Dowsing By Edge

[Paulhoff]

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.
Imagine someone opening a accredited science book and doing some real reading, imagine someone going back to school, maybe college, imagine someone learning the truth about the universe, imagine......, never mind I forgot who we where taking about.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

Edge: You say that the tests conducted by the JREF are too much unlike your field activities. Then the key to success would be doing a test that is the same as your field activities. A little bit up the thread you mentioned actually finding gold in a creek. Could you find gold with a Randi peering over your shoulder? I'm sure a good test could be set up though it would take quite some effort to think up a scheme that will make sure you don't know where they want you to find gold.

Pherhaps hiding bits of gold in a creek that you find suitable for dowsing would be a good idea?

[William Smith]

Edge: You say that the tests conducted by the JREF are too much unlike your field activities. Then the key to success would be doing a test that is the same as your field activities. A little bit up the thread you mentioned actually finding gold in a creek. Could you find gold with a Randi peering over your shoulder? I'm sure a good test could be set up though it would take quite some effort to think up a scheme that will make sure you don't know where they want you to find gold.

Pherhaps hiding bits of gold in a creek that you find suitable for dowsing would be a good idea?

This idea has been discussed before. No useful protocol has materialised. For the reasons why, consider reading the thread if you want to contribute to the discussion, Delusions_O_Grandeur.

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

This idea has been discussed before. No useful protocol has materialised. For the reasons why, consider reading the thread if you want to contribute to the discussion, Delusions_O_Grandeur.

I can't read everything in advance to determine if I can jump into a thread full force, in this case I sprung the obsoletion trap. Now I at least know there's interesting material to find way up the thread.

Oh please, nobody peers over anyone's shoulder. I guess you don't understand how it works with these people. They always brag that they have this power and can demonstrate it anytime, anywhere, that is of course, until the real test comes along, and let the excuses begin.

I just have this really bad feeling that there's a spiritual revolution going on and I'm being left out in the cold by all the believers. I'm powerless, skeptical and I want to see miracles argh! (count = 0)

[William Smith]

I can't read everything in advance to determine if I can jump into a thread full force, in this case I sprung the obsoletion trap. Now I at least know there's interesting material to find way up the thread.
...

I won't force a 1400+ post thread on you, obviously. I also won't confirm that there's "interesting material to find way up the thread". ;)

Perhaps you could skim it first. When your head has stopped spinning, or when your sides hace stopped hurting, consider reading it.

With you being a fellow dowser, most of us would value critical input from a different point of view.

[SezMe]

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!

How long would you have had to stand there dowsing the car? After all, it contains roughly two orders of magnitude more metal than the target tray which your rod reacted to in a matter of seconds? Also, down by the creek your rod reacted almost instantly and most dramatically by dipping vertically. Yet there is not a ton of gold there. In fact, we both commented about that creek had been worked over by dredges at least once, possibly many more times.



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

No you weren't. You know very well that any test protocol will not depend on unverifiable field conditions. Therefore you know that no MDC testing will be done at Coffee Creek. Period. You know this is true, edge.





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.

What was the tray made of?


Why do you think I talked with the owner after we parted company?

You talked to the owner about dredging for gold in Coffee Creek because you have convinced yourself that you can dowse.


What I’m really feeling is little dents in the field when it’s gold or other metals..
..which brings us right back to my previous question: Why did the rod not react to a ton of metal a foot away?

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?

Very interesting. At Coffee Creek I asked you specifically if you were sensing magnetic or electrical fields and you were specific that you were detecting gravitational anomolies.

Which is it?

[colin]

<big snip>While we are waiting for responses from the JREF. <ditto>
You know, it would be cool if an official JREF representative would pop onto this thread and give everyone their two cents on edge’s “protocol” and potential test.

Or is that out of the question?

[Paulhoff]

You know, it would be cool if an official JREF representative would pop onto this thread and give everyone their two cents on edge’s “protocol” and potential test.

Or is that out of the question?
I'm not speaking in anyway for anyone for JREF, but I think they don't really have time.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

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

:) :) :)

[Patejdl]

Guys, the only right thing to do now is to absolutely ignore Edge. He alone will never come up with a decent and correct protocol and he clearly does not want to agree with a protocol that other people created.

It's 1 mil bucks for christ's sake!!! A test for 1 000 000 bucks should be as bullet-proof as it could be. And that requires for the test to be also double-blind. But Edge clearly does not understand what it means.....

It's useless.... he just doesn't have the power to understand anything... but shhhh.. don't tell him.. he might be sad :)

How will it continue?? After some time his frustration will raise and he will agree to a proper protocol and will fail again. His frustration with failing will again result in blaming the JREF for cheating or whatsoever. And it will go on and on like this. Kind of like "perpetual motion" but powered by self-dellusion.

But people like Edge provide our world a great service. They represent a warning to other people to never disconnect your brain from the logic by which this whole universe runs. Once you're disconnected you live in your own world cursed never to achieve what you really want in your life because you have set yourself goals and you believe things that do not exist in this reality.

Some people might contradict that in the past people were making all kinds of beautifull inventions because they beleived in something. These people have even been prosecuted because of their "beliefs". But the whole difference is that their beleifs were based on empiric knowledge heavily supported by logic. Dowsing is just a heavily subjective and empiric experience and is not by any kind of means supported by logic.

That's simply the main difference between people who might be able to achieve the goals of their belief and people who will never be able to achieve anything based on their self-dellusional beliefs.

So I call for a total EDGE ignoration until he agrees to take a proper test (which we normal beings and JREF will find proper... not him.. his opinion is ignored)

Who's with me???

[catbasket]

Patejdl,

I sympathise and can understand why you call for ignoring Edge, but I cannot agree. If only for the fence-sitters on the topic of dowsing we need to have people like EHocking doing all they can to get Edge to agree a testing protocol and take the prelim test.

Personally I'm happy to just throw in the odd sarcastic comment about how Edge failed the preilm test in 2004(? - I forget), was apparently ready to re-take the prelim test in May last year ... but now, almost thirteen months later, is still no closer to agreeing a double blind testing protocol.

Call me cynical, but as Edge has already managed to agree a prelim test protocol, do the test, accept it as fair, fail, and only later make up excuses as to why he failed, I find it extremely odd that he seems to have no concept of what a double blind test is. I also believe he has absolutely no intention of ever taking the MDC prelim test again - but of course that is just personal opinion.

So, Edge, how about you prove me wrong? Agree a protocol with JREF and take the prelim test ... or do you have as little faith in your alleged abilities as I do?

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

I find it mildly offensive that Edge, a man barely able to read and write, is talking in terms of gravitational anomalies and electromagnetic fields in relation to his stick with a coin taped to the end. Using science to try and explain a non-existant magical belief should be prosecutable offence in my opinion. You cannot appeal to science when you think you've figured something out, only to deny all science when it then proves you wrong.

I think Edge is wasting his time and ours. He has faith in his magic stick and faith is a most powerful tool for stupidity and ignorance. He is struggling to explain everything around him in terms that will allow him to retain his belief in dowsing, when all around him the evidence clearly shows he cant. He is deluded and therefore not worthy of the effort. I dont think we should ever be mean to him, but I believe we'd do better ignoring his nonsense than trying to talk sense into him.

[edge]

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.
This part still hasn't been discussed.
The test would be the same there as in Florida, with the containers.
The tray was silver plating.
Why wouldn't they go to the resort?
They wanted at one point for me to go to Japan.
I plan on staying here for one more dredging season, which is the next opportunity below.
Do they know this?
Yes. See below.

Which means I’ll be ready in September, if I go to Florida then I will be ready in October.

[edge]

It's up to them now.

[Marcus]

It's up to them now.
I take it by this comment that you have submitted your protocol to JREF? What was their response? Can you post the protocol, as written, here? I don't see how you could avoid knowing that submitting a proper protocol is your responsibility, it has been discussed to death.

[William Smith]

Guys, the only right thing to do now is to absolutely ignore Edge. He alone will never come up with a decent and correct protocol and he clearly does not want to agree with a protocol that other people created.

It's 1 mil bucks for christ's sake!!! A test for 1 000 000 bucks should be as bullet-proof as it could be. And that requires for the test to be also double-blind. But Edge clearly does not understand what it means.....

It's useless.... he just doesn't have the power to understand anything... but shhhh.. don't tell him.. he might be sad :)

How will it continue?? After some time his frustration will raise and he will agree to a proper protocol and will fail again. His frustration with failing will again result in blaming the JREF for cheating or whatsoever. And it will go on and on like this. Kind of like "perpetual motion" but powered by self-dellusion.

But people like Edge provide our world a great service. They represent a warning to other people to never disconnect your brain from the logic by which this whole universe runs. Once you're disconnected you live in your own world cursed never to achieve what you really want in your life because you have set yourself goals and you believe things that do not exist in this reality.

Some people might contradict that in the past people were making all kinds of beautifull inventions because they beleived in something. These people have even been prosecuted because of their "beliefs". But the whole difference is that their beleifs were based on empiric knowledge heavily supported by logic. Dowsing is just a heavily subjective and empiric experience and is not by any kind of means supported by logic.

That's simply the main difference between people who might be able to achieve the goals of their belief and people who will never be able to achieve anything based on their self-dellusional beliefs.

So I call for a total EDGE ignoration until he agrees to take a proper test (which we normal beings and JREF will find proper... not him.. his opinion is ignored)

Who's with me???

I think I understand where you're coming from Patejdl.

Ignoring edge seems not the most productive path as long as he does not pull a Paul Carey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=34713&highlight=randi)
or a Nicole Spiese (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=46133&highlight=randi) on us.

Allow me to repost what I said earlier:

...

Mike "edge" Guska displays a very common behaviour among people with claims of the paranormal. For specifics on said behaviour, one simply has to view this thread and make up his own mind.

A theoretical discussion on what applicants might do and not do - as it often happens in this subforum - often leads into dead ends.

This thread drives home two specific points, over and over and over:
1. Along with the obvious difficulties of designing an appropriate testing procedure, when exposed to the light outside the mind of their bearers, these abilities seem to work only in very specific circumstances.
2. The possessors of said abilities seem willing to bring up any ploy to avoid a test involving basic scientific criteria. Even with a possible reward of USD 1,000,000 for doing what they claim to be able to do. In edge's case, what they have been able to do for decades.

Albeit very consuming - time and energy and patience - this seems to be an integral part of the MDC. At least under the old rules.

It's a tough thing to endure. But we might be just the people to pull it off.

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

With you being a fellow dowser, most of us would value critical input from a different point of view.

Ai, caught that just in time. Before people think I'm a real dowser I'd like to point out that I do not believe I can do it. I can't tell (deadly) white spirit from water, which is really bad concidering the fact that I used to test homeopathic remedies for myself.

[William Smith]

An official acknowledgement of edge's application. Finally. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2712177#post2712177)

[Spektator]

Well, edge, you asked me a hypothetical question a few days ago. Let me ask you one:

Assume you have cleared an area of creekbed and have decided there is no use going for gold there, because there is no gold to be found.

If someone came along the next week, mined that exact spot, and found twenty Troy ounces of gold the first day, what would you think then?

[SezMe]

The one thing I can't get the testers to realize is that A dowser has to also know were not to mine.
This has been proved by me.

I doubt anyone here thinks that it is a good idea to mine where there is no ore. It did not take any proof by you.

In answer to your previous question they won't do a test where I could prove this, in a river or creek. They say it's not double blind, in reality it's totally unknown to all.

No, edge, that is not the reason. You've been told the reason in this thread many times. The reason is that a dowsing test protocol will NEVER involve unknown field conditions.

[edge]

Well, edge, you asked me a hypothetical question a few days ago. Let me ask you one:

Assume you have cleared an area of creek bed and have decided there is no use going for gold there, because there is no gold to be found.

If someone came along the next week, mined that exact spot, and found twenty Troy ounces of gold the first day, what would you think then?

The second year I did what you said let some one continue in a place that I walked away from.
They were going to do it anyway, so I told them they could to see exactly what you are proposing.
They found nothing.

If that scenario played out like you stated I would say I was fooled or didn't check well enough.
It's so far never happened.

SezMe says,

I doubt anyone here thinks that it is a good idea to mine where there is no ore. It did not take any proof by you.

The proof for me came by dowsing and then checking by uncovering those blank spots.


No, edge that is not the reason. You've been told the reason in this thread many times. The reason is that a dowsing test protocol will NEVER involve unknown field conditions.

No maybe not for the JREF but as another proof later after the test, lets say to cinch it.

Unknown, field conditions.

This is why I dowse because no one has X-ray eyes.
And my back couldn't take the labor looking for nothing.

[Tricky]

The second year I did what you said let some one continue in a place that I walked away from.
They were going to do it anyway, so I told them they could to see exactly what you are proposing.
They found nothing.
Nice anecdote. But since you haven't exactly set Fort Knox a-tingling with your finds, I'm not sure that means anything.

The proof for me came by dowsing and then checking by uncovering those blank spots.
From my experience of talking to you, it seems that your standards of "proof" are quite low. Not just in dowsing, but in levitation, UFOs, Jesus and pretty much everything else. It takes very little to confirm to you what you already believed.

No maybe not for the JREF but as another proof later after the test, lets say to cinch it.
Nothing is "cinched" unless you have a well-designed and properly conducted test. You are never going to test again with JREF unless you are willing to accept such a test, and nothing I have seen indicates that you are willing to do this.

This is why I dowse because no one has X-ray eyes.
And my back couldn't take the labor looking for nothing.
Actually, x-ray eyes wouldn't tell you where gold is. And that's pretty funny because we know x-rays exist and can be tested for what they can tell us. You could bring an x-ray spectrometer to the field and it still wouldn't help you.

Your "dowsing rays" (for lack of a better term) have never been shown to exist, so it is difficult for you to show how they work. But of course, it doesn't matter. All that matters is if you can show that the phenomenon you call dowsing works under properly controlled conditions. Once you prove that, then we can work on the mechanisms. So far, all you seem to have is mechanisms, but no phenomenon.

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

Am I the only one who saw what happened a few posts back? C'mon guys, Edge's friend has DISCOVERED A PLACE WHERE POTS AND PANS WILL HOVER IF THROWN IN THE AIR!"

"I’m looking to go to a place where nature might demonstrate that this can also occur naturally a form of levitation and I will film in that location that my neighbor clams this to happen, however it might not be related directly.
Two copper veins on either side of a gulch he says, “if you toss up keys or a metal pan it will hover”, This is related in a way with dowsing, when the dowsing a target that’s above the dowser it will defy gravity."

Never mind his magic stick, we now have levitation in the spotlight, and surely if we're wishing for a particular bit of BS to be real I'd wish for levitation rather than metal detecting. I cant wait to see the film, which will go one of two ways. Either we'll be treated to an Ed Wood style special effects extravaganza with pans and keys 'floating' on fishing line, or his mate left dropping pans all over the place with a great look on his face like "hey, it worked when I did it last time while up here smoking weed all day!"

[Spektator]

Am I the only one who saw what happened a few posts back? C'mon guys, Edge's friend has DISCOVERED A PLACE WHERE POTS AND PANS WILL HOVER IF THROWN IN THE AIR!"........."

Old news, Kenny. Edge has been meaning to send us proof of that since about April.

Okay, edge, in light of your response to my hypothetical, I have to change my answer:

If you got 9 out of 10 on a double-blind control test, I'd have to say you fooled the experimenters. An honest score of that kind has never happened yet.

[edge]

Remember the tether experiment?

The experiment was to see how much power we could retrieve from the electro magnetic field of the Earth.
It supposedly was so much power that it fried the tether wire and it broke free.
Then there were UFOs.

Something may not want us to know what this type of physics leads to?

Or our government doesn't want us to know about free power.

They may have been just observing our baby steps towards what they know.

I would like to know how much was received before it fried and what their readings were that they monitored.
Nothing else was ever said and it makes you wonder because it had positive results up until it fried.

It was working better than their expectations.
Since you guys brought it up,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I&mode=related&search=

Take a hint from Krusty the Klown, edge: "It's only funny when the (guy) has dignity."

Really,
What's the big deal about levitation? Flying saucers do it all the time. Just ask Edge.

There's more on that link.

[Paulhoff]

Remember the tether experiment?

The experiment was to see how much power we could retrieve from the electro magnetic field of the Earth.
It supposedly was so much power that it fried the tether wire and it broke free.
Then there were UFOs.

Something may not want us to know what this type of physics leads to?

Or our government doesn't want us to know about free power.

Daaaa, edge, were do you think the power comes from for the tether to make power, it comes from the movement of the wire thru the earth’s magnetic field. As electricity is generated by the tether the speed of the spacecraft slows down from the drag of the wire cutting thru the earth’s magnetic field, that is why the tether broke, from all the pull on it from cutting thru the earth’s magnetic field and generating electricity. There is no free lunch edge.

For the others out there, try this sometime. Get someone to help you with this. Get two small DC motors, one electric drill and two wires. Take one of the DC motor’s and put its shaft into an electric drill’s chuck and tighten the chuck onto the shaft. Wire that motor to the other motor, plus to plus, negative to negative, or plus to negative etc, it does matter for this experiment. Have the dumb person hold the electric drill and the motor in the chuck. Before you start the electric drill disconnect just one end of one of the wires from the motor not in the drills chuck. IF you can set the drill to a low speed, turn on the drill and hold the motor tight, it should not be hard to do. Now, and here is the fun part, connect the loss wire to the other motor and have the dumb one hold onto the motor in the drill for all that it is worth. He will now know where the power is coming from, it is from trying to keep the motor in the chuck from spinning because it fells like someone put on the brakes.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/motdc.html

Paul


:) :) :)

[Marcus]

Remember the tether experiment?

The experiment was to see how much power we could retrieve from the electro magnetic field of the Earth.
It supposedly was so much power that it fried the tether wire and it broke free.
Then there were UFOs.

Something may not want us to know what this type of physics leads to?

Or our government doesn't want us to know about free power.

They may have been just observing our baby steps towards what they know.

I would like to know how much was received before it fried and what their readings were that they monitored.
Nothing else was ever said and it makes you wonder because it had positive results up until it fried.

It was working better than their expectations.
Since you guys brought it up,



Such ignorance is truely breathtaking. At this point, if edge claimed to have a high school degree, I think I would demand evidence.

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

(...)you brought up your - and likely not only your - motivation for edge to succeed:

"Any psi phenomenon suggests extension of the mind beyond the physical brain. Once I admit that there is no hope for any of them, I will have to hand over that sole comforting idea I got left... to the paper shredder."

I assume you mean edge's dowsing when you refer to "psi phenomenon".

Why exactly would you need "the sole comforting idea (you) got left"? Comfort for what?

You know, you're asking a very difficult question. In essence I *do* need to answer the general question 'Why would you want an (unproven) psi phenomenon to be real anyway?". I actually don't know yet. It would take some discussion and a stack of draft ideas to really pin it down. I believe it's so general that it needs a new thread, if only because fence-sitters like me don't all focus on the Edge thread. I'll kick it off once I can think of a reasonable first draft. Pherhaps there is an already running thread about this subject I can hook into.

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

Old news, Kenny. Edge has been meaning to send us proof of that since about April.

Bugger! I must have missed that piece of lunacy, busy searching for Bigfoot or something I guess.

So now Edge claims to believe absolutely in all of the following...

1. Dowsing
2. UFOs
3. Levitation (near mineral deposits)
4. Free energy
5. Government Conspiracy to keep us in the dark about free energy

Wow, black helicopters ahoy! I better get my regulation tinfoil hat on then, to block all the thought control stuff the aliens/government use. I assume Mike wears his all the time anyway, so no point warning him. I think he's now gone down in my estimation from deluded dowser to complete fruitcake. He has absolutely no critical bone in his body and just laps up all the nonsense he can. I think i get off light with him just calling me Kevin, I'm lucky he isn't out to kill me by now.

[Tricky]

You know, you're asking a very difficult question. In essence I *do* need to answer the general question 'Why would you want an (unproven) psi phenomenon to be real anyway?". I actually don't know yet. It would take some discussion and a stack of draft ideas to really pin it down.
Totally understandable. Frankly, I can think of many reason why I would like the paranormal to be real. Who of us hasn't thought or dreamed about such things being true? Thinking about it, discussing it, following the ramifications of it, that's what makes your realize that it might not be as wonderful as you think. Still, I want to have paranormal powers. I want to be freakin' Green Lantern.

"In brightest day, in darkest night
No evil shall escape my sight
Let those who worship Evil's might
Beware my power, Green Lantern's Light."

Man, if I had paranormal powers, I'd fix a lot of things.

I believe it's so general that it needs a new thread, if only because fence-sitters like me don't all focus on the Edge thread.
If you are a fence-sitter, then please ignore the Edge thread. this is not a good example of the kind of people who have a passing or curious belief in the paranormal. This is an example of people who have a fanatical belief in the paranormal. It is also not representative of the average open-minded fence-sitter. I don't know you at all DOG, but I can tell already that you are not like Edge. This is not to knock Edge. Edge has beliefs and he stands up for them. But he doesn't really listen to what others say. I suspect you might be more amenable to such discussions.

I'll kick it off once I can think of a reasonable first draft. Pherhaps there is an already running thread about this subject I can hook into.
Don't worry about it too much. No matter how well-planned or well-intentioned a thread is, they tend to drift. Just spill your guts.

But I will not pretend that you won't be attacked by people who are certain that the paranormal doesn't exist. This is a skeptics board, and we're not all "nice guys". If you really want to explore your ideas on this though, the last thing you want is a bunch of people who kiss ass. You want Devil's advocates. We have those in abundance here.

Best of luck. Let me know where you have posted and I'll try to join in.

[SezMe]

But since you've met him and I haven't, would you say my analasis of him is correct, that he is a nice guy, fully functional in society, who is simply deluded?
I would endorse that at-a-glance assessment.

Upthread someone asked if edge was just an "aw shucks" kinda guy or whether his persona here reflected real life. As I said, it's both mixed together. He no more articulate in person than here, so it is not his writing which is getting in the way. I liked his enthusiasm for his dowsing even though that enthusiasm could hardly be more misguided. He is, in short, the kind of guy you would enjoy having a beer with but who, after a while, would probably begin to grate on your objective side. If I was in his area again, I most certainly would look him up to knock back a few and hear his latest stories of adventure.

I said previously in a joking manner that edge was born 100 years too late. Actually, I can fully imagine edge thriving during the gold rush years in northern California in the mid- to late-1800s. He would probably have found gold in spite of his dowsing rod nuttery because there was a lot of gold to be found and edge's perserverence would have served him well.

*snaps back to today's reality*

Now I'm getting real tired of this abortive MDC. I want to get it over with.

[SezMe]

I'll kick it off once I can think of a reasonable first draft. Pherhaps there is an already running thread about this subject I can hook into.
As Tricky suggests, don't worry about writing a refined OP. The thread will be off-topic and into all kinds of interesting areas before you've had a chance to redip your quill into the ink well.

[colin]

In general, I don’t know as there’s much sense in working on a protocol for Edge. He and the JREF seem to be working on it – albeit slowly. Indeed, I apparently missed the part about being able to identify whether the canister contains gold or silver. From the Challenge Applications (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43) thread:

Guska claims to be able to tell whether a cannister contains gold, silver, or nothing through dowsing.

It may have been mentioned earlier and I just spaced on it because… well… I think the reason for that is self-evident.;)

Hopefully, and in spite of the… err… unique challenges involve when communicating with Edge, a protocol can be formed and a test done by September or October.

Now, where are those fascinating UFO/free energy/conspiracy threads?:rolleyes:

[SezMe]

RemieV has posted my report in the challenge thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85571).

[Lanzy]

To be honest I didn't read it in one sitting, and I'm far better at reading threads than participating in them. I just figured the threads with the most postings would prove to be the most interesting. I'll be lurking about and jump in from time to time. Cheers!

[Tricky]

I figured that your brain would have exploded from all of the negitivity.
Skeptic brains don't explode because they can hold a lot more than your average brain.:D

Then you see all the testing I have done and all the changes I have had to do to make the test reasonably passable.
It was more work than I thought and many hours.
Yes, the effort it takes to maintain irrational beliefs in the face of evidence, knowledge, and logic is much greater than it is in a vacuum. The rationalizations alone must take days.

Speaking of rationalizations, have you ever figured out a way around Newton's Third law? You know, how the gold attracts your rod, but your rod doesn't attract the gold? The Nobel Prize is worth a lot more than the Randi Million, ya know.

[Tricky]

That’s why you can stack crap higher in a skeptic.
LOL. At least we remember what crap came before.

Oh ya a metal detector can also pull the gold from under all the weight that sits on top of it from under all the over burden on it.
But metal detectors don't have a "force" pulling them down like you claim your dowsing rod does. Hooking them up to a scale would not help a person read them. You are the one who claims that your dowsing rod exerts a force, (measurable by a scale) but you are proposing a force unlike any ever discovered. It is a force that violates Newton's third law.

Think of it this way, Edge. Imagine the force pulling your rod downward as an elastic band between the gold and the tip of your dowsing rod. Now try to figure out how you can make that elastic band exert downward force on your rod without also exerting upward force on the gold.

Still, the fact is, metal detectors are well understood, operating within well-known laws of physics. If you really care, we could explain to you how they work. And metal detectors do work. If you used a metal detector to find a block of gold hidden under one of ten cups, it would work almost every time.

So don't try to compare your dowsing to a metal detector unless you are prepared to test your accuracy at finding gold against the accuracy of a metal detector in finding gold hidden under one of ten cups. Are you ready to try that?

One test at a time, if I pass then I will submit a proposal to do a experiment in a micro-gravity situation that will prove that it doesn’t and that the reaction you are looking for, is, and has to be movement of the dowser toward the target, what ever that target is.

LOL. Where exactly are you going to find a micro-gravity situation? Are you planning on testing in space?

But it doesn't matter. You are not going to pass the first test. I find it unlikely that you will even take it. What you will do is continue to write in your near-incoherent style, about what you think you can do. I think I have the evidence to back this up.

[William Smith]

The plot thickens: Will edge agree to the JREF's proposal?
Am I terminally naive for even considering it?
Will Portland take Greg Oden?

[SezMe]

RemieV, I have some comments on the protocol.

First, you should establish a limit on the period that edge can dowse each container. I suggest something like ~10 seconds, or whatever edge will agree to. The problem is that he tends to dowse longer and longer as the trials go on, leading to fatigue on edge's part and a too long drawn out test for everyone.

Second, you will not find a place where edge says there is "no" background reading. That is what he means by calibration. The protocol needs to state that edge agrees that whatever background there is will not affect his dowsing.

Third, the protocol should begin by having edge dowse a container KNOWING that it contains the target and then dowse a container KNOWING that it does not contain the target. At this point, edge should state without equivocation that the location is acceptable and his dowsing works at that location.

[EHocking]

RemieV, I have some comments on the protocol.

First, you should establish a limit on the period that edge can dowse each container. I suggest something like ~10 seconds, or whatever edge will agree to. The problem is that he tends to dowse longer and longer as the trials go on, leading to fatigue on edge's part and a too long drawn out test for everyone.

Second, you will not find a place where edge says there is "no" background reading. That is what he means by calibration. The protocol needs to state that edge agrees that whatever background there is will not affect his dowsing.

Third, the protocol should begin by having edge dowse a container KNOWING that it contains the target and then dowse a container KNOWING that it does not contain the target. At this point, edge should state without equivocation that the location is acceptable and his dowsing works at that location.
You don't know how much of a relief it is to me that this is now someone else's problem.....

ReviV et al, I feel for you.

[SezMe]

RemieV, please somehow build EHocking into the protocol. Maybe make him edge's interpreter. :) :)

[RemieV]

RemieV, I have some comments on the protocol.

First, you should establish a limit on the period that edge can dowse each container. I suggest something like ~10 seconds, or whatever edge will agree to. The problem is that he tends to dowse longer and longer as the trials go on, leading to fatigue on edge's part and a too long drawn out test for everyone.

Second, you will not find a place where edge says there is "no" background reading. That is what he means by calibration. The protocol needs to state that edge agrees that whatever background there is will not affect his dowsing.

Third, the protocol should begin by having edge dowse a container KNOWING that it contains the target and then dowse a container KNOWING that it does not contain the target. At this point, edge should state without equivocation that the location is acceptable and his dowsing works at that location.

No worries, SezMe. These are in the plan once Mr. Guska begins responding to my e-mails again.

[LongFuzzy]

Edge,

If you put the target (Gold) on a scale and then move your dowsing rod over the target, does the target weight change? Just wondering.

-LF

[Paulhoff]

Edge,

If you put the target (Gold) on a scale and then move your dowsing rod over the target, does the target weight change? Just wondering.

-LF
In one word, NO.

Paul

:) :) :)

[LongFuzzy]

Well, its mass won't change, but if edge's alleged force is real, then its' weight should change. No?

-LF

[SezMe]

No worries, SezMe. These are in the plan once Mr. Guska begins responding to my e-mails again.

Hey, edge!

Get your henie in gear and start working with RemieV.

[Tricky]

Edge,

If you put the target (Gold) on a scale and then move your dowsing rod over the target, does the target weight change? Just wondering.

At one point it was suggested that Edge make a pendulum with a gold weight at the bottom and dowse at it, because it would only take a tiny force to make the pendulum swing. As I recall he did this and honestly reported that he couldn't make it swing. Sadly, rather than make him question whether there was actual force between the rod and the gold, he instead decided to that it is a force, unlike all others ever discovered, that only works in one direction, immune to Newton's Third Law.

He is a remarkable mixture of honesty and self-delusion.

[RemieV]

Hey, edge!

Get your henie in gear and start working with RemieV.

I'm sure he's just busy :)

Can't expect a lightning-like reply! I'll post more info as it becomes available.

[LongFuzzy]

Thanks Tricky, I had forgotten about that.

-LF

[Tricky]

Thanks Tricky, I had forgotten about that.

-LF
Forgotten? I thought you were a newbie. The pendulum thing was a long time ago. Anyway, welcome, if you're a newbie. If not, welcome back.

[SezMe]

I'll post more info as it becomes available.
That would be great. Please post a note in this thread whenever anything happens in the formal Challenge thread so we can all keep current on wazzup. Thanks.

[William Smith]

I'm sure he's just busy :)

Can't expect a lightning-like reply!

No, because there's only a USD 1,000,000 reward for doing what he claims to be able to do.

I'll post more info as it becomes available.

Thanks for the updates so far, RemieV. (Or is it Remie?!?)



What's the current over/under for:

1. Edge's response in days?
2. Edge's changes to the protocol?
3. Edge's excuses for delay in the testing process?
4. Edge's choice of the test location in months?

[edge]

You mean I got a responce finally, ok I'll have to read it.

[William Smith]

You mean I got a responce finally, ok I'll have to read it.

Oh, please do read it.

Your last post doesn't count as a response, edge, because you have been online at the JREF Forum for at least 20 minutes before you posted. That should have provided ample opportunity to find out about this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2727246#post2727246) and understand the JREF basically accepted your proposal.

[edge]

SezMe says,


Hey, edge!

Get your henie in gear and start working with RemieV.

I wouldn't mind working with her, very beautiful.
Along side a creek in a cabin.

[William Smith]

Hey, edge!

Get your henie in gear and start working with RemieV.

I wouldn't mind working with her, very beautiful.
Along side a creek in a cabin.

Could you tune your dowsing rod to find the quote button, edge, while not fiddling with the delete key?

[edge]

SezMe says,
RemieV, I have some comments on the protocol.

First, you should establish a limit on the period that edge can dowse each container. I suggest something like ~10 seconds, or whatever edge will agree to. The problem is that he tends to dowse longer and longer as the trials go on, leading to fatigue on edge's part and a too long drawn out test for everyone.

Irrelevant


Second, you will not find a place where edge says there is "no" background reading. That is what he means by calibration. The protocol needs to state that edge agrees that whatever background there is will not affect his dowsing.

Same, if I am doing The test I have agreed....

Third, the protocol should begin by having edge dowse a container KNOWING that it contains the target and then dowse a container KNOWING that it does not contain the target. At this point, edge should state without equivocation that the location is acceptable and his dowsing works at that location agian irrelivent, I will do this for calibration....

You are making this way too complicated.

The ten minutes is also fine but needs adjusting.

[William Smith]

SezMe says,


You are making this way too complicated.

The ten minutes is also fine but needs adjusting.

Edge, stop waffling. Now.
[/Jack Bauer]

You need to respond to this:

I have just sent this e-mail to Mike Guska:

Mike Guska,

Thank you for your patience. The final protocol will be in this e-mail, though I ask you to keep in mind that Randi must sign off on any protocol before the process to begin testing.

You will come to a location, so far unspecified, and find a spot within said location that has no "reading" on your dowsing rods. You will then leave the room while a cannister (what kind of cannister? Film? Coffee?) is placed. You will return to the room and dowse for the target metal (either gold or silver, to be determined based upon availability).

You will dowse the single cannister and leave the room while a second is placed. The process will continue for ten cannisters. One of those will definitely contain the target metal. The other nine in each set will definitely not.

You will then be allowed a short break (about ten minutes) and return to dowse the next set of ten in the same fashion.

You will be asked to dowse ten sets of ten cannisters in this fashion.

You will not be permitted to touch the cannisters. The JREF will have a volunteer standing by to place them. You will not be permitted to watch when the cannisters are switched.

A positive result for the preliminary test will be identifying the target substance (of either gold or silver) correctly in seven out of the ten sets of ten.

Let me know if this protocol works for you, and please answer the questions above as concisely as possible.

Thank you again for your patience,

JREF Challenge Desk

I highlighted the most important part.

[Calcas]

IF this ever happens, someone should film it and perhaps make a documentary similar to the one Randi did on the dowsing claim.

Where was that one, England? Australia?

So, what's the best guess as to when this might take place?

[edge]

I have answered.
This is it,
I like the way they say final, but I think what I have asked for is acceptable because of what the experiments have taught me about dowsing in a test like this.
It will matter for me to achieve higher numbers of correct hits.



Hi Alison,

Everything seems to be OK except.

I will use the ten minutes like this, When the metal
appears on the spot I will ask that you remove it and
wait five minutes before continuing to place what I
believe to be the remainder of empty containers.

Then I may or may not need the next five minutes.
Depends on where the target comes up at, or which
number, if it's contanier ten then we will take the
full rest time.

As far as a room , it will take place outside in a
park either in Fort Lauderdale or at a spot on Coffee
Creek Ca.
It might be easier for it to happen in Florida.

In Florida October would be a good time since it will
be cooler out side then.

I will in advance, go to that city and have a spot
picked out and I will conduct the test on my own, you
can then check it any which way you like.

Everything else is fine as long as one person of my
choosing is recording with the JREF team and I won't
see any of the persons hiding the target or that
person.
Mike

I don't think anything I have asked for is out of line or will cause them to have any doubt, and I will walk away with out any uncertainty.

[William Smith]

I can't believe I'm typing this: Edge will likely be tested in October this year. What universe is this? :D

[edge]

To make this easier for the JREF I will more than likely go back to Florida.
I don’t relish this as that state is miserably hot and the humidity is almost unbearable.

I still have all my contacts for work but it is slow there right now.
I will probably never mine again once I go back unless I win.
Mining is a young mans hobby, work, as it has taken a toll on my body.
But you never know.

I kind of miss my trade and business I had a great reputation and always had work and money.
But that too, is hard to do in that weather, on your body, and a young mans game.

It’s a catch 22 but what else is new?
No matter what you guys have forced me to learn this damn thing called a computor

[William Smith]

To make this easier for the JREF I will more than likely go back to Florida.
I don’t relish this as that state is miserably hot and the humidity is almost unbearable.

I still have all my contacts for work but it is slow there right now.
I will probably never mine again once I go back unless I win.
Mining is a young mans hobby, work, as it has taken a toll on my body.
But you never know.

I kind of miss my trade and business I had a great reputation and always had work and money.
But that too, is hard to do in that weather, on your body, and a young mans game.

It’s a catch 22 but what else is new?
No matter what you guys have forced me to learn this damn thing called a computor


While we're on this roll, by which time will you have picked a location and a definite date, edge?

[RemieV]

I have answered.
This is it,
I like the way they say final, but I think what I have asked for is acceptable because of what the experiments have taught me about dowsing in a test like this.
It will matter for me to achieve higher numbers of correct hits.



Hi Alison,

Everything seems to be OK except.

I will use the ten minutes like this, When the metal
appears on the spot I will ask that you remove it and
wait five minutes before continuing to place what I
believe to be the remainder of empty containers.

Then I may or may not need the next five minutes.
Depends on where the target comes up at, or which
number, if it's contanier ten then we will take the
full rest time.

As far as a room , it will take place outside in a
park either in Fort Lauderdale or at a spot on Coffee
Creek Ca.
It might be easier for it to happen in Florida.

In Florida October would be a good time since it will
be cooler out side then.

I will in advance, go to that city and have a spot
picked out and I will conduct the test on my own, you
can then check it any which way you like.

Everything else is fine as long as one person of my
choosing is recording with the JREF team and I won't
see any of the persons hiding the target or that
person.
Mike

I don't think anything I have asked for is out of line or will cause them to have any doubt, and I will walk away with out any uncertainty.

Since you are here often, I suppose we can continue to work through things here.

Okay, I'm confused by your statement. I ask again that you be both concise and precise.

I think this is what you are saying:

We will, as stated previously, place the cannisters (you did not respond on what kind they were supposed to be that I saw, so I will ask again, what kind are they supposed to be?) one at a time and you will dowse them one at a time within a reasonable time limit for each.

There will be ten sets of ten cannisters, and one in each set of ten will definitely contain your target metal.

Rather than use the breaks as actual breaks, you would prefer to instead stop at the cannister containing the metal?

So it would go like this, is what you're saying:

You enter the room. The cannister is there. You dowse it and decide it is empty.

You leave the room and re-enter. The next cannister is there. You dowse it and decide it's empty.

You leave the room and re-enter. The next cannister is there. You dowse it and decide it contains the target metal. You wait five minutes before leaving the room.

You then leave the room and re-enter. The next cannister is there and you have already decided, because you have decided that the previous cannister contained the target metal, that this cannister is empty.

You leave the room and so on for all ten cannisters in that particular set. You have opted not to take the ten minute break, so instead of having one we continue straight into the next set of ten.

Is this what you are suggesting?

Thank you for the clarification.

~Remie

[edge]

RemieV says,
Since you are here often, I suppose we can continue to work through things here.

Okay, I'm confused by your statement. I ask again that you be both concise and precise.

I think this is what you are saying:

We will, as stated previously, place the cannisters (you did not respond on what kind they were supposed to be that I saw, so I will ask again, what kind are they supposed to be?) one at a time and you will dowse them one at a time within a reasonable time limit for each.

There will be ten sets of ten cannisters, and one in each set of ten will definitely contain your target metal.

Rather than use the breaks as actual breaks, you would prefer to instead stop at the cannister containing the metal?

So it would go like this, is what you're saying:

You enter the room. The cannister is there. You dowse it and decide it is empty.

You leave the room and re-enter. The next cannister is there. You dowse it and decide it's empty.

You leave the room and re-enter. The next cannister is there. You dowse it and decide it contains the target metal. You wait five minutes before leaving the room.

You then leave the room and re-enter. The next cannister is there and you have already decided, because you have decided that the previous cannister contained the target metal, that this cannister is empty.

You leave the room and so on for all ten cannisters in that particular set. You have opted not to take the ten minute break, so instead of having one we continue straight into the next set of ten.

Is this what you are suggesting?

Thank you for the clarification.

~Remie
Yesterday 07:50 PM



Never mind keep it the way you had it.

In between every set of ten we will take ten minutes or so for a break.

I'll know what to do.

After the metals appear it will then go fast.


Are you ok with this part?
Everything else is fine as long as one person of my
choosing is recording with the JREF team and I won't
see any of the persons hiding the target or that
person.

[RemieV]

RemieV says,




Never mind keep it the way you had it.

In between every set of ten we will take ten minutes or so for a break.

I'll know what to do.

After the metals appear it will then go fast.


Are you ok with this part?

Everything else is fine as long as one person of my
choosing is recording with the JREF team and I won't
see any of the persons hiding the target or that
person.


I don't understand the request. Is your suggestion that the testing be recorded by two separate persons? One who is a JREF member and one who is with you? Only they will be recorded via hidden camera and you will never see the camerapersons?

Because your cameraperson definitely would not be permitted to have contact with you if they were allowed to stay in the room when the cannisters were changed. Not contact of any kind, including body language or eye contact. I don't see a way around that.

[edge]

RemieV says,
I don't understand the request. Is your suggestion that the testing be recorded by two separate persons? One who is a JREF member and one who is with you? Only they will be recorded via hidden camera and you will never see the camerapersons?

Because your cameraperson definitely would not be permitted to have contact with you if they were allowed to stay in the room when the cannisters were changed. Not contact of any kind, including body language or eye contact. I don't see a way around that.

Here's how they did it before, Two of JREF members hide the target and record the results on paper, hits, misses.

They come and go leave the area with out me seeing a thing or them.

The person of my choosing will be with them.
I never see them.

One JREF member will be with me to make sure that I don't.
Or hear anything.

At the end they “my friend" will verify the results.
They, " the JREF team" are either correct or not with their findings.
That's all.

I would never see any of those three people hiding or bringing the cannisters, which by the way are ten 11 once Folgers plastic cans till the end of the test.
Before the test happens I will bring them to the JREF so they can see and do with them what they want.
If unsatisfactory we can change them to anything else that is plastic.


In other words the way you guys want to run it, how would I know that what was written down is the truth?

The only other way I could know the results, "for sure" with out a person of my choosing with them, is to see my pick when it occurs, then that set of ten is over that’s the other way to run the test.
That would be faster....I’m only there to find the metals not the empties….
The last time they did this.
But this time all the containers pass on one spot of my choosing.
So you say I have to scan all of the containers.
That’s OK.
If you are worried about time then reconsider this way.


I’m not implying anything but lets say that I got 9 of 10 correct they because of the amount of money, could say that I got 9 of 10 misses and how Would I know?

Even I need a watch dog but not like the one in my profile.

It’s called, C.M.A…

I hope this clarifies it once and for all, but if you reconsider what I said above I’m all for that way too, no problem.

Keep in mind that I work so I might not answer quickly but I’m here.
I want you to be clear on this.
It’s a tough test.

[edge]

Hey Tricky there is a chance that I will pass through Texass on my way to Florida, you know the peinis insula You want to try a test on limestone?
I hope you are not in the flooded area? :)

[Tricky]

Hey Tricky there is a chance that I will pass through Texass on my way to Florida, you know the peinis insula You want to try a test on limestone?
That's very possible. There are some places near Austin with good, thick limestone beds. Also, the Austin Chalk is the local equivalent of the same formation that is responsible for the White Cliffs of Dover in England.

I hope you are not in the flooded area? :)
No bad flooding here, but lots of rain. I don't much mind. Beats the hell out of drought. Thanks for asking.

[RemieV]

RemieV says,


Here's how they did it before, Two of JREF members hide the target and record the results on paper, hits, misses.

They come and go leave the area with out me seeing a thing or them.

The person of my choosing will be with them.
I never see them.

One JREF member will be with me to make sure that I don't.
Or hear anything.

At the end they “my friend" will verify the results.
They, " the JREF team" are either correct or not with their findings.
That's all.

I would never see any of those three people hiding or bringing the cannisters, which by the way are ten 11 once Folgers plastic cans till the end of the test.
Before the test happens I will bring them to the JREF so they can see and do with them what they want.
If unsatisfactory we can change them to anything else that is plastic.


In other words the way you guys want to run it, how would I know that what was written down is the truth?

The only other way I could know the results, "for sure" with out a person of my choosing with them, is to see my pick when it occurs, then that set of ten is over that’s the other way to run the test.
That would be faster....I’m only there to find the metals not the empties….
The last time they did this.
But this time all the containers pass on one spot of my choosing.
So you say I have to scan all of the containers.
That’s OK.
If you are worried about time then reconsider this way.


I’m not implying anything but lets say that I got 9 of 10 correct they because of the amount of money, could say that I got 9 of 10 misses and how Would I know?

Even I need a watch dog but not like the one in my profile.

It’s called, C.M.A…

I hope this clarifies it once and for all, but if you reconsider what I said above I’m all for that way too, no problem.

Keep in mind that I work so I might not answer quickly but I’m here.
I want you to be clear on this.
It’s a tough test.

I don't understand... Why did they hide the target? If you are simply telling which cannisters contain metal and which contain nothing, why do they have to be hidden as well?

I do not see a problem with having a person of your choosing with the individual who places the cannisters as long as you never see them, but again, Randi will give final approval/disapproval.

[SezMe]

edge, is your person going to be Danny?

[Jackalgirl]

Remie, let me attempt an edge-translation:

He just wants to have one of his own people with the JREF people who are setting up the test canisters for each attempt. Edge won't have any contact with the team that does the setting up (or with his own person) until the very end, when the two groups get together to compare their results.

As far as I can tell. I've yet to see a true peanut-butter-and-jelly description of this protocol -- good luck!

Edited to add: in reading this page, and the Challenge thread, am I understanding that the protocol will be something like this:

Materials:
One 11-ounce opaque plastic Folger's Coffee container
One target (a x-ounce bolus of y) (where x is a weight and y is the type of metal)
One dowsing rod, prepared by edge
A location ("The Area"), as yet unspecified, determined by edge to be free of interference
Two "holding areas" out of sight of the above location and of each other.

Teams:
Team "A" -- consisting of edge and a JREF rep
Team "B" -- consisting of at least one JREF rep and a representative chosen by edge

Protocol:
For the purposes of this protocol, an "attempt set" consists of ten separate attempts, lettered a-j. There will be ten attempt sets in the test, overall, each numbered 1-10.
An attempt will consist of Team "A"'s attempt to determine whether the container does or does not contain the target. Only one attempt within a set will consist of the container covering the target; the other nine attempts within that set will consist of container with nothing under it.
For each attempt set, Team "B" will randomly determine (how?) which attempt within that set will contain the target. Team "B" will then set up the first attempt: they will place the target in The Area, place the container over the target so as to obscure it, and record both the attempt number (1a) and whether the target is present under the container or not. Team "A" will leave The Area and go to their holding area, and will signal to Team "B" that setup is complete (how? Radio keying?).
Team "B" will leave their holding area, go to The Area, and edge will make his attempt to determine whether the container is covering the target, without touching the container. The other member of Team "B" will record edge's result. Team "B" will then leave The Area, return to their own holding area, and signal to Team "A" that they are done.
Team "A" will return to The Area, pick up the container, and replace it (with or without the target underneath, as determined by their initial determing of which attempt within the set actually will contain the target). Again, they will record the attempt (in this case, 1b), whether or not the container is covering the target, then leave the scene and signal to Team "B" that The Area is ready for Team "B"'s next attempt.
This process will continue until all attempts within the first attempt set are complete. At this point, there will be a ten-minute break.
After the break, the next attempt set (set 2) will begin. Same protocol as for set 1. Again, after this attempt set is complete, there will be a ten-minute break, after which attempt set 3 will commence, and so forth until ten attempt sets are complete.
When all 10 attempt sets are complete, the two teams will get together and compare their results.

-=-=-=-=-

Questions to be answered: is this correct? I'm going off of your post in the Challenge area (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2727246#post2727246). Also, I'm assuming that this will happen OUTSIDE, correct? Because edge postulated (in this thread, sometime way before) that a reason for his initial failure at the Challenge was due to the fact that the target was "ungrounded", and this somehow affected his ability to detect the object. So I am assuming that this protocol will take place outdoors. I realize that this was a long time ago, and the wanderings of the protocol have kind of fried my brain, so is that right?

Next: if this is true, then I assume that the target will be placed on the ground, and the can simply placed over it (rather than the target actually placed within the container).

Next: how will the setup team determine which attempt is going to actually have the target present or not? Dice? I'd suggest two ten-siders, because I'm a gaming geek, with one marked with 10s (10, 20, 30, etc) and the other marked with 1s (1, 2, 3, etc). 01-10 = target is under the first attempt of the attempt set. 11-20 = target is under second attempt of an attempt set. And so on until 91-00 = target is under 10th attempt of an attempt set.

Next: I would recommend that Team "A" have a set amount of time to do the setup for each attempt (set a timer for, say, three minutes, or something, depending on how far their holding area is away from The Area). That way, no clue can be gleaned from the time it takes to do the setup.

Next, I'd recommend two-way walkie-talkies with a keying capability, so the teams can just buzz each other when they're ready.

Last: how many "dry runs" (that is, uncontrolled, "calibration" attempts) will be done before the fully-blinded test is conducted?

[EHocking]

..Next: how will the setup team determine which attempt is going to actually have the target present or not? Dice? I'd suggest two ten-siders, because I'm a gaming geek, with one marked with 10s (10, 20, 30, etc) and the other marked with 1s (1, 2, 3, etc). 01-10 = target is under the first attempt of the attempt set. 11-20 = target is under second attempt of an attempt set. And so on until 91-00 = target is under 10th attempt of an attempt set.I was going to suggest, in my protocol, that Kelly pool (pin and pea pool in the States, I believe) such as these (http://www.gameroomsusa.com/table-accessories-scoring-and-pea-pool.html) could be used for both randomising the numbering of the canisters and the selection of canisters for each trial. These could quite literally be used as "pulling a number out of a hat", and I thought would be simpler than die and better than shuffling cards.

On the former randomisation, my idea is to fill 9 35mm film canisters with an equivalent mass (or volume - edge needs to decide this) to the target (1/4oz gold/silver). BlueTack(TM) could be used.
The 10th has the target placed in it which is also held in place with BlueTack(TM) so that no one can get an audible hint as to the canister's contents.
The above is done in full view of all participants to verify the target will be present. The tops are put on the canisters and "sealed" with a length of masking tape over the canister lid. The number of the canister will be written on the tape.
Canisters are placed in a lidded box (shoe box would do) and gently rotated to mix them up. Canisters are then drawn randomly from the box and the Kelly Pool balls (1-10) are used to number the canister.

For trial randomisation, same deal. Kelly pool balls are randomly drawn to determine the order in which the canisters are used in each trial. Beauty of using the kelly pool balls/bottle is that they can be drawn on the fly and you don't run into the problem of having to make multiple die throws, as you *will* get multiple repeats of the same combination with dice.

I've offered to write up an entire double-blind protocol for edge, step by step with examples of forms, equipment and personnel list.

But have been rebuffed by edge. That's why I offered RemieV my condolences in having to deal with edge, and agree with Reno's estimation of the outcome.

[Jackalgirl]

I was going to suggest, in my protocol, that Kelly pool (pin and pea pool in the States, I believe) such as these (http://www.gameroomsusa.com/table-accessories-scoring-and-pea-pool.html) could be used for both randomising the numbering of the canisters and the selection of canisters for each trial. These could quite literally be used as "pulling a number out of a hat", and I thought would be simpler than die and better than shuffling cards.

On the former randomisation, my idea is to fill 9 35mm film canisters with an equivalent mass (or volume - edge needs to decide this) to the target (1/4oz gold/silver). BlueTack(TM) could be used.
The 10th has the target placed in it which is also held in place with BlueTack(TM) so that no one can get an audible hint as to the canister's contents.
The above is done in full view of all participants to verify the target will be present. The tops are put on the canisters and "sealed" with a length of masking tape over the canister lid. The number of the canister will be written on the tape.
Canisters are placed in a lidded box (shoe box would do) and gently rotated to mix them up. Canisters are then drawn randomly from the box and the Kelly Pool balls (1-10) are used to number the canister.

For trial randomisation, same deal. Kelly pool balls are randomly drawn to determine the order in which the canisters are used in each trial. Beauty of using the kelly pool balls/bottle is that they can be drawn on the fly and you don't run into the problem of having to make multiple die throws, as you *will* get multiple repeats of the same combination with dice.

I've offered to write up an entire double-blind protocol for edge, step by step with examples of forms, equipment and personnel list.

But have been rebuffed by edge. That's why I offered RemieV my condolences in having to deal with edge, and agree with Reno's estimation of the outcome.

Am I correct in understanding that the canisters would be renumbered during each attempt (or attempt set)? So, for example, the container with the target in it would not be container number 9 (or whatever) for each test?

Also, I don't think that coming up with the same number multiple times would really be a problem (if I'm understanding what the Kelly pool is; I've read the Wikipedia entry on this as a game and it's making my head swim, so if I'm wrong, please help!).

After all, in a truly random number determination, it's quite possible that this would happen.

Also, I distinctly remember that edge postulated that the target would have to be in physical contact with the ground in order for this test to work (he stated that one of the problems with the original test is that the target was "ungrounded"). So you'd have to rework your protocol so as to be able to allow the target to be touching the ground -- that is, of course, if this is still an issue...

Edited to add: I found the post, in which edge states (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2273408&postcount=414):
It got me thinking why the tests where so successful and Tricky your idea suddenly hit me.
Bury the target and it’s grounded to the field.
This could explain success in the field, so simple.
Every other way I have tried, even at JREF the metal wasn’t grounded.

[EHocking]

Am I correct in understanding that the canisters would be renumbered during each attempt (or attempt set)? So, for example, the container with the target in it would not be container number 9 (or whatever) for each test?No. No renumbering. Merely blind/randomise the initial numbering. Draw a numbered ball from the bottle, mark that number on the canister drawn from the lidded box. That way no one will know the number of the canister which has the target in it.

Then use the same ball drawing process to determine the order in which the canisters are placed for the trial. ie draw ball 3 - canister 3 first, draw another numbered ball - place the correspondingly numbered canister next, etc.
Also, I don't think that coming up with the same number multiple times would really be a problem (if I'm understanding what the Kelly pool is; I've read the Wikipedia entry on this as a game and it's making my head swim, so if I'm wrong, please help!).Ignore kelly pool rules - I had meant merely to use the tally bottle and the numbered balls instead of die or cards for the randomising tool. All they are are mini pool/snooker/billiard balls in a thin necked bottle. Shake the bottle and the thin neck only allows one ball to be drawn at a time. I suggested this method because it is faster than rolling die and IMO more random than shuffling drawing playing cards or rolling dice.
After all, in a truly random number determination, it's quite possible that this would happen. Using the Kelly pool ball/bottle, there are only 10 numbered balls, drawn one at a time and not replaced. No repeat numbers drawn. Fast and simple randomisation where fewer mistakes could be made. In my opinion.
Also, I distinctly remember that edge postulated that the target would have to be in physical contact with the ground in order for this test to work (he stated that one of the problems with the original test is that the target was "ungrounded"). So you'd have to rework your protocol so as to be able to allow the target to be touching the ground -- that is, of course, if this is still an issue...

Edited to add: I found the post, in which edge states (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2273408&postcount=414):Good memory there. Problem is that edge changes his mind so often that *he's* probably forgotten that he said that.

I do believe that he's just as happy now to have the plastic coffee tin placed on the ground with the numbered canister inside the lidded "tin". This after he introduced the absolute requirement of using the gold balance/scale with his willow rod.

Post 1284 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2683994&postcount=1284) "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."

[Jackalgirl]

No. No renumbering. Merely blind/randomise the initial numbering. Draw a numbered ball from the bottle, mark that number on the canister drawn from the lidded box. That way no one will know the number of the canister which has the target in it.

Okay, I think I grok you here. So, in essence, there would be a "Team C", who'd be the one who does the canister numbering, who'd simply do that initial numbering (and record which number corresponds to the target), and then Teams A and B would do their stuff, with no one else knowing until the very end which is which, because they're all weighted equally?


Then use the same ball drawing process to determine the order in which the canisters are placed for the trial. ie draw ball 3 - canister 3 first, draw another numbered ball - place the correspondingly numbered canister next, etc.

I understand you now. This does make sense, and sounds a lot simpler than the dice. I'm just a gaming geek, I guess. ; )


Good memory there. Problem is that edge changes his mind so often that *he's* probably forgotten that he said that.

I do believe that he's just as happy now to have the plastic coffee tin placed on the ground with the numbered canister inside the lidded "tin". This after he introduced the absolute requirement of using the gold balance/scale with his willow rod.

Post 1284 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2683994&postcount=1284) "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."

My concern is that after all of this is said and done, he'll suddenly remember the "grounding" issue and declare the test invalid. That's why I bring it up again. Also, I don't see anything involving a scale in Remie's protocol...then again, I suppose it doesn't matter. Edge can do anything he wants to determine what's in the canister short of touching it or using an actual functional metal detector on it. Whether or not he decides to use a scale or a black cat and a rubber chicken -- it doesn't matter, hey? ; )

I'm still a bit confused as to why this has to be separated out into ten separate attempts in each attempt set (with ten attempt sets). It seems to me that this will slow things down immeasurably. I don't understand why edge can't simply dowse between ten containers ten times. I'm sure if I went back and read through everything, I'd get it, but it just seems overly...overly to me. But please, don't explain. I don't need to know. It'll just hurt my head more. ; )

[EHocking]

Okay, I think I grok you here. So, in essence, there would be a "Team C", who'd be the one who does the canister numbering, who'd simply do that initial numbering (and record which number corresponds to the target), and then Teams A and B would do their stuff, with no one else knowing until the very end which is which, because they're all weighted equally?This was an outline of one way to do it. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2706970&postcount=1377)
I understand you now. This does make sense, and sounds a lot simpler than the dice. I'm just a gaming geek, I guess. ; )Well the other side could be Randi detractors:
"What, choosing the canisters was done by a magician drawing the cards?!" Yet another excuse of "cheating" by JREF.:D
My concern is that after all of this is said and done, he'll suddenly remember the "grounding" issue and declare the test invalid. That's why I bring it up again. Also, I don't see anything involving a scale in Remie's protocol...then again, I suppose it doesn't matter. Edge can do anything he wants to determine what's in the canister short of touching it or using an actual functional metal detector on it. Whether or not he decides to use a scale or a black cat and a rubber chicken -- it doesn't matter, hey? ; )That's why a *detailed* protocol needs to be drawn up. All bases need to be covered.
edge claims that I'm merely being anal - you've spotted WHY I'm being particular.
I'm still a bit confused as to why this has to be separated out into ten separate attempts in each attempt set (with ten attempt sets). It seems to me that this will slow things down immeasurably. I don't understand why edge can't simply dowse between ten containers ten times. I'm sure if I went back and read through everything, I'd get it, but it just seems overly...overly to me. But please, don't explain. I don't need to know. It'll just hurt my head more. ; )You are quite right - my estimate is 10 mins per canister - 1000mins minimum. Ridiculous.

edge has decided that he wants to do it this way because he claims that he could never find a large enough "neutral" area to place 10 canisters at a time. He claims, now, that finding a single spot to place each canister on one at a time will reduce outside influences on his dowsing rod during the test.

[Spektator]

(snip)
edge has decided that he wants to do it this way because he claims that he could never find a large enough "neutral" area to place 10 canisters at a time. He claims, now, that finding a single spot to place each canister on one at a time will reduce outside influences on his dowsing rod during the test.

Which leads me to wonder: If a tiny patch of ground the size of a coffee can is tthe largest area edge can find that does NOT attract his dowsing rod--how in the world can he ever find gold in the wild?

[colin]

A couple of thoughts regarding Edge’s observer:

He/she should not be allowed to touch or handle the containers at all.

If he/she is keeping their own list, the lists should be compared after every attempt in order to prevent any ‘anomalies’.

Does he/she actually need to physically be where the containers are? Can they just observe remotely via a video camera?

[Spektator]

A couple of thoughts regarding Edge’s observer:

He/she should not be allowed to touch or handle the containers at all.

If he/she is keeping their own list, the lists should be compared after every attempt in order to prevent any ‘anomalies’.

Does he/she actually need to physically be where the containers are? Can they just observe remotely via a video camera?

This concern is a good reason to have a third team or person who will actually conceal the target in the container, or otherwise insure through some randomizing process that the people placing the containers do not know until after each run of ten which time the target was present.

Because it is not out of the realm of possibility that a confederate could tip off the dowser when the target is present--by making a little scuff mark in the dirt, for example, when the actual target is in the container. That's why double-blinding is important: the target-placing team should not be aware until the run of ten attempts is over which time the real target was present.

[William Smith]

This concern is a good reason to have a third team or person who will actually conceal the target in the container, or otherwise insure through some randomizing process that the people placing the containers do not know until after each run of ten which time the target was present.

Because it is not out of the realm of possibility that a confederate could tip off the dowser when the target is present--by making a little scuff mark in the dirt, for example, when the actual target is in the container. That's why double-blinding is important: the target-placing team should not be aware until the run of ten attempts is over which time the real target was present.

Quality post, Spektator. Edge must not be allowed to pull off a scam. Please remember SezMe's mate's point of view.
...
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?
...


(Not that I insinuate you would try to deceive, edge. Seriously, I don't.)

With Mr. Randi at the helm, however, a scam seems not really likely, does it?

[EHocking]

This concern is a good reason to have a third team or person who will actually conceal the target in the container, or otherwise insure through some randomizing process that the people placing the containers do not know until after each run of ten which time the target was present.

Because it is not out of the realm of possibility that a confederate could tip off the dowser when the target is present--by making a little scuff mark in the dirt, for example, when the actual target is in the container. That's why double-blinding is important: the target-placing team should not be aware until the run of ten attempts is over which time the real target was present.One of the reasons that over 2 weeks ago I started in the fact that what edge was proposing was not double blind and why I proposed this back on the 21st (post 1377). (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2706970&postcount=1377)

(apparently when I discuss double blinding, it's merely a reflection of my anal retentiveness)

[edge]

Remie,,Hiding the target in one of the containers, I get to see the containers. :)
Acually if they are so worried, then cover the contaner when on the one spot of my choosing, and in my scanning area, with a cardbord box also.

[edge]

edge, is your person going to be Danny?

Probably not, I’m thinking a friend who I haven’t seen and is a skeptic also.
Or who doesn’t know anything about what I’m doing till we get there.

[edge]

Jackelgirl says,

Materials:
One 11-ounce opaque plastic Folger's Coffee container.


I think you got it, except the JREF will want 10 contaniers, which I have.
They can even cover those up [one at a time on that one spot] if they want, as they pass on the one spot.

[Spektator]

One of the reasons that over 2 weeks ago I started in the fact that what edge was proposing was not double blind and why I proposed this back on the 21st (post 1377). (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2706970&postcount=1377)

(apparently when I discuss double blinding, it's merely a reflection of my anal retentiveness)
Not to me--I honestly don't think any useful information could be produced by any dowsing test not double-blinded. Kudos for your suggestions, and I commend them to the attention of JREF.

And I honestly didn't mean to suggest that edge would intentionally cheat, either--however, as has been said before, it's possible for someone to mark a target-containing attempt even inadvertently, and for a dowser to pick up on subtle cues.

[edge]

Quote:
Also, I distinctly remember that edge postulated that the target would have to be in physical contact with the ground in order for this test to work (he stated that one of the problems with the original test is that the target was "ungrounded"). So you'd have to rework your protocol so as to be able to allow the target to be touching the ground -- that is, of course, if this is still an issue...

Edited to add: I found the post, in which edge states:

They can be sealed contianers now because of the scales.
Not an issue.
The scales test is what it's based upon now.
The way SezMe and I did it was on a porch remember, new ways of testing that I did as we went along.



Good memory there. Problem is that edge changes his mind so often that *he's* probably forgotten that he said that.

No I remember everything, factors changed as I tested different ways till I got what I needed to at least get higher correct hits.
This is what happens as you keep testing different things.
Stay with the last experiment and protocol.

JREF will choose the way they select the container to hold the target.
To me it’s irrelevant.



I do believe that he's just as happy now to have the plastic coffee tin placed on the ground with the numbered canister inside the lidded "tin". This after he introduced the absolute requirement of using the gold balance/scale with his willow rod.

Post 1284 "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."

Correct.

I’m only there to find the metals not the empties….
But this time all the containers pass on one spot of my choosing.
So you [JREF] say I have to scan all of the containers.
That’s OK.
If you are worried about time then reconsider this way.
When the target shows up that set of ten is over, whenever I say the metals are there.
We then do the next set of ten with a new number picked by them for the metals to show up at, in that next set of ten containers.
In other words I only have to scan till I say it's there for each set of ten contaniers what ever that random choice was for the draw.
Right or wrong pick that I choose.

I believe they have made up their minds that all the containers need to be scaned.

Things you don't know are involved here.
The tricky part where I could lose or win.
What gravity does when you remove the target on and off many times.

[edge]

Which leads me to wonder: If a tiny patch of ground the size of a coffee can is tthe largest area edge can find that does NOT attract his dowsing rod--how in the world can he ever find gold in the wild?

The test and dowsing in the field are two different, lets say tests, and the rules of what I can do are different in each case.
Too much for you to know right now and for me to explane but if you read back there is an explanation that I give.

[edge]

A couple of thoughts regarding Edge’s observer:

He/she should not be allowed to touch or handle the containers at all.

If he/she is keeping their own list, the lists should be compared after every attempt in order to prevent any ‘anomalies’.

Does he/she actually need to physically be where the containers are? Can they just observe remotely via a video camera?

They are part of the A team which I have no contact with during the testing.
They need to physically see what occurs.
This is a physical type of test.

[edge]

This concern is a good reason to have a third team or person who will actually conceal the target in the container, or otherwise insure through some randomizing process that the people placing the containers do not know until after each run of ten which time the target was present.

Because it is not out of the realm of possibility that a confederate could tip off the dowser when the target is present--by making a little scuff mark in the dirt, for example, when the actual target is in the container. That's why double-blinding is important: the target-placing team should not be aware until the run of ten attempts is over which time the real target was present.

My person can watch at a distance while they place the targets on the spot and never get near the spot.

You better hope we don't use ESP!
Geez!

[Spektator]

FWIW, edge, I'm 100% sure you won't use esp.

[edge]

With Mr. Randi at the helm, however, a scam seems not really likely, does it?

The only way to scam is to read my partners mind.
If I could do that and achive the numbers then I'm testing for the wrong thing right?

[SezMe]

My concern is that after all of this is said and done, he'll suddenly remember the "grounding" issue and declare the test invalid.

I think this is a very valid point. The protocol needs to address the placement of the containers.

You are quite right - my estimate is 10 mins per canister - 1000mins minimum. Ridiculous.

EHocking is right - it is riduculous.

And, edge, you should object to this too. In our little demo, you were getting fatigued after 5 trials and we took a little break. Five. The protocol has to take this fatigue factor into account.

For others, I think edge's fatigue is real, for two reasons. First, as you can imagine, he grips the rod very tightly while dowsing. Of course, this soon wears on the hands. Secondly, if he uses the scale technique, he has to stand very still and rigid and not move his arms at all or else that is what will affect the scale reading.

In my opinion, there is no way edge can do 100 trials. No way. It might even lead to his using fatigue as an excuse. A good protocol for JREF and edge has to take this into account. Alternatively, the protocol should include an explicit statement that edge acknowledges that fatigue will not be a factor influencing his capabilities using the agreed upon protocol. But I'd rather that the protocol remove the fatigue issue entirely.

[William Smith]

I think this is a very valid point. The protocol needs to address the placement of the containers.



EHocking is right - it is riduculous.

And, edge, you should object to this too. In our little demo, you were getting fatigued after 5 trials and we took a little break. Five. The protocol has to take this fatigue factor into account.

For others, I think edge's fatigue is real, for two reasons. First, as you can imagine, he grips the rod very tightly while dowsing. Of course, this soon wears on the hands. Secondly, if he uses the scale technique, he has to stand very still and rigid and not move his arms at all or else that is what will affect the scale reading.

In my opinion, there is no way edge can do 100 trials. No way. It might even lead to his using fatigue as an excuse. A good protocol for JREF and edge has to take this into account. Alternatively, the protocol should include an explicit statement that edge acknowledges that fatigue will not be a factor influencing his capabilities using the agreed upon protocol. But I'd rather that the protocol remove the fatigue issue entirely.

Quality post, SezMe.

(That's not fair, you guys keep saying all there is to say faster than me.) ;)

[Jackalgirl]

...Because it is not out of the realm of possibility that a confederate could tip off the dowser when the target is present--by making a little scuff mark in the dirt, for example, when the actual target is in the container. That's why double-blinding is important: the target-placing team should not be aware until the run of ten attempts is over which time the real target was present.

Excellent, excellent point -- and I hope that JREF will do this.

[Jackalgirl]

Jackelgirl says,


I think you got it, except the JREF will want 10 contaniers, which I have.
They can even cover those up [one at a time on that one spot] if they want, as they pass on the one spot.

Edge, I think they want containers because they're still thinking that this will consist of ten runs, each run consisting of you figuring out which of 10 containers has the target in it. Or, at least, they did when they insisted on 10 containers. I could be wrong, though -- they might just be thinking that it's important to have additional containers to prevent trickery, since no one will know in advance which of the containers will actually end up with the target in it. Which is not a bad idea.

One important issue that EHocking and SezMe have brought up is the issue of fatigue. You do realize that running this trial of ten attempts = 1 set and 10 sets means that you will be making 100 separate dowsing attempts. If you get fatigued after five, this means you'll have to take 20 breaks. Are you going to be able to maintain the endurance to do all 100? And this isn't even taking into account that you definitely should (and will probably be required to) do one or more "calibration" runs (i.e., unblinded).

[edge]

Originally Posted by SezMe
I think this is a very valid point. The protocol needs to address the placement of the containers.



EHocking is right - it is riduculous.

And, edge, you should object to this too. In our little demo, you were getting fatigued after 5 trials and we took a little break. Five. The protocol has to take this fatigue factor into account.

For others, I think edge's fatigue is real, for two reasons. First, as you can imagine, he grips the rod very tightly while dowsing. Of course, this soon wears on the hands. Secondly, if he uses the scale technique, he has to stand very still and rigid and not move his arms at all or else that is what will affect the scale reading.

In my opinion, there is no way edge can do 100 trials. No way. It might even lead to his using fatigue as an excuse. A good protocol for JREF and edge has to take this into account. Alternatively, the protocol should include an explicit statement that edge acknowledges that fatigue will not be a factor influencing his capabilities using the agreed upon protocol. But I'd rather that the protocol remove the fatigue issue entirely.
Quality post, SezMe.



They are giving me ten minutes in-between each set of ten tries.
That's good.

Once I scan and find the target what I suggested was, to end that set of ten that would help.
But that probably won't happen and that would shorten up the test time.

Those two things together would help immensely. I might be able to do the whole test in one day.

When I did the test with SezMe I had already did, I believe 40 scans at the house.
I did many more days before that.

It was very fatiguing the first time in the office too with all of them on the ground at once.

That is why I said to be fair I should scan 30 a day for two days and then a 40 scan day for the last, but then time is involved.
They may see it that way once we begin the test and make that suggestion themselves to continue the next day.
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

I need a target that does what SezMe witnessed at the creek a quick hard response.
In this way there is no mistaking the response.
And that was at the end of the day.
That’s the kind of target I need to dig up and look at, and then factor in the many possibilities of why that happened according to weight and placement.
If it were a baseball size nugget then it would be cut and dry.
Many factors are involved.

I will do more experiments to find the solution to that problem.

The one solution is to control my scans of the rest of the empties when they come up to conserve energy, after I know the target has shown up or has passed the spot.
My first instinct is usually correct.


I guess it’s going to my problem because they don’t want to do it as a scientific research experiment really would, to take in all the factors.

One of the factors is that dowsing on the creek doesn’t take that long and is not very fatiguing, because I’m not fighting the resistance of the scale.
I can hold it looser than with the scales.

This is a big concern of mine also.

[Jackalgirl]

The test and dowsing in the field are two different, lets say tests, and the rules of what I can do are different in each case.
Too much for you to know right now and for me to explane but if you read back there is an explanation that I give.

Edge, I think you are missing the point of double-blind testing entirely.

The point to double-blind testing is to eliminate all other possibilities, leaving ONLY the possibilty you suspect as the reason for the effect you're observing. For example, you have been given MANY possibilities to explain what is really going on when you dowse -- e.g., the ideometer effect & subconscious cuing being the major ones. So the point of the double-blind test is to conclusively prove that it's NOT the ideometer effect, subconscious cuing, etc, going on -- the test is designed to work ONLY if what you claim (dowsing as its own ability) actually works.

The rules should NOT be different in each case -- they should be exactly the SAME. If the rules are different, then that means that something other than dowsing is going on in the field.

[Jackalgirl]

...I guess it’s going to my problem because they don’t want to do it as a scientific research experiment really would, to take in all the factors.

I'm sorry but this is an inaccurate statement of what scientific research does. The purpose of a double-blind test is to take in all of the factors, but eliminate any other possible explanation. That's why we keep asking (and asking and asking and asking) what might interefere, so that that can be controlled for and not be a factor in the test.

One of the factors is that dowsing on the creek doesn’t take that long and is not very fatiguing, because I’m not fighting the resistance of the scale.
I can hold it looser than with the scales.

This is a big concern of mine also.

I don't understand why you're fighting the resistance of the scale. If the effect is that pronounced, you shouldn't have to fight anything. In fact, fighting the scale would invalidate the subsequent reading, no?

[SezMe]

That is why I said to be fair I should scan 30 a day for two days and then a 40 scan day for the last, but then time is involved.
They may see it that way once we begin the test and make that suggestion themselves to continue the next day.
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
Everybody else would.

edge, once the protocol is established, that's it. No changes are allowed during the trial. That is why the fatigue factor has to be dealt with up front.

[SezMe]

They are giving me ten minutes in-between each set of ten tries.
That's good.

"good" is OK in this informal thread, but in the protocol you're going to have to state that fatigue will not be a factor (at least I hope so).


I need a target that does what SezMe witnessed at the creek a quick hard response.
In this way there is no mistaking the response.
And that was at the end of the day.
That’s the kind of target I need to dig up and look at, and then factor in the many possibilities of why that happened according to weight and placement.
If it were a baseball size nugget then it would be cut and dry.

I made a somewhat facitious suggestion up thread along this line but it really is the solution to many problems. edge, you claim (correct me if I am wrong) that you can detect metals, not just gold. What if the target were, say a lump of lead weighing 20-40 (or even more) pounds. You can get such a target cheaply at any SCUBA store.

One of the factors is that dowsing on the creek doesn’t take that long and is not very fatiguing, because I’m not fighting the resistance of the scale.
I can hold it looser than with the scales.

This is a big concern of mine also.

Aw, c'mon edge. That scale measured ounces, not pounds. What you were fighting was the need to stand rigidly still, not moving your arms one bit while still getting the dowsing rod to react. I fully acknowledge that that is stressful and tiring. The scale has nothing to do with it.

[EHocking]

The one solution is to control my scans of the rest of the empties when they come up to conserve energy, after I know the target has shown up or has passed the spot.
My first instinct is usually correct.One more comment on doing them one at a time edge.

You are at a disadvantage if you do it this way.

For example - if you have all ten lined up and dowse up and down the row and get a "twinge" on can 4 and also 7. In this case you have the opportunity to compare your perceived reaction on 4 and 7 with each other.

If you do it one at a time and get a twinge on 4 and call it the target - you will NOT be able to change your mind if, when you dowse no.7 you also get a twinge.

Fair enough that you have confidence with your first instinct, but you can see that you are placing yourself at a disadvantage in doing them one at a time - even more so if you then, for time saving's sake, you want to stop that trial at no.4.

Another reason - to your advantage- to try to find a spot or a protocol that accomodates placing all 10 canisters all at once.

[Jackalgirl]

Okay, here's my peanut-butter-and-jelly understanding of the protocol, slightly adjusted for proper double-blindness:

Materials:
Ten 11-ounce opaque plastic Folger's Coffee containers, numbered 1-10
One target (a x-ounce bolus of y) (where x is a weight and y is the type of metal)
One dummy of the same size and weight as the target
One dowsing rod, prepared by edge
One celing hook
One length of wire
One string
One hanging postal scale
A small folding table
A location ("The Area"), as yet unspecified, determined by edge to be free of interference, and outfitted with some kind of overhead (such as a celing)
Three "holding areas" (holding area A, B, C, to correspond with the teams) out of sight of the above location and of each other.
A sufficiency of video cameras to record from multiple angles and guard against shenanigans.

Teams:
Team "A" -- consisting of edge and a JREF rep
Team "B" -- consisting of at least one JREF rep and a representative chosen by edge
Team "C" -- consisting of at least one JREF rep and one other person (either another JREF person or a representative of edge's)

Protocol:
The Area will be set up as follows: edge will determine where the testing location within The Area will be (i.e., the spot with the least interference). A hook will be installed in the celing or overhead over the testing location, and the wire will be trimmed to length and its ends bent into hooks. One hook of the wire will go through the celing/overhead hook; the hanging postal scale will be attached to the other. A string will be tied to the bottom of the scale so that edge can attach it to his dowsing rod. A small folding table will be set off to the side of The Area, as far away from the testing location as is practical, but still under the view of at least two video cameras.
For the purposes of this protocol, an "attempt set" consists of ten separate attempts, lettered a-j. There will be ten attempt sets in the test, overall, each numbered 1-10.
An attempt will consist of Team "A"'s attempt to determine whether the container does or does not contain the target. Only one attempt within a set will consist of the target in the container; the other nine attempts within that set will consist of the dummy in the container.
For each attempt set, Team "C" will randomly determine which attempt within that set will contain the target. At the beginning of each attempt, Team "C" will randomly determine which of the 10 containers will be used, then place either the dummy or the target, as indicated, in the indicated container and will place the container on the table in The Area, making sure to record the attempt number (1a), the canister number, and whether the container has the dummy in it or not. They will retreat to their holding area, taking the unused containers and object (either dummy or target) with them, and signal to Team "B". Team "B" will go to The Area and set up the first attempt: they will place the container in the specified testing location within The Area, then leave The Area and signal to Team "A" that setup is complete.

Team "A" will leave their holding area, go to The Area, and edge will make his attempt to determine whether the container is holding the target, without touching the target. The other member of Team "A" will record edge's result. Team "A" will then leave The Area, return to their own holding area, and signal to Team "C" that they are done.

Team "C" will return to The Area and retrieve the container. They will once again randomly determine which of the ten containers will be used, and then insert whatever object (dummy or target) is indicated by their initial random determination of which attempt in the series will contain the target. They will place either the dummy or the target in the container and replace the container on the table. Again, they will record this next attempt (1b, in this case), the container number, and whether or not the target or dummy is present. Then they will leave the scene (taking all unused canisters and object with them) and signal to Team "B" that The Area is ready for Team "B"'s next attempt.
This process will continue until all attempts within the first attempt set are complete. At this point, there will be a ten-minute break.
After the break, the next attempt set (set 2) will begin. Same protocol as for set 1. Again, after this attempt set is complete, there will be a ten-minute break, after which attempt set 3 will commence, and so forth until ten attempt sets are complete.
When all 10 attempt sets are complete, all participants will get together to compare results.

-=-=-=-=-
Again, I'm concerned at the probable length of this test. Edited to add: I really agree with EHocking's suggestion to find a spot that accomodates all 10 containers, for the reasons stated. If edge is fatigued after five single attempts, this is really going to slow things down.

[RemieV]

Bolding mine...

They are giving me ten minutes in-between each set of ten tries.
That's good.

Once I scan and find the target what I suggested was, to end that set of ten that would help.
But that probably won't happen and that would shorten up the test time.

Those two things together would help immensely. I might be able to do the whole test in one day.

When I did the test with SezMe I had already did, I believe 40 scans at the house.
I did many more days before that.

It was very fatiguing the first time in the office too with all of them on the ground at once.

That is why I said to be fair I should scan 30 a day for two days and then a 40 scan day for the last, but then time is involved.
They may see it that way once we begin the test and make that suggestion themselves to continue the next day.
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

I need a target that does what SezMe witnessed at the creek a quick hard response.
In this way there is no mistaking the response.
And that was at the end of the day.
That’s the kind of target I need to dig up and look at, and then factor in the many possibilities of why that happened according to weight and placement.
If it were a baseball size nugget then it would be cut and dry.
Many factors are involved.

I will do more experiments to find the solution to that problem.

The one solution is to control my scans of the rest of the empties when they come up to conserve energy, after I know the target has shown up or has passed the spot.
My first instinct is usually correct.


I guess it’s going to my problem because they don’t want to do it as a scientific research experiment really would, to take in all the factors.

One of the factors is that dowsing on the creek doesn’t take that long and is not very fatiguing, because I’m not fighting the resistance of the scale.
I can hold it looser than with the scales.

This is a big concern of mine also.

I did not realize this was a "might". The protocol states a reasonable amount of time. I suppose we need to clarify what that is. The maximum amount of time I was thinking we could ask our volunteers to handle was eight hours, and that is not crossing the span of days. As in, four hours one day and four hours another would not be acceptable. The suggested time, however, would not include breaks.

About how long does it take for you to dowse a single cannister?

[RemieV]

One more comment on doing them one at a time edge.

You are at a disadvantage if you do it this way.

For example - if you have all ten lined up and dowse up and down the row and get a "twinge" on can 4 and also 7. In this case you have the opportunity to compare your perceived reaction on 4 and 7 with each other.

If you do it one at a time and get a twinge on 4 and call it the target - you will NOT be able to change your mind if, when you dowse no.7 you also get a twinge.

Fair enough that you have confidence with your first instinct, but you can see that you are placing yourself at a disadvantage in doing them one at a time - even more so if you then, for time saving's sake, you want to stop that trial at no.4.

Another reason - to your advantage- to try to find a spot or a protocol that accomodates placing all 10 canisters all at once.

This would not be acceptable. Mr. Guska should not call which one is the metal when he arrives at it. He should only say which one he absolutely believes it is after the set is complete.

That way there would be no waffling afterward that he had originally picked two, but then switched to four because of negative vibrations or something of that nature. Only one response to which cannister contains the target will be recorded. If he is getting readings off other ones that confuse the issue, then obviously dowsing doesn't work particularly well.

[edge]

Remie,
About how long does it take for you to dowse a single canister?

Me,
About one minute average, maybe two.
Dan and I did 40 in about two to three hours.

This would not be acceptable. Mr. Guska should not call which one is the metal when he arrives at it. He should only say which one he absolutely believes it is after the set is complete.

I can do that. That is exactly what I intend if you want it that way.

If he is getting readings off other ones that confuse the issue, then obviously dowsing doesn't work particularly well.

This is my problem, but keep thinking that way.
I'll fix that with a target of sufficient weight.
I do know that the greater the amount of target in weight the better it will work towards my benefit.
I will make sure that my target grabs the stick with a force that’s sufficient to make this unmistakably recognizable.
I have one Idea that should be fool proof it involves the use of two metals together,
I’ll give you a hint, what is attracted to gold and is liquid?

I think, Jackalgirls got it it’s late here and I’ll have to read it again tomorrow though..
I can set up a tripod anywhere to hang the scale though.
No need for a structure.

If I get to a certain point in 8 hours and I'm close to winning they are going to want to see the out come, don't you think?
I would.

I'll be well practiced by the time we do this and I might have a better speed, confidence is everything.
Remie don’t read past here.




EHockings way maybe possible if I find the right spot,
But I haven't yet. We’ll see.
There are fewer variables with one spot and less confusion.
To remember how all the ten spots are different just by feel in a test this way is way different when mining and looking.
To remember how all ten feel is hard, but to be able to compare with the scale in one spot is most advantages.
Dan suggested we try the scales in the field but we are pressed for time and in the field that would take more time than the way I do it now.
I have been correct in the field and faster the way I do it now in the field.
180% faster.
I could do 1000 more experiments and still learn more.

[edge]

The flaw was at 8 and 9, because I was inpatient.
This was my38th and 39th try for that day after traveling 40 miles.
The metal appears one after the other. I remember that pick, And what I thought.
This is something I will have to control.

[SezMe]

edge, you still have not answered my question posed in #1601. Your dowsing rod clearly reacted to the metal tray we used in the demo. Thus, the target does not have to be gold. So please answer this question:

What target material in what amount could be used that would give an unequivical response in 2-3 seconds like happened next to Coffee Creek.

Answering that question will allow us to simplify the protocol enormously. Failure to answer that question calls into question your whole claim.

[EHocking]

Okay, here's my peanut-butter-and-jelly understanding of the protocol, slightly adjusted for proper double-blindness:One small quibble on my part. It's not properly double-blind if any of the participants know where the target is.
i.e.,
...Team "C" will randomly determine which of the 10 containers will be used, then place either the dummy or the target, as indicated, in the indicated container and will place the container on the table in The Area,Better to have 9 dummies and randomly select the order in which the 10 containers are sent to the test area. This way the recorders will not know the location of the target during testing.
...
-=-=-=-=-
Again, I'm concerned at the probable length of this test. Edited to add: I really agree with EHocking's suggestion to find a spot that accomodates all 10 containers, for the reasons stated. If edge is fatigued after five single attempts, this is really going to slow things down.
Let's review.

1. edge wants the containers not being used to be stored 30ft away from the test site.
2. edge wants the test site to be clear of ANY canister for 3 mins while the next one is being prepared/selected
3. edge is now claiming 2-3mins to dowse each canister (previously 5mins)

1. 30 secs each way for container to be placed and team to retire. 30 secs each way for edge to go to test site and retire. : 2 mins minimum
2. 3 mins
3. 2 mins minimum, 3mins avg, 5 mins max.

That's 7 mins minimum for each pass : 70mins for each trial
That's 8 mins average for each pass : 80mins for each trial
That's 10 mins maximum for each pass : 100mins for each trial

Even run with everyone at their most efficient, edge's preferred protocol would take 11.6 hours MINIMUM, without a break, to complete.

Impractical in so many ways.

[EHocking]

This would not be acceptable. Mr. Guska should not call which one is the metal when he arrives at it. He should only say which one he absolutely believes it is after the set is complete.

That way there would be no waffling afterward that he had originally picked two, but then switched to four because of negative vibrations or something of that nature. Only one response to which cannister contains the target will be recorded. If he is getting readings off other ones that confuse the issue, then obviously dowsing doesn't work particularly well.
I'm in total agreement with you, that's why I was pointing out that the manner in which edge wants to go about this is to his disadvantage. All 10 in front of him gives him an advantage to compare the entire set and JREF the advantage that there is no quibbling over the canister he selects.

Good luck sorting it out with him.

[EHocking]

The flaw was at 8 and 9, because I was inpatient.Excuses - you got it wrong.
This was my38th and 39th try for that day after traveling 40 miles.For the MDC you will be doing 100.
Excuses, you got it wrong.
The metal appears one after the other. I remember that pick, And what I thought.
This is something I will have to control.
Better start working on it - that test was at odds of 1:100 and you failed.

The odds of passing the Preliminary stage of the MDC is at 100 TIMES that, 1:10,000.

The Final stage is at 10,000 times your failed demonstration for SezMe.

[EHocking]

...My first instinct is usually correct...
Unfortunately, to win the MDC your first instinct has to be UNusually correct.

[Jackalgirl]

One small quibble on my part. It's not properly double-blind if any of the participants know where the target is.

I might not have been clear, but only the person who prepares the container knows whether it contains the target or the dummy. SOMEone has to know. But the people who place the container don't know (so they can't consciously or subconsciously give a cue in the way they place the container) and, of course, edge and his observer don't know.


i.e.,Better to have 9 dummies and randomly select the order in which the 10 containers are sent to the test area. This way the recorders will not know the location of the target during testing.

But this would work too -- and probably would be faster. But I still would think it would be important to completely reset the test (i.e., redetermine which of the 10 has the target in it and place the dummies in the other containers) for each attempt set.

Let's review.

1. edge wants the containers not being used to be stored 30ft away from the test site.
2. edge wants the test site to be clear of ANY canister for 3 mins while the next one is being prepared/selected
3. edge is now claiming 2-3mins to dowse each canister (previously 5mins)

Urk, I didn't know about these distance limitations. And the time limitations. And if the prep team has to reset the 10 containers (i.e., their contents) between tests, it'll probably take more than 10 minutes to do so properly.

So I think your estimate of 11.1 hours is actually pretty conservative (especially because I'll bet edge will get tired and slow down) -- but then again, I'm no math whiz.

[EHocking]

...If I get to a certain point in 8 hours and I'm close to winning they are going to want to see the out come, don't you think?
I would...
If you get to a certain point and someone knows you are close to winning - the test is not double-blind.

Double-blind testing requires that no one involved in the test knows the results until the entire test is complete.

I'll also repeat my suggestion that you have all 10 targets in front of you to dowse.

It will speed the testing process up.

Advantage to you, you will not be as fatigued and will have a better chance of concentrating on the job.
Advantage to you will be that you will not be pressed for time and will not make mistakes by being impatient (as you claimed for the misses in your demonstration to Sezme).

You will have the opportunity to dowse and compare each canister in a trial.

Advantage to you, since you claim your first instinct is usually correct - you can verify that instinct by comparing it directly against the other targets.

I suggest you find a target area that will take 10 canisters at a time. As you say, you can set a tripod up anywhere. If fact, you *could* prepare 10. Dowse each target site and write on the tripod the background reading, or whatever it is you are benchmarking to. Then simply, move the scale/balance from tripod to tripod.

[EHocking]

I might not have been clear, but only the person who prepares the container knows whether it contains the target or the dummy. SOMEone has to know. I disagree. If someone knows which is which - it is no longer double-blind. By definition. But this can be simply solved by randomly numbering 10 canisters at the outset. It's not a biggie.
But the people who place the container don't know (so they can't consciously or subconsciously give a cue in the way they place the container) and, of course, edge and his observer don't know.I agree. But by randomly numbering 10 canisters, the person who prepares the canisters can't inadvertently indicate which is the target and which is a dummy. As has been pointed out before - I'm quite, er, pedantic about making sure this is a double-blind test.:D
But this would work too -- and probably would be faster. But I still would think it would be important to completely reset the test (i.e., redetermine which of the 10 has the target in it and place the dummies in the other containers) for each attempt set.If doing it one by one - you only need one coffee "tin" as transport. The dummies/target are in 10 numbered film canisters.
Urk, I didn't know about these distance limitations. And the time limitations. And if the prep team has to reset the 10 containers (i.e., their contents) between tests, it'll probably take more than 10 minutes to do so properly.

So I think your estimate of 11.1 hours is actually pretty conservative (especially because I'll bet edge will get tired and slow down) -- but then again, I'm no math whiz.
At least you gave me the opportunity to reiterate my position that the current one at a time protocol is a. impractical for time and b. a disadvantage to edge.:o

[EHocking]

EHockings way maybe possible if I find the right spot,
But I haven't yet. We’ll see.
There are fewer variables with one spot and less confusion.
To remember how all the ten spots are different just by feel in a test this way is way different when mining and looking.
To remember how all ten feel is hard, but to be able to compare with the scale in one spot is most advantages.Edge, what is your tripod constructed of? If simple (such as garden canes tied together) - why not construct 10? Go out into the field and find a prospective site. Dowse it for 10 separate areas and mark. Set up a tripod over each marked site and determine your benchmark/background reading with your scales. Mark that benchmark reading clearly on that tripod location.

Now each time you return to that location there is no need for you to remember - you determined the benchmark previously and recorded it clearly on that location.

Granted you'll have to find an area where 10 tripods can be set up so that the people involved can move between them without tripping over them or moving them - but it gives you the opportunity to space out the targets so that there is no interference between them anyway.

Think seriously about the above - it could be a breakthrough on the time constraint that makes your one-at-a-time protocol nearly impractical to run. You *could* reduce the time required to only a few hours for the ENTIRE 10 tests.

An advantage to you as far as fatigue goes and an advantage to JREF in that they'll be more willing to pursue a test that does not require 11+ hours to perform.

[Cuddles]

I disagree. If someone knows which is which - it is no longer double-blind. By definition.

Not quite. Double-blind means that neither the tester or testee knows which is which. There will always be someone who knows which is which because someone has to actually put the target in the container. The double-blind standard is kept by ensuring that this third party cannot communicate the target's location with anyone involved with the actual test.

[EHocking]

Not quite. Double-blind means that neither the tester or testee knows which is which. There will always be someone who knows which is which because someone has to actually put the target in the container. The double-blind standard is kept by ensuring that this third party cannot communicate the target's location with anyone involved with the actual test.I have to disagree.
The Wikipedia description (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial#Double-blind_trial) best describes my position.

In this definition, neither the researcher (in our case the randomiser) the tester (recorders, canister placers) nor the testee (edge) should know where the target is at any one time.

A number of posters have identified why the above would be best - it removes the (admittedly) remote possibility that anyone involved can indicate where the target canister may be at any time during the test.

And it is a simple matter to resolve.

By randomly numbering 10 identical canisters at the outset of the test, you can reduce the possibility of anyone knowing. Since it is a simple process, it's in everyone's interest to try to achieve it.

[edge]

It doesn't matter who knows as long as I don't.

The weight of the target will be a give away.
The placebo target will not be dense enough to simulate gold or silver.

I won't know as long as they are on the ground when I get to scan.

The problem is that everything is affected by gravity so if placebos are used then they all need to weigh the same except the target.

2. edge wants the test site to be clear of ANY canister for 3 mins while the next one is being prepared/selected

Just the one with the target.What target material in what amount could be used that would give an unequivical response in 2-3 seconds like happened next to Coffee Creek.


Several ounces of silver or gold, 2 to 4 I would think that should do it.
be back later.

[Spektator]

(snip) I’ll give you a hint, what is attracted to gold and is liquid? (snip)

Cuervo Gold!

No, I know it's mercury.

Edge, what if the placebo targets were lead? Could you distinguish between lead and silver/gold?

[EHocking]

It doesn't matter who knows as long as I don't.

The weight of the target will be a give away.
The placebo target will not be dense enough to simulate gold or silver.Well this would not have been a problem if you'd stuck to your first statement that 1/4 oz of gold would be sufficient.
Based on a 1/4oz gold target (7g), a canister filled (31cc) with BlueTack(TM) would weigh 27.59g.
The target, with 23cc of BlueTack to hold it in place would weigh 27.47g.

So your statement that the weight of the target would give it away is incorrect.
It can be managed if only you would decide how much your target needs to weigh.

BTW. A 4oz target held in place with 0.5cc BlueTack(TM) would weigh 28.45g.
A difference of only 1 gram would probably not give the game away. The *balance* of the canister might - but I have a solution to that as well.

I won't know as long as they are on the ground when I get to scan.

The problem is that everything is affected by gravity so if placebos are used then they all need to weigh the same except the target.Previously you said that the dummies must be of the same MASS as the target. Are you now saying they only need to be the same VOLUME?

Make up your mind, it makes a difference in the protocol.

Which is it?
Weight or volume of dummies must be the same as the target?

Just the one with the target.

Several ounces of silver or gold, 2 to 4 I would think that should do it.
be back later.
Now it's 2-4 oz, it WAS 1/4 of an ounce.

What form will the gold be?
Flake? Nugget? Ingot? Jewellry? If jewellry - 9ct, 18ct, 24ct?

What form will the silver be?
Ore? Nugget? Ingot? Jewellry? If jewellry - sterling? 999?

You really need to think the above questions through.
In summary.

What weight must the target be?
How much is gold?
How much is silver?
What form is the gold and/or silver going to be in?

Is the dummy to be the same WEIGHT or the same VOLUME as the target?


=======
Footnote for calculations:
Density of gold = 19.3 g / cc
Density of BlueTack(TM) = 0.89 g / cc
Density of Silver ore = 10.5 g / cc
Volume of 35mm film canister = 31.8 cc

[Paulhoff]

It doesn't matter who knows as long as I don't.
It does matter, the person with you should not know too.
The weight of the target will be a give away.
The placebo target will not be dense enough to simulate gold or silver.
Nothing there makes enough gravity to be felt by anything and/or anyone, the ground has a hell of a lot more mass then any test target.

I won't know as long as they are on the ground when I get to scan.

The problem is that everything is affected by gravity so if placebos are used then they all need to weigh the same except the target.
Again nothing there makes enought gravity to mean anything in the test.

Just the one with the target.

Several ounces of silver or gold, 2 to 4 I would think that should do it.
be back later.

Paul

:) :) :)

[EHocking]

Cuervo Gold!

No, I know it's mercury.

Edge, what if the placebo targets were lead? Could you distinguish between lead and silver/gold?He initially said the targets were to be non-magnetic, i.e., rubber or something like that. That's why I chose BlueTack(TM) 'cos it's commonly available.

But he flips between the target and dummy having to be the same volume or the same weight.

Which is it edge?

Dummy same weight as target?

Dummy same volume as target?

[RemieV]

It doesn't matter who knows as long as I don't.

The weight of the target will be a give away.
The placebo target will not be dense enough to simulate gold or silver.

I won't know as long as they are on the ground when I get to scan.

The problem is that everything is affected by gravity so if placebos are used then they all need to weigh the same except the target.


Just the one with the target.

Several ounces of silver or gold, 2 to 4 I would think that should do it.
be back later.

Can you bring your own target metal? Will it matter that we switch what cannister the target metal is in? As in the cannister positions might be absolute and unchanging, and we would physically take out the target metal and put it in another cannister. Would it leave behind any kind of residue that might throw everything off?

If we are doing this outside, we would need to fill the cannisters partially with sand to ensure the empty ones didn't blow away. They would all have the same amount of sand, making them equal weight, but if the target metal was inside a cannister (with the sand) that one would indeed weigh more.

Still workable?

[colin]

Quote:
2. edge wants the test site to be clear of ANY canister for 3 mins while the next one is being prepared/selected

Just the one with the target.
Will treating this one canister differently effect the double blinding?

[colin]

BTW. A 4oz target held in place with 0.5cc BlueTack(TM) would weigh 28.45g.
Aren’t there 28g in one ounce?

[EHocking]

Aren’t there 28g in one ounce?Correct, yer 'onour. Me 'rithmatic went sideways there a bit. I'd worked it out for 1 oz while writing about 4.

[colin]

Correct, yer 'onour. Me 'rithmatic went sideways there a bit. I'd worked it out for 1 oz while writing about 4.
Ya, that’s cool. I’m just dotting ‘I’s and minding ‘P’s and ‘Q’s.

And with Edge’s observer, in addition to ‘scuffing’ the ground, I’d be concerned with leaving other signals as well. Such as: leaving the container or box in a certain orientation, or leaving behind things like cigarette ashes or butts, toothpicks, gum, pistachio shells, farts… well, maybe not smells ;-), but etc, etc… You get the idea. To be honest, the JREF volunteers don’t need something else to keep an eye on during a test.

[SezMe]

What target material in what amount could be used that would give an unequivical response in 2-3 seconds like happened next to Coffee Creek.

Several ounces of silver or gold, 2 to 4 I would think that should do it.

This is really important and can potentially make the protocol simpler. edge is saying that 4 ounces of silver will make his dowsing rod drop to vertical in 2-3 seconds. Since silver is less than $13/ounce, I'm prepared to buy 5 ounces for this test.

Then, when edge is dowsing, there will be NO doubt when there is a "hit" because his rod will drop to vertical in 2-3 seconds. No need for scales. This is advantageous to be the JREF and to edge because it totally eliminates the fatigue issue.

edge, would 5 ounces of lead as a dummy be acceptable to you?

[Jackalgirl]

I disagree. If someone knows which is which - it is no longer double-blind. By definition. But this can be simply solved by randomly numbering 10 canisters at the outset. It's not a biggie.

Okay, help me out here, because I'm definitely feeling pretty stupid (getting only 2.5 hours of sleep last night probably is not helping things): if NO one knows where the material is...how did it get there?

And how can you compare results in the end?

Classic tests include things like wine-tasting things (for, say, the "Wine Clip"): one person prepares the samples, and writes down which wine goes into which cup. Another person serves the samples and records the responses of the people being tested. Neither the person preparing the samples nor the person serving the sample are allowed to come into contact with one another until the very end of the test, when the preparer's list of what wine was where is compared with the server's list of results. This isn't double-blind?

Again, I think I'm probably just being dumb in this case.

SezMe, I think that your suggestion, in combination with the suggestion than all ten canisters be present, would speed things up immesurably. Hopefully lead won't give off a false "silver-like" vibe. If it has to be gold, though...edge, do you have four ounces of gold? You need to be the one to provide all of the required materials -- although SezMe is being very generous by offering to purchase the silver.

[edge]

Remie says,
Can you bring your own target metal? Will it matter that we switch what canister the target metal is in? As in the canister positions might be absolute and unchanging, and we would physically take out the target metal and put it in another canister. Would it leave behind any kind of residue that might throw everything off?

If we are doing this outside, we would need to fill the canisters partially with sand to ensure the empty ones didn't blow away. They would all have the same amount of sand, making them equal weight, but if the target metal was inside a canister (with the sand) that one would indeed weigh more.

Still workable?

Yes the target will be mine.

No you can switch, you’ll have to.

The only thing that will be affected will be the spot were I dowse for the reaction.
When I think the target metal appears on the one spot where I dowse, and after you remove it, I will say wait, before you place the next one then you wait, the spot will be empty of any thing. Then I will say after I scan it to start again and then go and hide again, and then we will finish the rest of that set of ten, you will then continue with the next canisters, till the end of that round of ten is complete.

Let me clarify this,
When I say wait,
You take it away, when I’m not looking, then there will be no canister there, if I tell you to do that.
I will tell you when to continue and I will leave again, then you can continue with the rest of what should be empties.
The rest, if all are empty which they will be, will then go really quick, I’ll make up the time at that point. This is where I will use my rest time. You can go right into the next set of ten till the target shows up again.
The empties are way easier to dowse.

I need whatever gravity does to that spot to go back to the original calibration, what I read with no target on the spot or empty, about 2 minutes maybe up to ten.


The original test when I did the test with James, one had the target and the rest of the canisters were empty.

In this test I only scan one at a time and I never see any of the nine that are with the A team.
sand in them they won’t have the same base line, none of them will


Look I have to get by the preliminary test first.
You guys are making it too complicated.
Randi knows what he is doing give him the basics Remie and see what he’s got to say.
He will know if I cheat.
I want the Pulitzer that’s way more money.

[quote]
Let me simplify what I need.
One target 10 containers, one bucket.
9 will be empty and one will have the target I will scan all 10, and then repeat that 10 times and then again for the final later.
One spot where I will dowse all the containers.
One person on my side to witness for me, at a distance.
When the metal shows up we will stop and the A team clears the field of what I believe to be the target, I will then come back to a empty field and say when to start again.
That’s my rest time up to 10 minutes.
I won’t see any of the movement of the containers at any time.
The test will take, However long the test takes, after all it’s for a million.
There’s a chance that I can do this in one day.
Randi will make sure that I DO NOT CHEAT.
If it takes longer, then tough titty.
Your either scared or you are not.
Up until the test, I am the only one spending money.
If I win, then we party because everything will change.
Get over this part and lets move on.
It’s pretty simple.

Get Gary Schwartz to be the witness I really don’t care.
Maybe my gold ingots will have a receiver in one of them, then get the gold ingots yourselves for a target, verified by who ever.
Geez you people are weak if you can’t endure the hours that it takes.
If I listen to you again I will fail again.



SezMe what I felt on that creek was gold or platinum. And a large amount.
Lead pulls more that iron, silver more than lead, gold more than silver, platinum more that gold, then there's mercury and the radio active stuff.
I can combine mercury and gold.
I’m about to go to work for a giant mining corporation up here, hard rock with a tunneling machine.
I will get the proper target and plenty of it.
I still need to figure out what quantities.
I’ll let you know if I get the job and at what capacity.
But it will, if I can get it, fund what ever I need to do this stupid test.

SezMe says,
Then, when edge is dowsing, there will be NO doubt when there is a "hit" because his rod will drop to vertical in 2-3 seconds. No need for scales. This is advantageous to be the JREF and to edge because it totally eliminates the fatigue issue.


This is probably true. Target could mean everything.
If I could get that reaction again in a controlled test I could walk through it in about 1 hour.
Just the way they did the test before, but still it would have to be an outside test.
More experiments are in order.
I won't get a chance to find out what that target was till September.
If I can get it, it is in the bank. However I can buy it with the wages they are talking about and still be in the same time line and I would need a new vehicle and plenty of money all through this job.
But the stuff in the creek right around there would tell me bunches.
It depends on how cool the owner is though you never know. What sucks is I’ll probably not get to mine till September. Except for the job, which is cool because I’ll get to dowse underground in a tunnel.
I’m about to prove something else.
Secret agent stuff.

From what I can tell there is a crack there that is holding from that tree out into the creek at that resort for about twenty or more feet into the water, I could get it all.
We'll see i sure would like to know.

[William Smith]

...
I’m about to prove something else.
Secret agent stuff.
...

That is a red flag if I ever saw one.



But let us reverse-jinx this one: Edge, you never would have guessed the JREF was to accept this "one canister at a time" protocol, would you?
Because even though you can't seem to utter one coherent sentence, you know exactly what it takes to uphold you delusion of dowsing. Well, the wrecking ball is here - and you know it.

And now you will have to resort to a standard tactic from the playbook of the woo: Dodge, evade, obfuscate.

Because you know your time is up and there is only one thing left to do.

You will neither outlast the forum members (EHocking, Jackalgirl, Tricky, SezMe & others) nor the JREF with your shenanigans. Their patience and thoroughness is fueled by a renewable resource: Thirst for knowledge.



There is nowhere else to go, edge. The stage is set for the drama. It is on the audience to deem it a tragedy or a comedy.



As a reminder: Edge is someone who simply has to do under controlled conditions what he claims to be able to do and win One Million US Dollars. This person chooses to post something like this:

...
I’m about to prove something else.
Secret agent stuff.
...

[Jackalgirl]

When I think the target metal appears on the one spot where I dowse, and after you remove it, I will say wait, before you place the next one then you wait, the spot will be empty of any thing. Then I will say after I scan it to start again and then go and hide again, and then we will finish the rest of that set of ten, you will then continue with the next canisters, till the end of that round of ten is complete.

Let me clarify this,
When I say wait,
You take it away, when I’m not looking, then there will be no canister there, if I tell you to do that.
I will tell you when to continue and I will leave again, then you can continue with the rest of what should be empties.

Whoa. Wait a minute. Are you saying that:

1) After every dowsing attempt, you will dowse the (now empty) area after the canister is taken away? What, to determine that the area is still clear of interference? Or that
2) After any dowsing attempt in which you think the metal target is present, you will dowse the (now empty) area after the canister is taken away...and not do the post-removal dowsing "scan" for any attempt at which you think there is no metal target present? In other words, let's say an attempt set goes like this: first container, miss. It's simply replaced (with no re-dowse of the empty area). Second container, a hit. After it's removed, edge dowses the empty area. Third container through 10th container, misses, and there is no redowse of the empty area after the containers are removed for each try.

First off, if you're talking about 1, I strongly suggest that you do not do this. For one thing, it's going to double the time it takes you to get this done. If, as EHocking conservatively estimated, it'll take you 11.1 hours to simply get through the protocol as previously stated, you redowsing the area each time a container is removed will stretch the time out to at least 22.2 hours. That's really undoable.

If you're talking about 2, again, I suggest you not do this. This is functionally no different than you simply not dowsing any of the follow-on containers after you find what you think is the target. And it's why we suggest (over and over) that all ten containers be present for each attempt. For one, it's going to speed things up. For two, it lets you compare "readings" between individual containers before you make your final determination. For three, it'll cut down on your fatigue. And for four, if you want to scan the area after your attempt (to make sure that there is still no interference), you can do that without doubling the time required for the overall test.

If I misunderstand you, I apologise, but what you're writing is unclear and it could possibly represent (yet another) major change to the protocol.

[SezMe]

edge, regarding post #1632, you're going backwards. That post is nearly incoherent. Please focus on one issue at a time. And forget about Coffee Creek - it has nothing to do with the protocol we're trying to get to.

No, we're not making it too complicated. We're trying to simplify. Complications are arising because you keep bringing in extraneous matters. Focus, edge, focus.

[Cuddles]

Okay, help me out here, because I'm definitely feeling pretty stupid (getting only 2.5 hours of sleep last night probably is not helping things): if NO one knows where the material is...how did it get there?

And how can you compare results in the end?

You're not being stupid, this is what I was also saying. From the Wiki page EHocking linked to:
In a double-blind trial, one researcher allocates a series of numbers to 'new treatment' or 'old treatment'. The second researcher is told the numbers, but not what they have been allocated to. Since the second researcher does not know, they cannot possibly tell the patient, directly or otherwise, and cannot give in to patient pressure to give them the new treatment. In this system, there is also often a more realistic distribution of sexes and ages of patients. Therefore double-blind (or randomized) trials are preferred, as they tend to give the most accurate results.

The person who places the target in the cannister is the first researcher. This person knows where the target is, but has no contact with anyone else until the test is finished. The second researcher is the person (or people) who actually place the target in the room and does not know where the target is. The subject obviously also doesn't know where the target is. As you say, there must always be someone who knows where the target is because there must always be someone who put it there. What is important is that this person does not have any contact with the other researchers until after the test has finished.

As I said in my last post, it is called "double-blind" because both the tester and the testee are blind. It is irrelevant whether anyone else is blind because no-one else is allowed to have any presence during the test. It is possible to add further levels of blinding by also blinding those analysing the results, but that is not really rellevant to this test.

[EHocking]

Okay, help me out here, because I'm definitely feeling pretty stupid (getting only 2.5 hours of sleep last night probably is not helping things): if NO one knows where the material is...how did it get there?At the start, 1 canister has the target. 9 are dummies. All are prepared and sealed in front of all participants and taped closed. The canisters are randomly numbered - but no one now nows which contains the target.

During the test the canisters are then randomly chosen to be placed on the test area (or at 10 different locations).

The randomising team records the number (1-10) of the canister and the order/location (a-j) it is taken to the test site.

The testee team records which in the order/location (a-j) that edge says the target is under.

So. One team knows the order in which the targets were placed in the test area and the other team knows the order/location that edge chose as the target in each trial. But no one knows if he's been successful or not.

And how can you compare results in the end?At the end, you just open the canisters, 1-10, and find out which number canister the target was in. Let's say it was no.4.

Using the randomising team's record you can then say what position/order the canister was placed for each trial, e.g.,

Trial number / target position
1 e
2 j
3 b
4 c
etc

Using the testee's record you can indicate edge's dowsed choices

Trial number / target position
1 c
2 e
3 b
4 d
etc

In this case he got a hit only on trial 3.
Classic tests include things like wine-tasting things (for, say, the "Wine Clip"): one person prepares the samples, and writes down which wine goes into which cup. Another person serves the samples and records the responses of the people being tested. Neither the person preparing the samples nor the person serving the sample are allowed to come into contact with one another until the very end of the test, when the preparer's list of what wine was where is compared with the server's list of results. This isn't double-blind?My way's blinder:D

Again, I think I'm probably just being dumb in this case.Nope - just me being pedantic.

SezMe, I think that your suggestion, in combination with the suggestion than all ten canisters be present, would speed things up immesurably. Hopefully lead won't give off a false "silver-like" vibe. If it has to be gold, though...edge, do you have four ounces of gold? You need to be the one to provide all of the required materials -- although SezMe is being very generous by offering to purchase the silver.

[EHocking]

You're not being stupid, this is what I was also saying. From the Wiki page EHocking linked to:

The person who places the target in the cannister is the first researcher. This person knows where the target is, but has no contact with anyone else until the test is finished. The second researcher is the person (or people) who actually place the target in the room and does not know where the target is. The subject obviously also doesn't know where the target is. As you say, there must always be someone who knows where the target is because there must always be someone who put it there. What is important is that this person does not have any contact with the other researchers until after the test has finished.But this is the point that others have made. It is possible that if someone in the test area knows where the target is, they may inadvertently give a signal. Small that this possibility is, the very simple protocol I'm suggesting removes that possibility without adding complication or time to the protocol.

I fail to see what all the objections are to a process that adds security to the test protocol without adding time or complexity to it.

As I said in my last post, it is called "double-blind" because both the tester and the testee are blind. It is irrelevant whether anyone else is blind because no-one else is allowed to have any presence during the test. It is possible to add further levels of blinding by also blinding those analysing the results, but that is not really rellevant to this test.
I'm just trying to remove any possibility of accusations of collusion, cheating or whining about the possibility of edge receiving subconscious signals during the test.

And since it can be done simply without compromising edge's or JREF's position in the protocol I'm *really* at a loss as to why anyone would have objections to doing it?

What *are* your objections to the process?

If it's just that you think I'm being too ana.... pedantic, fine, but I can't see why such a stink is being raised about it. It's actually GOOD science to add this extra control.

[EHocking]

Ya, that’s cool. I’m just dotting ‘I’s and minding ‘P’s and ‘Q’s.

And with Edge’s observer, in addition to ‘scuffing’ the ground, I’d be concerned with leaving other signals as well. Such as: leaving the container or box in a certain orientation, or leaving behind things like cigarette ashes or butts, toothpicks, gum, pistachio shells, farts… well, maybe not smells ;-), but etc, etc… You get the idea. To be honest, the JREF volunteers don’t need something else to keep an eye on during a test.Just wanted to repeat this post to help explain my pedantry with the extra controls on blinding.

It's a point well made.

When edge fails there will be all sorts of excuses and there are enough JREF detractors out there to pick nits - why not use a bit of malathion to counter that.

If, by some miracle, edge succeeds there will be all sorts of excuses that there was collusion, hints etc as described by Colin - why not use the blinding process to eliminate as many of these possibilities as are practicable.

All I'm doing is trying to suggest controls for known variables.

Collusion, cheating or subconscious hints are known variables.

[EHocking]

I applaud your unfailing optimism that edge will actually take the MDC this time around. I, on the other hand, am a realist. He won't.
I'm not that concerned if he takes it or not, but I *am* concerned that JREF is seen to have tried as hard as possible to make it happen and to make sure that there can't be complaints later that they didn't try to test exactly what edge's claim was.

[edge]

That is a red flag if I ever saw one.

Sand

[edge]

It's so simple, when I know that the target is there , and when they go to change cans they have to wait a few minutes till we start up again......

That's when I get my rest.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................................

[Marcus]

I'm actually beginning to think he may show up for a test, although admittedly I'm not confident enough to put a time frame on that particular inkling.

My only concern is that he'll come out with some mental breakdown. While we have all recorded science and common sense on our side, Mike has his anecdotal record of occasionally finding trace quantities of gold dust in gold bearing regions. If that's enough to convince him his stick can pick up the indescribably small dent in space-time made by a smidgen of gold then who knows how another failed test will effect his thinking? Perhaps it should be in the protocol that he's searched for firearms beforehand?

Come now, you skeptic you, how could you possibly doubt edge's ability to find excuses? If all else fails, there is the nuclear weapon of excuses, "I lied so I could take the test".

If he actually does take another test, though, he will earn a measure of respect just for following through.

[Spektator]

edge wrote I want the Pulitzer that’s way more money.


A Pulitzer brings a $10,000 award, edge. That's way less money--$990,000 less.

I assume lead is out as a counterweight. I recommend EHocking's procedure be followed. It is important that the cannisters weigh the same, or as close to the same as possible. Edge, it's not needlessly complicated to insure that the test is as controlled as possible. You want to prove that dowsing works; if there is sensory leakage, the possibility of collusion, or any other flaw in the procedure, that will invalidate the test and make the conclusion ambiguous at best. You should welcome controls that rule out everything but dowsing. That's the only way you will convince the world that dowsing works.

[EHocking]

That is a red flag if I ever saw one.

Sand Dowse a "tin" with sand in it on the test site to set the benchmark, then.

The ENTIRE AREA will be surrounded by sand/dirt/rock/pebble/grass/earthworm combination. This is getting lame, edge.

[Paulhoff]

This is just edge's way out when he fails the test again. He can point to something that wasn't just right and blame the failure on that. Out on the field where there is no control and no testing his powers are great, yea sure.

Paul

:) :) :)

[EHocking]

This is just edge's way out when he fails the test again. He can point to something that wasn't just right and blame the failure on that. Out on the field where there is no control and no testing his powers are great, yea sure.

Paul

:) :) :)Ayup - and any attempts to control for the variables triggers ad homs of anal retentiveness.

The whole process would be better served if a detailed protocol was written up and THEN fine tuned to suit both parties.
At the moment it's just going round and round in circles, with clauses being invented from whole cloth whenever edge invents a new theory...

[William Smith]

Ayup - and any attempts to control for the variables triggers ad homs of anal retentiveness.

The whole process would be better served if a detailed protocol was written up and THEN fine tuned to suit both parties.
At the moment it's just going round and round in circles, with clauses being invented from whole cloth whenever edge invents a new theory...

Couldn't agree more on the circles. I'd even say edge leads everyone in circles - including himself.

He obviously has no idea how to devise a protocol suited to his claim and this puts his numbers from way earlier in this thread in perspective. It also complicates things because the protocol has to be tailor-made to his claim.

However strenuous, this whole process peels the onion of paranormality. Let's see what remains when it's finished.

[EHocking]

Couldn't agree more on the circles. I'd even say edge leads everyone in circles - including himself.

He obviously has no idea how to devise a protocol suited to his claim and this puts his numbers from way earlier in this thread in perspective. It also complicates things because the protocol has to be tailor-made to his claim.Yeah. So you'd think that if he was serious about winning $1 million, he'd accept any offer to have a stab at being tested, wouldn't you;) ?
However strenuous, this whole process peels the onion of paranormality. Let's see what remains when it's finished.
Only tears, I'd hazard...

[IXP]

At the start, 1 canister has the target. 9 are dummies. All are prepared and sealed in front of all participants and taped closed. The canisters are randomly numbered - but no one now nows which contains the target.

During the test the canisters are then randomly chosen to be placed on the test area (or at 10 different locations).

The randomising team records the number (1-10) of the canister and the order/location (a-j) it is taken to the test site.

The testee team records which in the order/location (a-j) that edge says the target is under.

So. One team knows the order in which the targets were placed in the test area and the other team knows the order/location that edge chose as the target in each trial. But no one knows if he's been successful or not.

At the end, you just open the canisters, 1-10, and find out which number canister the target was in. Let's say it was no.4.

Using the randomising team's record you can then say what position/order the canister was placed for each trial, e.g.,

Trial number / target position
1 e
2 j
3 b
4 c
etc

Using the testee's record you can indicate edge's dowsed choices

Trial number / target position
1 c
2 e
3 b
4 d
etc

In this case he got a hit only on trial 3.
My way's blinder:D

Nope - just me being pedantic.
This protocol reduces the chances of succeeding to 1 in 10. All Edge has to do is guess the same numbered container each time.

IXP

[IXP]

Even if the numbers are not visible, my previous post still applies. All Edge has to do is note some distiguishing mark on one of the containers and pick it each time. The target must be moved to a random container each time.

IXP

[EHocking]

This protocol reduces the chances of succeeding to 1 in 10. All Edge has to do is guess the same numbered container each time.

IXPHmmm. No.
He has a 1 in 10 chance for each trial, i.e., 1 target hidden in 10 canisters.

There are 10 trials per test.

He has to get 7 correct out of the 10 trials to beat random chance at odds of 1:10,000.

See this web page for an explanation. (http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html)

[IXP]

Hmmm. No.
He has a 1 in 10 chance for each trial, i.e., 1 target hidden in 10 canisters.

There are 10 trials per test.

He has to get 7 correct out of the 10 trials to beat random chance at odds of 1:10,000.

See this web page for an explanation. (http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html)
If I understand your protocol correctly, the target is in the same numbered container for each of the ten tests. If I am Edge, I do my best at dowsing for the first test and decide on one container. On each test thereafter I simply pick the same container, no matter what order they come in. There are only 10 possible outcomes, and in one of them I get all 10 correct.

IXP

[EHocking]

Even if the numbers are not visible, my previous post still applies. All Edge has to do is note some distiguishing mark on one of the containers and pick it each time. The target must be moved to a random container each time.

IXPThat was covered at least 2 weeks ago. The external coffee "tins" will not be marked. The canisters inside will be numbered. Each trial a new randomising will take place.

Or use the same container each time if he persists on his one-at-a-time protocol.

[IXP]

Okay, now I understand. I did not know there was a container in a container. See what happens if you leave part of the protocol out!

IXP

[EHocking]

Okay, now I understand. I did not know there was a container in a container. See what happens if you leave part of the protocol out!

IXPUh, I don't believe I ever did, (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2706593&postcount=1375) and it was always part of edge's first proposal...

[EHocking]

If I understand your protocol correctly, the target is in the same numbered container for each of the ten tests. If I am Edge, I do my best at dowsing for the first test and decide on one container. On each test thereafter I simply pick the same container, no matter what order they come in. There are only 10 possible outcomes, and in one of them I get all 10 correct.Uh, then you don't understand any of the protocols being proposed. I suggest you read back a few pages - or search on protocol on this thread.

[RemieV]

At the start, 1 canister has the target. 9 are dummies. All are prepared and sealed in front of all participants and taped closed. The canisters are randomly numbered - but no one now nows which contains the target.

During the test the canisters are then randomly chosen to be placed on the test area (or at 10 different locations).

This actually wouldn't work... Because there are ten cannisters and they are given out in sets of ten, the target metal has to jump cannisters. It can't just be in a different order because the ten cannisters are all going to be slightly different - not due to any cheating or anything of that nature, just because there's no identical two of anything, let alone ten.

The target will have to be physically taken out and switched to another cannister for each set because... alright, let's say that on the first run of ten, Guska was able to figure out, by pure chance or dowsing, which cannister contained the target. He would be able to find it in every subsequent set because of the appearance of the cannister rather than the dowsing, if he chose.

That increases his odds to one in ten (the odds of guessing right on that first set).

The people who place the cannisters will know exactly where the target metal is in every set, they just won't be observing the dowsing.

[William Smith]

This actually wouldn't work... Because there are ten cannisters and they are given out in sets of ten, the target metal has to jump cannisters. It can't just be in a different order because the ten cannisters are all going to be slightly different - not due to any cheating or anything of that nature, just because there's no identical two of anything, let alone ten.

The target will have to be physically taken out and switched to another cannister for each set because... alright, let's say that on the first run of ten, Guska was able to figure out, by pure chance or dowsing, which cannister contained the target. He would be able to find it in every subsequent set because of the appearance of the cannister rather than the dowsing, if he chose.

That increases his odds to one in ten (the odds of guessing right on that first set).

The people who place the cannisters will know exactly where the target metal is in every set, they just won't be observing the dowsing.

Agreed.

What about the time issue, i.e. the total duration of the test? How long is JREF prepared to let it go?

[RemieV]

It's so simple, when I know that the target is there , and when they go to change cans they have to wait a few minutes till we start up again......

That's when I get my rest.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................................

I'm confused on this point.

Are you suggesting that after dowsing a cannister that you believe contains the target metal, you will continue to stand in place and dowse the spot after the cannister is removed?

That would not be possible. You cannot see the placement or removal of the cannisters. You would have to walk away while it was removed and return after it was gone.

[RemieV]

Agreed.

What about the time issue, i.e. the total duration of the test? How long is JREF prepared to let it go?

Eight hours. Period.

[IXP]

Uh, then you don't understand any of the protocols being proposed. I suggest you read back a few pages - or search on protocol on this thread.
And I suggest you look back at your post that I was replying to.

At the start, 1 canister has the target. 9 are dummies. All are prepared and sealed in front of all participants and taped closed. The canisters are randomly numbered - but no one now nows which contains the target.

During the test the canisters are then randomly chosen to be placed on the test area (or at 10 different locations).

The randomising team records the number (1-10) of the canister and the order/location (a-j) it is taken to the test site.
<snip>

There is nothing in here that indicates a second randomization for each test and placement of the container inside another container. When one uses "the canisters" in two successive paragraphs, I would assume he is referring to the same canisters, not another set of canisters in which the first set is placed after a randomization. In this description, you left out a critical step.

IXP

[EHocking]

This actually wouldn't work... Because there are ten cannisters and they are given out in sets of ten, the target metal has to jump cannisters. It can't just be in a different order because the ten cannisters are all going to be slightly different - not due to any cheating or anything of that nature, just because there's no identical two of anything, let alone ten.

The target will have to be physically taken out and switched to another cannister for each set because... alright, let's say that on the first run of ten, Guska was able to figure out, by pure chance or dowsing, which cannister contained the target. He would be able to find it in every subsequent set because of the appearance of the cannister rather than the dowsing, if he chose.

That increases his odds to one in ten (the odds of guessing right on that first set).

The people who place the cannisters will know exactly where the target metal is in every set, they just won't be observing the dowsing.I think we're only confused on terminology. The idea was that 10 individual 35mm film canisters would be used to hold the dummy or target. 9 as dummies and 1 containing the target metal. Each of these canisters would be hidden in, and transported to/from, the test site inside a plastic, lidded coffee "tin", in order to hide the number on the 35mm canister from everyone at the test site itself.

I'll leave the details for JREF, since you're obviously in contact with edge now and have more chance of movin this forward than our discussion on the forum.

[EHocking]

And I suggest you look back at your post that I was replying to.

There is nothing in here that indicates a second randomization for each test and placement of the container inside another container. When one uses "the canisters" in two successive paragraphs, I would assume he is referring to the same canisters, not another set of canisters in which the first set is placed after a randomization. In this description, you left out a critical step. From the start of this discussion (May 2006) it's always been that the target/dummy canisters would be hidden inside or underneath another container.

In that post we were merely discussing the process of randomisation and worth of blinding, the fact that the 35mm canisters would be hidden had already been settled.

[RemieV]

From the start of this discussion (May 2006) it's always been that the target/dummy canisters would be hidden inside or underneath another container.

In that post we were merely discussing the process of randomisation and worth of blinding, the fact that the 35mm canisters would be hidden had already been settled.

When Guska just clarified, though, he stated only the Folger's plastic cannisters as the containers.

Mr. Guska, is it correct that you want there to be film cannisters inside the Folger's cannisters?

[EHocking]

...The people who place the cannisters will know exactly where the target metal is in every set, they just won't be observing the dowsing.
I really think that it is in JREF's interest that this not be the case.

When edge fails there will be all sorts of excuses - and one could be that JREF knew where the target was, and somehow (people will invent a somehow) imparted confusing signals to edge during the trial.

We already know that edge *does* look for these signs from this post: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2709259&postcount=1403)
Quote:
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.
Whether it is a true recollection or not - edge will swear this was the case in the last trial. A better blinded protocol would protect the JREF testers of just this sort of accusation/excuse post-test.

One method of randomising and hiding the target prior to the test was outlined in Post 1571 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2733401&postcount=1571)
Pass it by James (if I'm not being too forward) that the number of the target canister is only revealed to all involved only after the test has been completed and only in order to tally the results. I'd be surprised if he didn't think it was a good idea.

If he doesn't think it's necessary, well, it *is* his Challenge, after all.:)

[edge]

Remie says,
That would not be possible. You cannot see the placement or removal of the canisters. You would have to walk away while it was removed and return after it was gone.

I know.
You have to number the smaller cans 1 to 10; I have a plastic bucket that is entirely plastic.
You then put the smaller can into the bucket and seal it with its lid then you take both back and forth.
This will insure I see nothing.
This will also be quicker for you, I see nothing till the end……

[Jackalgirl]

Remie says,

I know.
You have to number the smaller cans 1 to 10; I have a plastic bucket that is entirely plastic.
You then put the smaller can into the bucket and seal it with its lid then you take both back and forth.
This will insure I see nothing.
This will also be quicker for you, I see nothing till the end……

Edge, what Remie means is that you can't be in the testing area at all while the area is being prepped or unprepped (i.e., while the canisters are being removed or replaced). You can't be anywhere where you could observe the setup team doing its thing, regardless of whether you could see the actual canisters or not. You can't see the people, either.

[Jackalgirl]

FWIW, I completely missed on the whole film-canister-in-a-coffee-container thing too. That's why film canisters were not listed on the "materials" list in my peanut-butter-and-jelly protocol. Now that they're mentioned, the protocol makes more sense.

However, if the film canisters ("FCs") are prepared in front of everyone, then everyone sees which film canister the target goes into. If there is anything distinguishing about the film canister -- the way it is taped, its shape, any nicks or dings -- it is quite possible that the person preparing the coffee canisters (having observed the initial FC preparation) will know that the FC it contains has the target in it.

The preparation of the coffee canisters -- whether they contain FCs or whether the target just goes into the coffee canisters -- should be done by a separate team out of the sight of everyone else involved. Videotape it, yes. But no one else should, at any point, be privy to where the target is, and no team should ever be in any form of contact - visual or otherwise - with any other team.

Just my $.02. None of this prevents cheating in a truly determined person, of course, but that's the point of having each team consist of an observer from both "sides of the equation", as it were (and videotaping everything).

[SezMe]

This cannister-in-a-can approach is unduely complicated. Why are we doing this?

[Jackalgirl]

This cannister-in-a-can approach is unduely complicated. Why are we doing this?

We've gotten lost in multiple protocols proposed by multiple people out of a desperate need to make sense of what edge says. EHocking's protocol is not, insofar as I understand it, the protocol as understood by RemieV/JREF.

RemieV, please take no offense, but I think that discussing this test in this particular thread is a mistake. There are too many people involved (myself included), throwing out their interpretations of what edge is saying, and trying to come up with a protocol that fits whatever it is that edge has thrown into the proverbial (and now, apparently, actual) bucket at the time.

IMO, it would be far better for you to conduct this conversation with edge via email, and email only, and to stay away from this thread. This thread is so convoluted that I expect to see Cthulhu popping out of it any day now.

[SezMe]

Maybe a better approach is to let edge - and edge only - post in the Challenge thread where he and RemieV can thrash it all out. But we can still view the train wreck and comment here until our fingers start to bleed.



Start????? :)

[Jackalgirl]

Maybe a better approach is to let edge - and edge only - post in the Challenge thread where he and RemieV can thrash it all out. But we can still view the train wreck and comment here until our fingers start to bleed.

I think that'd be a good idea, if it's technically feasable to lock a thread ( as opposed to a forum) like that. It would certainly save Remie the hassle of copying the emails into the thread...

[EHocking]

Remie says,

I know.
You have to number the smaller cans 1 to 10; I have a plastic bucket that is entirely plastic.
You then put the smaller can into the bucket and seal it with its lid then you take both back and forth.
This will insure I see nothing.
This will also be quicker for you, I see nothing till the end……edge, I have a proposal for you that might break this deadlock on your one site, one-at-a-time protocol.

As you know, JREF always allows the applicant to perform an "open" test. That is, you get to dowse each of the sites and containers with the target in full view so that you can be assured that there are no outside influences that will affecting the dowsing and that you are getting the sort of reaction you expect from both the dummy and the metal target.

Forgetting the detail and physical process to a point, would the following be acceptable?

You dowse an area and mark 10 spots as being suitable. Wooden stakes/pegs mark each spot and and numbered. At each spot you get to dowse with the dummy in place and then the target in place and mark each of these background benchmarks on the pegs. This way you will know what your initial readings were at each site so do not have to "recalibrate" between each trial.

If the above is OK with you, you could probably spend an hour or so setting the sites up and calibrating and you still have 6+ hours to perform the actual Challenge. Dowsing 10 cans at once in this manner, you should be able to complete the Challenge in the time given by JREF, with time out for yourself between trials to rest AND to have a spot vacant of dummy or can for the time you wish.

I think also that you should restrict hammering out details of the protocol with JREF offline - but the offer still stands, if you want a detailed protocol written up for you to present to them, I still got one. The ad hoc nature of the discussion so far is slowing things down, you need to get very specific about each step and THEN hammer out details to suit both parties.

[edge]

Edge, what Remie means is that you can't be in the testing area at all while the area is being prepped or unprepped (i.e., while the canisters are being removed or replaced). You can't be anywhere where you could observe the setup team doing its thing, regardless of whether you could see the actual canisters or not. You can't see the people, either.

I know.
I'm rescanning an empty area, targets, people, then I leave, they then continue.
No longer than two minutes.

[edge]

This cannister-in-a-can approach is unduely complicated. Why are we doing this?
So I can't see any of the numbered containers.

[edge]

RemieV just e-mail me.
If you want we can disscuse this on the locked thread.

[Spektator]

This cannister-in-a-can approach is unduely complicated. Why are we doing this?
So I can't see any of the numbered containers.

Edge, it isn't enough that you can't see any of the containers; no one can know whether a given container has the target or a dummy in it. This is a double-blind procedure.

If you can successfully locate the target when no one knows where it is, then you're demonstrating dowsing.

If you can locate the target when someone else already knows where it is--even though that person seemingly is not communicating with you--you are not demonstrating dowsing, because there are other possible explanations.

If you want to succeed and be recognized for your success, go with the double-blinding.

[Jackalgirl]

I know.
I'm rescanning an empty area, targets, people, then I leave, they then continue.
No longer than two minutes.


I don't understand. Are you staying that you're rescanning the area after everything has been cleared from it? So an attempt actually consists of two scans -- one with the container or containers in place, at which point you attempt to determine whether the container (or containers) has the dummy or target in it, and then another scan once the area has been cleared? (Note that I highly suspect that JREF will require you to leave the area before they actually remove the container(s). So you'll have to go away, then come back once the area is clear, then do your rescan, then go away, at which point the setup is repeated, etc.)

If so, this is still going to slow things down immeasurably. Remember, JREF says you have 8 hours, tops, to do all of this.

Edited to add: you say "I'm rescanning an empty area, targets, people, then I leave, they then continue." I do not understand this sentence. You can't rescan targets or people if the area is empty, because the area is EMPTY (nothing is there). So what do you mean?

Secondly, I don't understand the purpose of the bucket. There is no need for a bucket. You are ONLY in the room when the setup is ready for you to do your dowsing attempt. So why do we suddenly have a bucket in the process?

[edge]

I can't believe you don't get it, what poor memories.
The bucket will double blind each of the 10 canisters.
Some one has to know which of the 10 cans has the target or else how would they be able to record on paper which canister I chose and which has passed on the spot???
You say if I see the numbers I'll some how see a pattern???


I will explane one more time, What I know about a target moving on the one spot and off and then on again and so forth.

When the target appears on the one spot and then is removed It will still read like the metals there for a few minutes.
It will then return to the original readings by the scale which will be less readings by the scale than when the target is there.
There is no confusion in the readings for the rest of the empties in that set of ten.

This will insure that I get every guess right for all ten picks in a set.
This is what I learned from my experiments.

Jackalgirl this only happens once in ten when the metal appears.

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl
Edge, what Remie means is that you can't be in the testing area at all while the area is being prepped or unprepped (i.e., while the canisters are being removed or replaced). You can't be anywhere where you could observe the setup team doing its thing, regardless of whether you could see the actual canisters or not. You can't see the people, either.
I know.
I'm rescanning an empty area, targets, people, then I leave, they then continue.
No longer than two minutes.

The empties I can scan quickly.
The scale hardly moves.
This will insure that it goes quicker, for the remainder, and up untill the metal shows up in the next set of ten.
That's when I'll take my break agian.
I can still choose any of the ten in the set as the target, for me it will be the first the second the third ect; weather or not the numbers are mixed or not.
I may say the third but it may be numbered 6, because it's hidden from me in a bucket.
That will insure to JREF that I have not followed any pattern.
My offer to them.

It is up to them to double blind the target or not.
I offered.

[edge]

ROFLMAO : scanning, rescanning, buckets....is this the JREF MDC or is it a reality TV candid cameras show?

Try to follow.

[Jackalgirl]

can't believe you don't get it, what poor memories.
The bucket will double blind each of the 10 canisters.
Some one has to know which of the 10 cans has the target or else how would they be able to record on paper which canister I chose and which has passed on the spot???
You say if I see the numbers I'll some how see a pattern???



Edge, "double-blind" does not mean that the target (or dummy) is covered by two layers of obscuring material. It means that neither you NOR the people setting up the scene for you can have any inkling as to where the actual target is.

Therefore, a bucket is completely unnecessary. There is NO NEED for a bucket if:

1) The team that places the container has no way of knowing whether it contains the target or a dummy
2) You have no way of knowing whether the container contains the target or a dummy (other than, of course, by dowsing).

This requires that a third team be the one to prepare the container, by placing the target in one container and the dummies in the other 9, OUT OF SIGHT OF YOU AND THE PLACING TEAM.

It also requires that you not be present while the containers are being placed, and that the placing team not be present while you are doing your dowsing. Of course, once the preparation team is done preparing the canisters, they can't see anything else that goes on either. There can be no form of, or possibility of, communication between the teams other than the ability for each team to let the others know that they're done with whatever their task is. NO ONE can know the results of any attempt, or all attempts, until the very end, when the records are compared.

In other words, because both the people who set up the container are "blind" to whether the container actually has the target in it, and because you are "blind" as to whether it contains the target (at least, until you do your thing with the dowsing), the test is "double-blind".

...When the target appears on the one spot and then is removed It will still read like the metals there for a few minutes.
It will then return to the original readings by the scale which will be less readings by the scale than when the target is there.
There is no confusion in the readings for the rest of the empties in that set of ten.

You will need to figure out what an appropriate time is for the reading to return to its "background" value after the target metal has been removed, and then wait that amount of time between EACH and EVERY dowsing attempt. Otherwise, again, it simply amounts to you stopping the attempt set once you've selected what you think is the target.

I'm rescanning an empty area, targets, people, then I leave, they then continue.

I still do not understand this sentence. If the area is empty, how can you be scanning targets? If the area is empty, how can you be scanning people? Why do you want to scan people? Who is "they", in this sentence, and what are they continuing?

I am guessing that by the rest of your quote, this is what you are saying:

"When I am sure I have a hit, I will assume the other containers contain the dummies and will be quick with them, since I'll assume I've already found the target."

Which is fine, if that's how you want to handle it. But -- and this is critically important to the fairness of the test -- you have to treat every attempt (in terms of the steps you take) the same as every other attempt. Which means that if you have to wait x minutes after finding the true target for that target's "background interference" to fade from the area before a new container is brought online, you are going to need to wait x minutes after every attempt.


It is up to them to double blind the target or not.


See above. Once again, "double blind" doesn't mean "double-wrap".

[SezMe]

When the target appears on the one spot and then is removed It will still read like the metals there for a few minutes.

What? WHAT?? WHAT????

This is an ENTIRELY new assertion by you, edge. It completely invalidates the demonstration we did at Coffee Creek. It says each of our tests was not independent of the previous one.

And it completely invalidates the explanations you have previously given for your dowsing capabilities.

And it introduces a complication into the test protocol that is almost impossible to overcome. The reading persists "for a few minutes"???? What does that mean? 2 minutes? 3? 4.451? It gives you a perfect out, namely, that the hysteresis between each trial screwed up your reading.

It seems to me that we are reduced to two options.

One, you agree that the target is one (like the 5 ounces of silver that I have offered to buy) that leaves NO ambiguity as to the response.

Two, you go eff off.

Sorry to be so blunt, edge, but it really comes down to that. Everything else is game playing. Which is it?

Yeah, yeah, those of you who have been saying this whole dance has been a waste from the git-go and that I've a sucker might be right. So sue me. :)

[ObscureReferenceMan]

I don't know how you all stick with it. I can barely understand edge when he writes - it's like a stream of semi-consiousness with poor spelling, no concept of grammar or punctuation. My hat is off to you all.

Edge - You really have to work on your writing skills.

And did you REALLY think that "double-blind" meant "double-wrapped"? :eye-poppi

[colin]

Even if Edge doesn’t understand the double-blinding of the containers at the moment, I think the real deal killer is going to be the time issue. One container at a time (of 100!), pause between each, occasional testing with no container, lots of walking back and forth, and all the while keeping an eye out that everyone is where they should be when containers are placed… I’m fatigued just thinking about it! I can’t see it physically being done in eight hours. Certainly, the whole thing would be very rushed which may lead to mistakes being made.

Edge, did you say limestone was good, neutral ground for you? Quarries tend to be large places. Would a limestone quarry give you enough space to put down ten containers at once and perform a test similar to your last JREF test? Not only would that speed the test along, it would make it a bit simpler too.
Oh, and I see there’s lots of limestone quarries in Florida where the JREF is headquartered. http://www.cagenweb.com/quarries/states/fl-photos_1.html
(hint, hint);)

[edge]

Can you bring your own target metal? Will it matter that we switch what cannister the target metal is in? As in the cannister positions might be absolute and unchanging, and we would physically take out the target metal and put it in another cannister. Would it leave behind any kind of residue that might throw everything off?

If we are doing this outside, we would need to fill the cannisters partially with sand to ensure the empty ones didn't blow away. They would all have the same amount of sand, making them equal weight, but if the target metal was inside a cannister (with the sand) that one would indeed weigh more.

Still workable?

This is why, a bucket would do two things.
Sand would screw things up, I would be thrown off.
4 or 5 onces in a small coffee can would be noticable on grass, lets say in a park.
It would compress the grass and give me a visual cue.
In a larger bucket the weight would be spread out and the wind wouldn't effect it.

[edge]

Rule #05a: Introduce a new twist to your claim which renders the previous protocol negotiations virtually useless. But don't forget Rule


No it does not.
I know what i'm doing.

Paul says,
Well SezMe, you are learning, as we all are. There was nothing wrong with your trusting of edge. You have learned much, and this lesson was worth it for you. We all at some time don’t see the forest for the trees. I don't, for one, think you where a sucker.


SezMe got to witness something that you haven't...

Look at this agian,

[edge]

Number 8 and 9.
If SezMe took the target after 8 moved it, and then put it back, then there was a distortion.
This happened here whether SezMe did this or not it was unknown to me if he just left it or went through the procedure of walking it back in to the cabin and back out.
But it happened with Dan and I “especially” after the target was moved and then an empty was put on the one spot.
The way around this was to wait just a little longer and I then got the correct responses.
I should have got all of them right in SezMes test.

Lets say the metal appears on the 10th try and then on the next set, on the 1st. try.
Understand?
Or if the metal appears on the 10th and the first of the next set it’s empty, I would miss.
I'm doing this to win not lose.

[colin]

You're new here............. :rolleyes:

We have been going on and on about this BS for over a year on one thread or another.

Paul

:) :) :)
Actually, I’m not new. Although admittedly I’ve only begun posting recently, I’ve been a lurker here for longer than you’ve been here, and I’m well aware of the lack (the very frustrating lack) of follow-through on the part of people making extraordinary claims.
However, Edge has one thing going for him: he has been tested in the past. I think redoing the first test in a large area that is good for him (limestone quarry) would stop a lot of the confusion.

Will he test again? I don’t know, but he has in the past and has an accepted application (which has a time limit) in now. Only time will tell.

[Paulhoff]

I think redoing the first test in a large area that is good for him (limestone quarry) would stop a lot of the confusion.
The point is that he says out on the field he has no problem, and on the field you dont' get to choose the bedrock, he is just looking for a way out when he fails.

Paul

:) :) :)


The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Presents our Top 20 Logical Fallacies

11. The Moving Goalpost A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.

[SezMe]

Sand would screw things up, I would be thrown off.

Now sand affects your dowsing capability. That's rich considering that underneath the porch we did our little demo was...........sand.

edge is building up an impenetrable wall of potential excuses should he fail again. Were I Randi, I'd step in and call the whole thing off.

[William Smith]

Now sand affects your dowsing capability. That's rich considering that underneath the porch we did our little demo was...........sand.

edge is building up an impenetrable wall of potential excuses should he fail again. Were I Randi, I'd step in and call the whole thing off.

Which would be exactly what edge tries to provoke. He knows he has only chance to succeed in a controlled test.

No, we will remain patient, SezMe.
Sooner or later, edge's claims will self-destruct.
When he and the JREF can't agree upon a protocol within one year after his application got accepted: "Game Over".

It is upon the JREF and to a lesser extent upon the JREF Forum members to ensure every possibility of devising a protocol has been explored. So far, it seems we're on a good track.

It has been long ago that this thread has evolved into a who-will-outlast-who contest with the JREF Prize not really being the stake anymore.



Does anyone really wonder why no fellow dowsers have emerged to take edge's side?

Does anyone have any doubt that edge is absolutely incapable/unwilling to devise a controlled test for his alleged ability which would net him 1,000,000 George Washingtons?

[colin]

The point is that he says out on the field he has no problem, and on the field you dont' get to choose the bedrock, he is just looking for a way out when he fails.

Paul

:) :) :)
Yes, that’s one of the few things that he’s said that I understood, and I agree that dowsing is practically useless if its effect is essentially immeasurable and that most claimants just talk and talk and talk and talk ad nauseum.
However, Edge has tested in the past, has an approved application, and the JREF is working to get an agreeable protocol (and I pity those poor, hard working fools:( ).

Don’t get me wrong. I too made some snide, dismissive comments earlier in the thread because I felt (and still feel mostly) that the poor dead horse has been beaten way too much already. But if the JREF is still taking it seriously, why not help try to find a solution?

The one container at a time, I think, is a nightmare. I think the easiest solution is to repeat the first test in an area that Edge says is free of interference i.e.: minerals, gold colored paint, sand, automobiles, … wait… actually, cars weren’t a problem for some reason.
Anyhow, if the front porch of a cabin was sufficient for Edge not too long ago, a large limestone quarry should be awesome now!

What do you think Edge? Repeat the protocol that you’ve already done (ten containers at the same time, all spread out, only one with a target) in a limestone quarry in Florida?

[Paulhoff]

But if the JREF is still taking it seriously, why not help try to find a solution?
I do not in anyway speak for JREF.

It is my understanding that JREF is only taking edge seriously because he had put in for the test before the rules were changed for the challenge. It is also my understanding that one of the many reasons that JREF has changed the rules is because of the time spent on test like this one only support the misconception that there is something to test and only give it false credit.

I once again do not speak for JREF.

Paul

:) :) :)

[edge]

Now sand affects your dowsing capability. That's rich considering that underneath the porch we did our little demo was...........sand.

edge is building up an impenetrable wall of potential excuses should he fail again. Were I Randi, I'd step in and call the whole thing off.

Yes what's in the ground is one thing, but you want to add to the problem, then all the containers will have different base lines, that would really slow me down and I would have to keep track of every base line.
If they want no Movement of the 11 once containers because of wind then put them, one at a time in a bigger five gallon bucket, there problem solved.

GzuzKryzt say,
Edge has made 300+ posts in this 1700+ post thread.

Having applied to win the JREF Prize, this thread mirrors edge's efforts to devise a protocol for a controlled test of his claimed abilities.


It is a document of failure.

All I'm doing is eliminating any possibility of failure, according to the tests I have run..

All I know is the protocol I have now, as I stated, works for me.
The limestone quarry is a theory that needs testing and I am open to that.
The funding has to come from me to do all this.
I doubt that they want to go to a quarry right at this time of year, so there’s time.
I doubt that they want to do it anywhere out side right now.

Besides I have to earn the money to have the right to test 4000 miles from where I now reside.

My thermometer on my truck is reading 118 degrees.
I am willing to do the test in quarry, which might happen on the way to Florida at Trickys location, to test the theory.
Then we, if successful could do the scans with all the containers on the ground for each set of ten.
I can, however right now, run the test my way anywhere.

Paul utters,

11. The Moving Goalpost A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.

Bullspit.
This is the way that works right now. I have tested their way, and the way I have tested is way more fool proof.
It still is within the parameters of the test, the way the test was run before, I had to scan each and every target, empty or full.
All I did was to figure out why I failed before and fixed it, and now you still want me to take it the same way as before, why would I want to do that?

All they have to do is agree to these conditions.
I scan on one spot.
Nine empty, and one with the target, in a ten-container pass,
(The same way it was done before), one that will hold, the target and 9 without, empty.

When the target is there according to me, we take a break.
When the ten of a set has passed, I say where the target is.
One person, of my choosing to be on their side.


I don't think I'm asking for much.
The rest is up to them I have enough to think about.
No Sand rubber or plastic.
I’m even willing to do it near their office.

[Jackalgirl]

Yes what's in the ground is one thing, but you want to add to the problem, then all the containers will have different base lines, that would really slow me down and I would have to keep track of every base line.

I do not understand this statement. What do you mean, "all the containers will have different base lines"? Are you saying that your dowsing rod is so sensitive that the "base lines" of ten identical PLASTIC containers will cause a problem?


If they want no Movement of the 11 once containers because of wind then put them, one at a time in a bigger five gallon bucket, there problem solved.

Will this bucket be made out of plastic? I ask because:


I don't think I'm asking for much.
The rest is up to them I have enough to think about.
No Sand rubber or plastic.
I’m even willing to do it near their office.

(Bolding mine.)

So if NOW there can't be any PLASTIC involved, that leaves...what? A metal bucket? Won't that interfere more? A stone bucket? A wooden bucket? What about the Folgers containers? You were the one to initially specify that they would be the Folgers containers made out of plastic. This is a problem now?

Edited to add: Oh, by the way, you never answered one of my other questions:


I'm rescanning an empty area, targets, people, then I leave, they then continue.

I still do not understand this sentence. If the area is empty, how can you be scanning targets? If the area is empty, how can you be scanning people? Why do you want to scan people? Who is "they", in this sentence, and what are they continuing?

[SezMe]

bigger five gallon bucket, there problem solved.
What, we now have cannisters in containers in buckets. Get Tricky to be involved and maybe he can bring 10 oil drums to put the buckets in. There. Cannisters in containers in buckets in drums. Quadruple-blind. Can we have a, er, drum-roll please?


Besides I have to earn the money to have the right to test 4000 miles from where I now reside.

edge, this is nonsense. A well designed protocol will allow you to conduct the test anywhere. Period. You may have some reason to go to Florida but which is fine but doing so just to get the right test conditions does not make sense.

edge, you have never responded to my offer to buy enough silver so that your rod dips to vertical almost instantly. That completely eliminates all issues regarding background noise. Why won't you agree to use silver as the target?

[edge]

SezMe asks

Originally Posted by edge
Besides I have to earn the money to have the right to test 4000 miles from where I now reside.
edge, this is nonsense. A well designed protocol will allow you to conduct the test anywhere. Period. You may have some reason to go to Florida but which is fine but doing so just to get the right test conditions does not make sense.

edge, you have never responded to my offer to buy enough silver so that your rod dips to vertical almost instantly. That completely eliminates all issues regarding background noise. Why won't you agree to use silver as the target?
Me, I never said I wouldn’t.

Who’s going to pay for the JREf members/volunteers expenses to come here?
I don’t know if a date is set that I can.
I may be able to cover their stay, and that’s not set in stone either.

Get 5 ounces.

If they want a placebo in all the empties then Lime would work in bags so that the weight matches the target.
It can be bought at Ace for about $5.00 a 5 pound bag then distribute it evenly and place it in 9 plastic bags, then 9-containers.
This way it can be switched out when the target is switched out easily.
It’s compact and dense.
I will get to see the containers this way.
Unless you use the one and only 5 gallon bucket that would be needed for the test to insure that I can’t use probabilities from the numbered containers., which some one has brought up.

JackalGirl says,

I do not understand this statement. What do you mean, "all the containers will have different base lines"? Are you saying that your dowsing rod is so sensitive that the "base lines" of ten identical PLASTIC containers will cause a problem?

Only if they have sand in them.
There are different types of sand.
For instance the kind that comes from the Great Lakes would contain Iron, more orange.
There’s white there’s yellow some contain quartz.
Quartz is associated with gold and piezoelectric qualities.
I have enough to deal with looking for the perfect piece of ground.
Why would I need to be confused by supposedly empty containers with sand?

Jacalgirl asks,
I do not understand this statement. What do you mean, "all the containers will have different base lines"?

[Me]
If you use sand in them they will.

Are you saying that your dowsing rod is so sensitive that the "base lines" of ten identical PLASTIC containers will cause a problem?
[Me]
Not if they are all the same and they are empty.

I figured you remember things so let me clarify,

Originally Posted by edge
I don't think I'm asking for much.
The rest is up to them I have enough to think about.
No sand
Only rubber or plastic, lime will work.
For a placebo.
I’m even willing to do it near their office.

[Jackalgirl]

Edge, you need to understand that your consistent non-use of punctuation is completely confusing to the rest of us. In the message to which I replied, you said:

The rest is up to them I have enough to think about.
No
Sand
rubber or plastic.

To me, reading, this comes across as "No sand, rubber or plastic" -- If you mean "No sand -- only rubber or plastic", then that is what you need to say -- leaving out "only" has a dramatic effect on the meaning of the sentence, do you see? Using the [Return] key is not a way to express a pause or the end of a sentence (use the comma for the former, and the period for the latter).

It matters only slightly that you said, earlier, "only rubber or plastic, lime will work", because you have actually changed what you've required and what you need on occassion.

Please, PLEASE learn to use the period at the end of all of your sentences. Please, PLEASE learn to use COMPLETE sentences. This kind of confusion is only slowing things down immeasurably.

Okay, back on topic. You say that lime will do for "a placebo", which I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) means the same thing as "a dummy".

So, if all of your containers are partially filled with lime (to weigh them down), and contain either the target material (4+ oz of silver, right?) or a dummy material (4+ oz of lead, right?), then that should not only give you an adequate reading, but should not interfere with your detection of the target vice the dummy. Correct? This will resolve the problem of how to weigh down the canisters with something that is not sand, yes?

Remember: it's important that the steps of each attempt be the same. Therefore, if you have to wait x minutes after detecting what you think is the target, you're going to have to wait x minutes after each and every attempt. This is going to slow things down. Once again, this situation really calls for some kind of test setup that enables you to address all 10 canisters at once, rather than one-by-one. If, as SezMe has suggested, the target material is present in enough quantity as to provide a very distinct and unmistakable response, this should work, right? Then you'd only have to wait x minutes until the next set of 10 containers, which will allow you to get through all 10 sets within a reasonable amount of time.

I cannot see, in any way, you managing to keep the test down to 8 hours doing it the one-canister-at-a-time route, unless JREF agrees to let you stop an attempt set once you've found what you think is the target.

You still have not answered my other question:

I'm rescanning an empty area, targets, people, then I leave, they then continue.
I still do not understand this sentence. If the area is empty, how can you be scanning targets? If the area is empty, how can you be scanning people? Why do you want to scan people? Who is "they", in this sentence, and what are they continuing?

[SezMe]

edge, you have over 750 posts here so I assume you know how to use the quote tool. Would you please use it so it is easy for all of us to follow the conversation. Thanks.

Me, I never said I wouldn’t.

Great...er, I think. But did you ever say you would? Please send an email to RemieV that includes something like the following:

1 The target will be five (5) ounces of silver to be provided by SezMe.
2. When I dowse for this target, my dowsing rod will drop to a vertical position in less than three seconds.
3. When I dowse for ANY other target that does not contain five ounces of silver or (...exceptions to be provided by edge) then my dowsing rod will exhibit no reaction.

Again, the exact wording is up to you but I think (hope?) you get the importance of what I am asking for.

Who’s going to pay for the JREf members/volunteers expenses to come here?

Not an issue. I will come at my own expense. I think Tricky has made the same statement (correct me if I am wrong, Tricky).


Get 5 ounces.

Get real.

I hereby state that I will purchase 5 ounces of silver within seven (7) working days from the date that RemieV states that edge and JREF have formally accepted a dowsing test protocol that uses 5 ounces of silver as the ONLY target to be used in the testing protocol.

The remainder of your post is too incoherent for me to understand and respond to. Sorry, edge.

[nathan]

Sand would screw things up, I would be thrown off.

Am I to understand that your dowsing:

1) IS NOT thrown off by sand in river beds and aluvium, so that you CAN detect minute amounts of gold in that environment (with the gold intermixed with the aluvium)

2) IS NOT thrown off by sand underneath a container holding a 5oz silver target or non-target

3) IS thrown off by sand being in the same container as a 5oz silver target or non-target

What is so different about situation #3?

[William Smith]

A thought just struck me about the incoherency of Edge's postings. Is it possible that we're just data mining the bits that make some sense and ignoring all the rest? Isn't that what the bible-coder nutcases do? :jaw-dropp

I think edge deserves some leeway because he has performed a test back in 2002. That deserves some credit. (Decide for yourself if edge still has some.)

However, if the JREF would follow the requirements from the time edge's application got accepted, namely: for him to state how he intends to prove his claim in two paragraphs, I doubt we'd see this claim proceed to the testing stage.



Data mining is our bread and butter when faced with edge's edgeness. ;)

I pretty much assume he's trying to provoke the JREF to cut the cord, so he can prance around claiming: "They were scared to test me again. I'm the real ****** deal. Dowsing works but those effers refused to test me."

[edge]

:
All they have to do is agree to these conditions.
I scan on one spot.
Nine empty, and one with the target, in a ten-container pass,
(The same way it was done before), one container that will hold the target, and 9 containers without or, empty. Or if they prefer 9 containers with lime in them, as a dummies.

When the ten of a set has passed, I say where the target is. Then we take a break.
One person, of my choosing to be on their side, against me, and working for them.
I don't think I'm asking for much. There!

If up until the test I can get the reaction that SezMe witnessed then we may save some time by placing the ten containers in one area.

That scenario will require more experiments and testing.

The only way possible to guarantee having a target that caused that reaction on that Creek is to mine that spot and use what is there, or to match it with silver, "size, quantity” but I would have to mine it to know for sure.
We are talking about two different metals silver and gold, maybe platinum.

How many ounces of silver are an unknown to me with out testing with silver of sufficient quantity. 5 ounces is a guess.

This part,
"When the target is there according to me, we take a break."

I'll take a risk and leave it out.
I know another way to deal with what happens.

Nathan don’t worry about it.
I'm not going to explain it to you I don't have the time.
I'm agreeing to lime.

Alright SezMe how long did it take to do that one test of 10 passes?
They already agreed to 8 hours.

[nathan]

Nathan don’t worry about it.
I'm not going to explain it to you I don't have the time.

Thanks for confirming that you do indeed claim that your dowsing:

1) IS NOT thrown off by sand in river beds and aluvium, so that you CAN detect minute amounts of gold in that environment (with the gold intermixed with the aluvium)

2) IS NOT thrown off by sand underneath a container holding a 5oz silver target or non-target

3) IS thrown off by sand being in the same container as a 5oz silver target or non-target

but that you don't have time to answer my question 'What is so different about situation #3?'

[Jackalgirl]

Am I to understand that your dowsing:

1) IS NOT thrown off by sand in river beds and aluvium, so that you CAN detect minute amounts of gold in that environment (with the gold intermixed with the aluvium)

2) IS NOT thrown off by sand underneath a container holding a 5oz silver target or non-target

3) IS thrown off by sand being in the same container as a 5oz silver target or non-target

What is so different about situation #3?

Yes, what is different -- especially if the target contains so much of the metal that it supposedly causes an unequivocal response in the dowsing rod?

[Grimoire]

Thanks for confirming that you do indeed claim that your dowsing:

1) IS NOT thrown off by sand in river beds and aluvium, so that you CAN detect minute amounts of gold in that environment (with the gold intermixed with the aluvium)

2) IS NOT thrown off by sand underneath a container holding a 5oz silver target or non-target

3) IS thrown off by sand being in the same container as a 5oz silver target or non-target

but that you don't have time to answer my question 'What is so different about situation #3?'
Unfortunately, it is not up to us, the JREF, or anyone else to dictate the hows and whys someone's magical ability works. If edge says it won't work that way, then an alternative solution must be found that he finds acceptable. Demanding rational, logical explanations for clearly irrational, illogical claims just won't work. We can point out inconsistencies, but at the end of the day, it is solely up to edge to judge whether or not a protocol is free from interference.

[SezMe]

How many ounces of silver are an unknown to me with out testing with silver of sufficient quantity. 5 ounces is a guess.

Actually, edge, I applaud you for this attitude. I urge you to do some testing with various target quantities until you are confident that you know what amount will lead to the unambiguous effect we noticed at Coffee Creek.

But note this: Making that determination implies that you already have that amount of target material! Thus, you can provide the proven target for the test. Great! That eliminates one variable.

They already agreed to 8 hours.
No, up to 8 hours. If it can be done more efficiently, then it should be.

[Paulhoff]

We can point out inconsistencies, but at the end of the day, it is solely up to edge to judge whether or not a protocol is free from interference.
Sounds good, but after the protocol is free from interference and judge to be OK by edge, and after he fails again there will be interference claimed by edge.

Paul

:) :) :)

All tested dowers do fail, and then claim some type of interference and he will be no defferant.

[edge]

Quote:
Alright SezMe how long did it take to do that one test of 10 passes?

I should'nt have put that other line under the one above.

Up to 8 hours for the whole test is what they said.

What about the one pass of ten?

[SezMe]

edge, I still enjoy interacting with you. Thanks for the response. However, two problems interfere with our (meaning not just you and I but you and the whole JREF community that is following this thread) clear communication.

First, learn to use the quote function. Is that too much to ask? It really helps all of us keep track of who said what to whom about what topic. I am sure you want to get to a good, solid protocol like all of the rest of us and using the forum's tools to facilitate good communications will get us to that goal sooner rather than later.

Second, please try to respond to individual issues one-at-a-time. Or as I said upthread, "focus". For example:

I should'nt have put that other line under the one above.
What the hell are you talking about?

What about the one pass of ten?
What the hell are you talking about?

edge, JREF and (unofficially) the forum posters who continue to contribute to your MDC cannot - and will not - get to an acceptable protocol unless you get your act together and make clear, unequivocal statements.

Thanks.

[nathan]

Unfortunately, it is not up to us, the JREF, or anyone else to dictate the hows and whys someone's magical ability works.
I was asking for clarification of his claim, and further asking about the apparent inconsistency in it. I'm glad Edge confirmed that I had understood his claim correctly. That allows us to move on and design a watertight protocol for it. I'm unsurprised he has 'insufficient time' to explain the apparent inconsistency :)

[William Smith]

Well, this thread now is officially the longest - and by far the most viewed - in this sub-forum. We did it. Applause all around. Great effort. :D



Now that we got this out of the way, edge, can you submit a protocol proposal which has the alleged interferences under control? I.e., can you do what you're supposed to do?

You have a million reasons.



(I will repeat this until the cows come home.)

[edge]

I think that the test at Coffee creek took about 40 to 60 minutes.
That was scanning only ten targets out of 100 so I'm not too far off the time limit of an 8 hour time limit set by Remie and the JREF.
400 to 600 minutes give or take.

[Jackalgirl]

I think that the test at Coffee creek took about 40 to 60 minutes.
That was scanning only ten targets out of 100 so I'm not too far off the time limit of an 8 hour time limit set by Remie and the JREF.
400 to 600 minutes give or take.

Six hundred minutes is 10 hours. That's too long. It can't take longer than 480 minutes (8 hours), tops, as per RemieV.

The total time includes not only the time it takes you to dowse, but the time it takes to reset the scene between passes, the time it takes, between passes, for the metal "reading" to fade back to background levels (how many minutes, again?) and the time you take for breaks.

If you take two minutes to dowse a single container, and it takes three minutes for "switchover"* to occur, that's five minutes per pass (and an extremely optimistic estimate, at that), NOT INCLUDING any time it takes for the metal's "reading" to fade from the scene once the target is removed after a pass.

Ten of these passes constitutes one set -- 50 minutes, plus 10 minutes for you to take a break after the set is complete. So: one hour per set. Since you'll be doing this 10 times, that's 10 hours, which is 2 hours over the 8 hour maximum imposed by JREF.

You need to rethink the test.

*switchover: the process of a team setting up the container then leaving the area, then edge & his team coming in, dowsing, and then leaving the area, and then the other team coming in and removing/resetting/replacing the container to set up for the next pass, and then leaving the area. This happens in sequence, with no overlap, as there can be no contact between edge's team and any other team.

[edge]

RemieV says,
Thank you for your patience. The final protocol will be in this e-mail, though I ask you to keep in mind that Randi must sign off on any protocol before the process to begin testing.

You will come to a location, so far unspecified, and find a spot within said location that has no "reading" on your dowsing rods. You will then leave the room while a cannister (what kind of cannister? Film? Coffee?) is placed. You will return to the room and dowse for the target metal (either gold or silver, to be determined based upon availability).

You will dowse the single cannister and leave the room while a second is placed. The process will continue for ten cannisters. One of those will definitely contain the target metal. The other nine in each set will definitely not.

You will then be allowed a short break (about ten minutes) and return to dowse the next set of ten in the same fashion.

You will be asked to dowse ten sets of ten cannisters in this fashion.

You will not be permitted to touch the cannisters. The JREF will have a volunteer standing by to place them. You will not be permitted to watch when the cannisters are switched.

A positive result for the preliminary test will be identifying the target substance (of either gold or silver) correctly in seven out of the ten sets of ten.

Let me know if this protocol works for you, and please answer the questions above as concisely as possible.

Thank you again for your patience,

JREF Challenge Desk

So far this is all good, so yes.


.
Then She asks this, If we are doing this outside, we would need to fill the canisters partially with sand to ensure the empty ones didn't blow away. They would all have the same amount of sand, making them equal weight, but if the target metal was inside a canister (with the sand) that one would indeed weigh more.

Still workable?


No but you can use lime a 5 pound bag bought at Ace Hardware should do.
You get nine plastic bags of sufficient size and distribute the lime in each bag all weighing the same 9 of them.
That way you could switch easily between the target and the dummy with the bag of lime in it.
The one with the target is only holding the target.


Now this is what I need also,

Quote:
:
All they have to do is agree to these conditions.
I scan on one spot.
Nine empty, and one with the target, in a ten-container pass.
(The same way it was done before), one container that will hold the target, and 9 containers without or, empty.
Or if they prefer 9 containers with lime in them, as a dummies.

When the ten of a set has passed, I say where the target is. Then we take a break.
One person, of my choosing to be on their side, against me, and working for them.
This should take between 400 and 600 minutes.
I don't think I'm asking for much.
There!

SezMe, or myself might provide target.

Now can we get pass this part RemieV ?

I have more to work out like place and the time.
SezMe may have more input on this too, if we do the preliminary up here at Coffee creek.
Which then the JREF, will make him and a person of his choosing your representatives to run the preliminary on me.

JackalGirl says before I can even post,
Six hundred minutes is 10 hours. That's too long. It can't take longer than 480 minutes (8 hours), tops, as per RemieV.
Six hundred minutes is 10 hours. That's too long. It can't take longer than 480 minutes (8 hours), tops, as per RemieV.

Again you’re not thinking in scientific terms.
I can't prove shioet unless I do what it takes.
I think the time limit is their way of avoiding the pay off.
Since you all know what it will take.

It should be left up to the volunteers and me what it takes with the stakes so high.
I have spent 4 YEARS UP HERE TRYING EXPERIMENTS AND RESERCHING.
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MINUTES!
WHAT THE [**** RULE 8.]
Is this a test or a joke?

So if I get 7 out of 10 right then we can stop. There's the option,....

The rest of the scans are irrelivent right?
That should save your minutes.
That would be about 300 minutes!
What the ****.

[Tricky]

So if I get 7 out of 10 right then we can stop. There's the option,....
No, edge. If you read carefully, you will see that the test must be complete before the results are shown. That is one of the ways you double blind a test. If you were allowed to "learn" which picks were correct, you might discover, even subconsciously, subtle differences in the correct picks versus the incorrect picks,

[edge]

No, edge. If you read carefully, you will see that the test must be complete before the results are shown. That is one of the ways you double blind a test. If you were allowed to "learn" which picks were correct, you might discover, even subconsciously, subtle differences in the correct picks versus the incorrect picks,

I'm not the one quibbling about how long it's going to take.
It might take an hour or two it might take 8.

I'm willing to take it, "the test", however long it takes.
So what am I supposed to do? It will take what it takes in time.
You are the ones making a big issue about a few minutes.

It is not the biggest issue in this process for me.
I have more important issues about this test to consider.
All I can say is, we will try with in the time limit.

It may take a fat person more time to waddle back and forth with a target, than a skinny person, or an 80 year old twice the time than an 18 year old.
You guys could purposely take longer and foil the whole test.

Big friggen deal!

Someone steps into a fire ant pile then what?
Some one breaks their ankle, what then.
Some one has to crap, what do we do say no you can’t time won’t allow it?

It’s not that hard.

You guys can really worry if I get by the preliminary.

Tricky says,
If you read carefully, you will see that the test must be complete before the results are shown.
I have no problem with that.

What if it takes eight hours and ten minutes?
What if I spend 8 hours and we have one more set of ten to do?
I’m not going to call it off, are they?

This is nit picking at it’s finest.

I hope that the damn test won’t take more than a few minutes.
I wish that an hour would work.

The empty containers go really quick.

If the target is huge I will also be able to go quick.
How fast is still an unknown................I'm not worried about it. :)

[nathan]

It should be left up to the volunteers and me what it takes with the stakes so high.
This is precisely the reason why the protocol must be watertight, and explicitly detail the procedure.


I have spent 4 YEARS UP HERE TRYING EXPERIMENTS AND RESERCHING.
Hmm, in that case, why this ...
How many ounces of silver are an unknown to me with out testing with silver of sufficient quantity. 5 ounces is a guess.
How come after 4 years, you have no idea what makes a good target? It seems like you have no methodology behind your research :wide-eyed

[nathan]

This part,
"When the target is there according to me, we take a break."

I'll take a risk and leave it out.
I know another way to deal with what happens.

Please clarify. Do you have a way of reducing the time for each test? What is it?

I suspect it will not be acceptable for you to knowingly 'take a risk', that gives you an obvious 'out' should you fail. You've not got a good track record of sticking to your word that the initial conditions were fine :D

[SezMe]

I'm concerned about the use of lime. Isn't that a white powder? After working with the targets and cannister for a while, won't there be white power everywhere.

edge, I want to remind you that you said you'd do some testing to find a target mass sufficient to give the unequivacable downward position of your dowsing rod. Doing so removes the time issue.

Oh, BTW, thanks for using the quote function.

[edge]

Please clarify. Do you have a way of reducing the time for each test? What is it?

I suspect it will not be acceptable for you to knowingly 'take a risk', that gives you an obvious 'out' should you fail. You've not got a good track record of sticking to your word that the initial conditions were fine :D

You guys are not listening; I tried to cover anyway out.
Go back and read, really read.
You ask, What is it?
Nonya!

I took a risk here testing and I know what to do.

But breaking after the target has appeared is not acceptable apparently.
So now I have an excuse according to you, it's their option not to break then, so what do you want me to do?

How come after 4 years, you have no idea what makes a good target? It seems like you have no methodology behind your research

LOL I have been living off of what makes a good target.

Apparently you don't know that I am mining for, gold not silver.
I have been selling my targets to live on.

The tray probably contains 1 ounce.
It worked, so 4 or 5 will do better.

I like how you come in here all of a sudden and demand answers. You ( ! ) head.

In the field a target acts one way and in a test when moved, it acts differently.

But one at a time on one spot makes all the difference.

[edge]

I'm concerned about the use of lime. Isn't that a white powder? After working with the targets and cannister for a while, won't there be white power everywhere.

edge, I want to remind you that you said you'd do some testing to find a target mass sufficient to give the unequivacable downward position of your dowsing rod. Doing so removes the time issue.

Oh, BTW, thanks for using the quote function.

When I do then we can maybe change it but for now it stands as it is because it works.

Lime is limestone base, hydrogenised, or crushed to a fine and heavy consistency, so a small amount will be heavy.
Put it in -plastic bags.
It very efficient and with the right bags flexible and should be leak proof.
Problem solved again.

I have other major problems to solve.
I will be working for a big corporation up here Hard rock mining outfit, so the target will be no problem I should be able to buy gold ingots and then we’ll know because I can test at that time.

I’m open for anything that will speed up the process because of the fatigue issue.
Till I test it, the way I have it now works.
I’m sure that the JREF will and want me to test the other way but for now What we have is what we really have, and that is what works for me not them.
Give me a month or two.

[edge]

Dowsing underground in a tunnel is going to be very interesting, more knowledge.
I will film that so you can see what happens, I already know.

[SezMe]

Make sure all the heat from the lighting you're going to have to take with you does not set your dowsing rod on fire.

[nathan]

I took a risk here testing and I know what to do.
Please be specific in the protocol. A vague protocol, where you handwave 'I'll take a risk here' is unlikely to be acceptable.
LOL I have been living off of what makes a good target.
No, you've been locating gold in river beds, (IIUC). You've not isolated the dowsing part of your gold extraction from the geographical and other methods of locating gold in such locations (AFAICT).

The tray probably contains 1 ounce.
It worked, so 4 or 5 will do better.
(a) if 1 ounce oz silver is sufficient, why ask for 4 times more?
(b) how do you know that 4 or 5 will be better? -- you've not tried it. Perhaps more than 4 ounces 'overloads' your sensors or something (An example from real life is drug sniffer dogs. They sometimes fail to detect huge quantities, because the smell is 'everywhere', the pointing response to which they are trained, doesn't cover that situation, and they become confused.)

I like how you come in here all of a sudden and demand answers. You ( ! ) head.
I'm glad you like my questions. I'm guessing the (!) is some comment about the insight you're gaining from these questions -- I'm not sure why you didn't write it in words though. However, you're incorrect of the 'all of a sudden' part, IYR, I've been participating in this thread for some time.

[nathan]

Dowsing underground in a tunnel is going to be very interesting, more knowledge.
I will film that so you can see what happens, I already know.
You're losing focus. Focus on the challenge -- you want the 1M$ don't you?

[SezMe]

(a) if 1 ounce oz silver is sufficient, why ask for 4 times more?
There is a very good reason.

Dowsing for the 1 ounce of silver involved a lot of time and caused edge to become fatigued. But edge has demonstated (see my Coffee Creek write-up) that larger amounts of the target material will cause his dowsing rod to react nearly instantaneously (~2-3 seconds) and dramatically (dipping to near vertical). edge has also that maybe 4-5 ounces of silver will induce the same reaction. If so, then using a more massive target solves the fatigue and "judgement" problems in one swell foop.

(b) how do you know that 4 or 5 will be better? -- you've not tried it.
edge has acknowledged this and has stated that he will be doing more tests to determine the amount of target material that is required to produce an unequivicable response. You must have missed this in his upthread comments.

[SezMe]

You're losing focus. Focus on the challenge -- you want the 1M$ don't you?

edge is a multi-tasking kinda guy. He can dowse, dowse in tunnels, find levitating spanners and make a living from whatever he does in his "day job". Go with it. :)

[steenkh]

I can understand the time limit for people doing voluntary work, but if the testers were paid for their efforts, I am sure that edge could arrange to get the time he needs to complete the test.

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

...and as we all slowly spin through the void on our inexorable journey on our little planet Earth, time continues to whittle away our finite and irreplacable lives while Edge talks nonsense and the test of his "powers" slips ever further into the realms of the impossible.

There should be a deadline where we stop talking to delusional people and let them go back to waving sticks. It should certainly not drag on for years.

[William Smith]

...and as we all slowly spin through the void on our inexorable journey on our little planet Earth, time continues to whittle away our finite and irreplacable lives while Edge talks nonsense and the test of his "powers" slips ever further into the realms of the impossible.

There should be a deadline where we stop talking to delusional people and let them go back to waving sticks. It should certainly not drag on for years.

It will most likely not drag on for years. If I recall correctly, edge's application got accepted in February 2007, perhaps March at latest. That means a maximum of twelve months for protocol negotiations. If a suitable protocol has not materialised by March 2008: No test, no success and hence no million. clams. Tough titty, to quote edge.

And since I very much doubt that this will be the JREF's fault: No chance of another application from edge being accepted.



The good part: Barring a server snafu, this whole enchilada of a thread is saved and ready for future generations to digest, to evaluate and to conclude. Another tessera, another data-set, another link. ;)

THE UNIVERSE RULES! WHOOOOOO!!!

U-NI-VERSE!
U-NI-VERSE!
U-NI-VERSE!




I will now take my medication and continue to stare at the wall.

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

March 2008? You do realise at current posting rate this thread will be 200 pages long, filled with the ramblings of Edge followed by the rest of us tearing our hair out trying to figure out what the hell he means?

[edge]

I can understand the time limit for people doing voluntary work, but if the testers were paid for their efforts, I am sure that edge could arrange to get the time he needs to complete the test.

Yes, in nuggets possably.
We'll see.

[William Smith]

March 2008? You do realise at current posting rate this thread will be 200 pages long, filled with the ramblings of Edge followed by the rest of us tearing our hair out trying to figure out what the hell he means?

I shave my head, so I got at least that covered. :D



I have little doubt that this thread will gain substantially in volume. Especially, given the two most likely scenarios:

1. No test will happen. (110% probability.)
2. Edge fails the test. (110% probability.)

Part of me is already looking forward to the excuses edge will parade before us. But make no mistake, I consider it technically possible edge will perform successfully. But the odds are in the 5000-supermodels-showing-up-in-your-bedroom-and-do-what-you-want realm, Paris Hilton winning multiple Nobel Prizes or Scotland winning the Soccer World Cup 2010. :D :D :D

[RemieV]

Mike Guska,

Thanks for your continued patience while we work through your information.

At this point, it is my recommendation that the JREF discontinue negotiations with you regarding your protocol. I have turned the issue over to Jeff Wagg for further review.

It is incredibly difficult to understand your protocol and the sentences you're using to describe it. Words like "show up" don't clarify anything. At this point, there are a great number of stipulations and rules for how you want the test to run.

At this point, I believe that the actual claim has become lost somewhere with all the stipulations.

Either you can perform the claim you describe, or you can't. And the way the test would work out, it seems to me that either you would not or would have about ten thousand different outs based upon your phrasing and inability to answer direct questions about your own powers.

Jeff will not necessarily side with me on this, and it is possible the JREF will want to continue testing negotiations. Since I have made my recommendation, I am stepping out of the process until he completes the review and decides whether or not we will continue negotiations. If so, I will contact you with more information. If not, then we will part ways.

Thank you again for your patience.

[William Smith]

Edge, if you know someone who can help you writing up a proper protocol proposal, now would be the time to call him.

I fully understand RemieV's concerns. Appreciative nod for the JREF's patience so far.

Hopefully, their resources permit them to - somehow - move this claim to the testing stage.

[SezMe]

edge, EHocking did his damnest to help you write a protocol. I am willing to write one. Do you think if the three of us got together via e-mail and tried to work one out that something would come of it?

If we could come up with something, we could offer it to JREF on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. No further negotiations.

BTW, I have NOT run this by EHocking so he may be so fed up he doesn't want anything to do with you.

[Paul2]

My outs are not your concern so what are you worried about that for?But of course your outs are the concerns of the JREF! The whole point of the MDC is to develop a protocol in which there are no outs, which means that the results of the challenge are crystal clear to everyone and can't be interpreted differently by different people (that is, by claiming an out), so that it is clear, in the final determination, that someone either failed at or succeeded in their claim. An out prevents that final determination.

[edge]

edge, EHocking did his damnest to help you write a protocol. I am willing to write one. Do you think if the three of us got together via e-mail and tried to work one out that something would come of it?

If we could come up with something, we could offer it to JREF on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. No further negotiations.

BTW, I have NOT run this by EHocking so he may be so fed up he doesn't want anything to do with you.
Yesterday 10:42 PM



SezMe you know and I know that this is easier to set up than it sounds.
The only difference in the test you did on me is, that I would in that set of scans is, picking out the metal once. Your dummy target was fine wasn’t it?
That’s so simple.
Because it would only show up one time out of ten then we would run it nine more times.

There is a real chance of them losing now.

Here’s a list as simple as I can write it.


Targets pass on one spot.

Only the metal is picked out.

A break after a set of ten is done.

The dummies contain lime, 9 of them.

One person on their side to confirmed the truth about my picks.

My choice of where the test will take place.



How simple can it be?

[edge]

Everything else has been worked out, % of hits needed, They know how to double blind the test.

Paul2, i don't need an out if I lose I will never post again.
Losing is not an option.
This isn't a protocol about ways out, I haven't taken the test yet.

This is about taking the test with what I have learned about not having ways out.
It's what I need to win now, the things I ask for in the test.
You guys have me losing before I try and also making new excuses before hand.

[SezMe]

SezMe you know and I know that this is easier to set up than it sounds.
The only difference in the test you did on me is, that I would in that set of scans is, picking out the metal once. Your dummy target was fine wasn’t it?
That’s so simple.
Because it would only show up one time out of ten then we would run it nine more times.

There is a real chance of them losing now.

Here’s a list as simple as I can write it.


How simple can it be?

See, edge, right there is the problem. I ask you basically a yes-or-no question and I get the above soliloquy. I'll reserve judgement on your dowsing skills but I'm prepared to call your clarity of thinking and writing to be wanting. Do you want to some help or not?

Yes or No

[Marcus]

Here’s a list as simple as I can write it.


How simple can it be?

I must be learning how to speak edge, this protocol makes perfect sense to me. It appears to me that all he needs is for one of you guys to write this protocol up with normal syntax and grammar. He has agreed to dowse 10 targets at a time, so time shouldn't be a factor.

[Marcus]

Sorry, I misunderstood that. "Targets pass on one spot" must mean that he is still on the one at a time thing.

[EHocking]

edge, EHocking did his damnest to help you write a protocol. I am willing to write one. Do you think if the three of us got together via e-mail and tried to work one out that something would come of it?

If we could come up with something, we could offer it to JREF on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. No further negotiations.

BTW, I have NOT run this by EHocking so he may be so fed up he doesn't want anything to do with you.I was going to suggest exactly this. I stayed out of the thread so as not to distract edge further from working out a protocol with JREF.

I'm still willing to help.

But only if edge drops the idea of a one at a time test protocol.
It can't be done in the 8 hours he's been given.

e.g.,
edge stipulation that test site is free of any target for 3mins between dowsing passes - 300mins.
edge stipulation that he has a 10min rest between each trial - 100mins

That leaves 80mins to dowse - 48secs per pass.

It won't work.

edge - would you be willing to be tested with 10 targets in place at once?

[Cuddles]

I have more to work out like place and the time.

Edge, this is the whole problem. You have spent the last year complaining about not being able to find a place, and have spent far more time and effort on that than on working out a protocol, even with all the help you have had. Why should the JREF bother to continue working on the protocol when you are incapable of agreeing on a place to do it anyway?

As for outs not being our concern, as Paul2 said, if either you or the JREF has an out then there is absolutely no point in carrying out the test, since it will not prove anything.

[RemieV]

Everyone can continue working on a protocol with Mr. Guska if they wish, but really we're frozen in time until Jeff makes a decision on whether or not to move forward.

There is zero clarity in the protocol, and I think it extends further than that. Results of a test with this many stipulations are no longer self-evident, and really, that's the whole point.

[Old man]

SezMe, EHocking,

Have you given any thought to having Edge find two (or three) ‘neutral’ sites, fairly close to each other, and testing alternately between them (i.e. target 1 at site 1, then target 2 at site 2, then target 3 at site 1, etc.)?

This might save time, as each site could be clear of targets while the other was being used. It would also save set-up time, as one site could be set up while testing was being done at the other, instead of having each team twiddling their respective thumbs while the other was ‘working’.

[EHocking]

SezMe, EHocking,

Have you given any thought to having Edge find two (or three) ‘neutral’ sites, fairly close to each other, and testing alternately between them (i.e. target 1 at site 1, then target 2 at site 2, then target 3 at site 1, etc.)?

This might save time, as each site could be clear of targets while the other was being used. It would also save set-up time, as one site could be set up while testing was being done at the other, instead of having each team twiddling their respective thumbs while the other was ‘working’.Unfortunately, not down to us - it's all edge's call.

edge has to find a site where all 10 targets can be laid down at once for a single trial.

The one-at-a-time way he wants to do it can not physically be performed in the time JREF has (rightly) given him.

A dowsing test that takes 11 hours is fraught with all sorts of problems - the dowsers fatigue notwithstanding, the longer the testing takes, the more likely mistakes will be made by the testers.

[Spektator]

edge, in the interest of saving time, would you be willing to make fewer tries and have a higher level of success?

Would you consider testing 50 times instead of 100?

The target would be present 5 times.

To pass the preliminary test, you would have to identify the target all five times--no misses.

Would this do?

[Old man]

Unfortunately, not down to us - it's all edge's call. Yes, I understand that. I should have said “asked edge…” rather than “have edge…”.

edge has to find a site where all 10 targets can be laid down at once for a single trial. It was my understanding that edge claims that he couldn’t keep track of the ‘background interference’ on 10 sites. That’s why I suggested 2.

Assuming that edge agrees to 2 sites, do you think that it would help with the time issue?

[edge]

Quote:

Targets pass on one spot.

Only the metal is picked out.

A break after a set of ten is done.

The dummies contain lime, 9 of them.

One person on their side to confirmed the truth about my picks.

My choice of where the test will take place.