pass the Preliminary stage (above), the success rate for the Final stage and the $1MM requires an 80% success rate, ie 8 right from 10 trials.

If you claim that your success rate is only 70%, how do you expect to win the Final stage for the $1MM?
On the right piece of ground I might get it all correct.
It's your money....
If I got the first five right then the next 1 through 10 would require the 80 % which would shorten the test.

We are otherwise looking at 4, 4 hour days Then again it might be only one day if the numbers go like this,
I miss 4 times off the bat, it's over. .
Since this is a double-blind test, during the test no one will know the results. Therefore don't even bother speculating with this sort of thing. The total number of trials agreed upon will all be performed before any results are known.

I cannot see anyone agreeing to a 4 day test for such a simple claim.

Do yourself a favour and find a site where 10 canisters can be placed at a time. (See Q9)
This is why if they send 2 representatives we could take our time, after all it’s for a million bucks, If they are really interested to know, but I would have to talk to the owner at the resort and line that out then it could happen while I mine there in September.
I would pay for it with my half of the gold we mine.
The JREF would have to then have film on it, which is entirely up to them.
I don't know how much they would trust their reps.

I would spend lets say 2 hours a day then go dredge to pay for it all.
Then the next day do the test for 2 hours and then mine and so forth.
However it depends on what kind of a deal I can make with him 'the owner".
They would get to stay for about 5 or 6 days.No. THis will not happen, for the reasons I gave earlier and for the fact that JREF reps are not doing this for a holiday.

Please drop this line of thought. The test needs to be able to be completed in one day, one sitting.
I will probably have to go to Fort Lauderdale and find a park or a spot on the beach.
In this way they can meet with me and go home or back to the office. You can't find one site in your own backyard after a year, yet you can find a spot in Florida just like that?

Please show a little consistency.

Answer Q9.

Pick a site.

Pick a site where 10 canisters can be put down at one time.

Propose a protocol that will only take 3hrs and not 4 days and THEN you have a Challenge.

Everything else appears to be avoidance.

I'm attempting to *help* you here - I could do with a little of your co-operation.

[edge]

My protocol stands.
I can go to them or they can come to me.
The test can be as long as necessary.
If I get 5 out of ten it will be on the way to the next five.
Ten tries.
It can prove what ever they want, 5 of 5 or what ever.
Don't make it harder than it is only two things have changed the one spot and the scales.
So far the only thing left, is what I posted earlier in the e-mail and the place, and time....

If I do it your way we are back to the same test that you want me to rush through.

I had four different targets the last time all in one container.

You can't find one site in your own backyard after a year, yet you can find a spot in Florida just like that?


Just like that, we are talking about a void spot in an area.
The gold is easier to find.
One spot is doable.

It's not they will interfere but what's in the spot to begin with.
The canisters can be moved it’s what's in the ground that cannot be moved, so I get to pick one spot.

The flaw in the original set up is that you are not and I repeat, NOT going to find ten neutral spots in any near by area, that’s the flaw that can’t be over come.
So far there hasn’t been a totally Neutral spot yet, that I can find so I have to look at the base line as low as possible and the read the scale from the target metals, the highest I can get for a target, the more the more noticeable the deeper the scales will go and faster.
My protocol stands.
I can go to them or they can come to me.
The test can be as long as necessary.
If I get 5 out of ten it will be on the way to the next five.
Ten tries. It can prove what ever they want, 5 of 5 or what ever.
Don't make it harder than it is only two things have changed the one spot and the scales.
So far the only thing left is what I posted earlier in the e-mail and the place and when....

If I do it your way we are back to the same test that you want me to rush through.
I had four different targets the last time all in one container.

{quote]You can't find one site in your own backyard after a year, yet you can find a spot in Florida just like that?

[/quote]Just like that we are talking about a void spot in an area they exist down there too, but not ten just for their convenience..
It's not they will interfere but what's in the spot to begin with. The canisters can be moved what's in the ground cannot, so I get to pick one spot.

Remember they said there is no measurable force.
So they shouldn't be worried?

This is to my advantage….

In this way I may prove it………….

To do the test in its original way is a farce.
Do you get it now EHocking?
Dan and I where able to do sets of 30,30 and 40 in three days I may be able to do 50 a day then I’m done.
Going fast when drained of power and tired is a losing proposition.
That’s another flaw.
I must for this test go at the pace I described.
SezMes set of ten was the forth for the day. All high numbers.
Any more than that and I start scoring lower.
I know what I’m doing if you want to rewrite it,
get on my side?
And besides I don't think they are worried as I will only get 1 of ten hits right.
According to them.
They won't care about any of the numbers or what I'm getting from it, {the scales}.

[William Smith]

No wonder Alison is having problems understanding - you can't even answer all my questions, and I understand what you want....

I'll summarise

Please state precisely how you will come up with the combination.

This is NOT the same as above.
Question was: Nugget, ingot, flakes, jewelry or a combination? ie, what state will the metals be in?

It does matter - you state the dummy targets must be of equal weight to the gold/silver target. So is that 1/4oz minimum or OVER 1/4oz minimum?

If it is all silver. What is the intended weight you will use?
If it is a combination of gold and silver. What is the intended weight you will use?

OK

OK

Good. A simple kitchen timer will suffice for that.

Please state minimum and maximum time, as asked.

Please answer the question asked.
If it HAD to be done with 10 targets at a time, how far apart would they need to be placed?

Question was, would you be willing to try for 1 from 5 targets each time, given the success rates that I quoted you would need to pass?

Please answer the question posed.

It's your money....

Since this is a double-blind test, during the test no one will know the results. Therefore don't even bother speculating with this sort of thing. The total number of trials agreed upon will all be performed before any results are known.

I cannot see anyone agreeing to a 4 day test for such a simple claim.

Do yourself a favour and find a site where 10 canisters can be placed at a time. (See Q9)
No. THis will not happen, for the reasons I gave earlier and for the fact that JREF reps are not doing this for a holiday.

Please drop this line of thought. The test needs to be able to be completed in one day, one sitting.
You can't find one site in your own backyard after a year, yet you can find a spot in Florida just like that?

Please show a little consistency.

Answer Q9.

Pick a site.

Pick a site where 10 canisters can be put down at one time.

Propose a protocol that will only take 3hrs and not 4 days and THEN you have a Challenge.

Everything else appears to be avoidance.

I'm attempting to *help* you here - I could do with a little of your co-operation.

This was a humongous and thorough effort, EHocking. Precise and clinical.



And that was edge's response: (I edited EHocking's quote in, using the quote button properly. I also edited out edge's handtyped quote marks, because they did not allow to display his post as a quote.)

My protocol stands.
I can go to them or they can come to me.
The test can be as long as necessary.
If I get 5 out of ten it will be on the way to the next five.
Ten tries.
It can prove what ever they want, 5 of 5 or what ever.
Don't make it harder than it is only two things have changed the one spot and the scales.
So far the only thing left, is what I posted earlier in the e-mail and the place, and time....

If I do it your way we are back to the same test that you want me to rush through.

I had four different targets the last time all in one container.

...
You can't find one site in your own backyard after a year, yet you can find a spot in Florida just like that?...

Just like that, we are talking about a void spot in an area.
The gold is easier to find.
One spot is doable.

It's not they will interfere but what's in the spot to begin with.
The canisters can be moved it’s what's in the ground that cannot be moved, so I get to pick one spot.

The flaw in the original set up is that you are not and I repeat, NOT going to find ten neutral spots in any near by area, that’s the flaw that can’t be over come.
So far there hasn’t been a totally Neutral spot yet, that I can find so I have to look at the base line as low as possible and the read the scale from the target metals, the highest I can get for a target, the more the more noticeable the deeper the scales will go and faster.
My protocol stands.
I can go to them or they can come to me.
The test can be as long as necessary.
If I get 5 out of ten it will be on the way to the next five.
Ten tries. It can prove what ever they want, 5 of 5 or what ever.
Don't make it harder than it is only two things have changed the one spot and the scales.
So far the only thing left is what I posted earlier in the e-mail and the place and when....

If I do it your way we are back to the same test that you want me to rush through.
I had four different targets the last time all in one container.

...
You can't find one site in your own backyard after a year, yet you can find a spot in Florida just like that?...

Just like that we are talking about a void spot in an area they exist down there too, but not ten just for their convenience..
It's not they will interfere but what's in the spot to begin with. The canisters can be moved what's in the ground cannot, so I get to pick one spot.

Remember they said there is no measurable force.
So they shouldn't be worried?

This is to my advantage….

In this way I may prove it………….

To do the test in its original way is a farce.
Do you get it now EHocking?
Dan and I where able to do sets of 30,30 and 40 in three days I may be able to do 50 a day then I’m done.
Going fast when drained of power and tired is a losing proposition.
That’s another flaw.
I must for this test go at the pace I described.
SezMes set of ten was the forth for the day. All high numbers.
Any more than that and I start scoring lower.
I know what I’m doing if you want to rewrite it,
get on my side?
And besides I don't think they are worried as I will only get 1 of ten hits right.
According to them.
They won't care about any of the numbers or what I'm getting from it, {the scales}.



I quote edge response to EHocking's inquiry again. It bears repeating, because his answer sums up edge's ability and willingness to devise a mutually agreed upon testing protocol for a possible reward of USD 1,000,000 perfectly:

...
You can't find one site in your own backyard after a year, yet you can find a spot in Florida just like that?...

...
Just like that, we are talking about a void spot in an area.
The gold is easier to find.
One spot is doable.
...



And edge's other response in the same post to the same inquiry:

...
You can't find one site in your own backyard after a year, yet you can find a spot in Florida just like that?...

...
Just like that we are talking about a void spot in an area they exist down there too, but not ten just for their convenience..
It's not they will interfere but what's in the spot to begin with. The canisters can be moved what's in the ground cannot, so I get to pick one spot.
...
As far as being obtuse, trying to confuse and choosing to lose (using a ruse cruising on booze?) almost all traces of clarity, edge seems the runaway winner.

Edge, you are amazing...ly dense.

[EHocking]

My protocol stands....You don't have a protocol. This is what I'm attempting to help you with.

As far as I can see, with your insistence on a single test site for one canister at a time, you only have one choice of how to be tested.


2 canisters.
1 with a target.
Dowse one at a time - say yes or no.For the [/b]Preliminary[/b] test you will need 15 correct from 15 passes.

For the Final test you will need 28 correct from 30 passes.

From the times for each stage that you have proposed, the Ppreliminary will take (min) 2.5 hours and the Final, 5 hours.

Consider the success rate required.

Would you be able to achieve the required success rates?

If yes, I'll write up the double-blind protocol I have devised for it.

[edge]

Instead of ten spots on the ground that I pick and say
are good for a container to be placed on, ten of them.

I pick one spot and you will set one of the containers
on that spot one at a time, they are on the ground.

There are no ten spots anywhere that will work at
once.
I will only find one.
The way I do this is scan an area and find the weakest
spot or attraction or reaction.
No metals under me to confuse with a response as a
target.
As close to neutral as possible a dead zone, blank
spot, a place were IF I WHERE MINING , I wouldn’t
mine.
So that there is a difference, that’s readable by a
scale, that’s hanging off a tripod, over the spot that
I choose.
I the idea is that I will get very little pull on the
stick and when attached to the scale what I’m looking
for is a reading that’s less than a quarter of an
once.
When the target is there I need it to show more.

I may find one neutral spot, where the targets empty or
not can sit on, one at a time and pick the one with the
metal, silver, gold what ever the target maybe.

Each pass of ten containers is one of ten passes
that's a total of 100 scans.

Each pass of 10 will have one target show up in any of
the random numbered container from one to ten.

There are ten cards you blindly chose one that will
represent the container that you will place the target
in.
While you are doing this I will be out of sight and
hearing range, here we used the house.

Each time you place a container in the spot I will
leave and you all will call me back when you have
switched the containers, 1 through 10.
Unless I pick lets say number 5 at that point that set
of ten is done and we will start with the next set of
10 after which you will choose a new card for the next
placement of metals or target.

The metal target should fit in a thirty five
millimeter film can, that will be placed into a 11
once coffee can all are plastic.

You can then use a placebo target that represents the
metal in volume or size to me its irrelevant. We can
have 9 more film cans with placebos that are void of
the metal and all can contain the same plastic or
rubber placebos. But it must be plastic or rubber.
Or to make it easy you can use bubble gum.

You can record anything you want, any way you want.

From this point I must hit 7 of 10 correct now what do
I have to do after this test to win?
How many more tests to prove?

Mike

So the test in this way is only hits on the target

You guys answered my last question, how many more tests, one more test with 8 out of 10 hits.

They asked this and I assume this is the last question other than where and when.


My response,
Hi Alison,
You ask,
Will you be able to identify the substance in the film
canister? Or merely say if there is a substance or
not?
I will identify only the gold or silver, and I have to
know for my self that it's void of metals.

Only the target will be identified.

The target metals will appear ten times in random
order
once in each set of ten.

Mike

They know this?

If you want to rewrite this go ahead.

Reno the only buffoon is you and your picture.

If they run the test this way they stand a good chance of losing, as far as duration it might be less that you think because the target could show up through the draw more in lower numbers of 1 through10.

If they can't understand this then they purposefully reject it but I think they won't because they arrogantly think they know it all like you, but unlike you, they will accept because they think that I will get very low score.

But then giving a dowser an even and honest chance may change their mind after all it's a lot of money that they bet on!
In this way we may prove that it works.

[Marcus]

You don't have a protocol. This is what I'm attempting to help you with.

As far as I can see, with your insistence on a single test site for one canister at a time, you only have one choice of how to be tested.


2 canisters.
1 with a target.
Dowse one at a time - say yes or no.For the [/b]Preliminary[/b] test you will need 15 correct from 15 passes.

For the Final test you will need 28 correct from 30 passes.

From the times for each stage that you have proposed, the Ppreliminary will take (min) 2.5 hours and the Final, 5 hours.

Consider the success rate required.

Would you be able to achieve the required success rates?

If yes, I'll write up the double-blind protocol I have devised for it.

How about it edge? EHocking has put forward a proposal for a protocol that can be done in a day, meets your requirements for a single spot , conforms to your stated time between passes, meets the odds for the preleminary(1 in 10,000) , and is likely to be acceptable. What would be the point for proposing protocols that you know are not acceptable?

[EHocking]

I will only address the salient points.

Each pass of ten containers is one of ten passes
that's a total of 100 scans.Using your "protocol" this will take 1,000 minutes, at 10 mins a pass. Minimum 17 hours. 2 x 8 hour days just to do the Preliminary> I doubt JREF will accept a test that takes this long.
Each time you place a container in the spot I will
leave and you all will call me back when you have
switched the containers, 1 through 10.
Unless I pick lets say number 5 at that point that set
of ten is done and we will start with the next set of
10 after which you will choose a new card for the next
placement of metals or target.Wrong. JREF will not and should not agree to this. You will have to "dowse" each and everyone of the test canisters.
If they run the test this way they stand a good chance of losing, as far as duration it might be less that you think because the target could show up through the draw more in lower numbers of 1 through10.You will have to dowse each of the 10 targets for each of the 10 trials. JREF should not accept that you can call one of the 10 trials "complete" if you do not dowse each and every canister.

If they can't understand this then they purposefully reject it but I think they won't because they arrogantly think they know it all like you, but unlike you, they will accept because they think that I will get very low score.YOU have changed the conditions of your proposal - JREF have not.

By adding the stipulation of the requirement for a single spot with canisters placed one at a time, and the need for you to use a mining balance, the only person making this difficult is you.
But then giving a dowser an even and honest chance may change their mind after all it's a lot of money that they bet on!Ah. The first accusation that JREF is cheating you - well done (that's sarcasm, by the way).
In this way we may prove that it works.Not if you won't accept honest attempts to help you devise a double-blind test.

And frankly, after your last reply to me, I'm just about out of patience with you.

I offer you help with this and all I get from you is in-my-face "do you get it Ehocking?"

[EHocking]

Here is my reason for saying you should be required to dowse each and every canister, edge.

Let's say on one of the trials you say that the FIRST canister has the target in it and then do not dowse the other 9.

When you fail the Preliminary test, JREF will be open to accusations of cheating in the test by "denying" you the opportunity to test all canisters.

Either by you, or by other detractors.

Ask JREF directly. Only that question.

If, during a trial of chosing 1 can from 10, you decide that you have identified the target, the remainder of the targets do not need to be dowsed by you.

Ask just that.

I'd be intrigued by their answer.

[William Smith]

...
If they run the test this way they stand a good chance of losing, as far as duration it might be less that you think because the target could show up through the draw more in lower numbers of 1 through10.

If they can't understand this then they purposefully reject it but I think they won't because they arrogantly think they know it all like you, but unlike you, they will accept because they think that I will get very low score.

But then giving a dowser an even and honest chance may change their mind after all it's a lot of money that they bet on!
In this way we may prove that it works.

Edge, what you call "arrogance" is nothing but the knowledge that "successful dowsing" would mean a new law of physics.
Hundreds of years of collecting a couple dozen exabytes of data suggest that "dowsing" does not work.

The arrogance is on you, edge.



And the chestnut "...honest chance..."? LO ****** L!!!

Are you already preemptively excusing the by yourself anticipated spectacular failure?

Do what you claim to be able to do and receive the Million Dollar Prize. It's that simple.

[William Smith]

How much longer are you guys going to try to get any sense out of this buffoon?

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa188/Sgianthebard/200px-Mr.jpg

As long as I can resist jamming a fork in my eye or shoving a spoon up my tuckus.



This thread should drive it home once and for all:
Do not, repeat, do not open a paranormal challenge to laypersons. (Of course it won't, but it should.)

[Paulhoff]

This thread should drive it home once and for all:
Do not, repeat, do not open a paranormal challenge to laypersons. (Of course it won't, but it should.)
The rules have been changed, edge must have gotten in under the wire.

Paul

:) :) :)

[William Smith]

The rules have been changed, edge must have gotten in under the wire.

Paul

:) :) :)

To be honest :D, edge has applied in time.

[Paulhoff]

To be honest :D, edge has applied in time.
Again......................... :rolleyes:

Paul

:) :) :)

[edge]

Let's say on one of the trials you say that the FIRST canister has the target in it and then do not dowse the other 9.
Then I’m either right or wrong aren’t I. Simple as that.
If they insist on me scanning the other 9 I can but what would be the reason for taking longer?



When you fail the Preliminary test, JREF will be open to accusations of cheating in the test by "denying" you the opportunity to test all canisters.


Then I fail, why would I want to test the rest?

If, during a trial of chosing 1 can from 10, you decide that you have identified the target, the remainder of the targets do not need to be dowsed by you.

Why would they? The next trial Can begin.
That saves time remember I’m looking for the gold when I find it I have accomplished the mission.
It doesn’t really matter as long as I can take notes from the scale.
As long as they pass on one spot I can dowse each of the containers, that won’t fool me.
I’m not opposed to scanning all of them but what would be the reason if I pick the target?
My way would be quicker, how much I don’t know because it’s random.

Edge, what you call "arrogance" is nothing but the knowledge that "successful dowsing" would mean a new law of physics.

Yes I know that’s why I figured this could be beneficial.


Hundreds of years of collecting a couple dozen exabytes of data suggest that "dowsing" does not work.

Yes isn’t it amazing and the parallel to that is hundreds of years of using it, that dowsing seems to work perfectly well in the field, If I had not gotten such good numbers while mining I would have to think that you are right but seeing is believing.
Especially standing on ground that has been worked to death by other miners and dowsers, that mine.
The task in these times is enormous even at the scale and especially on the scale of a recreational miner.
Now a days you can go broke on the cost of fuel alone.

Then patejdl says,

I'm handsome, I drive an 80's black porsche, run a comfortably successfull company, have a very good software soon to be released so yeah I think you are old :P

You should learn how to use spell check or Word.
And boy aren’t we full of ourselves?
Some one who runs a company should be able to spell.
Why on earth is a person like you quoting him?? Do you even know what is an orb??

What are orbs, is that what you mean?
Or, do you even know what an orb is?
I don’t give a crap what they are right now, Mr. Porsche. With a capital P.
I got two big ones.
It was over your head.

[SezMe]

There is a very simple protocol that avoids cannisters, locations, targets, the scale, calibration, etc. Think about the tool (i.e., the dowsing rod) not the target.

Fix the target to be something that edge's rod responds to dramatically. Say, for example, an ingot of gold borrowed from the Franklin Mint.* Set it out in plain sight and leave it there for all to see. Let edge dowse for it and show that his rod damn near breaks as it jerks into the vertical position. Remember, edge, like it did near the creek? Surely a gold ingot would cause the same reaction.

Now take the dime off the end of edge's rod and let him dowse for the ingot. Nothing will happen.

Now, each trial consists of putting a dime or a wooden substitute dime on the head of the dowsing rod in a way that edge cannot tell which it is (this would be very simple). Now let edge dowse the ingot. The rod will either snap downward instantly or it will do nothing. Each trial can be done in a minute or two with the dowsing in each trial limited to 1-2 seconds. This eliminates the fatigue factor on edge's part. And it will be obvious to anyone what the result is.

That said, I'm kinda with Reno here. I don't believe any test is going to take place and all the effort to get an airtight protocol here is just wasted time. I think you, edge, should quit screwing around here and get down to serious discussions with Randi. All this dithering here is just giving you an excuse for not getting on with getting on.

* I'm just exaggerating with the gold ingot. But any large chunk of metal that edge's dowsing rod reacts dramatically to will do.

[EHocking]

Let's say on one of the trials you say that the FIRST canister has the target in it and then do not dowse the other 9.
Then I’m either right or wrong aren’t I. Simple as that.
If they insist on me scanning the other 9 I can but what would be the reason for taking longer?
Have you asked JREF if they would be willing to conduct the test in this manner?

[EHocking]

{stream of consciousness removed}
It seems to me the only concern was to find the target as the correct hit out of ten sets of ten.
Which I agreed on.
All I’m waiting on is an ok.
Then a time and date can be set along with a location.
The next window of opportunity is September or October.
Have you asked JREF if they will accept that a trial is "complete" when you have chosen the gold target, and do not wish to dowse the rest of the 10 canisters?

[edge]

Have you asked JREF if they will accept that a trial is "complete" when you have chosen the gold target, and do not wish to dowse the rest of the 10 canisters?


Let me narrow it down for as I give them the option either way to save time.
I’m sure they are beyond that and have asked the last question which had to do with the score deriving from picking out only the metals.
You said save time there it is!
Protocal states,

Each pass of ten containers is one of ten passes
that's a total of 100 scans.

Each pass of 10 will have one target show up in any of
the random numbered container from one to ten.

Each time you place a container in the spot I will
leave and you all will call me back when you have
switched the containers, 1 through 10.
Unless I pick lets say number 5 at that point that set
of ten is done and we will start with the next set of
10 after which you will choose a new card for the next
placement of metals or target.

They surly must understand this as I understand it even more, in this way I save my energy, and can go for a longer set of tests.

Only you are Questioning it.

[Oualawouzou]

You don't have a protocol. This is what I'm attempting to help you with.

As far as I can see, with your insistence on a single test site for one canister at a time, you only have one choice of how to be tested.


2 canisters.
1 with a target.
Dowse one at a time - say yes or no.For the [/b]Preliminary[/b] test you will need 15 correct from 15 passes.

For the Final test you will need 28 correct from 30 passes.

From the times for each stage that you have proposed, the Ppreliminary will take (min) 2.5 hours and the Final, 5 hours.

Consider the success rate required.

Would you be able to achieve the required success rates?

If yes, I'll write up the double-blind protocol I have devised for it.

Quoting this as I don't think Edge has mentionned already weither or not it would be an acceptable protocol.

[EHocking]

Let me narrow it down for as I give them the option either way to save time.
I’m sure they are beyond that and have asked the last question which had to do with the score deriving from picking out only the metals.
You said save time there it is!
Protocal states,


They surly must understand this as I understand it even more, in this way I save my energy, and can go for a longer set of tests.

Only you are Questioning it.I am not questioning the method. I asked if JREF have/will accept it.

If they will, I am willing to write a clear and concise, air tight, double-blind protocol for you to present to them so that you can get on with lining up a time and place with them.

I am NOT questioning you - I am offering to help you with the protocol process.

The questions I have been asking you for the past week or so have been to make sure that the protocol I present to you satisfies *your* conditions and is fair to *your* claim.

But it's not worth my while if the protocol will be rejected by JREF.

I'm one question away from writing this up for you - and that is.

Is JREF willing to accept this last condition from you?

If you don't want this help - say so now and I'll remove myself from this discussion.

[William Smith]

I am not questioning the method. I asked if JREF have/will accept it.

If they will, I am willing to write a clear and concise, air tight, double-blind protocol for you to present to them so that you can get on with lining up a time and place with them.

I am NOT questioning you - I am offering to help you with the protocol process.

The questions I have been asking you for the past week or so have been to make sure that the protocol I present to you satisfies *your* conditions and is fair to *your* claim.

But it's not worth my while if the protocol will be rejected by JREF.

I'm one question away from writing this up for you - and that is.

Is JREF willing to accept this last condition from you?

If you don't want this help - say so now and I'll remove myself from this discussion.

Exemplary, EHocking.



Edge?

[EHocking]

Quoting this as I don't think Edge has mentionned already weither or not it would be an acceptable protocol.If edge can get JREF to agree to his last condition (that is, once he's picked the gold target, that set of 10 is "complete" and he waivers the need to test the remainder), his original claim of 70% success in 10 trials may be practicable.

If they reject his suggestion, then 1 in 2 trial, with it's required higher success rate is the only reasonable solution.

Just waiting for edge to confirm JREF's acceptance/rejection of his latest condition.

Or edge telling me he doesn't want help to draw up a protocol.

[edge]

It's up to the JREF to accept or not and so far they haven't responded yet.
I wrote them yesterday,

Hi Alison,
I assume that was the last problem that you had.
I sent an answer.
When you agree to a protocol we can get on with the
next part which is time, location and place.

Mike

I wouldn't exclude my protocol yet, till I get an answer.
The way I will do the test isn't much different than the original design of the test, and if they want to take the time I will scan all of the containers.
My choice will still be my choice.

In other words EHocking wait and see.
My protocol is air tight for a true exhibition of dowsing and I will even if i don't pass get numbers that are higher than their 10% that they expect from all dowsing demonstrations.

[Spektator]

(snip)
My protocol is air tight for a true exhibition of dowsing and I will even if i don't pass get numbers that are higher than their 10% that they expect from all dowsing demonstrations.

edge, given that so many people in the forum haven't been able to understand your protocol, it may not be as clear as you think it is.

Also, exactly where does the JREF say that 10% is the norm for ALL dowsing demonstrations? I don't think that would be a tenable position for anyone. I can design a dowsing protocol that is all but guaranteed to give me 50% accuracy, more or less! It still wouldn't mean that dowsing works, though.

[EHocking]

...In other words EHocking wait and see.
My protocol is air tight for a true exhibition of dowsing and I will even if i don't pass get numbers that are higher than their 10% that they expect from all dowsing demonstrations.
... and THIS is why I have offered to help you. You know not of what you write.

10% is not JREF's expectation of success from all dowsing demonstrations.

It is YOUR misunderstanding of the test you are proposing to perform.

Yes, you are attempting to find 1 target in 10, BUT, they have stated that your 60% success rate is not better than that expected by random chance at odds of 1:10,000.

And that is why YOU changed you claim to be 70%.

A 10% success rate is NOT a demonstration of dowsing, just as your 90% success in the demonstration for SezMe was still well within what would be expected from random chance. In this case, not even at odds of 1:100.

[EHocking]

...The way I will do the test isn't much different than the original design of the test, and if they want to take the time I will scan all of the containers.
My choice will still be my choice.In this case, your choice is wrong.

If you halt a trial part way through testing where a target is from (say) 10 canisters, the trial is no longer double-blind.

Double-blind requires that neither the tester nor the testee knows the results until the test is complete.

By halting the test part way, ONE of the recorders will know which cans you are rejecting and which you are claiming to be the target.

And example. Say in a trial you state that the 4th can in the trial is the target and that trial is halted. One person (probably the randomiser) at the test area will know the numbers on the 3 canisters you feel are dummies and the number of the 4th can which you consider to be the target.

Now. Without getting into discussions of the feasibility of that knowledge somehow being imparted to other parties, or yourself during the Challenge, the fact that someone DOES know the results before the completion of the entire test breaches the conditions of a double-blind test.

By definition, your suggested protocol is not double-blinded.

Double-blind protocol is a condition of the Challenge.

In other words EHocking wait and see.
My protocol is air tight for a true exhibition of dowsing and I will even if i don't pass get numbers that are higher than their 10% that they expect from all dowsing demonstrations.
In other words edge, your protocol is NOT air tight, and JREF will reject it.

[IXP]

In this case, your choice is wrong.

If you halt a trial part way through testing where a target is from (say) 10 canisters, the trial is no longer double-blind.

Double-blind requires that neither the tester nor the testee knows the results until the test is complete.


I don't see any problem in stopping the trial early if Edge makes his determination early. The knowledge by the randomizer that Edge has failed or succeeeded on any given trial has no effect on the probabilities and is of no help to Edge. In fact Edge could be told after each set of 10 whether he succeeded or not and this would not affect the outcome.

The randomizer already has the information which COULD effect the test if communicated to Edge, i.e. which box the target is in. His extra knowledge of whether or not Edge succeeded on a given trial does not make the test any less blind.

IXP

[EHocking]

I don't see any problem in stopping the trial early if Edge makes his determination early. The knowledge by the randomizer that Edge has failed or succeeeded on any given trial has no effect on the probabilities and is of no help to Edge. In fact Edge could be told after each set of 10 whether he succeeded or not and this would not affect the outcome. Conditions for a blind test are that the person being tested is not given feedback on his success during the test.
The randomizer already has the information which COULD effect the test if communicated to Edge, i.e. which box the target is in. His extra knowledge of whether or not Edge succeeded on a given trial does not make the test any less blind.

IXPNot so in a double-blind test. The canisters will be sealed in front of everyone then put in a covered box. They would then be randomly selected from the box and then the NUMBERING of the canister would be randomly selected (drawing cards, drawing marbles, throwing dice, whatever).

In a DOUBLE blind test NO ONE knows where the target is until revealed at the end of the entire test.

The MDC stipulates that the test will be double-blinded.

Therefore:
1. No feedback to the person being tested.
2. No one knows which of the numbered canisters is the target before and during the Challenge trials.

[nathan]

1. No feedback to the person being tested.
2. No one knows which of the numbered canisters is the target before and during the Challenge trials.

I see that, but I don't see how Edge's desired short circuiting affects this. IIUC Edge's requirement here is that he wishes to:
a) spent 2-4 mins (or whatever it was) dowsing canisters [1..X]
b) spend zero minutes dowsing canisters (X..10]

X is the canister Edge thinks contains the target.
I don't see a requirement for him to be told at that point whether he's right or not. so I don't see how it affects the blindness.

[EHocking]

I see that, but I don't see how Edge's desired short circuiting affects this. IIUC Edge's requirement here is that he wishes to:
a) spent 2-4 mins (or whatever it was) dowsing canisters [1..X]
b) spend zero minutes dowsing canisters (X..10]

X is the canister Edge thinks contains the target.
I don't see a requirement for him to be told at that point whether he's right or not. so I don't see how it affects the blindness.Heh. I knew I'd have this conversation somewhere in the thread.

It's not the fact that he is given feedback, but the fact that those recording the results will have an indication of edge's selections.

As you say, edge dowses 1...X canisters, halting the experiment at X, as he considers this to be the target. Let's say, that X is canister No.4.

In a properly double-blinded test neither he nor the testers know if No.4 (or indeed canisters 1, 2 or 3) contain the target.

But...

The canisters ARE numbered. Therefore, when the test is halted at canister No.4, AT LEAST one of the recorders will know that in that trial, edge believe No.4 is the target and that Nos.1, 2 and 3 are dummies.

Not terribly significant, perhaps, but - if someone knows what number canisters edge selects or rejects, by definition, the test is no longer double-blind. SOMEONE knows the number on the canisters that are being selected/rejected.

Now there IS a slim (very slim, I admit) chance that this knowledge could be imparted to a 2nd tester and even edge.

Let's say in the next trial, canisters come up in the order 4, 3, 2, 1 (first was 1, 2, 3, 4).

Two scenarios.
1. edge halts at 1, 2 or 3. One of the recorders knows that he has not chosen the same canister (No.4) as the previous trial and AT LEAST one of his selections to date HAS to be wrong.
It is *possible* that the during the next trial, that person might indicate, with a smirk or grin or whatever, that he/she knows that edge has rejected or selected that canister from previous trials.

The double-blindness of the test is compromised.

2. edge halts at No.4 again. One of the recorders now knows that edge has selected the SAME canister twice in two trials. The fact that the recorder doesn't know whether it is or is not the target is of no consequence, that person STILL knows the result of edge's choice during the trial.

Again, the double-blindness of the test is compromised.

OK, so the probability that this person's knowledge of edge's pattern of selection can be passed on is slim, I don't deny that, but the fact is that the probability exists.

Just as there is a probability (admittedly 1:10,000) that edge will pass purely by random chance.

It may all sound a little anal - but the fact is, purely by the definition of a double-blind test, this Challenge cannot be performed in this manner.

[Jackalgirl]

I'm a little confused. The recorder is going to know which canisters edge selects or rejects every time; the recorder's job is to record this. Even if edge dowses all 10 containers and picks, say, container number 4, then the recorder knows that edge picked 4 and rejected (1 through 10 minus 4).

But neither the recorder nor edge will know whether that selection was correct until the very end, when the two lists (actual locations vs. dowsed locations) is compared.

Am I missing something here?

[EHocking]

I'm a little confused. The recorder is going to know which canisters edge selects or rejects every time; the recorder's job is to record this. Even if edge dowses all 10 containers and picks, say, container number 4, then the recorder knows that edge picked 4 and rejected (1 through 10 minus 4).

But neither the recorder nor edge will know whether that selection was correct until the very end, when the two lists (actual locations vs. dowsed locations) is compared.

Am I missing something here?Just the protol!:D

That's because the physical process hasn't been discussed here.

One way to double blind would be:

1 person does the randomisation. They place the target in a sealed container to be taken to the test site.

A 2nd person then takes the coffee tin and places it at the test site.

A 3rd is with edge at all times to make sure he's out of sight of all this.

Person 1 (randomiser) records only the order in which the numbered canisters are taken to the test site they do not record edge's guess, nor do they have access to that record during the running of the test.

Person 2 does not know the number in the tin, but records edge's guess.

Person 3 also records edge's guess - for verification by edge, and checking against person 2's record of the results.

In this scenario - if the test is halted part way through - the randomiser will know both the number of the canister AND edge's selection/rejection.

If all 10 canisters are tested, no one person will have both sets of data during the running of the test.

[petre]

Is there some reason why person 1 needs to observe Edge's testing? And if he/she does, how would Edge signal his selection to persons 2 & 3 without person 1's knowledge?

[EHocking]

Is there some reason why person 1 needs to observe Edge's testing? Quite the opposite. The person or persons that are performing the randomisation part of this test should be isolated from the test area so they cannot know what canister edge has selected as the target during the test.
This setup also suits edge, since he has stipulated that the canisters should be stored 30ft from the test site anyway.

And if he/she does, how would Edge signal his selection to persons 2 & 3 without person 1's knowledge?
OK, I'll try to outline the process that I would have written for edge if he'd taken up my offer.

Person or persons doing the randomisation (person 1 and (added) 1a) are isolated from the test area.

Person 2 (transporter) stays near the test area.

edge and person 3 are isolated from both the test area and the randomisation area.

edge has said that the test area must be left vacant of targets for 3 or so minutes, so:

Process would be that canisters ready to be used are stored in a box with a lid. Randomiser 1 (Person 1) selects a number from 1 to 10 by some random means (balls in a bag, say). Person 1 will instruct person 1a (2nd randomiser I've just introduced and I'm going to call a Packer) to place the canister in the tin and record the order that these numbers come out for each trial.

Packer (person 1a) will also note the number of the canister and the order in which it is introduced to the test area.

After the test the records of 1 and 1a will be used to verify the number and the order that the canisters are introduced to the test area.

Person 1a, once the canister is placed in the sealed coffee "tin" will then set a kitchen time for 3mins.

When the timer alarm goes off, this will be the signal for person 2 (transporter) to come from the test site, and transport the "tin" from the randomiser area to the test site.

He'll then blow a whistle and remain at the test site.

The whistle will be the signal for person 3 (guide) to bring edge from his rest area into the test area. After edge has made his divination, persons 2 & 3 will note his selection. edge will initial each selection as they are recorded on person 3's record sheet.

After the test the records of 2 and 3 will be used to verify the selections that edge has made during the test.

edge and person 3 retire to their test area between each "pass" over the "tin".

Person 2 takes the coffee tin back to the randomising area and returns to the test area.

Person 1a will remove the canister from the "tin" and place it in a separate lidded box.

Person 1 (randomiser) will then restart the process for the next pass.

This way, the randomising team (1 & 1a) are kept separate from the test area AND edge.

Person 2 is kept separate from the RANDOMISING process and edge.

edge is kept separate from the randomising process AND the test area between passes.


All the above would have been much clearer if edge had taken up my offer to have written this up as a formal protocol - but he has declined that offer to date.

[SezMe]

My protocol is a helluva lot simpler and easier to implement. Complete double-blinding can be done with only two people. And goes a lot quicker.

But, again, it doesn't matter because edge is not going to do a test.

[nathan]

In this scenario - if the test is halted part way through - the randomiser will know both the number of the canister AND edge's selection/rejection.
Thanks -- I didn't realize that was undesired. You need each divination to take a fixed time. There's nothing to say that Edge needs to actually dowse during that time. If dowsing is physically draining to Edge, all he need do for canisters (X,10] is wait and simply say 'not the target'.

I'm not sure whether Edge's objection to dowsing all 10 cans was (a) it makes the test longer or (b) dowsing is tiring. Hm, but then, if it is tiring and Edge is expecting on average to dowse 5 canisters to reach the target:

a) he has an out, should he end up dowsing all 10, and

b) there are far too few trials for the expected average number of dowses-per-trial to be narrowly concentrated at 5.

BTW, thanks for taking the time to try and get an understandable and waterproof protocol!

[EHocking]

My protocol is a helluva lot simpler and easier to implement. Complete double-blinding can be done with only two people. And goes a lot quicker.Quite true - but it doesn't test edge's claim, which is 70% success guessing 1 target hidden in 10. With the demonstration he did for you, for the MDC, he'd have to perform a minimum of 15 passes - and get 100%. And that's just for the Preliminary.

If edge agreed to that test and failed, it would merely give detractor ammunition to criticise JREF. It's in JREF's interest to test edge on the claim he makes.

Oh, time? Using the procedure above, at 10mins a pass (5mins to dowse, 3mins to "rest" the site, a couple to prepare the next sample), it would take a minimum 16hrs 40mins if done non-stop.
But, again, it doesn't matter because edge is not going to do a test.
Not if he insists on one target at a time, unless he agrees to a test similar to your demonstration.

[EHocking]

Thanks -- I didn't realize that was undesired. You need each divination to take a fixed time. There's nothing to say that Edge needs to actually dowse during that time. If dowsing is physically draining to Edge, all he need do for canisters (X,10] is wait and simply say 'not the target'.

I'm not sure whether Edge's objection to dowsing all 10 cans was (a) it makes the test longer or (b) dowsing is tiring. His objection is reasonable and logical, actually. Why bother dowsing the rest if he's already "found" the target? It's just that by halting a trial part way through SOMEONE can determine what choices he's making - so the test is no longer double-blind. Of course if all 10 canisters were placed and he did a pass over all of them, rather than placing them one at a time, double-blinding could be maintainedHm, but then, if it is tiring and Edge is expecting on average to dowse 5 canisters to reach the target:

a) he has an out, should he end up dowsing all 10, and

b) there are far too few trials for the expected average number of dowses-per-trial to be narrowly concentrated at 5.

BTW, thanks for taking the time to try and get an understandable and waterproof protocol!
I have a personal vested interest in this being under bullet-proof double-blind conditions.

Dowsing doesn't work and this would be yet another data point to support my position on dowsing;)

[EHocking]

I'm with SezMe and Reno on this one, everyones time would be better spent elsewhere than on this guy. Yes, it would be great if he'd take the test and we'd all get to see one way or the other, but the sun will be a cold, dark lump of coal by the time he agrees to a protocol.I agree. So does JREF - that is why they changed the Challenge to *them* pursuing public figures. This Challenge is a perfect example of why they took this route.

That said, though, edge has applied under the original rules. JREF, to maintain their integrity, are obliged to attempt to test him.

He was all smiles and happy confidence the first time he sat the prelim, and after that rude awakening he's been somewhat more reticent about formal testing since it shows up quite glaringly how it's all in his head. If by some miracle Edge actually sits the test I fear he will only be pushed into a deeper mental feedback loop. He'll end up exploding like Captain Kirk just talked him into destroying himself with his own logic.

May I also extend congratulations to GzuzKrzyt for his exceptionally well made points. Well put sir, you are now my personal robot-killing Captain. :)Seconded.

[edge]

Now here's a fun, but cruel, way to end my protocol. After the tests are completed, unknown to edge, return his dowsing rod to him with the fake dime taped to the head of the dowsing rod and let him go on his merry way. Then tell him a couple of weeks later to check his dowsing rod.

It like N-Rays were debunked. Oh, well, one can dream. :)

"cruel"Why do you need to be curel?
Remember what I said take the metal away and it reads for water.
That's the flaw with you're method.

EHocking say,
I have a personal vested interest in this being under bullet-proof double-blind conditions.

What might that be?
I'm sure that JREF will be on it and have that covered?
But please answer the question?

[edge]

First off every time that I make a guess the have to change the target and put it in a new canister, that happens after I make a choice and or ten targets pass the one spot, and I really don't care what the order is.
By changing the target they will know and the person with them will know where it is and if I choose correctly.
I'm not reading minds.
When I took the test in the office after scanning the ten targets JREF told me whether I choose correctly or not so you’re point is moot and besides I like to know how I am doing.
In this way the person I choose to be with the recorder will know also and there can’t be any shicanery.

[EHocking]

EHocking say, (re: vested interes)

What might that be?Read the sentence that you snipped. I explained myself in the post you are partially quoting.
But please answer the question?
edge meet irony (bordering on hypocrisy)
irony meet edge

[petre]

It seems to me that having the canisters get scanned by edge in a random order would remove any information person(s) 1 could gain if the tests were halted early, thereby preserving strict double-blinding.

I'd have to disagree with the math as well. My notes show that selecting 1 of 10 for 10 trials would put the odds of a 70% correct performance by chance at .0009% (7 correct trials out of the 10). At 10 minutes per trial, it seems well within the scope of an afternoon.

[EHocking]

It seems to me that having the canisters get scanned by edge in a random order would remove any information person(s) 1 could gain if the tests were halted early, thereby preserving strict double-blinding.But the number on each of the canisters will be recorded by at least one person, if not two.
If a trial is halted part way through - someone will know that edge has selected a particular numbered canister and rejected the preceding ones. It doesn't matter that they've been selected randomly, someone *will* know the results of the test before the test is concluded.

Double-blinding is not preserved.
I'd have to disagree with the math as well. My notes show that selecting 1 of 10 for 10 trials would put the odds of a 70% correct performance by chance at .0009% (7 correct trials out of the 10). At 10 minutes per trial, it seems well within the scope of an afternoon.10 passes for each trial
(remember he's doing them one by one - not sweeping over all 10 for each trial).
10 minutes per pass.
10 trials.

1000 minutes minimum.

[William Smith]

Pophoff don't be coming in here with you’re spells.

"cruel"Why do you need to be curel?
Remember what I said take the metal away and it reads for water.
That's the flaw with you're method.

EHocking say,

What might that be?
I'm sure that JREF will be on it and have that covered?
But please answer the question?

First off every time that I make a guess the have to change the target and put it in a new canister, that happens after I make a choice and or ten targets pass the one spot, and I really don't care what the order is.
By changing the target they will know and the person with them will know where it is and if I choose correctly.
I'm not reading minds.
When I took the test in the office after scanning the ten targets JREF told me whether I choose correctly or not so you’re point is moot and besides I like to know how I am doing.
In this way the person I choose to be with the recorder will know also and there can’t be any shicanery.

Ladies and gentleman, we have officially entered UCR scale territory.

Entering at a solid 65, between Tim Robbins pitching in "Bull Durham" and Ed Norton dunking in "American History X": Mike "Dr. Edge" Guuuuuuuuuskaaaaaaaaa." (http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/021107)



If you don't know Bill Simmons yet and you like reading a sports guy with a fetish for facial hair, reality shows and the WNBA who writes unpretentious and funny sports columns, give it a try.

[EHocking]

First off every time that I make a guess the have to change the target and put it in a new canister, that happens after I make a choice and or ten targets pass the one spot, and I really don't care what the order is.
By changing the target they will know and the person with them will know where it is and if I choose correctly.Then it is not a double blind test and therefore YOUR protocol does not meet the conditions of the MDC and will be rejected.
When I took the test in the office after scanning the ten targets JREF told me whether I choose correctly or not so you’re point is moot and besides I like to know how I am doing.{this is an edit after I checked the facts}Tough. In a double-blind test you should not get any feedback during the test. Also, this is not the same Challenge as you took previously, so will not be run in the same manner.

{update}You misremember, edge (and I'm being *very* polite here, I could have been a lot more, er, "sceptical" of your statement).

During your first MDC Preliminary trial you were not told whether you chose correctly during the test. I will put your claim that you were, down to your less than perfect memory....

For the rest - here is JREF's account of the test (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html)

edge, please note my self-control on giving you the benefit of the doubt on your recall of this test and that I have not directed any accusations of anything but poor memory...
In this way the person I choose to be with the recorder will know also and there can’t be any shicanery.You really don't know what a double blind protocol is, do you?

NO ONE will know whether the canister you selected is or is not the target during the duration of the ENTIRE Challenge.

This is what double-blind means: Neither you nor those testing you, know the result of the test until it's conclusion.

[edge]

I'm sorry, but I'm once again unable to follow the semi-literate ramblings of Edge. Can someone sum up for me what the hell he means in that last post?

Oh, and Edge, he meant that if he replaced the nickle with a chocolate one you'd still go out and claim to find metals, you'd never notice that your magic stick had defaulted to it's water magic setting. Try that for a laugh, get someone to alter it and see if your made-up rules work.

There is no magic.
And you need to read how they run the test for dowsing, go back to what happened in the office and if you want please put up the link so that all of you can see what the double blind test is and how they ran it.

NO ONE will know whether the canister you selected is or is not the target during the duration of the ENTIRE Challenge.

My choice is my choice, and that ends the round of ten, random order of the containers takes care of that.
As soon as the first ten is over they have to move the target for the next set of ten, they Will know.
If I miss the first four then what reason would JREF have to go on at that point why would they or I waste time with it and I might be in you’re camp then.
That would save a few hours then.

When they were on the ground, all ten containers, in the office I could start in any order that I choose.
It's either there or it's not.
You said save time and now you are being anal.

The people that hide the target are nowhere in my sight, only the person that JREF has stay with me is, and he has the same knowledge as I do NONE where the target is concerned.
If he sees that I haven’t cheated then he can’t either, or give me clues of any kind.
The people that record and hide the target are totally alienated from us……………

If JREF says it’s good enough then what’s your problem?

Again the only differences are the target will pass onto one spot and all of the containers empty or full.
And that I’m using a scale to aid me in my choices They will stipulate anything else they want like I have to scan all the containers.
They only want the metal picked out 7 of ten tries of ten.
If you can’t understand this, Kevin then it is you who is illiterate?
In the final I have to then get 8 of ten correct.

Because of the scales I can go to them or there can be volunteers to come here If I can set that up with the owners of the resort.

Which means I’ll be ready in September, if I go to Florida then I will be ready in October.
Man what the {****rule8} don’t you understand?


Petre says;

It seems to me that having the canisters get scanned by edge in a random order would remove any information person(s) 1 could gain if the tests were halted early, thereby preserving strict double-blinding.

I'd have to disagree with the math as well. My notes show that selecting 1 of 10 for 10 trials would put the odds of a 70% correct performance by chance at .0009% (7 correct trials out of the 10). At 10 minutes per trial, it seems well within the scope of an afternoon.
I agree.
May be two if I get tired and cramps in my hands and arms.
One afternoon would be great though and possible that way.

[EHocking]

And you need to read how they run the test for dowsing, go back to what happened in the office and if you want please put up the link so that all of you can see what the double blind test is and how they ran it.Do you actually read posts here before responding?

JREF's account of the test (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html)

Oh, and it's poor form to edit your post without saying why. I note that your original bullspit comment has been removed. Have you remembered just how the first Preliminary was run, finally?
...If you can’t understand this, Kevin then it is you who is illiterate?
In the final I have to then get 8 of ten correct.1. I'm not Kevin.
2. I have never made any accusations of illiteracy towards you.
Man what the {****rule8} don’t you understand?It seems the other metal you cannot dowse is iron(y).

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

Even though this thread has been around for over a year I only just really noticed it. I'm probaly asking an obsolete question but I don't wish to read back 1400 posts. Did Edge double blind test himself already before applying?

[edge]

After Mike made his guess on each trial, the other two persons were invited back in, and we recorded the results. That procedure was repeated ten times.

I was there when it was being recorded, we all of us. I remember just fine as I seen the look in James’ eyes, it was the first pick that I made that was correct.
For the next test one of my friends will be with them so I don’t know till the end.
This is better for me.
But once again it doesn’t matter except the time but I may get 6 out of ten which means something is occurring.
But that doesn’t win the million does it?

When the test procedure was double-blinded, he obtained exactly what chance alone would call for: one out of ten correct.
This is what they believe will occur.

Now I know what the flaws were, all metals and magnetic fields are picked up.

[edge]

Even though this thread has been around for over a year I only just really noticed it. I'm probaly asking an obsolete question but I don't wish to read back 1400 posts. Did Edge double blind test himself already before applying?

After, though they will say not.

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

Now I know what the flaws were, all metals and magnetic fields are picked up.

How about carrying out the whole experiment in a cage of fine conducting (iron, copper etc) mesh? This should stop all electromagnetic waves with wavelengths longer than the diameter of a mesh hole, and cancel out any static electric field. This will leave you with only static magnetic fields to deal with.

[Oualawouzou]

You know, with the amount of crucial development and tuning your dowsing has reportedly undergone in the last year alone... At which point in the past was it useless?

I mean, we're not talking about mere fine tuning or slight changes to improve an already well established method... You keep reporting changes that are absolutely crucial to successful dowsing. Before you put whatever type of metal on the rod, before you used the scales, before you determined there are "ghost readings", before you got wary of all "contaminating" metals and magnetic fields, etc., what use what your dowsing? Yet, what kind of success were you convinced to achieve back then?

In two years from now, once you will have piled up a few more crucial discoveries, and you'll look back to your present claims of success, what will you think?

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

Edge: I've been spending a conciderable amount of time testing dowsing myself. I'm currently at the point where the energy that sticks to the paper I use for blinding is bothering me because it retains memory. At this point I'm starting to wonder if I can actually do it. Just saying, you're probably going to end up at little annoying things like this as well.

Now this leads to an unpleasant thought. If the disturbances ruining your tests are so small, how can you have success in the field so easilly?

I hope you could answer this one since it's nagging at my brain too.

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

I mean, we're not talking about mere fine tuning or slight changes to improve an already well established method... You keep reporting changes that are absolutely crucial to successful dowsing. Before you put whatever type of metal on the rod, before you used the scales, before you determined there are "ghost readings", before you got wary of all "contaminating" metals and magnetic fields, etc., what use what your dowsing? Yet, what kind of success were you convinced to achieve back then?

Hmm you've summarized my problem here quite well. I'm starting to wonder when it's time to call it quits.

[EHocking]

I was there when it was being recorded, we all of us. I remember just fine as I seen the look in James’ eyes, it was the first pick that I made that was correct.From Randi's Commentary.

"Mr. G. and I stepped out of the library area, and two other persons randomly (by choosing a face-down card, as before) placed the target package in position, then they left the area and informed us that the target was in place. Mike and I re-entered, alone, and he made his determination while I watched carefully to be sure that he did not nudge any cups, or otherwise attempt to use any means but the movements of his forked stick, to make his guess; at no time was any such procedure observed."

Neither you nor Randi knew which cup had the target in it.

Or are you claiming otherwise?

"After Mike made his guess on each trial, the other two persons were invited back in, and we recorded the results."

Are you claiming that this indicates that both Randi and you were told between each trial whether you had been successful on the preceding trial?
But once again it doesn’t matter except the time but I may get 6 out of ten which means something is occurring. Yes - random chance.
But that doesn’t win the million does it?No.
Results expected by random chance would not win the $MM.

[edge]

How about carrying out the whole experiment in a cage of fine conducting (iron, copper etc) mesh? This should stop all electromagnetic waves with wavelengths longer than the diameter of a mesh hole, and cancel out any static electric field. This will leave you with only static magnetic fields to deal with.

I have no Idea of what that will do but I can find a sufficient place out side when reading the scales.
It would make for a good experiment and I have seen these in the places I have been to in Florida at,{Trying to think},,,Highly classified place I was delivering a classified computer.
I delivered several of these and one was at the Cape for the Delta rocket.
I really shouldn’t divulge any information about this.
There should be some kind of change in how dowsing works in one of those, what it would be though is unknown at this time.


Originally Posted by Kenny 10 Bellys
I'm sorry, but I'm once again unable to follow the semi-literate ramblings of Edge. Can someone sum up for me what the hell he means in that last post?
It wasn’t directed at you EHocking and again what's your vested interest, what business are you in?
The Bullspit was though. :)
I thought I would be nice and take that out.

[edge]

Are you claiming that this indicates that both Randi and you were told between each trial whether you had been successful on the preceding trial?

That's why I said that I would not like to know in an earlier post some where.
It really doesn't matter once I choose.

Neither you nor Randi knew which cup had the target in it.

This is correct.

[edge]

Yes - random chance.
Quote:
When the test procedure was double-blinded, he obtained exactly what chance alone would call for: one out of ten correct.

[edge]

You know, with the amount of crucial development and tuning your dowsing has reportedly undergone in the last year alone... At which point in the past was it useless?

I mean, we're not talking about mere fine tuning or slight changes to improve an already well established method... You keep reporting changes that are absolutely crucial to successful dowsing. Before you put whatever type of metal on the rod, before you used the scales, before you determined there are "ghost readings", before you got wary of all "contaminating" metals and magnetic fields, etc., what use what your dowsing? Yet, what kind of success were you convinced to achieve back then?

In two years from now, once you will have piled up a few more crucial discoveries, and you'll look back to your present claims of success, what will you think?

It doesn't change when you go to ground that hasn't been messed with; these things that I have learned are for the test only.
Only because the target is in a contaminated spot not neutral and the target of metals is being moved on and off an area or a single spot.

On the creek it's much quicker I can scan an area and know with in a couple of minutes what to do.
This was also what a friend of mine that I taught does as I watched him dowse the other day.
The test is grueling.
The success in the field is extremely high.
Last year 11 out of 11 correct for the gold and 8 out of ten for nothing bad spots as I checked my self..

[IXP]

Conditions for a blind test are that the person being tested is not given feedback on his success during the test.

In a DOUBLE blind test NO ONE knows where the target is until revealed at the end of the entire test.

Except that this is not one test, it is ten separate INDEPENDENT tests, each of which is double-blinded. Whether or not anyone knows the result of a previous test before the next test starts is completely irrelevant. It has no effect on the probabilities of passing the test. If the applicant requires that he knows the results of each of the trials after he completes it, it should not be a problem.

As far as the testers knowing the results of the 10 trials before they are all complete, check out this line from the description of Edge's first test:

Following the "open" sequence, for each of the "blind" tests, Mr. G. and I stepped out of the library area, and two other persons randomly (by choosing a face-down card, as before) placed the target package in position, then they left the area and informed us that the target was in place. Mike and I re-entered, alone, and he made his determination while I watched carefully to be sure that he did not nudge any cups, or otherwise attempt to use any means but the movements of his forked stick, to make his guess; at no time was any such procedure observed. After Mike made his guess on each trial, the other two persons were invited back in, and we recorded the results. That procedure was repeated ten times.


Note the sections that I have bolded.

It is not clear whether Edge and Randi knew the results after each test, but, by this description, the randomizers certainly did.

IXP

[edge]

IXP says,

It is not clear whether Edge and Randi knew the results after each test, but, by this description, the randomizers certainly did.


Exactly right how could they not, since they have a new draw for a new spot or container on each set of ten tries.
Once I pick it's over, even in the office I could do that!
Yes we did know it was over in that set of ten sets.
It wouldn't matter even if they randomized the containers passing on one spot.
My pick is my pick and that round should be over.
This is For speed.]
Their smart enough, they know.

[SezMe]

Now I know what the flaws were, all metals and magnetic fields are picked up.
Then how come your dowsing rod did not react when you held it only a foot or so above my car which is a lump of about 1 ton of metal?

[EHocking]

Except that this is not one test, it is ten separate INDEPENDENT tests, each of which is double-blinded. Whether or not anyone knows the result of a previous test before the next test starts is completely irrelevant. It has no effect on the probabilities of passing the test. If the applicant requires that he knows the results of each of the trials after he completes it, it should not be a problem.Yes. I agree with you on that point.

But edge is not proposing that THIS test is conducted in that manner.
Instead of having 10 cups to choose from, edge wants to dowse each one, one at a time AND, if he selects one as the target not dowse the remaining targets.

That is not ten separate independent tests. It is ten partial tests, with a clear indication of which canister is being chosen each time.
As far as the testers knowing the results of the 10 trials before they are all complete, check out this line from the description of Edge's first test:

{quote missing}
Note the sections that I have bolded.

It is not clear whether Edge and Randi knew the results after each test, but, by this description, the randomizers certainly did.

IXPWell, I don't think it is *certain*, but that is certainly a possibility.

My argument though on THIS test is that it WILL be certain that one or more of the people conducting the test will have knowledge of the result before the end of the test.

Considering that we're still debating the conditions of the FIRST, it is very much in the interest of JREF (and frankly dowsing sceptics) that this test does not have these uncertainties.

That really was my only point.

[SezMe]

Oh, and Edge, he meant that if he replaced the nickle with a chocolate one you'd still go out and claim to find metals, you'd never notice that your magic stick had defaulted to it's water magic setting. Try that for a laugh, get someone to alter it and see if your made-up rules work.

Yes, that is what I meant.

Wouldn’t he find chocolate now? Lost Halloween candy perhaps?

Now that's funny. What would edge use if he wanted to dowse for a date? Oops, he's married so assume that he is dowsing for a date for his brother, Danny.

[EHocking]

IIt wasn’t directed at you EHocking and again what's your vested interest, what business are you in?Since you cannot be bothered to read the post, I will repeat it for you.

I have a personal vested interest in this being under bullet-proof double-blind conditions.

Dowsing doesn't work and this would be yet another data point to support my position on dowsing:wink:
The Bullspit was though. :)
I thought I would be nice and take that out.
As with most things - it's the thought that counts...

[IXP]

Yes. I agree with you on that point.

But edge is not proposing that THIS test is conducted in that manner.
Instead of having 10 cups to choose from, edge wants to dowse each one, one at a time AND, if he selects one as the target not dowse the remaining targets.

That is not ten separate independent tests. It is ten partial tests, with a clear indication of which canister is being chosen each time.
Well, I don't think it is *certain*, but that is certainly a possibility.

My argument though on THIS test is that it WILL be certain that one or more of the people conducting the test will have knowledge of the result before the end of the test.

Considering that we're still debating the conditions of the FIRST, it is very much in the interest of JREF (and frankly dowsing sceptics) that this test does not have these uncertainties.

That really was my only point.
In this new protocol, each series of 10 containers is one test and each of those tests must be double-blind until it is over. Stopping early because Edge thinks he as identified the target ends that test. At that point any and all participants can learn the result of that test without it affecting the overall challenge.

I am not suggesting that we lift up the container after Edge says no. That would be a violation.

BTW, on second reading of Randi's description I think they did all know whether Edge was correct or not after each test. He states that the result was recorded, not that Edge's pick was recorded, and there is no mention of checking the results after the ten tests. If you took the bar exam would the result of the test be 1: c, 2: d, 3:a ... or would it be pass / fail? It sounds to me like they recorded pass / fail after each test.

IXP

[edge]

Then how come your dowsing rod did not react when you held it only a foot or so above my car which is a lump of about 1 ton of metal?

First off I told you I did.
If I stood their long enough it would have, remember you were pressed for time I only had a few minutes to check the creek,.
Do you think I should have wasted my time on your car or learn about the creek, you own the car!
By me going to the creek I was figuring out a scenario of probabilities on which I could support a test there, where my test site would suit me, covering some of the expenses that I would incur to bring out the JREF team to that site which was comfortable for both purposes.
Second It's mostly iron so the reaction is less than the heavier elements, be it that the load that was concentrated in the area of the creek that we went to was the heavy spot of the area, it was unmistakably noticeable something I’m looking for, not your car.
Which we will see if I'm right about, won't we.
Why do you think I talked with the owner after we parted company?
I’m going to have to do a couple of films on what this all is about.
While we are waiting for responses from the JREF.
This way you can see why this is to your advantage but really I’m more interested in the reaction being that little power is put in for way more work out, in an electrical manner, dealing with gravity.

What I’m really feeling is little dents in the field when it’s gold or other metals..
Some how there is a connection to the field, to the dent together.
The connection is in the form of electrical.
Imagine being able to feel the entire field of the Earth.
Then getting a work force out of it in electrical form through a machine and what could it do in other forms of machinary?

GzuzKryzt what's the point, if we can't have some fun.:)

[William Smith]

First off I told you I did.
If I stood their long enough it would have, remember you were pressed for time I only had a few minutes to check the creek,.
Do you think I should have wasted my time on your car or learn about the creek, you own the car!
By me going to the creek I was figuring out a scenario of probabilities on which I could support a test there, where my test site would suit me, covering some of the expenses that I would incur to bring out the JREF team to that site which was comfortable for both purposes.
Second It's mostly iron so the reaction is less than the heavier elements, be it that the load that was concentrated in the area of the creek that we went to was the heavy spot of the area, it was unmistakably noticeable something I’m looking for, not your car.
Which we will see if I'm right about, won't we.
Why do you think I talked with the owner after we parted company?
I’m going to have to do a couple of films on what this all is about.
While we are waiting for responses from the JREF.
This way you can see why this is to your advantage but really I’m more interested in the reaction being that little power is put in for way more work out, in an electrical manner, dealing with gravity.

What I’m really feeling is little dents in the field when it’s gold or other metals..
Some how there is a connection to the field, to the dent together.
The connection is in the form of electrical.
Imagine being able to feel the entire field of the Earth.
Then getting a work force out of it in electrical form through a machine and what could it do in other forms of machinary?

GzuzKryzt what's the point, if we can't have some fun.:)

I'd say the point is to secure an acceptable protocol for a set of two tests that will net you USD 1,000,000 (along with other perks like e.g. notable attention of the community, a chance to work with highly-regarded specialists/scientists, contract offers galore, prime time TV exposure, iconic status, etc.) because you simply have to do what you claim to be able to do for decades in the field.

But that's just moi.

[EHocking]

In this new protocol, each series of 10 containers is one test and each of those tests must be double-blind until it is over. Stopping early because Edge thinks he as identified the target ends that test. At that point any and all participants can learn the result of that test without it affecting the overall challenge.

I am not suggesting that we lift up the container after Edge says no. That would be a violation.

BTW, on second reading of Randi's description I think they did all know whether Edge was correct or not after each test. He states that the result was recorded, not that Edge's pick was recorded, and there is no mention of checking the results after the ten tests. If you took the bar exam would the result of the test be 1: c, 2: d, 3:a ... or would it be pass / fail? It sounds to me like they recorded pass / fail after each test.

IXPOK, OK I concede already!! :D

And yes, for the record, I AM being quite pedantic about the whole double blind thing.

But part of my job for the past 20 odd years has bee collection, collation and analysis of data for multi-milion £ projects. The fallout of getting the numbers or the process wrong can be quite expensive, not just in cash, but also in reputation and integrity.

Look at the discussion we've just been having about the LAST Challenge.

I'm too old to be still discussing THIS one 5 years later;)

[William Smith]

Don't forget the bragging rights, edge.

Also, don't forget the TV interviews: You could hang any of your fish tales on any interviewer. You'd be the big kahuna, they'd have to listen to you and pretend you're interesting. TV stations would be like the Sideshow Bob to your Grampa Simpson in the Simpsons episode "Brother From Another Series".

Bragging rights for life.

[edge]

Bragging rights for life.

At this point in our history it's not about that, but maybe some form of reusable energy that we can tap into.

If provable it would be up to you Geniuses to make something from this that's usable.

Imagine roads with power in them pulled from the field, separate from the vehicles.