[Moderated] Dowsing By Edge [Archive] - Page 6

edge

12th July 2007, 11:04 AM

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’.

This might be possible.
I can find 2 maybe 3 but there is no telling till I try an area.

The only thing we have is a problem with the time issue.

I will ask again SezMe how long did it take to do that test that we did?
After the set up?
Was it about 40 minutes?
If it was then there should be no problem.
SezMe says,

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

I know what I'm doing so my clarity is not an issue.
Like I said why change what works?
I have to experiment with a target of sufficient size to know weather to change it or not.
No not yet.

Remie said in the e-mail,
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.

According to this where's the problem?
We'll make it 5 minutes.

Spectator says,

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?
This is possible to do.
Ya we could do that, so there.
All right SezMe write it like that, with what I need.
I still get 8 hours.
When the metal appears I need the field cleared and then when I say to continue, we do,
add that for 100% correct hits.
So we are looking at about 300 minutes.
5 to 6 hours.

Quote:

Targets pass on one spot.

Only the metal is picked out.

When the metal is on the spot, when I think it is, we pause, after the spot is cleared of that container. When I say continue we then check the rest of the containers in that set off ten, then I make my choice.

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.

I have to get five out of 50 correct hits done in sets of 10X5.
My choice of where the test will take place.

Spektator

12th July 2007, 01:40 PM

Okay, I'll give it a try. SezMe, EHocking, check me on this.

PROTOCOL FOR DOWSING TEST

Material required:
1 target, 5 oz. silver
1 5-lb bag of lime
10 11-ounce plastic coffee containers
Scale

Procedure:

The dowser will attempt to locate the target hidden inside one of the containers. There will be five runs of ten containers each, numbered 1-10. In each run, the target will be present in one container only.

The containers will be prepared this way: In nine of the containers for each trial there will be eight ounces of lime. These are the dummy containers. In the remaining container there will be three ounces of lime plus the five-ounce target.

The dowser will be out of sight of the testing area at the beginning of each trial.

A randomizer will choose one of the containers in which to place the target for each run of ten. The randomizer will signal the placement team when the target has been placed in a container.

The placement team will take the container to the test site, place it, and signal the dowser. Then the placement team will leave before the dowser arrives.

The dowser will use his dowsing rod on each container and will say whether the container does or does not contain the silver target.

When the dowser has stated this, the observation team will record his opinion on a sheet numbered 1-10. If the dowser says the target is present, the number corresponding to the container will be marked T. If not, the number will be marked 0. There can be only one T in each run of ten containers.

The process will be repeated five times, with the target randomly placed in a container for each time.

To succeed, the dowser will have to correctly identify the target container five times.

The dowser will fail if he identifies the target container four or fewer times.

edge

12th July 2007, 05:02 PM

edge

12th July 2007, 05:04 PM

A clown says,
My protocol as outlined a few posts ago will take approx 30 mins.

Wrong that is the same as the first test which lasted four hours or more.

edge

12th July 2007, 05:14 PM

Spektator, SezMe, EHocking, scanning the empties can take as little time as about a half a minute.

They will have to keep their timing the same for each set of the containers on the spot.
But of course that’s up to them.

Dan used 25 seconds before calling me back.

My walk time was about 25 to 30 seconds till I reached the spot, another 30 seconds or so for the scan if it was empty.

If the target was there, up to two minutes.

If the target can repeat what we witnessed in nature on the creek SezMe, well then it should be easy to identify the target and save time.

Reno

12th July 2007, 05:26 PM

The definative 'edge' protocal'

I have to score for over the ground in the final for a higher %ge than the prelim. Usually it is 110% but as I can score that it could be the thought that 70% is for the preliminary only. That would suit me just fine.

If the passes on the scans are to be observed (but not picks for a whole observation level) then it would only be necessary if one or two of the observers. This will be at the discretion of course and may be discussed on the day.

If limestone is used in the containers, then the subject shall not be the object unless the passes last past the first 6. The 7th will then be the 'break time' where the field will be reset by appointees of the JREF who may or may not take residence in the motel paid by or not by me. These rest periods will not be included in the time for the challenge because it will be during the 'reset phase'.

There must not be any fields of bodies presnt in the area but I will have scanned previosly and will require a month or two to take into account the scientific gravitational field energie of disruption. This can happen because I know of a canyon where spanners and other implemnents can float and defy the gravitational pull. But this is natural and caused by something that is not invloved in my tests.

Secondly: It will be only a 'hit' if the JREF appointees or Sezme decide that I have discovered it beyond the double-blind. (you could even triple-blind of it was the decision that there may be something strange occcuring.) This is true for magmite also.

Finally and without exception to be certified by Sezme as he saw a proof positive of the effect in the scales: It will be the determination of the percentage.

This is a final and unambiguous rendering of the protocol. why are you chicken bullspit JREF Rennie?

RemieV

12th July 2007, 05:47 PM

SezMe

12th July 2007, 06:34 PM

Okay, I'll give it a try. SezMe, EHocking, check me on this.
<snip>

I'd like to see a few changes but I don't think we should put any more time in on this until we hear back from JREF. If they say, "Kaput. Fini. We're outta here." then that is the end of the story. Any effort we might put in would be wasted.

If they are open to a take-it-or-leave it offer, then this. plus EHocking's work, should get us to a protocol.

So I'm going to stand by......................

Marcus

12th July 2007, 08:09 PM

The definative 'edge' protocal'

Now that's entertainment. You have captured the appeal of this thread to the lurking community.:D

vIQleS

12th July 2007, 09:03 PM

I've only been vaguely following this, and i may have skimmed over something important, but I’m confused as to why it should take 8 hours to test a confident, experienced dowser.

10 trials:
10 [buckets or whatever] per trial
1 has [gold nugget or whatever]
9 have [sand or limestone or whatever]

10 minutes to setup and run an open pre-test
10 minutes per trial (that's 1 minute per bucket - a long time)
2 minutes per reset

total: 130 minutes - 2.16 hours, call it 2.5.
Setting up cameras, and clean up afterwards - you're done within 3 hours.

Spacing between the buckets will be predecided so that there won't be interference etc (this is also the purpose of the open test...) Location can be (within reason) at the discretion of the applicant.

I'm also confused about this:

Targets pass on one spot.

I honestly don't understand what this means. "targets pass on one spot" doesn't mean anything - can someone please rephrase that as a sentence (pref. edge...)

Spektator

12th July 2007, 09:15 PM

Okay, edge, is this better?

PROTOCOL FOR DOWSING TEST

Material required:
1 target, 5 oz. silver
1 5-lb bag of lime
10 11-ounce plastic coffee containers
Scale

Procedure:

The dowser will attempt to locate the target hidden inside one of the containers. There will be five runs of ten containers each, numbered 1-10. In each run, the target will be present in one container only.

The containers will be prepared this way: In nine of the containers for each trial there will be eight ounces of lime. These are the dummy containers. In the remaining container there will be three ounces of lime plus the five-ounce target.

Before the test begins, the dowser will locate a specific spot on which all the containers will be placed, one at a time, for his dowsing test. The scale will be set up so that the dowser can attach his dowsing rod to it directly over the place where the containers will be placed.

The dowser will then move away to a waiting area and will be out of sight of the testing area at the beginning of each trial.

A randomizer will choose one of the containers in which to place the target for each run of ten. The randomizer will signal the placement team when the target has been placed in a container.

The placement team will take the container to the test site, place it on the test spot the dowser has located, and signal the dowser. Then the placement team will leave before the dowser arrives.

The dowser will use his dowsing rod on each container and will say whether the container does or does not contain the silver target.

When the dowser has stated this, the observation team will record his opinion on a sheet numbered 1-10. If the dowser says the target is present, the number corresponding to the container will be marked T. If not, the number will be marked 0. There can be only one T in each run of ten containers.

The process will be repeated five times, with the target randomly placed in a container for each time and with each container placed on the same spot for each dowsing attempt. After each container is removed, the placement team will wait a minimum of three minutes before placing the next container.

To succeed, the dowser will have to correctly identify the target container five times.

The dowser will fail if he identifies the target container four or fewer times.

Jackalgirl

13th July 2007, 02:30 AM

The definative 'edge' protocal'

Unpsychically (meaning, "actually") nominated. : )

Spektator

13th July 2007, 02:47 AM

Little more fiddling:

PROTOCOL FOR DOWSING TEST

The claim: The dowser can successfully detect the presence of a concealed target consisting of 5 ounces of silver with 100% accuracy in five runs, with a one-in-ten possibility of identifying the target by chance alone.

Material required:
1 target, 5 oz. silver
1 5-lb bag of lime
10 11-ounce plastic coffee containers
Scale

Procedure:

The dowser will attempt to locate the target hidden inside one of the containers. There will be five runs of ten containers each, numbered 1-10. In each run, the target will be present in one container only.

The containers will be prepared this way: In nine of the containers for each trial there will be eight ounces of lime. These are the dummy containers. In the remaining container there will be three ounces of lime plus the five-ounce target.

Before the test begins, the dowser will locate a specific spot on which all the containers will be placed, one at a time, for his dowsing test. The scale will be set up so that the dowser can attach his dowsing rod to it directly over the spot where the containers will be placed.

The dowser will then move away to a waiting area and will be out of sight of the testing area at the beginning of each trial. An observer appointed by the dowser will accompany the dowser and the JREF observer(s) and will witness the recording of the dowser's readings.

A randomizer will choose one of the containers in which to place the target for each run of ten. The randomizer will signal the placement team when the target has been placed in a container. The placement team will not know which container conceals the target.

The placement team will take the container to the test site, place it on the test spot the dowser has located, and signal the dowser. Then the placement team will leave before the dowser arrives with his observer and the JREF observer(s).

The dowser will use his dowsing rod on each container and will say whether the container does or does not contain the silver target.

When the dowser has stated this, the observation team will record his opinion on a sheet numbered 1-10. If the dowser says the target is present, the number corresponding to the container will be marked T. If not, the number will be marked 0. There can be only one T in each run of ten containers.

The process will be repeated five times, with the target randomly placed in a container for each time and with each container placed on the same spot for each dowsing attempt. After each container is removed, the placement team will wait a minimum of three minutes before placing the next container. After each run of ten dowsing attempts, the dowser will have a rest period of ten minutes.

To succeed, the dowser will have to correctly identify the target container five times.

The dowser will fail if he identifies the target container four or fewer times.

EHocking

13th July 2007, 03:37 AM

For you stat-heads: is the probability of getting 5 out of 5 in Spektator's protocol (.1)^5?Good enough for the Preliminary stage, according to these tables (http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html).

He'd still have to perform 10 trials for the final stage.

But does it test edge's claim - which was initially 60% success rate, upped to 70% when JREF advised him that was insufficient odds?
If edge agrees, are we inviting accusations of JREF moving the goal posts?

petre

13th July 2007, 09:19 AM

For you stat-heads: is the probability of getting 5 out of 5 in Spektator's protocol (.1)^5?

Well, since the odds of getting the right one out of 10 is 1/10 (.1) and the trial is being run 5 times, the odds of perfect performance are indeed exactly (.1)^5 = 1/10000. Actually, the odds of getting 4 or more correct are about 1/2173, so maybe that'd be alright too?

Also, I'm kind of dissapointed Reno's protocol didn't include:
Caught sayof school that has stoped Handstandsing " See, told ya so" Is He dead or not. CNN Says yes. St. Pete Times Looking for chads -OR- "hello, I am write single to salute

colin

13th July 2007, 09:58 AM

I've only been vaguely following this...

I honestly don't understand what this means. "targets pass on one spot"
All 100 containers must be placed in the exact same spot with time between the removal of one and the placement of the next. So, it’s more like 100 mini tests instead of 10 tests.

Spektator

13th July 2007, 11:18 AM

edge

13th July 2007, 02:01 PM

I don't know much about statistics, so if 4 out of 5 hits is workable, I'd suggest edge go for that. One other thing should be added to the protocol, I think:

The randomizer will keep a record of which container the target is in for each run. At the end of all 5 runs (50 dowsing trials), all participants will compare the observers' list with T marked to show which containers the dowser believes hold the target and the randomizer's record of which containers actually held the target. Until that time, the randomizer and the observers will not communicate with each other in any way.

I intend to get 5 of 5.

You write it Spectator and I’ll send it .
You may get some of what I have been getting though, in here on the forum.

Remember I need a person for proof of the truth; verification that things written down are the correct numbers recorded, and hits or misses.

Colin understands this,
All 100 containers must be placed in the exact same spot with time between the removal of one and the placement of the next. So, it’s more like 100 mini tests instead of 10 tests.

Spectator is going to change this though. Instead of a 100 scans, it will be 50 since time is such a big issue.
Then I have to get a higher number of hits, and the statistics are now 5 of 5 correct in my selections of the target, if I understand what is being stated.
This saves time for the JREF, since the goal posts are being moved. LMAO.

4 out of 5 is reasonable, if this is true,
Well, since the odds of getting the right one out of 10 is 1/10 (.1) and the trial is being run 5 times, the odds of perfect performance are indeed exactly (.1)^5 = 1/10000. Actually, the odds of getting 4 or more correct are about 1/2173, so maybe that'd be alright too?
Is that true Spectator?
If you are going to be on my side then be truthful.

Some leeway would be nice.

Ok SezMe I’ll ask again HOW LONG DID THAT TEST OF TEN SCANS TAKE AFTER THE SET UP?

Ehocking says,

Good enough for the Preliminary stage, according to these tables.

He'd still have to perform 10 trials for the final stage.

But does it test edge's claim - which was initially 60% success rate, upped to 70% when JREF advised him that was insufficient odds?
If edge agrees, are we inviting accusations of JREF moving the goal posts?

This why I’m asking SezMe about the time issue, I may have missed his statement.
I already agreed to 70% so that's ok but now it doesn't apply accourding to Spectators new protocol,unless
you are saying that in the final I would still have to do 100 scans and that I would, after the new preliminary which is, 4 of 5 or 5 of 5 correct hits for a win, would then for the final, need to get 7 of 10 correct for the win?
Is that correct?

Just because one person can't handle this doesn't mean that Jeff can't.

I'm sure we'll hear from the guy who wears plaid dresses, oh I forgot kilts.
We’ll get to see how he interprets, in his mind, all of this. Seems to come out checkered.

:popcorn1

SezMe

13th July 2007, 02:41 PM

edge, I've already stated that any effort on my part is on hold until JREF decides whether they are going to entertain further protocol discussions.

edge

13th July 2007, 02:45 PM

I read this and here it is,
At this time, it is my recommendation that the JREF cease protocol negotiations with Mr. Guska based on the lack of clarity in all communications with him thus far.

Jeff is reviewing the case, and will let us know whether or not we continue or stop.

~Remie
Well let’s see, I agreed to her last e-mail, so how clear do I need to be?

The one thing that we are in disagreement was sand being used for the dummy containers, and that I need these things also to make sure they understand.

And I 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, not sand at which point is this became confusing?

One person on their side to confirmed the truth about my picks.
Some one of my choosing, a friend, a believer.

Sand contains a static charge; this will interfere with my readings….
Sand has quartz in it and various amounts.

We’ll let Spectator write it.

Again my letter to them,

Hi Remie,

Quote: from you, Remie V,
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,
Quote:
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?

Me,
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
strenth 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:Me,

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)"empty", 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. That’s something you'll have to discuss with
him.

Mike Guska

Some one is lying.
If it’s a time issue LMAO, then the Old man and Spectator have figured a way around that issue, so I feel that it’s JREF that’s running scared now…

I have had my people here read what I write, they don't have any problems understanding, unless they are Scottish!
:popcorn1

edge

13th July 2007, 02:54 PM

edge, I've already stated that any effort on my part is on hold until JREF decides whether they are going to entertain further protocol discussions.

You mean to tell me you can't answer this,

:Ok SezMe I’ll ask again HOW LONG DID THAT TEST OF TEN SCANS TAKE AFTER THE SET UP?

Come on tell the truth.
Ahh peer pressure.
You are running scared and doing so behind the scenes.

William Smith

13th July 2007, 03:23 PM

Edge, people who don't know you have problems understanding your writings for three obvious reasons:
First, you do not use correct grammar - especially punctuation.
Second, you weave in lots of typos.
And third, when describing something you seem to have a hard time putting the right words together.

This is not intended to put you down. I'm simply trying to point out to you what is very obvious to most of us.

Even after several re-readings of your posts, especially the longer ones, I have to guess what you intend to say.

And I reiterate: If a reward of USD 1,000,000 doesn't incite you to negotiate in good faith and with maximum efficiency, I assume you do not want to be tested.

edge

13th July 2007, 03:42 PM

Edge, people who don't know you have problems understanding your writings for three obvious reasons:
First, you do not use correct grammar - especially punctuation.
Second, you weave in lots of typos.
And third, when describing something you seem to have a hard time putting the right words together.

This is not intended to put you down. I'm simply trying to point out to you what is very obvious to most of us.

Even after several re-readings of your post, especially the longer ones, I have to guess what you intend to say.

And I reiterate: If a reward of USD 1,000,000 doesn't incite you to negotiate in good faith and with maximum efficiency, I assume you do not want to be tested.

We will let Spectator write it then.

I let him know when it's complete.

It’s almost there.

SezMe

13th July 2007, 04:01 PM

You mean to tell me you can't answer this,

Come on tell the truth.
Ahh peer pressure.
You are running scared and doing so behind the scenes.

Full Disclosure: edge has somehow cracked my PM inbox so I have to make a full confession here. Yes, I have been absolutely bombarded with PMs urging me in no uncertain terms not to answer edge's question. GzuzKryzt. Spektator. EHocking. They've been unmerciful. Which is mild compared to Reno's presence. Like ugly on a monkey wearing a beret.

So I've been runing and hidng to the best of my abilities. And scared? You bet. The skid marks in my shorts defy description.

But edge has called me out so I'll come clean: I dunno know, edge. We didn't time it. 60-90 minutes, I'd guess. What is your memory?

edge

13th July 2007, 04:41 PM

Full Disclosure: edge has somehow cracked my PM inbox so I have to make a full confession here. Yes, I have been absolutely bombarded with PMs urging me in no uncertain terms not to answer edge's question. GzuzKryzt. Spektator. EHocking. They've been unmerciful. Which is mild compared to Reno's presence. Like ugly on a monkey wearing a beret.

So I've been runing and hidng to the best of my abilities. And scared? You bet. The skid marks in my shorts defy description.

But edge has called me out so I'll come clean: I dunno know, edge. We didn't time it. 60-90 minutes, I'd guess. What is your memory?

40 to 60 minutes.
Are they really?
Why would they do that?

They can't say it's a time issue with the way Spectator is writing it,
"the new protocol".

I do believe this can be proven now, why suppress it?
I wouldn’t hack into your pm box, but I do get weird vibes though.

I come in here early in the morning and late at night plus my vision isn’t too good.
Except for today and a few other times, I’m pretty tired when I write.

. And scared? You bet.

You got to be joking?
You want to explain this, PM me.

Spektator

13th July 2007, 06:31 PM

edge, Sez Me was just joking. I haven't PM'ed anyone.

I don't know statistics, so I don't know if 4 out of 5 will be an acceptable test result for the JREF. If you're confident you can get 5 out of 5, go for that; or see if they'll accept 4 out of 5 as passing.

Here's the protocol. See if you think it will work, and if it looks ok, cut and paste it and try it on JREF.

PROTOCOL FOR DOWSING TEST

The claim: The dowser can successfully detect the presence of a concealed target consisting of 5 ounces of silver 4 times in 5 runs of ten attempts each, with a one-in-ten possibility of identifying the target by chance alone in each of the five runs.

Material required:
1 target, 5 oz. silver
1 5-lb bag of lime
10 11-ounce plastic coffee containers numbered 1-10
Scale

Procedure:

The dowser will attempt to locate the target hidden inside one of the containers. There will be five runs of ten containers each, numbered 1-10. In each run, the target will be present in one container only, and the other nine containers will be stabilized by eight ounces of lime.

The containers will be prepared this way: In nine of the containers for each trial there will be eight ounces of lime. These are the dummy containers. In the remaining container there will be three ounces of lime plus the five-ounce target. The target container will be determined by a random process. An individual we will call the randomizer will prepare the containers for each run; the dowser will have a representative who will verify that the container with the target actually does contain the target. This will be done by the randomizer’s preparing five lists, consisting of numbers from 1-10. When the target container has been selected and prepared the randomizer will mark a T in the space opposite that number on the list; the dowser’s representative will initial the sheet to show that it is correct. At no time will the randomizer or the dowser’s representative be in verbal, electronic, or visual communication with the dowser; if the dowser somehow does come into contact with the randomizer or the representative, that run will be declared null and void.

Before the test begins, the dowser will locate a specific spot on which all the containers will be placed, one at a time, for his dowsing test. The scale will be set up so that the dowser can attach his dowsing rod to it directly over the spot where the containers will be placed.

The dowser will then move away to a waiting area and will be out of sight of the testing area at the beginning of each trial. The dowser will witness the recording of the dowser's readings by initialling each numbered list after the run of ten is complete.

The randomizer will choose one of the containers in which to place the target for each run of ten. The randomizer will prepare the containers and mark the list; the dowser’s second representative will initial the list to signify that it is complete. The randomizer will signal (perhaps by blowing a whistle in a particular pattern: long-short-long, for example) the placement team when the containers are ready. The randomizer and second dowser’s representative will leave the area, and the placement team will then come to the preparation area and will one by one move the containers to the test spot for the dowsing attempt. The placement team will not know which container conceals the target.

The placement team will take each container to the test site, place it on the test spot the dowser has located, and signal the dowser. Then the placement team will leave before the dowser arrives with his observer and the JREF observer(s).

The dowser will use his dowsing rod on each container and will say whether the container does or does not contain the silver target.

When the dowser has stated this, the observer will record his opinion on a sheet numbered 1-10. If the dowser says the target is present, the number corresponding to the container will be marked T. If not, the number will be marked 0. There can be only one T in each run of ten containers. Both the observer and the dowser will initial the finished test sheet after each run of ten.

The process will be repeated five times, with the target randomly placed in a container for each time and with each container placed on the same spot for each dowsing attempt. After each container is removed, the placement team will wait a minimum of three minutes before placing the next container. After each run of ten dowsing attempts, the dowser will have a rest period of ten minutes.

At the end of all 5 runs (50 dowsing trials), all participants will compare the observers' list with T marked to show which containers the dowser believes hold the target and the randomizer's record of which containers actually held the target. Until that time, the randomizer and dowser's representative will not communicate with the dowser and the JREF observer in any way.

To succeed, the dowser will have to correctly identify the target container four out of five times. If the dowser correctly identifies the target container three out of five times or less, that will be a failure.

Marcus

13th July 2007, 08:17 PM

The goalposts have never changed, the standard has always been 1 in 10,000 for the preliminary. Since the links to the appropriate tables have been posted here several times, just in the last month, I would expect anyone interested in challenging to at least have the tables bookmarked.

I'm sure it is a good sign that edge will now accept some help in drawing up a protocol. It may be too late, though. I'm mystified as to why he didn't accept help months ago from the numerous offers. I actually sympathize a bit with edge concerning the negotiations with jref, I would hate to see his test rejected at this point on the grounds of incoherency or excessive stipulations.

RemieV

13th July 2007, 09:22 PM

RemieV

13th July 2007, 09:29 PM

Mr. Guska,

I know my change of heart regarding your application and protocol negotiations may have seemed sudden. It was my opinion that your protocol was too complex and demanded too many things which seem ridiculous for someone who claims to truly have an ability.

The turning point was the moment you mentioned using lime, and I thought to myself, "Isn't that caustic?"

http://www.lime.org/FactSafety12403.pdf

http://www.limebase.co.uk/safety.htm

http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/bu-mat-AppendDAP.pdf

http://www.mikewye.co.uk/limesafetydatatech.htm

http://www.irishlime.com/hydrated.html

I am not offering an opportunity to change your request and continue to negotiate the protocol, just trying to explain why I felt this one was a hopeless cause.

Regards,

Remie

edge

14th July 2007, 12:23 AM

Ya lime in a plastic container in a plastic bags is so dangerous.
It might even explode.
I use it in my garden all the time and for potted plants.
Lets see you wouldn't want to put it in your eyes of course you wouldn't want to put gasoline in them either.

This is just a cop out.
We could have used limestone aggregate.

I'll find some other way to prove it.

The dummies were your problem anyway.
I wanted empties, with all of them placed in a bucket, which would have worked.

They are running scared.

RemieV

14th July 2007, 12:50 AM

*sigh*

Mr. Guska, I said that was when I began to have misgivings. It was not the reason for your application termination, which is an inability to negotiate a protocol because of your absolute lack of clarity.

Regards,

Remie

EHocking

14th July 2007, 04:38 AM

....

I'll find some other way to prove it.

The dummies were your problem anyway.
I wanted empties, with all of them placed in a bucket, which would have worked.

They are running scared.edge - all is not lost. We've come this far, why not enlist help from the posters here that you can trust, and come up with a workable protocol and apply with someone else?

Here's one in California, for starters: http://www.iigwest.com/challenge.html

Knock this one on the head, get the publicity and JREF should be obliged to test you for the Million. Also, they'll already have a protocol to work with.

EHocking

14th July 2007, 04:43 AM

Jeff has sent Mr. Guska the following e-mail:

Mr. Guska,

I've been following your progress on the challenge, and it is my determination that it is taking far too long and protocol negotiations are unlikely to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion any time soon. Because of this, I am terminating your application.

I do appreciate your interest in the challenge and the amount of time you've spent on it, but the JREF can't afford to devote any more resources to your claim.

Should you wish, you can reapply again in one year, by which time you may have perfected your protocol enough so that negotiations will be much simpler.

Jeff Wagg
General Manager
James Randi Educational FoundationRemieV, would we be able to get Jeff to reconsider this if a few of us worked offline with edge to hammer out a workable protocol that he is completely happy with and then have him submit a *finalised* protocol to JREF?

He still has until 2008 before his application lapses, and I think there are enough intelligent and interested posters here to help him work out a presentable, coherent protocol to JREF.

Perhaps if JREF could give edge a final deadline for a comprehensive protocol it would help focus his efforts with us?

edge

14th July 2007, 10:22 AM

Mr. Guska, I said that was when I began to have misgivings. It was not the reason for your application termination, which is an inability to negotiate a protocol because of your absolute lack of clarity.

Regards,

Remie

Well lets see, you got it till the dummies in the empty containers, and then there's the time issue. These were the only two things left.
If you are reading in here you know now that Spectator has it written up to accommodate the time issue.
As I stated before several pages back before you mentioned sand, that rubber or plastic will do for a dummy target.
And before you mentioned sand, I said place a 5-gallon plastic bucket on the spot that I choose to have the containers placed on, this is to put the smaller containers into and then seal them with the lid so I can’t see the smaller container.
The wind would have no effect unless it was gusting at 60 MPH or higher.
I gave you several solutions but you want to use sand, which may cause false readings.

SezMe and I had no problems with that issue, when he tested me on Coffee Creek.
If lime is an issue I can think of several things that would work besides lime.
Flour, sugar, Rit dye packets, but you can’t use sand or lead or iron or aluminum, and or titanium- etcetera.

Spectators’ version of a protocol includes what I need that’s why I choose his, no offence to you EHocking, SezMe.
Here is Spectators protocol, which addresses the time issue,

I don't know statistics, so I don't know if 4 out of 5 will be an acceptable test result for the JREF. If you're confident you can get 5 out of 5, go for that; or see if they'll accept 4 out of 5 as passing.Here's the protocol. See if you think it will work, and if it looks ok, cut and paste it and try it on JREF.PROTOCOL FOR DOWSING TESTThe claim: The dowser can successfully detect the presence of a concealed target consisting of 5 ounces of silver 4 times in 5 runs of ten attempts each, with a one-in-ten possibility of identifying the target by chance alone in each of the five runs.Material required:1 target, 5 oz. silver1 5-lb bag of lime10 11-ounce plastic coffee containers numbered 1-10ScaleProcedure:The dowser will attempt to locate the target hidden inside one of the containers. There will be five runs of ten containers each, numbered 1-10. In each run, the target will be present in one container only, and the other nine containers will be stabilized by eight ounces of lime.The containers will be prepared this way: In nine of the containers for each trial there will be eight ounces of lime. These are the dummy containers. In the remaining container there will be three ounces of lime plus the five-ounce target. The target container will be determined by a random process. An individual we will call the randomizer will prepare the containers for each run; the dowser will have a representative who will verify that the container with the target actually does contain the target. This will be done by the randomizer’s preparing five lists, consisting of numbers from 1-10. When the target container has been selected and prepared the randomizer will mark a T in the space opposite that number on the list; the dowser’s representative will initial the sheet to show that it is correct. At no time will the randomizer or the dowser’s representative be in verbal, electronic, or visual communication with the dowser; if the dowser somehow does come into contact with the randomizer or the representative, that run will be declared null and void.Before the test begins, the dowser will locate a specific spot on which all the containers will be placed, one at a time, for his dowsing test. The scale will be set up so that the dowser can attach his dowsing rod to it directly over the spot where the containers will be placed.The dowser will then move away to a waiting area and will be out of sight of the testing area at the beginning of each trial. The dowser will witness the recording of the dowser's readings by initialing each numbered list after the run of ten is complete.The randomizer will choose one of the containers in which to place the target for each run of ten. The randomizer will prepare the containers and mark the list; the dowser’s second representative will initial the list to signify that it is complete. The randomizer will signal (perhaps by blowing a whistle in a particular pattern: long-short-long, for example) the placement team when the containers are ready. The randomizer and second dowser’s representative will leave the area, and the placement team will then come to the preparation area and will one by one move the containers to the test spot for the dowsing attempt. The placement team will not know which container conceals the target. The placement team will take each container to the test site, place it on the test spot the dowser has located, and signal the dowser. Then the placement team will leave before the dowser arrives with his observer and the JREF observer(s).The dowser will use his dowsing rod on each container and will say whether the container does or does not contain the silver target.When the dowser has stated this, the observer will record his opinion on a sheet numbered 1-10. If the dowser says the target is present, the number corresponding to the container will be marked T. If not, the number will be marked 0. There can be only one T in each run of ten containers. Both the observer and the dowser will initial the finished test sheet after each run of ten.The process will be repeated five times, with the target randomly placed in a container for each time and with each container placed on the same spot for each dowsing attempt. After each container is removed, the placement team will wait a minimum of three minutes before placing the next container. After each run of ten dowsing attempts, the dowser will have a rest period of ten minutes.At the end of all 5 runs (50 dowsing trials), all participants will compare the observers' list with T marked to show which containers the dowser believes hold the target and the randomizer's record of which containers actually held the target. Until that time, the randomizer and dowser's representative will not communicate with the dowser and the JREF observer in any way.To succeed, the dowser will have to correctly identify the target container four out of five times. If the dowser correctly identifies the target container three out of five times or less, that will be a failure.
__________________Mm, I like your conspiracy theory. Your facts are so...twisted. Your drivel so mindless.

All you have to do is remove the lime and replace it with flour; if bigger containers are needed to accommodate the weight and size of the dummies then I will get bigger plastic coffee containers, the 39-ounce version.

My time line is still September or October to actually have you test me.

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. That’s something you'll have to discuss with
him.
I would like to do the final there too, at which point James can come and see.
I have to work out the rental of the cabins at the resort with the owner and make sure that I can dredge there which will pay for the JREF stay there.

I think that this is pretty clear.
If you think you have a headache you should try mine.

I have a year I thought, according to your rules?

edge

14th July 2007, 08:19 PM

edge - all is not lost. We've come this far, why not enlist help from the posters here that you can trust, and come up with a workable protocol and apply with someone else?

Here's one in California, for starters: http://www.iigwest.com/challenge.html

Knock this one on the head, get the publicity and JREF should be obliged to test you for the Million. Also, they'll already have a protocol to work with.

Thanks I'll check it out.
I think that Spectators protocol covers most of the issues and I'll use it, as it also allows me to use what I have learned through my experiments and with less fatigue.

I’ll still try to do it in September on the same spot that SezMe and I did the test on Coffee Creek since it was so good, thanks for that SezMe.

It’s pretty much set up, "the spot" but I’ll have to make sure and talk to the owner about testing there and reserve the cabin. He did say I could dredge there so the test still might happen there.

If you have anymore links like that one post them for me I would appreciate it.
Well this post almost reached 50,ooo views.

If I pass a lesser challenge and win, the JREF will not test me, they won't risk it, I.M.H.O.
They won't risk it now.
They claim that the protocol was to complicate and they didn’t understand what I was saying, but I think it is a cop out, since they accepted as per RemieVs e-mail and we only had two more issues that was the time-line for the duration of the testing of me and the dummies in the empty containers--as you can see in the posts here, those were figured out.

I know you guys are not blind and you know that I was willing to still communicate up to what I considered to be the deadline, that I kept repeating, which is in September and October.
I figured after that, that I would drop out if we couldn't get a workable protocol.

These guys in California might be willing and I’ll try them, I will keep you informed.

SezMe

14th July 2007, 08:38 PM

edge

14th July 2007, 10:22 PM

edge, for your info, I used to be a member of IIG. In fact, I was the Investigations Chair.

edge, out of curiosity, do you have more than one dowsing rod? How long have you had the one I saw? Is it easy to find a willow branch that you can cut and shape into a dowsing rod? How did you first discover that putting a dime on the end would allow you to dowse for metal?

I have the L rods with bearings that I made to test on the bank in Hayfork remember.
I keep them till they break, “ the one you seen”, and that one is exceptional, it is about a year old.

I'll tell you a story.

I believe it was 1985 or there abouts, I was on exceptional ground and finding large amounts till it ran out.
We were pulling a once or more a day.
When it ran out I searched the property and found nothing according to the geological signs and knowledge.

The guy I was selling my gold to, “Tim Pogue”, he had a clam on a smaller creek and was dowsing since childhood, he was taught by his father. Some how James knows him.
He was about 70 years old then.
His claim was loaded with all the heavy equipment you could imagine, from backhoes to D9 cats.
He had several claims in several different states.
He made all his money through mining.
He was buying my gold to hang onto his claim in Hayfork. He was basically using that particular claim for a base, they had worked it out.
To try to keep his house there and his buildings for the hired help he had to prove that he was still pulling large quantities on that claim, because of the changes in the laws in California.
This worked for a while for him.
Forest Service eventually leveled the buildings.

I never believed in dowsing then and thought it was a bunch of B.S..
But I still couldn’t find anymore gold and told him I was bewildered.
He said he would dowse the area and put me back on it, so I said, “show me”.

Well he did and I was getting more and bigger pieces.
1 to 2 ounces a day. This went on for two months.

That fall he taught me just like I showed you, we made a complete circuit, the two of us.
He then said that if I dowsed and learned, that I would never turn a shovel of dirt with out getting what gold was available wherever I was mining.
So I went home and practiced over the winter months and went mining using his method with a sluice box and shovel.
I perfected the method that winter and for me it works.

He had told me that when the Army Engineers couldn’t find uranium in the Southwest that he put them on the correct spot before the bomb was completed and that’s how he made his first big money.
He had claims there too.

He was wrong about one thing that gold in the end of the stick would only react to gold and I believe I have learned more than I was taught.
I have treated this like a science project and I believe there is something of more value here.
I tested myself with silver or a dime, when I ran out of gold.
Gold, silver, and platinum works in the end of the willow, I tested those theories.
Anything else doesn’t have the pull except copper.
I can make a dowsing rod out of thick copper wire don’t know if it can find gold though.
The one thing I haven’t tested is what he said he used for locating uranium ore.

There is no way that the Idomotor effect can do what dowsing can demonstrate when it over comes gravity.
This is where the copper wire one comes into play, it’s so heavy that it’s hard to hold out in front of you with out it slipping and falling, this should be filmed and examined.

It’s not my hands or arms and I can do the demonstration just like you seen perfectly still, no movement of my arms or hands, 180-degree arch of movement with the copper-dowsing rod.
The connection to the hands is so great that it burns.
That's why I don't use it on the creek also.

The work that it puts out is more than the energy that is put into it.
You see my dilemma?
How many times can I be knocked about this?
You still up for this?
I'll be back in the morning.

SezMe

14th July 2007, 10:33 PM

That's all very interesting.

How many times can I be knocked about this?

As many times as you can take. As you have seen, there is no end to the supply of "knockers" (so to speak) right here.

You still up for this?

I honestly don't know. Depends. And I don't know what it depends upon. But you missed this question - I'm interested in the answer.

Is it easy to find a willow branch that you can cut and shape into a dowsing rod?

In other words, could you create another willow dowsing rod roughly similar in size and shape to the one you have now? When you made the current willow dowsing rod, did you have to test it to make sure it worked? If so, how did you do that testing and how long did it take?

Czarcasm

15th July 2007, 08:07 AM

I have the L rods with bearings that I made to test on the bank in Hayfork remember.
I keep them till they break, “ the one you seen”, and that one is exceptional, it is about a year old.

I'll tell you a story.

I believe it was 1985 or there abouts, I was on exceptional ground and finding large amounts till it ran out.
We were pulling a once or more a day.
When it ran out I searched the property and found nothing according to the geological signs and knowledge.

The guy I was selling my gold to, “Tim Pogue”, he had a clam on a smaller creek and was dowsing since childhood, he was taught by his father. Some how James knows him.
He was about 70 years old then.
His claim was loaded with all the heavy equipment you could imagine, from backhoes to D9 cats.
He had several claims in several different states.
He made all his money through mining.
He was buying my gold to hang onto his claim in Hayfork. He was basically using that particular claim for a base, they had worked it out.
To try to keep his house there and his buildings for the hired help he had to prove that he was still pulling large quantities on that claim, because of the changes in the laws in California.
This worked for a while for him.
Forest Service eventually leveled the buildings.

I never believed in dowsing then and thought it was a bunch of B.S..
But I still couldn’t find anymore gold and told him I was bewildered.
He said he would dowse the area and put me back on it, so I said, “show me”.

Well he did and I was getting more and bigger pieces.
1 to 2 ounces a day. This went on for two months.

That fall he taught me just like I showed you, we made a complete circuit, the two of us.
He then said that if I dowsed and learned, that I would never turn a shovel of dirt with out getting what gold was available wherever I was mining.
So I went home and practiced over the winter months and went mining using his method with a sluice box and shovel.
I perfected the method that winter and for me it works.

He had told me that when the Army Engineers couldn’t find uranium in the Southwest that he put them on the correct spot before the bomb was completed and that’s how he made his first big money.
He had claims there too.

He was wrong about one thing that gold in the end of the stick would only react to gold and I believe I have learned more than I was taught.
I have treated this like a science project and I believe there is something of more value here.
I tested myself with silver or a dime, when I ran out of gold.
Gold, silver, and platinum works in the end of the willow, I tested those theories.
Anything else doesn’t have the pull except copper.
I can make a dowsing rod out of thick copper wire don’t know if it can find gold though.
The one thing I haven’t tested is what he said he used for locating uranium ore.

There is no way that the Idomotor effect can do what dowsing can demonstrate when it over comes gravity.
This is where the copper wire one comes into play, it’s so heavy that it’s hard to hold out in front of you with out it slipping and falling, this should be filmed and examined.

It’s not my hands or arms and I can do the demonstration just like you seen perfectly still, no movement of my arms or hands, 180-degree arch of movement with the copper-dowsing rod.
The connection to the hands is so great that it burns.
That's why I don't use it on the creek also.

The work that it puts out is more than the energy that is put into it.
You see my dilemma?
How many times can I be knocked about this?
You still up for this?
I'll be back in the morning.

When you do, could you please tell us another story, 'cause stories will convince me much more then facts, links or cites from peer-reviewed studies ever would!

Calcas

15th July 2007, 08:58 AM

Jeff has sent Mr. Guska the following e-mail:

Mr. Guska,

I've been following your progress on the challenge, and it is my determination that it is taking far too long and protocol negotiations are unlikely to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion any time soon. Because of this, I am terminating your application.

I do appreciate your interest in the challenge and the amount of time you've spent on it, but the JREF can't afford to devote any more resources to your claim.

Should you wish, you can reapply again in one year, by which time you may have perfected your protocol enough so that negotiations will be much simpler.

Jeff Wagg
General Manager
James Randi Educational Foundation

Well, 14 months and over 1800 posts later I would have to agree it's about time. Edge was amusing for awhile but the entertainment factor has run out.

I submit that this thread is now either locked or sent to AAH where it can die a peaceful death. There are other "applicants" who we should be giving the floor to with their "claims" without always having to listen to another excuse from Edge.

Enough is enough.

William Smith

15th July 2007, 11:26 AM

Well, 14 months and over 1800 posts later I would have to agree it's about time. Edge was amusing for awhile but the entertainment factor has run out.

I submit that this thread is now either locked or sent to AAH where it can die a peaceful death. There are other "applicants" who we should be giving the floor to with their "claims" without always having to listen to another excuse from Edge.

Enough is enough.

I disagree. An integral part of an open forum is its open-ness.

On the other hand, is this cool or what: Unfazed by having his application terminated, edge continues claiming the JREF is too scared to test him and wows us with another fish tale.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

edge

15th July 2007, 11:56 AM

That's all very interesting.

As many times as you can take. As you have seen, there is no end to the supply of "knockers" (so to speak) right here.

I honestly don't know. Depends. And I don't know what it depends upon. But you missed this question - I'm interested in the answer.

In other words, could you create another willow dowsing rod roughly similar in size and shape to the one you have now?
Yes.
When you made the current willow dowsing rod, did you have to test it to make sure it worked?
Yes because the pull sometimes breaks them right away and you have to find another one. It is difficult to find the right shape.

If so, how did you do that testing and how long did it take?
A few minutes.
As soon as I use it.
A green one is more reactive than the one I have, it is more sensitive, that's why this one is better it takes more of a target to react.
It works better in the test. Otherwise it picks up more when green, that is under the target when running the test. It was a difficult balance but the same on the creek, I pick up less of the fines, more of what I'm looking for. In other words I don't feel every little speck. Specks don't make you the money.
To me they are interferences also.
The older the better same with sex.

There are many variables, the test is different from dowsing on the creek, that's what I was doing up here, to know how to pass the test.

edge

15th July 2007, 12:17 PM

I disagree. An integral part of an open forum is its open-ness.

On the other hand, is this cool or what: Unfazed by having his application terminated, edge continues claiming the JREF is too scared to test him and wows us with another fish tale.

You couldn't make this stuff up.
I tried to give SezMe the history from the start of my experiences.
It's the truth you could ask James Randi if he knew him, like I said above?
He has died though.
He was, a good and fair man.
He paid me very well and was a benefactor for miners.

In memory Of Tim

Well Carcass, I'm not finished yet.
This is my post unless I'm in communist China all of a sudden!
No one is forcing you to be on this post.

The Jerf knows how to disrupt a dowsing test.
Add sand; remember I tested with black sand.
White sand has many specks in it too; I tested on the beaches of Florida too.
Many specks of what ever.
All individual hits, this I know already and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

As far as excuses I didn’t back out of this next test.
I figured we were close to coming to an agreement.
I am still posed and ready.

SezMe says,
edge, for your info, I used to be a member of IIG. In fact, I was the Investigations Chair.

I'll give them a try.

edge

15th July 2007, 01:14 PM

If you had any credibility left, I'd be mildly miffed by a statement like this:

Instead, I consider it absurd and borderline hilarious.

If your amazing ability works with black sand, you should have provided it and used it in the protocol. But since you have proven yourself to be unable to stick to one straightforward protocol, that would have been too easy, wouldn't it?

Your constant changing of the protocol suggests that you have no idea how to properly test your amazing ability. Furthermore, you seem to be interested in persisting your very likely delusion of dowsing rather than ever agreeing to a controlled test again.

IIG would be well-advised not to waste any of their resources on a deluded old man.

SezMe, do you consider giving them a heads-up? :)

Look I was in the middle of testing and applied early to be in because of the change in their rules.
I still didn't back out.
The testing is done and I know how to do this to pass now, as the score with SezMes' test is a good indicator.
Not to mention what I know about it as I tested, the scores you no nothing of.

A straightforward protocol like what the way they think it works or should?
The way it has been set up by them?
That's not how to pass but fail again there is a difference in the way it works in the field and the way to fail again in an office.
They are not interested in the science of it or the way it works.

If I was betting on a dowser failing doing it there way I would have to bet with them, they don’t want to lose.
Neither do I.

Your constant changing of the protocol suggests that you have no idea how to properly test your amazing ability.

Specktators protocol is what I am going to use, don’t you read?
And I already stated why.
I’m to Trust some one against me to tell me with out knowing what the score was is absolutely ridicules.
I ask for what is logical and common sense that's all.

You might as well use copper for dummies.
It's Just as obvious.

Your constant changing of the protocol suggests that you have no idea how to properly test your amazing ability. Furthermore, you seem to be interested in persisting your very likely delusion of dowsing rather than ever agreeing to a controlled test again.

IIG would be well-advised not to waste any of their resources on a deluded old man.

Well why would I be going to them then?
Don't get all excited.
I willl prove this.

SezMe

15th July 2007, 01:18 PM

I disagree. An integral part of an open forum is its open-ness.
I agree with GzuzKryst's disagreement. It's not like we have a limited number of skeptics to deal with these challenges. Anyway, what's the harm? If Christophera can go on for 10^88 pages, why not let this thread hold that out as a lofty goal? :) :)

edge

15th July 2007, 01:28 PM

Because I won't be testing any more it should be easy to be striaght forward with them and in presenting a protocol now.

Size of the target as SezMe pointed out is all I need to check now.

I mean no offence what is obvious to me is one sided.

William Smith

15th July 2007, 01:40 PM

Look I was in the middle of testing and applied early to be in because of the change in their rules.
I still didn't back out.
The testing is done and I know how to do this to pass now, as the score with SezMes' test is a good indicator.
Not to mention what I know about it as I tested, the scores you no nothing of.

A straightforward protocol like what the way they think it works or should?
The way it has been set up by them?
That's not how to pass but fail again there is a difference in the way it works in the field and the way to fail again in an office.
They are not interested in the science of it or the way it works.

If I was betting on a dowser failing doing it there way I would have to bet with them, they don’t want to lose.
Neither do I.

Spectators protocol is what I am going to use, don’t you read?
And I already stated why.
I’m to Trust some one against me to tell me with out knowing what the score was is absolutely ridicules.
I ask for what is logical and common sense that's all.

You might as well use copper for dummies.
It's Just as obvious.

Well why would I be going to them then?
Don't get all excited.
I willl prove this.

Because I won't be testing any more it should be easy to be striaght forward with them and in presenting a protocol now.

Size of the target as SezMe pointed out is all I need to check now.

I mean no offence what is obvious to me is one sided.

(Bolding by me.)

It took you only fourteen minutes to contradict yourself for the umpteenth time.

William Smith

15th July 2007, 01:43 PM

Look I was in the middle of testing and applied early to be in because of the change in their rules.
I still didn't back out.
The testing is done and I know how to do this to pass now, as the score with SezMes' test is a good indicator.
Not to mention what I know about it as I tested, the scores you no nothing of.

A straightforward protocol like what the way they think it works or should?
The way it has been set up by them?
That's not how to pass but fail again there is a difference in the way it works in the field and the way to fail again in an office.
They are not interested in the science of it or the way it works.

If I was betting on a dowser failing doing it there way I would have to bet with them, they don’t want to lose.
Neither do I.

Spectators protocol is what I am going to use, don’t you read?
And I already stated why.
I’m to Trust some one against me to tell me with out knowing what the score was is absolutely ridicules.
I ask for what is logical and common sense that's all.

You might as well use copper for dummies.
It's Just as obvious.

Well why would I be going to them then?
Don't get all excited.
I willl prove this.

(Bolding by me.)

For what purpose exactly?

His name is Spektator, edge.

edge

15th July 2007, 02:31 PM

It took you only fourteen minutes to contradict yourself for the umpteenth time.
Checking for target strength is not a test and would only take a second or two.

I am allowed whatever target I want that part can be changed if it improves the reaction it will then make the test quicker.
That part can be tweaked 5 ounces of gold vs. 5 ounces of silver.
It doesn’t matter once it’s sent it’s done.
To get the kind of reaction that we witnessed would help, the silver might be good I will check it why not.
SezMe knows why.
So it might be a test, but his protocol is good to go.
If you had time what would you do?
Wouldn’t you make sure about every aspect of what this entails?

GzuzKryzt asks,
For what purpose exactly?

His name is Spektator, edge.

I fixed it, “his name”.

Well there are others that may test me.

edge

16th July 2007, 12:29 AM

No kidding??? Could it be that there is water almost everywhere under the ground...especially in Northern California???

Wrong!

Kenny 10 Bellys

16th July 2007, 01:55 AM

And you know this because....? You've dowsed it all? You're a geologist who's spent the last 20 years mapping the water table? You made it up?

I'm with the rest, kill this thread and leave it at that. Edge and his barely coherent ramblings were amusing at first, but it's growing real old real fast and there's no danger of getting him tested anytime soon. Even if he does get tested and fails again it will not be because dowsing doesn't work, it'll be because of something he makes up on the day. He has already stated that peer reviewed scientific tests are nothing compared to stories he's heard in bars. We cant test this guy, he's in a little world of his own making.

Cuddles

16th July 2007, 03:37 AM

Well lets see, you got it till the dummies in the empty containers, and then there's the time issue. These were the only two things left.

Except that earlier you said this:

I have more to work out like place and the time.

Don't you think it's a little dishonest to claim those were the only two issues left when you still haven't agreed on a place to be tested, and apparently aren't even sure if such a place exists?

nathan

16th July 2007, 04:56 AM

I am allowed whatever target I want that part can be changed if it improves the reaction it will then make the test quicker.
Here again is your misunderstanding of what the protocol is. If the protocol (would that it ever got signed off), specified '5oz silver target', then the target shall be '5oz silver target'. You would not be able to turn up with some other target and have it used.

You continuously make ambiguous vague statements and then become annoyed when people ask you to be specific and clarify.

Reno

16th July 2007, 07:22 AM

edge, your application has been rejected. Your test is over, defunct, kaput, finished, gone, ceased, washed-up, wiped-out. It is a non-test. Dead and buried. Terminated like a liquid-metal robot. It's gone belly up, hopes perished and dashed. You've been eighty-sixed, done-in and ruined.

Forget about the MDC, me old boyo, because for you edgey, ze war is over.

Jeff Wagg

16th July 2007, 08:32 AM

In general, I don't keep up with these threads, so messages should NOT be directed to me in the forum. Send mail to jeff@randi.org.

However, I see there's a lot of interest in testing Edge. So.. do it. :) You don't need the JREF to conduct a test. Go through it all.. see what happens. If Edge (with help) develops a protocol and he passes, great. He can apply again in a year, and he can apply for the other challenges whenever he'd like. Get it working BEFORE you apply though.

Paulhoff

16th July 2007, 08:47 AM

Tricky

16th July 2007, 03:45 PM

No kidding??? Could it be that there is water almost everywhere under the ground...especially in Northern California???

Wrong!
There is water in almost all places where there are sedimentary rocks and many places that there are not. Can you tell us what you mean when you say "Wrong" edge? Maybe we can help you clear up your misconceptions.

edge

16th July 2007, 04:54 PM

I'll address Jeff’s statement later.

But here's what I figured would work for me and them.
Till they backed out.
So I changed the Jref to I.I.G..

Do the number of hits seem to be correct for the final test?

Here is Spectators protocol a friend of mine, which addresses the time issue for the preliminary.
I don't know statistics, so I don't know if 4 out of 5 will be an acceptable test result for the test

I.I.G.PROTOCOL FOR DOWSING TESTThe claim:

The dowser can successfully detect the presence of a concealed target consisting of 5 ounces of silver 4 times in 5 runs of ten attempts each, with a one-in-ten possibility of identifying the target by chance alone in each of the five runs.Material required:1 target, 5 oz. silver1 5-lb bag of flour.10 11-ounce plastic coffee containers numbered 1-10Scale and one dowsing stick with coin in the end.One tripod.Procedure:The dowser will attempt to locate the target hidden inside one of the containers. There will be five runs of ten containers each, numbered 1-10. In each run, the target will be present in one container only, and the other nine containers will be stabilized by eight ounces of flour.The containers will be prepared this way: In nine of the containers for each trial there will be eight ounces of flour. These are the dummy containers. In the remaining container there will be three ounces of flour plus the five-ounce target.All the flour dummies will be in plastic bags so transfer is easy. The target container will be determined by a random process. An individual we will call the randomizer will prepare the containers for each run; the dowser will have a representative who will verify that the container with the target actually does contain the target. This will be done by the randomizer’s, preparing five lists, consisting of numbers from 1-10. When the target container has been selected and prepared the randomizer will mark a T in the space opposite that number on the list; the dowser’s representative will initial the sheet to show that it is correct. At no time will the randomizer or the dowser’s representative be in verbal, electronic, or visual communication with the dowser; if the dowser somehow does come into contact with the randomizer or the representative, that run will be declared null and void.Before the test begins, the dowser will locate a specific spot on which all the containers will be placed, one at a time, for his dowsing test. The scale will be set up so that the dowser can attach his dowsing rod to it directly over the spot where the containers will be placed.The dowser will then move away to a waiting area and will be out of sight of the testing area at the beginning of each trial. The dowser will witness the recording of the dowser's readings by initialing each numbered list after the run of ten is complete.The randomizer will choose one of the containers in which to place the target for each run of ten. The randomizer will prepare the containers and mark the list; the dowser’s second representative will initial the list to signify that it is complete. The randomizer will signal (perhaps by blowing a whistle in a particular pattern: long-short-long, for example) the placement team when the containers are ready. The randomizer and second dowser’s representative will leave the area, and the placement team will then come to the preparation area and will one by one move the containers to the test spot for the dowsing attempt. The placement team will not know which container conceals the target. The placement team will take each container to the test site; place it on the test spot the dowser has located, and signal the dowser. Then the placement team will leave before the dowser arrives with his observer and the JREF observer(s).The dowser will use his dowsing rod on each container and will say whether the container does or does not contain the silver target.When the dowser has stated this, the observer will record his opinion on a sheet numbered 1-10. If the dowser says the target is present, the number corresponding to the container will be marked T. If not, the number will be marked 0. There can be only one T in each run of ten containers. Both the observer and the dowser will initial the finished test sheet after each run of ten.The process will be repeated five times, with the target randomly placed in a container for each time and with each container placed on the same spot for each dowsing attempt. After each container is removed, the placement team will wait a minimum of three minutes before placing the next container. After each run of ten dowsing attempts, the dowser will have a rest period of ten minutes.At the end of all 5 runs (50 dowsing trials), all participants will compare the observers' list with T marked to show which containers the dowser believes hold the target and the randomizer's record of which containers actually held the target. Until that time, the randomizer and dowser's representative will not communicate with the dowser and the I.I.G. observer in any way.To succeed, the dowser will have to correctly identify the target container four out of five times. If the dowser correctly identifies the target container three out of five times or less, that will be a failure.If I pass this preliminary the final for the Money will be a test of 100 passes with 7 out 0f 10 for the win.The time line for the final will be about 8 hours.
__________________Mm, I like your conspiracy theory. Your facts are so...twisted. Your drivel so mindless.

My time line is still September or October to actually have you test me.

If we do the
preliminary up here at Coffee creek at the Bonanza Creek Resort, I will pay for the stay of the testers.

I would like to do the final there too a few days later, if scheduling permits for you.
I have to work out the rental of the cabins at the resort with the owner and make sure that I can dredge there which will pay for the I.I.G.s representatives stay there.

I think that this is pretty clear.
Mike Guska

William Smith

16th July 2007, 05:08 PM

The JREF did not back out, edge.

Your application was terminated because you were unable to formulate coherent responses to simple inquiries and because you kept unnecessarily changing and introducing new elements to the test protocol.

You had another chance to get the Million in your hands.

You blew it.

Royally.

William Smith

16th July 2007, 05:19 PM

[Jon Stewart]

One [Bleeeep] Million Dollars. Phiiuuuup.

Gone.

[/Jon Stewart]

edge

17th July 2007, 09:12 AM

First off we were to test in Japan on limestone just like in the office.
But that was too complicated.

petre

17th July 2007, 10:06 AM

Isn't this the scam of sending half your marks a Win and the other half a lose? Every week the half you got right are sent another series of half Win, Half lose. Eventually getting paid from the last round? Then half of those sending the $1000 Win and you get another round of payments?

Right, only I've been thinking after getting folks to send money the first time it'd be better to send the same answer to all of them on following weeks. If someone gets burned (which will be guaranteed if you send both answers) then it increases the chances the law gets involved, and if you're still operating on the other half that's dangerous exposure. If you just go with the line every week after that, you've got a fair chance to go for another week or two with gullible marks that are quite happy to send you money.

I've put far too much thought into that. Anyway, the idea is that given enough dowsers and enough clients, you're bound to end up with some amazing track records (and a whole pile of failures).

Paulhoff

17th July 2007, 11:43 AM

Please go to this site:

http://audiomartini.podshowcreator.com/

And look for James Randi and listen.

Paul

:) :) :)

William Smith

17th July 2007, 02:05 PM

First off we were to test in Japan on limestone just like in the office.
But that was too complicated.

Wrong, edge.
JREF and the TV producer both came to the conclusion that you weren't ready to test. That was the first and foremost complication. They obviously made a good call.

I also assume the test wasn't going to take place "on limestone just like in the office".

hopfen

17th July 2007, 04:17 PM

I also assume the test wasn't going to take place "on limestone just like in the office".

Could be. I doubt if Japanese limestone is that much different.

EHocking

17th July 2007, 05:25 PM

edge

17th July 2007, 06:32 PM

Wrong, edge.
JREF and the TV producer both came to the conclusion that you weren't ready to test. That was the first and foremost complication. They obviously made a good call.

I also assume the test wasn't going to take place "on limestone just like in the office".

The TV producer offered this,

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

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

At a limestone quarry in Japan, the way the test was done at office the first time, all ten containers on the ground, at once.
About four hours split into two days or what ever they would accommodate.
The only thing that changed was from the creek bank to the quarry.
Time was not really an issue since it took about 4 hours at the JREF office.
I was never given an explanation of what that issue was?

Three days later after being turned down for that expedition I learned about the scales working in the calibration of the target and empties as I experimented.
This increased my odds to the degree of 60 to 90%.

I then changed the protocol to include that.

I had to think of time and place since that opportunity passed. They didn't come up with anything else so I worked on that.

The time-line for an opportunity came when the resort owner said I could dredge there, but not till after season which would be September.
That is the last month of dredging season up here the month of September.
If they couldn't do the test here, then October was the next window of opportunity, which would mean I would have to go to Florida.
I wrote that, pages ago on this post.
So common sense would indicate that we had a few more days to come to an agreement.
And up to a year really to come to an agreement on a date to actually do the test.

I won't accept a protocol that eliminates the scale as it is a major break through, and I won't take it indoors in an office or in a TV studio, And you know the reasons why.

The only thing left was the placebo targets and the time issue,
[length of the test, how much time] in the protocol that I had sent in.
Spectator wrote up the correct protocol and it included what I needed it also took care of both issues.

What good would it do to scan a TV studio and say there is no neutral ground just like in the office test at JREF headquarters even though I braved it at that time and took the test there the first time?

Just for their convenience to televise a failed attempt for the second time?
I don’t think so!

Tricky

17th July 2007, 06:42 PM

Edge, the fault is completely your own. I can't count how many times people here offered to help you write your protocol, pointing out places where it would not be a proper double-blind test. You have continued to insist on your own rambling, near-incoherent descriptions. You have never listened with any comprehension to any of the suggestions that were made to you.

Take a look at this post, Edge. It was made over a year ago.
On the plus side, you will have lots of new excuses and lies about how JREF is afraid to test you. That may make you feel better, but it won't harm JREF. I'm sure they've heard them all before.
What I said a year ago is exactly what has happened. It was not hard to guess.

William Smith

18th July 2007, 05:03 AM

The TV producer offered this,

At a limestone quarry in Japan, the way the test was done at office the first time, all ten containers on the ground, at once.
About four hours split into two days or what ever they would accommodate.
The only thing that changed was from the creek bank to the quarry.
Time was not really an issue since it took about 4 hours at the JREF office.
I was never given an explanation of what that issue was?

Three days later after being turned down for that expedition I learned about the scales working in the calibration of the target and empties as I experimented.
This increased my odds to the degree of 60 to 90%.

I then changed the protocol to include that.

I had to think of time and place since that opportunity passed. They didn't come up with anything else so I worked on that.

The time-line for an opportunity came when the resort owner said I could dredge there, but not till after season which would be September.
That is the last month of dredging season up here the month of September.
If they couldn't do the test here, then October was the next window of opportunity, which would mean I would have to go to Florida.
I wrote that, pages ago on this post.
So common sense would indicate that we had a few more days to come to an agreement.
And up to a year really to come to an agreement on a date to actually do the test.

I won't accept a protocol that eliminates the scale as it is a major break through, and I won't take it indoors in an office or in a TV studio, And you know the reasons why.

The only thing left was the placebo targets and the time issue,
[length of the test, how much time] in the protocol that I had sent in.
Spectator wrote up the correct protocol and it included what I needed it also took care of both issues.

What good would it do to scan a TV studio and say there is no neutral ground just like in the office test at JREF headquarters even though I braved it at that time and took the test there the first time?

Just for their convenience to televise a failed attempt for the second time?
I don’t think so!

Leaving the inconsistencies in your statements aside:
Bearing in mind that only a successful demonstration of your claim will convince anyone, edge, what is the purpose of you posting in this thread?

More specific:
With your application terminated, what are your goals involving the JREF at this point?

Gr8wight

18th July 2007, 01:47 PM

Every once in a while edge says something interesting...

I tested myself with silver or a dime, when I ran out of gold.

So, edge, I'm curious. If dowsing works, why did you run out of gold?

SezMe

18th July 2007, 01:58 PM

What if Edge put the lime in the coconut and drank 'em all up? Would this be an acceptable protocol change?
http://www.lusciousskincare.com.au/Coconut___Lime.jpg

Linky is broken?

edge

18th July 2007, 02:23 PM

Every once in a while edge says something interesting...

So, edge, I'm curious. If dowsing works, why did you run out of gold?

Why do people mine?
Is it's for the money it brings?
Maybe, Duh.

I went to the bank I worked last year, yesterday and found more in a spot that I dowsed last year.
It was a place that the dredge couldn't hit because it's out of the water line.
And even more so this year.

("Because of the drought this year Tricky, wells go dry." )

My dowsing proved right agian even from last years scan and I have new gold now.
The load that's there is three more feet in, I just got a taste, There is three feet of material on top of the spot, digging by hand with a shovel can hurt your back, but still very intresting to prove.
The gold lite up the sluice box like little stars.

Tricky

18th July 2007, 03:24 PM

Why do people mine?
Is it's for the money it brings?
Maybe, Duh.

That is exactly right, Edge.

Now, who makes the most money mining? The answer is simple: Mining companies.
What is the one thing companies are most interested in? Again, the answer is easy: Maximizing profit.
Would it be easier and more profitiable to simply dowse for minerals rather than hiring geologists and other scientists to find the minerals? Yes. Obviously.Now, the last easy question that you cannot seem to grasp, Edge:

Why don't mining companies maximize their profit by hiring dowsers? Come on, Edge. The answer is just as easy as those other answers. If you can logically explain any other answer than "Because dowsing doesn't work", then please do so.Why haven't you applied for one of those high-paying jobs at a mining company, Edge? You wouldn't even have to dig the gold yourself.

Duh.

William Smith

18th July 2007, 03:43 PM

Leaving the inconsistencies in your statements aside:
Bearing in mind that only a successful demonstration of your claim will convince anyone, edge, what is the purpose of you posting in this thread?

More specific:
With your application terminated, what are your goals involving the JREF at this point?

Lime was something that had a great density for the compactness of weight.
And we were only two steps away from finalizing the protocol, as I needed it to be, to cover all the experiments that I did that supported the theory that dowsing works.

I could not have come up with an excuse if I failed also, if I could have used all that I had learned, through my knowledge of these experiments, that meant I had a great possibility of passing the tests, if I failed I would have no excuse.
I stated in a previous post that I would at that time admit that dowsing doesn't work.

But once again yesterday’s excursion proved it did work.(see previous post)

They understood the protocol up to that point because of the e-mail sent to me by them.
I never though of flour till after they complained about the lime.
Hell they could have come up with something; they came up with doing the test in Japan.

I figured that if I had something that this would happen so I'm not too disappointed.
The I.I.G., still hasn't got back to me and maybe they shouldn't, they, (in my mind) will lose too.

How do you get this?

They stepped up and tried to make it in JREFs favor.
After I told them every step of the way what I have learned.

SezMe had no problem testing me.

GzuzKryzt Askes,

I would hate to put in this much time again and then be turned away.
I'll try, and I am in the process of contacting one more group the I.I.G…
I might try Gary Schwartz at the University of Phoenix.

Is this coherent enough for you?
Geez!

(Bolding mine.)

Simple question answered with irrelevant blahblah. Edge being edge.

Another try:
With your application terminated, what are your goals involving the JREF (not IIG, not Gary Schwartz) at this point?

SezMe

18th July 2007, 04:30 PM

The I.I.G., still hasn't got back to me and maybe they shouldn't, they, (in my mind) will lose too.

....

I would hate to put in this much time again and then be turned away.
I'll try, and I am in the process of contacting one more group the I.I.G…

First you say you have contacted the IIG then you say you are in the process of contacting them. Which is it? How did you contact them? When? Who?

edge, when you mention Schwartz in this forum, it is like pissing into your own boot. If you proceed along that line, I suggest you say no more about it here or else the level of ridicule will go through the roof.

Joe Random

18th July 2007, 05:05 PM

edge, when you mention Schwartz in this forum, it is like pissing into your own boot. If you proceed along that line, I suggest you say no more about it here or else the level of ridicule will go through the roof.

"departed hypothesized co-dowsers"?

Tricky

18th July 2007, 05:11 PM

I would absolutely LOVE to see Edge contact Gary Schwartz. I wonder if he would get past the receptionist.

RemieV

18th July 2007, 11:00 PM

That's a crap excuse. If someone claimed an over unity Internal Combustion Engine, would you not allow him to use gasoline? Lime is available to the general public, and if handled properly isn't any more dangerous than hundreds of other household chemicals and products.

I've got no problem with giving up on Edge because he's incoherent, or that his protocol was unworkable (though several forum members were honestly trying to step up and help), but I do have a problem with the JREF declining Edge's application because it uses a "caustic" substance. That's a crap excuse, and sets up the JREF for the woos who claim that "Randi always has an out".

The lime wasn't the reason. It was another layer of complexity on a wide variety of already existing levels of complexity. Mr. Guska isn't going to be tested simply because every time he was queried regarding his protocol, he returned multiple incomprehensible paragraphs rather than a simple answer.

Here is what Mr. Guska said:

Me,
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
strenth 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, when I brought this information to Jeff, it was based on the lack of coherence. Had we continued, the first question Jeff would've recommended I ask is if we could substitute anything besides lime. Can you see how this would lead nowhere?

There are tons of applicants right at this very moment, and one of me. If an individual has proven time and time again that they cannot get a protocol down, it's time to devote the same amount of effort to other applicants and ensure they get a shot.

This is not the Mr. Guska Challenge.

Regards,

Remie

Tricky

18th July 2007, 11:41 PM

You mean like this?

Randi's not without detractors. While he insists he conducts fair, double-blind tests, Gary Schwartz, a University of Arizona professor and an expert on the paranormal, says Randi alters testing parameters. "The phenomena are very sensitive," says Schwartz. "He doesn't optimize conditions." - Mike Guska, who failed to prove he could find gold, agrees. He says taking the "Challenge" in an office threw off his channeling ability. Guska wants to retake it: "They're going to have to come to me."
Taken from here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4331962/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4331962/)

I think he would hear me out and test me if he wants to, don’t you?
See the big bold dash (-) there Edge? That is where Lindsey Gerdes, the guy writing the article stops talking about Schwartz and starts talking about you. (By the way, I pointed out this story to you when I read it in Newsweek over a year ago). Gary Schwartz was not talking about you. Sorry to burst your bubble.

What I have done with the protocol is optimize the conditions and still it’s a double blind test.
I have never seen any indication that you understand what a double-blind test is. Last I saw, you thought it meant that the target was placed in two containers.

We were learning to build the protocol as you and I went along in this post, since this has never been done before, “optimizing the conditions”, taking in all parameters so, all the participants would be satisfied with the test.

But that was too hard for RemieV, and I don’t want to hear the excuse that I was incoherent, bull spit!
Edge, you are incoherent. People here have been telling you this for years. You cannot seem to maintain a consistant train of thought. Do you remember all the things you have said about your dowsing, how the rod was nearly ripped out of your hands, how dowsing violates Newton's third law and all that stuff? You are practically babbling. I've looked at your protocols and I can't see that you have a clue how to run a double-blind test. You go off rambling about "black sands" or totally unrelated stuff.

Sand would have brought interferences if I accepted that as a dummy targets.
I seen through the bullspit and they didn’t like that, in M.H.O...What does sand do? There is sand or the same minerals that are in sand all over the place where you are dowsing for gold. If it doesn't affect you there, it is unlikely to affect you on a test. This is another good example of you being incoherent.

If you didn’t understand anything that I wrote or said then we wouldn’t be having this conversation would we? It is out of morbid curiosity and maybe the hope that someday you will join us in the real world that we continue to answer (as best we can) your weird posts.

Tricky says,

If someone can prove dowsing works then it should be easy to get the job, especially for me.
Then why don't you prove to a mining company that dowsing works. You do it in the field, right? Just invite them on one of your prospecting tours. Or say to them, "Without looking at your maps of un-mined ore, I'll show you exactly where it is and it will match what your geologists say." You don't think a mining company wouldn't jump all over that.

Of course, it would help if you were coherent.

Dowsing has been around as long as geology, Edge. Why haven't dowsers been a part of mining operations? I'll tell you why. Because it doesn't work.

I’ll beat the price of any geologists pay.
I'll bet you would. With all your "talent" you are still not rolling in dough. You'd probably work for near minimum wage because you don't have a talent you can sell.

I would give it a try it would be a great experiment.
Could I go into a tunnel and find what they missed? I think so.
Then go talk to them and convince them you can do this. Be aware though that mining operations do not remove every speck of ore or minerals. They only do it when it is economic to do so.

Still, finding the big veins without geologic maps would be pretty convincing if you could do it. You wouldn't need to go into the tunnels. You could do it from the surface.

Tricky asks,
Why haven't you applied for one of those high-paying jobs at a mining company, Edge? You wouldn't even have to dig the gold yourself.

I like mining for gold, but you never know I might.
You could still mine for gold. I believe you have indicated that the dowsing is a small part, time-wise, of your mining. You could do it for them in a couple of hours and still have plenty of time to do your own mining. Heck, you might even get access to some richer hunting grounds.

Tricky

19th July 2007, 12:03 AM

BTW, here is Edge's old dowsing thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=43374)in case anybody is interested.

William Smith

19th July 2007, 01:29 AM

BTW, here is Edge's old dowsing thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=43374)in case anybody is interested.

From edge's first post in the above thread:

"...
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!
Zeta Reticuli 1 & 2 star chart!
..."

I may be old-fashioned in this way, but when I see someone barging into a room waving the god flag, it kinda determines what I have to expect from this person.

And this doesn't even include the demons or Reticulians.

steenkh

19th July 2007, 03:39 AM

I think it is a good idea for edge to contact Gary Schwartz. There at least he will find somebody who will believe him no matter what. But of course, Dr. Schwartz might tell edge to use his powers to do some serious mining and get rich that way instead.

Paulhoff

19th July 2007, 05:43 AM

If you haven’t already, please go to this site and listen, it is an interview with James Randi and dowsing is one of the subjects that Randi talks about.

http://audiomartini.podshowcreator.com/

And look for James Randi and listen.

Paul

:) :) :)

edge

19th July 2007, 10:59 AM

Here is what Mr. Guska said:

Me,
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
strenth 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, when I brought this information to Jeff, it was based on the lack of coherence. Had we continued, the first question Jeff would've recommended I ask is if we could substitute anything besides lime. Can you see how this would lead nowhere?

There are tons of applicants right at this very moment, and one of me. If an individual has proven time and time again that they cannot get a protocol down, it's time to devote the same amount of effort to other applicants and ensure they get a shot.
I already suggested rubber and plastic, and you then suggested sand, so you already knew what to do with the sand. After that I suggested lime.
When that wasn't good enough I slept on it and came up with three alternatives to lime, flour being the most benign. You say,
Had we continued, the first question Jeff would've recommended I ask is if we could substitute anything besides lime. Before this you say, Now, when I brought this information to Jeff.

So you never asked?
Which is it?

I have never seen any indication that you understand what a double-blind test is. Last I saw, you thought it meant that the target was placed in two containers.
The double blind was already established for the test; the double container was brought up because you said I shouldn’t see the numbers on the containers when brought to the spot that I would dowse at.
This also covered the wind problem brought up by RemieV for the empty containers.
At that point she brought up the dummies containing Sand.
Way before that I covered the dummies, I said you can use plastic or rubber, what was wrong with that?
It is the order of the target passing where I dowse, not the dummies anyway, if they are all the same, empty or placebo.
All you had to do was switch the lids with the number on it in the next set of ten because all the containers are the same, that would make it faster to run that next set of ten.
The dummies wouldn’t have had to be switched with the target actually, and in the bucket with the lid; which stays on my spot, where I dowse each container, I wouldn’t have seen a thing. This was in your favor not mine. It would have been triple blind, since in the first test, in the office in 1999 I got to see the containers with the all the numbers on them. It didn’t help me then did it?

What does sand do? There is sand or the same minerals that are in sand all over the place where you are dowsing for gold. If it doesn't affect you there, it is unlikely to affect you on a test. This is another good example of you being incoherent.

This is another good example of you being incoherent, as I explained this already.
You are the geologist? On the creek it wouldn’t matter but in a test with everything calibrated it would.
You forget I did a test with black sands and got a score that wasn’t quite good enough, but I got a score.
If JREF brought the sand for the test, again how would I know if they spiked it with metal filings or gold fines?

I listened to your link Paul.
95% drop out.
I didn’t! So that means that they are only dealing with 5%, Out of 200 only 10 are worked out.
Wow what a load.
What ever occurred on this post from May2006 to February of 2007 is irrelevant to the application.

William Smith

19th July 2007, 11:13 AM

...
What ever occurred on this post from May2006 to February of 2007 is irrelevant to the application.

No, it is not irrelevant.

Your repeatedly displayed back-and-forth side-to-side up-and-down approach to developing the test protocol suggests that you had not thought it through. At least not enough. By far.

Before terminating your application, the JREF very likely considered everything - and that includes your display on this thread from May 2006 to February 2007 - leading up to the point where it became screamingly obvious that you were in no way ready for a test under controlled conditions.

That being said: With your application terminated, what are your goals involving the JREF (not IIG, not Gary Schwartz) at this point?

edge

19th July 2007, 11:48 AM

[/quote]
Before terminating your application, the JREF very likely considered everything - and that includes your display on this thread from May 2006 to February 2007 - leading up to the point where it became screamingly obvious that you were in no way ready for a test under controlled conditions.
[/quote]

Another lie.

Really, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2722435#post2722435

Easy as that, Done in Arnolds voice (just do it).

And now I bid you Good day!

CynicalSkeptic

19th July 2007, 12:33 PM

The lime wasn't the reason. It was another layer of complexity on a wide variety of already existing levels of complexity. Mr. Guska isn't going to be tested simply because every time he was queried regarding his protocol, he returned multiple incomprehensible paragraphs rather than a simple answer.
Fair enough. From the post that I quoted, it sounded to me like the lime was the dealbreaker.

I haven't dowsed since I took the test with Sezme.
...
In the previous post I explain what I did yesterday, it's not a fish tail.
Wasn't that previous post talking about dowsing and finding gold?
Those statements seem to contradict each other.

William Smith

19th July 2007, 01:13 PM

Before terminating your application, the JREF very likely considered everything - and that includes your display on this thread from May 2006 to February 2007 - leading up to the point where it became screamingly obvious that you were in no way ready for a test under controlled conditions.

Another lie.

Really, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2722435#post2722435

Easy as that, Done in Arnolds voice (just do it).

And now I bid you Good day!

I do not understand how your reply proves that I lied.

And where would the first - or the other - lie be?

[CFLarsen]
With your application terminated, what are your goals involving the JREF (not IIG, not Gary Schwartz) at this point?
[CFLarsen]

nathan

19th July 2007, 02:10 PM

EHocking

19th July 2007, 02:20 PM

...There is no way that the Idomotor effect can do what dowsing can demonstrate when it over comes gravity.
This is where the copper wire one comes into play, it’s so heavy that it’s hard to hold out in front of you with out it slipping and falling, this should be filmed and examined.

It’s not my hands or arms and I can do the demonstration just like you seen perfectly still, no movement of my arms or hands, 180-degree arch of movement with the copper-dowsing rod.
The connection to the hands is so great that it burns.
That's why I don't use it on the creek also...Pity you didn't mention this before.

Dowsing rods generating enough heat to burn the hands of the dowser?

How simple THAT would have been to test. EASY Million, that...

Paulhoff

19th July 2007, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by edge http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2780970#post2780970)
You mean like this?

Randi's not without detractors. While he insists he conducts fair, double-blind tests, Gary Schwartz, a University of Arizona professor and an expert on the paranormal, says Randi alters testing parameters. "The phenomena are very sensitive," says Schwartz. "He doesn't optimize conditions." Mike Guska, who failed to prove he could find gold, agrees. He says taking the "Challenge" in an office threw off his channeling ability. Guska wants to retake it: "They're going to have to come to me."

Mmmm, I ask Randi about this when I see him next week............... :rolleyes:

Paul

:) :) :)

Paulhoff

20th July 2007, 07:36 AM

Here is a Gold Prospectors Association, and they have a forum, and there is nothing, nothing on dowsing, mmmmmmmmm.

http://www.goldprospectors.org/

Paul

:) :) :)

Ravenwood

20th July 2007, 12:42 PM

Pity you didn't mention this before.

Dowsing rods generating enough heat to burn the hands of the dowser?

How simple THAT would have been to test. EASY Million, that...

Heck, just the Dowsing rods bending 180 degrees on their own would be easy to test (You do realize how extreme a 180 degree bend is, Edge?)

Grimoire

20th July 2007, 12:58 PM

Heck, just the Dowsing rods bending 180 degrees on their own would be easy to test (You do realize how extreme a 180 degree bend is, Edge?)Of course he does. 180 degrees is extreme enough to burn a dowser's hands! ;)

Paulhoff

20th July 2007, 01:13 PM

Heck, just the Dowsing rods bending 180 degrees on their own would be easy to test (You do realize how extreme a 180 degree bend is, Edge?)
But you put it on the ground and it just sits there doing nothing, go figure. :rolleyes:

Paul

:) :) :)

William Smith

21st July 2007, 02:37 AM

Of course he does. 180 degrees is extreme enough to burn a dowser's hands! ;)

Celsius, Fahrenheit or Kelvin?

steenkh

23rd July 2007, 03:41 AM

Since edge's challenge is dead (or at least moribund) this thread seems to have little value other than its historical record. However, edge is not done pursuing his effort to prove that he can dowse so I have started a new thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87845) in the proper forum so we can continue to follow this topic.
As long as edge intends to try for the MDC, it seems relevant to continue the thread here. His application has been closed for this time, but he has also been told that he is free to apply in a year, and presumably he is then exempt from the new rules that he needs media attention and academic support.

In reality this thread has at least one year more until edge gives up, or the JREF declares that they will not test him again, ever.

SezMe

23rd July 2007, 04:04 AM

I disagree, steenkh, on two counts. First, if he applies again, then a new thread can be started with the new challenge and newly proposed protocol as the starting point. There is no reason to burden that (possible) new challenge with all the horse manure contained herein.

Secondly, I do not presume that he exempt from the new rules.

RemieV, please advise whether edge can apply again with an exemption from the new rules. Thanks.

Kenny 10 Bellys

23rd July 2007, 05:12 AM

I think being infamous on the board doesn't exempt you from the rules. I think the staff at the Jref would pounce on any excuse NOT to have to communicate with the rambling Edge, I know I would.

steenkh

23rd July 2007, 06:15 AM

I think being infamous on the board doesn't exempt you from the rules. I think the staff at the Jref would pounce on any excuse NOT to have to communicate with the rambling Edge, I know I would.
The actual wording of Jeff's mail says: "Should you wish, you can reapply again in one year, by which time you may have perfected your protocol enough so that negotiations will be much simpler."

I really think that if edge in the meantime would need to gather media recognition and academic backup, Jeff would have said so. But I can accept that it is unclear.

edge

23rd July 2007, 05:56 PM

The actual wording of Jeff's mail says: "Should you wish, you can reapply again in one year, by which time you may have perfected your protocol enough so that negotiations will be much simpler."

I really think that if edge in the meantime would need to gather media recognition and academic backup, Jeff would have said so. But I can accept that it is unclear.

It's a perfect out, isn't it.

Jack of all trades and a master of a few.
Better sig.

edge

23rd July 2007, 06:00 PM

Ravenwood

23rd July 2007, 06:37 PM

Edge, If you can show the foundation's rep/witness the described forces bending the dowsing rods 180 degrees with no input from you, you have a winner! (BTW, what gauge copper wire are you using?)

edge

24th July 2007, 11:18 AM

You don't have me on ignore, so you should be able to answer a simple question. Right, edge?

2006 to February 2007 - leading up to the point where it became screamingly obvious that you were in no way ready for a test under controlled conditions.

I tested myself for what 3 years or more I tried to follow the double blind guide lines as best as I could and then some if possible.

On a moments notice in the middle of my own testing, I got a call from a fellow skeptic of yours to test with him, and I accommodated that person to at least show what I was up to, on a moments notice.

The JREF on a moments notice wanted me to go to Japan, which I also agreed upon as long as they accepted some of what my studies indicated that I needed, to accomplish what my experiments showed to me as far as having a possibility of passing the test for dowsing, which was declined by them as being too complicated.
We all know what those two things where.
Rest time and a limestone quarry.

I would hedge the bet against me, myself, after reading some of this thread if I was on their side.
SezMe and I came to an agreement within 5 minutes on how to test, because of limited time on his part, and that test happened, so were do you get that I'm not ready?
It's not me that stopped the negotiations.

And everything from May 2006 till February of 2007 is irrelevant as I was still in test mode and just talking, using your logic against mine and still learning how to conduct the test so that I had a chance to pass.
Then they changed the rules with a deadline, so I submitted my application much earlier than I wanted, but it all worked out, because I found the way to do this to succeed not fail.
If they called me right now and said, " Ok we'll take your bet and let's meet at Coffee Creek”, I would be ready so you’re full of (rule 8). The link above proves it.

I was open to all of you with what I knew, and all the protocols up to Specktators protocol were flawed against my favor.

You guys would have me doing the test like before, which is as far as I can tell, a for sure way to fail again.

I have found out even outside you can’t set 10 containers on the ground without getting various readings from 3 or 4 of them when they are empty.

I tried another experiment where they were hung on a string.
I got 6 out of 10 correct that way but when I went to a place which was a ball room, where it would be convenient for the JREF, and within the same building where they would be able to stay over night, I got 3 of 10 correct.
Convenience doesn’t work.

Even The I.I.G. says in a field test they would not have control, what does that mean?

It’s a double blind test controlled by them.
You will all lose control of your bet possibly and that probability would upset the statuesque.
I wouldn’t take that bet either.
There’s no trickery there’s no guesses even in the way I test.
If I guess I will lose, I am certain of that.
This has to be a real pick by me just like when I mine or it means nothing to the JREF or myself.

So when they went home they took the ball too.

So let's see the letter you sent to the I.I.G. SezMe.

Dowsing is not paranormal SezMe but if the I.I.G. and myself do anything you can keep track in your new thread.

Imagine the screams if they lost?

edge

24th July 2007, 11:31 AM

You don't have me on ignore, so you should be able to answer a simple question. Right, edge?
I have nothing to hide.

They will never test me is what I think.
Not my choice.
My plans have been thwarted.
Would you bet a million against me now?
The I.I.G. wants to test me, from what I gather, inside for their convenience, or out in their parking lot, at least so far.

It depends on what RemieV has to say on the question asked above.

RemieV

25th July 2007, 01:14 AM

RemieV, please advise whether edge can apply again with an exemption from the new rules. Thanks.

Mr. Guska will need to fulfill the media presence requirement in order to re-apply. This is not a difficult task, and has certainly been accomplished by others hoping to apply.

The media presence is required in the hopes of weeding out persons who are mentally ill, deluded, or succumb to belief because of coincidence or desire. A journalist who is not in any way biased and still finds reason to write an article about an applicant is yet another way to support the claim, and should be looked upon as a boost rather than a restriction.

~Remie

steenkh

25th July 2007, 03:45 AM

What about the academic support? Surely that is not as easy to achieve as to find a journalist who will write enthusiastically about the paranormal event no matter if he believes it or not.

SezMe

25th July 2007, 03:59 AM

So, edge, the IIG test is the ideal way to proceed. They can guarantee media coverage if you pass their test. Get over to the over thread and let's get on with it.

edge

21st August 2007, 12:57 PM

Read this.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2883783#post2883783

Tricky

21st August 2007, 01:39 PM

They will never test me is what I think.
Not my choice.
Definitely your choice. You were offered a simple protocol which tests exactly what you say you can do. You refused it. It was your choice.

My plans have been thwarted.By you.

Would you bet a million against me now?
I don't have a million, but I would bet any amount you care to match. Actually, I bet quite some time ago that you would always find some excuse not to take the Randi Challenge. It looks like I won that bet.

edge

22nd August 2007, 09:07 AM

Definitely your choice. You were offered a simple protocol which tests exactly what you say you can do. You refused it. It was your choice.

By you.

I don't have a million, but I would bet any amount you care to match. Actually, I bet quite some time ago that you would always find some excuse not to take the Randi Challenge. It looks like I won that bet.

Really, who quit the negotiations when I tried to optimize the conditions?
You were offered a simple protocol, which tests exactly what you say you can do. You refused it.
Yes you wanted to put interferences in the empty containers.
What's wrong with empties?
There's gold, and then there is no gold, or silver?
We were two steps away from finalizing.
They backed out not me.

Paulhoff

22nd August 2007, 09:20 AM

Tricky

22nd August 2007, 01:31 PM

Really, who quit the negotiations when I tried to optimize the conditions?

Yes you wanted to put interferences in the empty containers.
What's wrong with empties?
There's gold, and then there is no gold, or silver?
We were two steps away from finalizing.
They backed out not me.
They had already put up with so many of your changes to the protocol that it became apparent that you were never going to stop making changes. This has been apparent to all of us here for a long time.

You could have accepted one of their protocols at any time. Their protocol was quite adequate for exactly what you claim to be able to do. You rejected it, insisting on changes. It was your choice to do so.

You have never presented a workable (or coherent) protocol. When people have tried to help you make one, you change it. You had every chance, Edge. It's been over two years since you were eligible to test again but most of that time was spent making wild assertions about "neutral ground" or "places where metal levitates" or similar nonsense. You blew it. Only you.

RemieV

22nd August 2007, 02:23 PM

edge

25th August 2007, 10:31 AM

Mr. Guska,

If you have an issue with the termination of your Challenge negotiations, please contact the JREF directly. The forum is a place of discussion, not Mr. Guska's House of Baseless JREF Complaints.

Add something to the discussion, or kindly stop posting in this thread.

~RemieV

Really! It seems that the OP is Mine.
The discussion starts with me And unless you can't follow it, that would mean you think people are blind and then it is ok to bash people if they don't go along with your views, is that it?
You must really think people are blind.
Truth is truth, not baseless.
I have been here ready and still am, you quit not me.

Tricky says,You have never presented a workable (or coherent) protocol. When people have tried to help you make one, you change it. You had every chance, Edge. It's been over two years since you were eligible to test again but most of that time was spent making wild assertions about "neutral ground" or "places where metal levitates" or similar nonsense.

It seems your memory is off slightly it's been slightly over 7 years.
I tested in 99.

Wild assertions, about what? the things I have learned through experiments and tests that I have done. But your one double blind form of a test isn't flawed, you really believe that horse puttuty?
Is that it, even though I incorporated the same basic principals involved in double blinding.?

The I.I.G. is the same way from what I can see.
They are trying to hedge their bet also.
The more they learn of what I can do the more they run.....

Tricky

25th August 2007, 04:26 PM

It seems your memory is off slightly it's been slightly over 7 years.
I tested in 99.
Yes, using the JREF's protocol, which you have subseqently declared was inadequate (since you failed). I don't believe you proposed that protocol. It is too simple and straightforward to be one of your proposals.

My comment stands. YOU have not presented a workable protocol.

Wild assertions, about what? the things I have learned through experiments and tests that I have done.
I've seen the results of exactly one test, the one you did with Sez Me, and it was full of flaws and opportunities for sensory leakage.

But your one double blind form of a test isn't flawed, you really believe that horse puttuty?
This is what I mean by incoherent. It isn't even a sentence.

Is that it, even though I incorporated the same basic principals involved in double blinding?
I'm not sure you understand yet what "double blinding" means. Why don't you explain it for us in your own words?

The I.I.G. is the same way from what I can see.
They are trying to hedge their bet also.
The more they learn of what I can do the more they run...
LOL. Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that. It couldn't have anything to do with your inability to form a coherent sentence, much less a reasonable protocol, could it?

Miss Anthrope

31st August 2007, 12:23 AM

Major pruning in progress per the JREF staff. Derails and personalizing the argument will be immediately moved to the closed thread in AAH.

William Smith

31st August 2007, 02:12 AM

Tricky

31st August 2007, 11:49 PM

Forum manners would usually require me to complain about the selective movement of posts from this thread. We'll skip that.

Fresh start. Kinda.

Edge, what are your specific plans involving the creation of an acceptable protocol for a future JREF test?
Will you, as you mentioned before, apply again for the JREF Challenge in the future?
I am curious as to whether Edge is allowed to apply again under the old rules. If he is not, then I predict he will not be able to satisfy the requirements of the new rules.

edge

1st September 2007, 12:44 AM

I am curious as to whether Edge is allowed to apply again under the old rules. If he is not, then I predict he will not be able to satisfy the requirements of the new rules.

They pretty much cut me out of the loop, that's why I applied when I did.
I wasn't quite ready, but I became ready by the time I found out about the scales working for me.
I doubt that there is a dowser anywhere that will fit their criteria now.
That's too bad.

I will have to find a set of scientists that don’t have any money involved to do the testing for the creditability and the information that might be gained.

As you have read what I posted the other skeptical groups aren't much better.
All of them will read into what is written here and hedge their bets.
If I am right about this the rewards can come later.

edge

1st September 2007, 12:47 AM

Forum manners would usually require me to complain about the selective movement of posts from this thread. We'll skip that.

Fresh start. Kinda.

Edge, what are your specific plans involving the creation of an acceptable protocol for a future JREF test?
Will you, as you mentioned before, apply again for the JREF Challenge in the future?

They won't accept any more applications from me, they have changed their rules..

William Smith

1st September 2007, 02:20 AM

They won't accept any more applications from me, they have changed their rules..

I had this post in mind:

In general, I don't keep up with these threads, so messages should NOT be directed to me in the forum. Send mail to jeff@randi.org.

However, I see there's a lot of interest in testing Edge. So.. do it. :) You don't need the JREF to conduct a test. Go through it all.. see what happens. If Edge (with help) develops a protocol and he passes, great. He can apply again in a year, and he can apply for the other challenges whenever he'd like. Get it working BEFORE you apply though.

Edge, should you be able to pass a test - even a preliminary - with any other skeptical group, it would count hugely towards you being accepted for a future JREF test.

If I were you - honestly and genuinely interested in taking the JREF Challenge again, convinced about the existence of my claimed ability - I would:

1. Refine my protocol and my skills over the next months to the point of my protocol exactly matching my skills
2. Be ready to be tested on short notice
3. Apply for one of the other available prizes
4. Inquire at the JREF how they would recognize a success at another skeptical challenge
5. Inquire at local colleges, universities, etc. if they would be interested in a controlled test of my dowsing abilities

On a different note: About one third of this thread has been moved, rightfully, clear evidence of people letting vanity getting the better of themselves. That includes me.

Edge, I sincerely apologize to you for the numerous jabs and punches I dished out to you.

If you are seriously willing to give it another go sometime, I will try to help to the best of my ability. However, you will have to convince me of your seriousness. Mere talking will not suffice.

Tricky

1st September 2007, 09:22 PM

They won't accept any more applications from me, they have changed their rules..
They will still accept your application, but it will be harder now. You have to get a reliable person to vouch for your ability to dowse. You also have to have a "media presence", but if you can get a reliable person to vouch for you, then you can probably get the local paper to write it up.

While this may seem unfair, it will probably turn out t be for the best. Now you can get on with your life and stop wasting time on this hopeless pursuit.

William Smith

8th September 2007, 11:12 AM

They really butchered this thread, I wonder why?
As if I didn't know.

[SIZE="1"]...
Fresh start. Kinda.

Edge, what are your specific plans involving the creation of an acceptable protocol for a future JREF test?
Will you, as you mentioned before, apply again for the JREF Challenge in the future?

Will you?

edge

8th September 2007, 12:45 PM

Will you?

Not until I have a neutral set of people to do it, where no money is involved.
In this way they won't be afraid to test. If I do that what need do I have for the JREF?

If I get creditability this way the money that the JREF has to offer will mean nothing.

JREf will probably take dowsing off their list soon, which will probably happen next, that’s my prediction.

Pophoff says,
This thread has nothing to do with your inability to come up with a meaningful protocol for your dowsing test edge.

Paul

My protocol proves that dowsing works that's why it wasn't accepted.
It's my ability that scares them and they know that they stood a good chance of losing the money.
They can always disprove all the rest of the things that are considered phenomenon but now the simple act of dowsing can be proven so do the math and read between the lines that are left, anyway too bad this whole thread has been hacked to pieces because I doubt that you can now, (if you are new to this thread), read between the lines.
They have covered themselves so no one can read between the lines with a flimsy excuse like the sort of things we do in here don’t happen anywhere else on this forum, and those things continue as I speak, on other posts as has always been the case in here.
Major pruning in progress per the JREF staff. Derails and personalizing the argument will be immediately moved to the closed thread in AAH.
That's what made this so fun. I never complaned to a moderater, not once.
I will tell you directly.

Truth in here can't go public and I knew that one of two things would happen.
Locked thread or editing the truth that was written here.

GzuzKryzt said,
On a different note: About one third of this thread has been moved, rightfully, clear evidence of people letting vanity getting the better of themselves. That includes me.

Edge, I sincerely apologize to you for the numerous jabs and punches I dished out to you.

Don’t worry about it I knew better and what you guys did was make me look deeper and harder, there was a few moments when I thought you might be right but then all of a sudden something would come to light and change my mind and still even I have to wonder.
If my luck weren’t so bad I would have said it was chance, but the measuring of a force that can’t be so-called measured tells me something else and the difference in one spot calibrating differently from place to place fascinates me.
It falls along the lines perfectly, with what I have been saying all along that the more neutral the ground the better the score.

My protocol would have eliminated any more excuses, it couldn’t be optimized any better than what I had as a protocol, to either prove or at the same time disprove that dowsing works.
I doubt that there is a dowser in the whole world that has looked at this as much as I have in that respect.

William Smith

8th September 2007, 12:59 PM

Three more things, edge:

1. You are quite good at evading simple questions.

2. The reasons why this thread has been pruned seem obvious to everyone but you. This should make you think. If you feel this thread has been edited unfairly, you could open a thread in a relevant subforum (e.g.: Forum Management, Community) and put your facts up to discussion.

3. All your sour grapes will not prove your ability. Only a test under controlled conditions will. If you think your protocol proves your ability, apply for any other challenge and prove it. Simple, right? What is keeping you from snagging up all the other available challenge prizes?

Reno

8th September 2007, 07:03 PM

Edge,

YOU

DID

NOT

HAVE

A

PROTOCOL

edge

9th September 2007, 11:49 AM

Edge,

YOU

DID

NOT

HAVE

A

PROTOCOL

Rule 12

The dowser can successfully detect the presence of a concealed target consisting of 5 ounces of silver 4 times in 5 runs of ten attempts each, with a one-in-ten possibility of identifying the target by chance alone in each of the five runs.Material required:1 target, 5 oz. silver1 5-lb bag of flour.10 11-ounce plastic coffee containers numbered 1-10Scale and one dowsing stick with coin in the end.One tripod.Procedure:The dowser will attempt to locate the target hidden inside one of the containers. There will be five runs of ten containers each, numbered 1-10. In each run, the target will be present in one container only, and the other nine containers will be stabilized by eight ounces of flour.The containers will be prepared this way: In nine of the containers for each trial there will be eight ounces of flour. These are the dummy containers. In the remaining container there will be three ounces of flour plus the five-ounce target.All the flour dummies will be in plastic bags so transfer is easy. The target container will be determined by a random process. An individual we will call the randomizer will prepare the containers for each run; the dowser will have a representative who will verify that the container with the target actually does contain the target. This will be done by the randomizer’s, preparing five lists, consisting of numbers from 1-10. When the target container has been selected and prepared the randomizer will mark a T in the space opposite that number on the list; the dowser’s representative will initial the sheet to show that it is correct. At no time will the randomizer or the dowser’s representative be in verbal, electronic, or visual communication with the dowser; if the dowser somehow does come into contact with the randomizer or the representative, that run will be declared null and void.Before the test begins, the dowser will locate a specific spot on which all the containers will be placed, one at a time, for his dowsing test. The scale will be set up so that the dowser can attach his dowsing rod to it directly over the spot where the containers will be placed.The dowser will then move away to a waiting area and will be out of sight of the testing area at the beginning of each trial. The dowser will witness the recording of the dowser's readings by initialing each numbered list after the run of ten is complete.The randomizer will choose one of the containers in which to place the target for each run of ten. The randomizer will prepare the containers and mark the list; the dowser’s second representative will initial the list to signify that it is complete. The randomizer will signal (perhaps by blowing a whistle in a particular pattern: long-short-long, for example) the placement team when the containers are ready. The randomizer and second dowser’s representative will leave the area, and the placement team will then come to the preparation area and will one by one move the containers to the test spot for the dowsing attempt. The placement team will not know which container conceals the target. The placement team will take each container to the test site; place it on the test spot the dowser has located, and signal the dowser. Then the placement team will leave before the dowser arrives with his observer and the I.I.G. observer(s).The dowser will use his dowsing rod on each container and will say whether the container does or does not contain the silver target.When the dowser has stated this, the observer will record his opinion on a sheet numbered 1-10. If the dowser says the target is present, the number corresponding to the container will be marked T. If not, the number will be marked 0. There can be only one T in each run of ten containers. Both the observer and the dowser will initial the finished test sheet after each run of ten.The process will be repeated five times, with the target randomly placed in a container for each time and with each container placed on the same spot for each dowsing attempt. After each container is removed, the placement team will wait a minimum of three minutes before placing the next container. After each run of ten dowsing attempts, the dowser will have a rest period of ten minutes.At the end of all 5 runs (50 dowsing trials), all participants will compare the observers' list with T marked to show which containers the dowser believes hold the target and the randomizer's record of which containers actually held the target. Until that time, the randomizer and dowser's representative will not communicate with the dowser and the I.I.G. observer in any way.To succeed, the dowser will have to correctly identify the target container four out of five times. If the dowser correctly identifies the target container three out of five times or less, that will be a failure.If I pass this preliminary the final for the Money will be a test of 100 passes with 7 out 0f 10 for the win.The time line for the final will be about 8 hours.

William Smith

9th September 2007, 03:15 PM

...
3. All your sour grapes will not prove your ability. Only a test under controlled conditions will. If you think your protocol proves your ability, apply for any other challenge and prove it. Simple, right? What is keeping you from snagging up all the other available challenge prizes?

Well, what is?

If this protocol is acceptable in your opinion, to which other organisations did you propose it to and what were the responses?

Miss Anthrope

9th September 2007, 05:15 PM

A second split has occurred. In order to keep the thread on topic and avoid continued personal bickering, the thread has now been set to moderated.

Normal Dude

10th September 2007, 01:56 AM

Rule 12

The dowser can successfully detect the presence of a concealed target consisting of 5 ounces of silver 4 times in 5 runs of ten attempts each, with a one-in-ten possibility of identifying the target by chance alone in each of the five runs.Material required:1 target, 5 oz. silver1 5-lb bag of flour.10 11-ounce plastic coffee containers numbered 1-10Scale and one dowsing stick with coin in the end.One tripod.Procedure:The dowser will attempt to locate the target hidden inside one of the containers. There will be five runs of ten containers each, numbered 1-10. In each run, the target will be present in one container only, and the other nine containers will be stabilized by eight ounces of flour.The containers will be prepared this way: In nine of the containers for each trial there will be eight ounces of flour. These are the dummy containers. In the remaining container there will be three ounces of flour plus the five-ounce target.All the flour dummies will be in plastic bags so transfer is easy. The target container will be determined by a random process. An individual we will call the randomizer will prepare the containers for each run; the dowser will have a representative who will verify that the container with the target actually does contain the target. This will be done by the randomizer’s, preparing five lists, consisting of numbers from 1-10. When the target container has been selected and prepared the randomizer will mark a T in the space opposite that number on the list; the dowser’s representative will initial the sheet to show that it is correct. At no time will the randomizer or the dowser’s representative be in verbal, electronic, or visual communication with the dowser; if the dowser somehow does come into contact with the randomizer or the representative, that run will be declared null and void.Before the test begins, the dowser will locate a specific spot on which all the containers will be placed, one at a time, for his dowsing test. The scale will be set up so that the dowser can attach his dowsing rod to it directly over the spot where the containers will be placed.The dowser will then move away to a waiting area and will be out of sight of the testing area at the beginning of each trial. The dowser will witness the recording of the dowser's readings by initialing each numbered list after the run of ten is complete.The randomizer will choose one of the containers in which to place the target for each run of ten. The randomizer will prepare the containers and mark the list; the dowser’s second representative will initial the list to signify that it is complete. The randomizer will signal (perhaps by blowing a whistle in a particular pattern: long-short-long, for example) the placement team when the containers are ready. The randomizer and second dowser’s representative will leave the area, and the placement team will then come to the preparation area and will one by one move the containers to the test spot for the dowsing attempt. The placement team will not know which container conceals the target. The placement team will take each container to the test site; place it on the test spot the dowser has located, and signal the dowser. Then the placement team will leave before the dowser arrives with his observer and the I.I.G. observer(s).The dowser will use his dowsing rod on each container and will say whether the container does or does not contain the silver target.When the dowser has stated this, the observer will record his opinion on a sheet numbered 1-10. If the dowser says the target is present, the number corresponding to the container will be marked T. If not, the number will be marked 0. There can be only one T in each run of ten containers. Both the observer and the dowser will initial the finished test sheet after each run of ten.The process will be repeated five times, with the target randomly placed in a container for each time and with each container placed on the same spot for each dowsing attempt. After each container is removed, the placement team will wait a minimum of three minutes before placing the next container. After each run of ten dowsing attempts, the dowser will have a rest period of ten minutes.At the end of all 5 runs (50 dowsing trials), all participants will compare the observers' list with T marked to show which containers the dowser believes hold the target and the randomizer's record of which containers actually held the target. Until that time, the randomizer and dowser's representative will not communicate with the dowser and the I.I.G. observer in any way.To succeed, the dowser will have to correctly identify the target container four out of five times. If the dowser correctly identifies the target container three out of five times or less, that will be a failure.If I pass this preliminary the final for the Money will be a test of 100 passes with 7 out 0f 10 for the win.The time line for the final will be about 8 hours.

Ummm can I get a paragraph or two thrown in there?

It hurts the eyeses!

chillzero

10th September 2007, 04:50 AM

A second split has occurred. In order to keep the thread on topic and avoid continued personal bickering, the thread has now been set to moderated.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92835

edge

10th September 2007, 04:23 PM

I think I will now seek a science team where they are not risking vast amounts of money to keep the statuesque.

I'm done with skeptics it leads to nothing of value in the realms of new discoveries and change.

Here quit whining.

The dowser can successfully detect the presence of a concealed target consisting of 5 ounces of silver 4 times in 5 runs of ten attempts each, with a one-in-ten possibility of identifying the target by chance alone in each of the five runs.
Material required:1 target, 5 oz. silver1 5-lb bag of flour.
10 11-ounce plastic coffee containers numbered 1-10 Scale and one dowsing stick with coin in the end.
One tripod.
Procedure: The dowser will attempt to locate the target hidden inside one of the containers.

There will be five runs of ten containers each, numbered 1-10. In each run, the target will be present in one container only, and the other nine containers will be stabilized by eight ounces of flour.

The containers will be prepared this way: In nine of the containers for each trial there will be eight ounces of flour.
These are the dummy containers. In the remaining container there will be three ounces of flour plus the five-ounce target.
All the flour dummies will be in plastic bags so transfer is easy. The target container will be determined by a random process.

An individual we will call the randomizer will prepare the containers for each run; the dowser will have a representative who will verify that the container with the target actually does contain the target.

This will be done by the randomizer’s, preparing five lists, consisting of numbers from 1-10. When the target container has been selected and prepared the randomizer will mark a T in the space opposite that number on the list; the dowser’s representative will initial the sheet to show that it is correct.
At no time will the randomizer or the dowser’s representative be in verbal, electronic, or visual communication with the dowser; if the dowser somehow does come into contact with the randomizer or the representative, that run will be declared null and void.
Before the test begins, the dowser will locate a specific spot on which all the containers will be placed, one at a time, for his dowsing test.

The scale will be set up so that the dowser can attach his dowsing rod to it directly over the spot where the containers will be placed.

The dowser will then move away to a waiting area and will be out of sight of the testing area at the beginning of each trial.
The dowser will witness the recording of the dowser's readings by initialing each numbered list after the run of ten is complete.

The randomizer will choose one of the containers in which to place the target for each run of ten.
The randomizer will prepare the containers and mark the list; the dowser’s second representative will initial the list to signify that it is complete.

The randomizer will signal (perhaps by blowing a whistle in a particular pattern: long-short-long, for example) the placement team when the containers are ready.

The randomizer and second dowser’s representative will leave the area, and the placement team will then come to the preparation area and will one by one move the containers to the test spot for the dowsing attempt.

The placement team will not know which container conceals the target.
The placement team will take each container to the test site; place it on the test spot the dowser has located, and signal the dowser.

Then the placement team will leave before the dowser arrives with his observer and the I.I.G. observer(s).

The dowser will use his dowsing rod on each container and will say whether the container does or does not contain the silver target.When the dowser has stated this, the observer will record his opinion on a sheet numbered 1-10. If the dowser says the target is present, the number corresponding to the container will be marked T.
If not, the number will be marked 0.

There can be only one T in each run of ten containers.

Both the observer and the dowser will initial the finished test sheet after each run of ten.
The process will be repeated five times, with the target randomly placed in a container for each time and with each container placed on the same spot for each dowsing attempt.

After each container is removed, the placement team will wait a minimum of three minutes before placing the next container.

After each run of ten dowsing attempts, the dowser will have a rest period of ten minutes.
At the end of all 5 runs (50 dowsing trials), all participants will compare the observers' list with T marked to show which containers the dowser believes hold the target and the randomizer's record of which containers actually held the target.

Until that time, the randomizer and dowser's representative will not communicate with the dowser and the I.I.G. observer in any way.

To succeed, the dowser will have to correctly identify the target container four out of five times.
If the dowser correctly identifies the target container three out of five times or less, that will be a failure.
If I pass this preliminary the final for the Money will be a test of 100 passes with 7 out 0f 10 for the win.

The time line for the final will be about 8 hours.

The IIG is in the protocol here, because I sent them a copy after being rejected by the JREF and they aren't happy with it either.
It was written by a skeptic, imagine that!

But only one skeptic had vision enough to write me a protocol and possibly understood what my experiments where showing me.
It was a well-written version of what I had.
It came from Spektator about two or three days after the JREF rejected my application.

What I had was showing me, what was true about testing in only one fashion.
How to avoid the interferences that would happen in random placements of targets in the original test that had to be flawed.

The reason it had to be flawed is because in the field my success rate in locating is extremely high compared to the JREFs’ standard way of testing.
And that reason is because the gold that’s been in the creek bed moves once from the bed to my hand and not back to the bed…..
That took me months to figure out, hell it took me several years.

We only had two more things to agree on in the original protocol that I had presented when they stopped the negotiations.

This was the perfect test or at least 99% perfect, the JREF wouldn't include the last % of what I really wanted, if they did I think I could have had a 99% success rate.
With Specktators’ protocol the numbers would be within the % s presented.
This test would eliminate any excuses, simply because it works….
Hell I would forfeit the million and only take the 10,000 just to prove it!
Why?
Do the math.

I will now seek a more neutral minded set of scientists to do the test, not skeptical organization or actors that offer huge amounts of money to De-bunk.

They were whimpering about a couple of days when I spent a couple of years to develop a working protocol.

Always question what you are told to be true.

Tricky

10th September 2007, 05:38 PM

Let's see if I can make some sense of this. Edits for clarity.
The dowser can successfully detect the presence of a concealed target consisting of 5 ounces of silver 4 times in 5 runs of ten attempts each, with a one-in-ten possibility of identifying the target by chance alone in each of the five runs.
You need to define your terminology. Is an attempt a single dowsing pass at one target, or a set of passes? ETA: I see later that you clarify slightly. You will have 50 passes over targets of which 5 will contain silver. I strongly suggest you get somebody to help you write this.

Material required: One target, 5 oz. silver. One 5-lb bag of flour.10 11-ounce plastic coffee containers numbered 1-10. Scale and one dowsing stick with coin in the end. One tripodWhat kind of scale? What sensitivity? What is the scale made of? What is the purity of the silver? What form is it in? What kind of coin? What kind of tripod? Are you going to use a video camera?

Procedure:The dowser will attempt to locate the target hidden inside one of the containers. There will be five runs of ten containers each, numbered 1-10. In each run, the target will be present in one container only, and the other nine containers will be stabilized by eight ounces of flour.
This will probably be okay. Some mention was made of randomization of number of targets per attempt, so you wouldn't be fixed on just saying "this is it" once in each attempt. That would be more revealing, of course, but if you make enough attempts, this should be okay.

The containers will be prepared this way: In nine of the containers for each trial there will be eight ounces of flour. These are the dummy containers. In the remaining container there will be three ounces of flour plus the five-ounce target. All the flour dummies will be in plastic bags so transfer is easy. Okay.

The target container will be determined by a random process. An individual we will call the randomizer will prepare the containers for each run;
It appears you have forgotten to identify the people in the test. That should be done back before you get to this part. You will need at least three people, two of which must be neutral (i.e. not friends of yours.) One can be, as you call it, the "randomizer" who will use a random process to determine the target can, place all targets and dummies in the cans and record which can has the target. Another will be the observer, who will watch the dowser and record his choices. You may have a second "friendly" observer if you like, or you can use a videocamera to record the tests. I strongly recommend the latter, since they obviously have no prejudices.

the dowser will have a representative who will verify that the container with the target actually does contain the target.
Just one dowser's rep checking the "randomizer?" No dowser's rep observing the actual test? I suppose that's okay. I still advise using a videocamera.

On another note: It looks like you're getting right into the actual tests here. You have forgotten a vitally important part, and that is the "open test". You must first dowse for the targets with full knowledge of where they are. The reason for this is twofold: 1) It lets you be sure your dowsing is working. 2) It prevents excuses later. As I recall, you tried to make excuses after you failed your first test, but because you had agreed that the conditions were acceptable and that your dowsing was working, these excuses were exposed as just that. At least one "open test" must be included into your protocol. You might want to add another in the middle to verify that your powers are still working.

At no time will the randomizer or the dowser’s representative be in verbal, electronic, or visual communication with the dowser; if the dowser somehow does come into contact with the randomizer or the representative, that run will be declared null and void.
Like I say, you may want an observer, human or electronic, observing the actual dowsing. The final protocol will have to include parts about how you plan to ensure that there is no contact. That should be easy though.
Before the test begins, the dowser will locate a specific spot on which all the containers will be placed, one at a time, for his dowsing test.
This is going to kill the test. The procedure you describe is an incredible waste of time, requiring target placement ten times for each trial. If you do fifty trials, you must have 500 trips of the “randomizer” into the room. You simply don’t have time for that. Also, this makes the test unfair for you. If you have already picked the "target" and you come across another can that gives a positive reading, you can't go back to compare them. That's a problem, wouldn't you say?

I recommend you find ten acceptable locations (your blind test will help you do this) and have the “randomizer” make a single trip, place all ten cans in their locations and you can move the tripod/scale around without calling in the randomizer in for each trip. No, you can’t have the observer move them because regardless of the flour stabilizer, there are differences in the way a coin in a can feels versus just flour in a can. This could lead to sensory leakage. Nobody in the room with the test may ever touch the cans.

The randomizer will prepare the containers and mark the list; the dowser’s second representative will initial the list to signify that it is complete. The randomizer will signal (perhaps by blowing a whistle in a particular pattern: long-short-long, for example) the placement team when the containers are ready.
Dowser's second representative? You didn't mention him before. That's why you need to identify the people and their "titles" at the beginning. It is one reason (besides your inability to use paragraphs) that your protocol is so difficult to read. Frankly, I don't see the need for this alert if you are having the "placement team" come out between each of the ten targets. When they're ready for the first target, they give the signal and the dowser and observers leave the area.

The randomizer and second dowser’s representative will leave the area, and the placement team will then come to the preparation area and will one by one move the containers to the test spot for the dowsing attempt.
You neglected to mention the neutral observer. They must leave the area too. Nobody on the "testing team" can have contact with the "placement team."

The placement team will not know which container conceals the target.
What? Is this a third team? Now you are starting to be confusing again. There is no reason why the people who put the targets in the cans cannot also place the targets, so long as nobody on the "testing team" is present. You are making this unnecessarily difficult and confusing.

The placement team will take each container to the test site; place it on the test spot the dowser has located, and signal the dowser. Then the placement team will leave before the dowser arrives with his observer and the I.I.G. observer(s).
As I say, this is going to be incredibly time-consuming and it is unlikely you will be able to complete a statistically significant number of trials. Is that what you want?

The dowser will use his dowsing rod on each container and will say whether the container does or does not contain the silver target.
How long will this take? Just a rough estimate will do. It might be necessary to put a time limt on your attempts if you insist on this lengthy protocol.

When the dowser has stated this, the observer will record his opinion on a sheet numbered 1-10. If the dowser says the target is present, the number corresponding to the container will be marked T. If not, the number will be marked 0. There can be only one T in each run of ten containers.
This bit of protocol is a bit unnecessary. It doesn't matter what the observer(s) write, since there will be nine of one thing and one of another.

But it does raise and interesting question about your protocol. If you have already identified the target in a trial of ten targets, then should you just skip the remaining targets? That is why I recommend a single placement of all ten cans for each trial.

Both the observer and the dowser will initial the finished test sheet after each run of ten. Which observer? Both? You seem to keep varying the number of people involved.

The process will be repeated five times, with the target randomly placed in a container for each time and with each container placed on the same spot for each dowsing attempt. After each container is removed, the placement team will wait a minimum of three minutes before placing the next container.
Sounds like each attempt is going to take at least ten minutes. That's six an hour, times 8-hours is 48 tests, not counting set-up time and rest breaks.

At the end of all 5 runs (50 dowsing trials), all participants will compare the observers' list with T marked to show which containers the dowser believes hold the target and the randomizer's record of which containers actually held the target. Until that time, the randomizer and dowser's representative will not communicate with the dowser and the I.I.G. observer in any way.
Okay, more or less. Of course you had three "dowser's representatives" depending on what you mean, one for working with the randomizer, one for placement, and one for observing the test. You still keep varying the number of people involved.

To succeed, the dowser will have to correctly identify the target container four out of five times. If the dowser correctly identifies the target container three out of five times or less, that will be a failure.If I pass this preliminary the final for the Money will be a test of 100 passes with 7 out 0f 10 for the win.The time line for the final will be about 8 hours.
Don't worry about the "final" yet. That will have to be worked out with JREF later, assuming you pass this test. Remember the entrance requirements have changed, but if you pass the IIG test, it is likely that it will satisfy at least one requirement.

Remember that the IIG may have requirements as well, such as who has rights to the videos etc.

As I have indicated, your protocol is fraught with inconsistancies, undefined terms, ignored items (like the "open test") unnecessary items (like designating the letter the recorder must use), timing problems, and unanswered questions. It is also could be unfair to you, especially as regards the ability to recheck previously dowsed targets. In short, I.I.G. has, in my opinion, every reason to reject your protocol, if for no other reason than incoherence.

Get some help writing it.

catbasket

11th September 2007, 07:51 AM

They were whimpering about a couple of days when I spent a couple of years to develop a working protocol.

I disagree. The problem was that after all this time you still did not have a working protocol.

Get some help writing it.

Take heed of Tricky's advice.

Spektator

11th September 2007, 10:16 AM

I disagree. The problem was that after all this time you still did not have a working protocol.

Take heed of Tricky's advice.

Do get help writing it, but not from me, alas. I offered several times and finally did most of edge's protocol above on my own, working from his descriptions of how he planned to do the dowsing. I expected the protocol to be refined until it was acceptable to both parties--but by that time it was too late and the JREF had lost patience. I don't have the free time to work on the protocol any longer.

catbasket

11th September 2007, 02:11 PM

Do get help writing it, but not from me, alas ...

... I don't have the free time to work on the protocol any longer.

It's been frustrating for me as a spectator ;) to see so much time being spent by so many people - JREF staff, forum members and edge himself - for so little end result. I imagine it's doubly frustrating for those involved.

William Smith

11th September 2007, 04:25 PM

It's been frustrating for me as a spectator ;) to see so much time being spent by so many people - JREF staff, forum members and edge himself - for so little end result. I imagine it's doubly frustrating for those involved.

Actually, there is an end result. And a huge one, too: The people involved were the Sancho Pansa to edge's Don Quixote.

Lest we forget: Not even an incentive of One Million US Dollars could sway edge to come up with a useful protocol for his alleged ability. Does it get clearer than this?

Tricky

11th September 2007, 09:02 PM

It's been frustrating for me as a spectator ;) to see so much time being spent by so many people - JREF staff, forum members and edge himself - for so little end result. I imagine it's doubly frustrating for those involved.
Nah. It is pretty much like brushing your teeth after a while. It is just something you do because it needs to be done. People who claim paranormal talents need to have their claims addressed so that they don't appear that they have scared the skeptics away.

I've been in this thread since the very beginning and even before, but I don't think I'd have the stamina to read it from the beginning. My hat is off to you and those of similar fortitude. You make the time we spent on these posts worthwhile. It's like history, man.

edge

12th September 2007, 12:15 PM

People who claim paranormal talents need to have their claims addressed so that they don't appear that they have scared the skeptics away.

First off it's not paranormal.
Which makes it testable, again if something works one way why doesn't it work in another way?
This is what I have learned through testing and experimenting, how to make it work the other way.
That didn’t happen till after I applied for the test.

The JREF, the actual staff hasn't been involved since the beginning of this thread.
They only spent two and a half months near the end of this thread.
Before I applied I spent three years up here figuring it out and about eight months or so writing in here near the end of the three years. During the summer of the third year I proved it in the creek mining with the spots that I picked and I scored very high.
The problem was to convert that test into a double blind test, which I figured out.
Now it’s been four years, and eight years since I took the challenge in Florida.
I had to apply before I was ready and not done with my testing.
They changed the rules to the challenge, so I had to put the cart before the horse, so to say.

Frustrating doesn't even cover what I feel. :)

Lest we forget: Not even an incentive of One Million US Dollars could sway edge to come up with a useful protocol for his alleged ability. Does it get clearer than this?

There's nothing if I don't get it right, but ridicule.

Tricky says,
What kind of scale? What sensitivity? What is the scale made of? What is the purity of the silver? What form is it in? What kind of coin? What kind of tripod? Are you going to use a video camera?

When I get it right it's like that statement, what does this matter till after the test, I'll give it to you to examine.
Just give me a cat scan or a lie detector test Shezz.
Road blocks!
SezMe and I had no problems getting it done.
Hide and seek isn't that complicated. L.M.A.O.

Reno

13th September 2007, 05:30 AM

Edge, have you applied to any other organizations that have a a prize for a successful demonstration of dowsing? (other than IIG, I mean).

As an aside, I'm not sure you really know what 'LMAO' means. Kinda like my old mum, who was recently introduced to computers and messaging - she ends each message to me with 'LOL' (I think she thinks it means Love You Loads or something like that)

Tricky

13th September 2007, 09:06 AM

First off it's not paranormal.
Actually, it is, at least it is the way you describe it. Remember when you said the force of the dowsing nearly pulled the dowsing rod out of your hand? And you say that you now need a scale for the test because the force pulls the rod down. But now remember when you said that you couldn't even make a pendulum with a piece of gold on the end move by dowsing at it?

I asked you about this because it would be a one-way force. A force for which there is no equal-and-opposite attraction. You said that it was indeed such a force. That defies the laws of physics. That makes it paranormal.

Which makes it testable, again if something works one way why doesn't it work in another way?
You should be asking yourself this question. You say you can easily dowse for gold. If you say an area has no gold, then somebody puts a gold target in it, then you should be able to find it easily. Yet you have spent great amounts of time saying "It doesn't work that way".

They only spent two and a half months near the end of this thread.
Before I applied I spent three years up here figuring it out and about eight months or so writing in here near the end of the three years. During the summer of the third year I proved it in the creek mining with the spots that I picked and I scored very high.
You scored "very high" when testing yourself. The many problems with your self-test were pointed out at the time.

The problem was to convert that test into a double blind test, which I figured out.
You still seem to have some problems with the concept. I pointed out numerous problems with your protocol.

Now it’s been four years, and eight years since I took the challenge in Florida.
Your dowsing test was only five years ago (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html).

I had to apply before I was ready and not done with my testing.
Your "testing" was unnecessary. There were several very simple protocols for what you said you could do. You refused them all. Instead you regaled us with stories of how much gold you had found and how well the dowsing was working.

They changed the rules to the challenge, so I had to put the cart before the horse, so to say.
You were allowed to re-apply under the old rules, but you would never submit a reasonable and coherent protocol, so your application was, after long discussion, rejected. Only NOW must you submit under the new rules.

Frustrating doesn't even cover what I feel. :)
We're all frustrated too. Nothing we say, no suggestion of protocols, no logic seems to work on you.

There's nothing if I don't get it right, but ridicule. If you can do what you say, there won't be ridicule.

When I get it right it's like that statement, what does this matter till after the test, I'll give it to you to examine.
Just give me a cat scan or a lie detector test Shezz.
Lie detectors don't work either, Edge. Besides, if a person truly believes that their delusion is real, then they're not lying. They're simply mistaken.

I'm not sure what you think a cat scan would do.

SezMe and I had no problems getting it done.
Hide and seek isn't that complicated. L.M.A.O.
There were numerous "problems" with that trial. It was done "quick-and-dirty" and there were great gaping holes in the protocol. Im

Paulhoff

13th September 2007, 10:12 AM

Actually, it is, at least it is the way you describe it. Remember when you said the force of the dowsing nearly pulled the dowsing rod out of your hand? And you say that you now need a scale for the test because the force pulls the rod down. But now remember when you said that you couldn't even make a pendulum with a piece of gold on the end move by dowsing at it?

I asked you about this because it would be a one-way force. A force for which there is no equal-and-opposite attraction. You said that it was indeed such a force. That defies the laws of physics. That makes it paranormal.
Geee, let us think about this, the rod does not pull the gold, the rod that is not in the hands of the dower is not pulled to the gold. Geee, does a dowser think that there is a problem with this.

Paul

:) :) :)

William Smith

13th September 2007, 11:00 AM

Lest we forget: Not even an incentive of One Million US Dollars could sway edge to come up with a useful protocol for his alleged ability. Does it get clearer than this?

...
There's nothing if I don't get it right, but ridicule.
...

Funny that you perceive it like that, since I simply stated an undisputable fact.

If this protocol is acceptable in your opinion, to which other organisations did you propose it to and what were the responses? (Keeping in mind that a successful demonstration for another skeptic challenge will count hugely toward a possible future JREF Challenge Application.)

And: Will you apply again for the JREF Challenge, edge?

edge

13th September 2007, 01:23 PM

I'm not sure what you think a cat scan would do.

It's a new form of lie detecting.

edge

13th September 2007, 03:23 PM

Funny that you perceive it like that, since I simply stated an undisputable fact.

If this protocol is acceptable in your opinion, to which other organizations did you propose it to and what were the responses? (Keeping in mind that a successful demonstration for another skeptic challenge will count hugely toward a possible future JREF Challenge Application.)

And: Will you apply again for the JREF Challenge, edge?
I don't know.

James from the IIG has now contacted me again after some delay.

I try not to let the money affect my decisions on how to do this, or that I don't get a chance at it now.

The I.I.G. are the closest to where I live and cost of projects is relevant.

Just to going to them will cost me about 500 dollars or more out of pocket.
It’s only 700 miles or so from here but I will have to pay for a couple of days stay for two or three people and food, gas etcetera.

Geee, let us think about this, the rod does not pull the gold, the rod that is not in the hands of the dower is not pulled to the gold. Geee, does a dowser think that there is a problem with this.

Paul
If it pulled the gold out of the overburden then why would I need a dredge?

But you are wrong it is pulled to the gold hence downward or any direction of movement that indicates a presents of metals.

So where you get that from is unknown to me?

I have never had a problem in the field.

Does a metal detector work when on the ground sitting still Paul?
Even if it's turned on?

Something is taken from the person to make it work and the person is the battery in a sense.

Tricky says,
I asked you about this because it would be a one-way force. A force for which there is no equal-and-opposite attraction. You said that it was indeed such a force. That defies the laws of physics. That makes it paranormal.

Do we know all the laws of physics?

The reaction may not be sensed in the gravitational field of the Earth but may require a neutral area such as Micro gravity to be able to witness the reaction….
Lets say we could attract to a field around a star would the star move or would we move in a micro gravity situation?
Would it be magnetic or some other form, dealing with gravitational forces we have yet to understand.

Tricky says,
But now remember when you said that you couldn't even make a pendulum with a piece of gold on the end move by dowsing at it?

What I said was that there might have been some movement but it was not a clean room to test in.
It could have been the air from the movement of the stick that caused the slightest movement that I seen, I wasn’t sure.
I couldn’t say that it did.
Again if you are looking for a magnetic type of movement then we would never need the tools that we have to mine with and only need 20 ton electromagnets to pull the Gold out of the creek.

Tricky says, There were numerous "problems" with that trial. It was done "quick-and-dirty" and there were great gaping holes in the protocol.

Name one besides the way we scored it.
We scored it on a yes and no being correct because that’s what I have to do, get the empties right too.
I have to get every pick right in any form of testing or scoring.
It was a totally honest test why does that bug you?

Then you say,
Your "testing" was unnecessary. There were several very simple protocols for what you said you could do. You refused them all. Instead you regaled us with stories of how much gold you had found and how well the dowsing was working.

I refused them because you where trying to get me to test in the old fashion method which is flawed.
My experiments show a losing proposition in placing all the ten containers in one area.
Get over what I said in the past and think about what I have learned now.
My experiments prove that what you call my excuses, have some relevance to facts.
If that weren’t true I wouldn't be here now, with this, some basic knowledge of the facts that I have learned.

Only relevance is the new information.

One netrual spot to do the test on, so that the calibrations of container with target and empty contanier with out target can be calibrated on the scale with only two known factors to deal with.

One spot to dowse on for the target, unless you want to spread the containers across an acre of land.

One scale to measurer the force empty, or with a target.

All metals are attracted when dowsing for metals.

It’s attracted to electrical fields and is still a one-way force in the Earths field.
My score is way higher when done with what’s known about it NOW…….

Everything there in that quote is what I base the protocol on, build it with that information and I won’t have a problem with it.

Lie detectors don't work either, Edge. Besides, if a person truly believes that their delusion is real, then they're not lying. They're simply mistaken.

I'm not sure what you think a cat scan would do.

It would tell you if I was cheating if there were holes!
There might be something here greater than the money or cheating for the money.
That’s only if I win and you want to be totally convinced, that I didn't find a hole, twisted Tricky.

James said,
Mike G., I'm sure, will be back next year. And I think I already know the results.
Key words, I think!
No one knows, not yet.
I do know this, one out of ten is no longer the number that you will see happen.
Why would I re-apply? :)

If you are looking to test for real science and truth then the time constraint should not be a factor in testing a dowser or else you are not interested in real science.....

William Smith

13th September 2007, 04:04 PM

...
If you are looking to test for real science and truth then the time constrant should not be a factor in testing a dowser or else you are not intrested in real science.....

The MDC is about trying to prove so-called paranormal claims using scientific methods.

If you are interested in what you refer to as "real science", go ahead, try for the Nobel Prize. Comes with money, too. That sucker requires "real science".

(Of course you failed again to answer the simple question about the response of IIG.)

What is the purpose of your continued posting in this thread if you don't know whether you will apply again?

Tim Harrod

13th September 2007, 04:06 PM

Just to going to them will cost me about 500 dollars or more out of pocket.

That's simple: use your dowsing powers to locate gold, until you have an ounce of gold. That's worth roughly 700 dollars.

Cuddles

14th September 2007, 03:31 AM

It's a new form of lie detecting.

No it isn't.

edge

14th September 2007, 12:07 PM

The MDC is about trying to prove so-called paranormal claims using scientific methods.

If you are interested in what you refer to as "real science", go ahead, try for the Nobel Prize. Comes with money, too. That sucker requires "real science".

(Of course you failed again to answer the simple question about the response of IIG.)

What is the purpose of your continued posting in this thread if you don't know whether you will apply again?

It's hard to catch ever question, there’s ten of you and one of me, and I’m trying to keep it separate as per SezMes request.

The CAT scan is still under testing but may be the ultimate lie detector.
I had seen it the other day on the news or a news show like Night Line or such.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2960364#post2960364

Silly Green Monkey

14th September 2007, 01:46 PM

In Cripple Creek, Colorado, there is a mine called the Doctor's Hat. The story behind the mine's name is that two doctors went prospecting in the dead of winter, and tired of being chilled, decided to throw a hat and sink a shaft wherever the hat landed. They left rich men.

Did the hat dowse the gold, or was there just gold everywhere?

Tricky

14th September 2007, 07:43 PM

No, obviously it doesn't attract gold, yet something, you say, attracts the rod so strongly it nearly pulled it out of your hands. This one-way force is an amazing phenomenon.

[quote=edge;2960325]
But you are wrong it is pulled to the gold hence downward or any direction of movement that indicates a presents of metals.
You are proposing a new law of physics. If you can show that to be true, then you won't need Randi's million.

I have never had a problem in the field.
You never tested it in the field. You may think you did, but you have never described anything which even approximates a valid test of dowsing.

Does a metal detector work when on the ground sitting still Paul?
Even if it's turned on?
Yes it does. This is easily demonstrated.
Something is taken from the person to make it work and the person is the battery in a sense.
That is completely incorrect. A metal detector would work if you suspended it from a rope in a tree and swung it around. It does not need a person.

Tricky says,

Name one besides the way we scored it.
Not a true double-blind. You didn't have enough people for that. Also, too many opportunities for sensory leakage. Not a neutral site either. I'm not saying you cheated, I'm saying there were too many problems for it to be a valid test. Evey SaysMe agrees to this, and he was there.

Do we know all the laws of physics?
We know this one. It is a real basic one. Newton's Third Law (http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a.html). Find an exception to that one and you will be famous beyond your wildest dreams. But of course, you have not found an exception. You are simply ignoring reality in order to continue in your delusion.

The reaction may not be sensed in the gravitational field of the Earth but may require a neutral area such as Micro gravity to be able to witness the reaction….
Gobbledygook. If you can find an area of "Micro gravity" on Earth, again, your fame is assured. Do you understand the laws of gravity, Edge? Do you understand any physics?

Lets say we could attract to a field around a star would the star move or would we move in a micro gravity situation?
Would it be magnetic or some other form, dealing with gravitational forces we have yet to understand.
Let's say the moon were made of green cheese. Would it be cheddar or swiss?

What I said was that there might have been some movement but it was not a clean room to test in.
It takes only a tiny amount of force to attract a small pendulum of gold. Besides, the pendulum was at equilibrium. It wouldn't matter if the room were clean or not. Your "dowsing" should have upset the equilibrium and made it swing. It did not. To even a first year physics student, that would indicate that there was no force between the dowsing rod and the pendulum.

Again if you are looking for a magnetic type of movement then we would never need the tools that we have to mine with and only need 20 ton electromagnets to pull the Gold out of the creek.
No, we are not necessarily looking for a magnetic force (gold is not attracted to magnets). We are looking for any force whatsoever. You claim that force nearly ripped the dowsing rod out of your hands. Well, whatever that incredibly strong force was, you need to show that it can also move a tiny pendant of gold.

Name one besides the way we scored it.
We scored it on a yes and no being correct because that’s what I have to do, get the empties right too.
I have to get every pick right in any form of testing or scoring.
It was a totally honest test why does that bug you?
I do not deny that you were honest. It was still a deeply flawed test. I'm willing to admit that you may have showed something, but I would like to see you demonstrate dowsing in a well-designed and controlled test before I'm willing to buy it. I've seen too many dowsers fail to think that you somehow beat the odds.

Then you say,

I refused them because you where trying to get me to test in the old fashion method which is flawed.
You have not been able to show how it is flawed. It tests exactly what you say you can do.

My experiments show a losing proposition in placing all the ten containers in one area.
How much separation do you need? If you are in the field, how sensitive is your dowsing? Can it locate gold to within ten feet? If it is so very inaccurate, how do you ever find gold using dowsing?

If you can dowse for gold, then it is quite obvious that the closer you get to the gold, the stronger the dowsing response should be. Do you deny that? Are you proposing yet another new law of physics?

Get over what I said in the past and think about what I have learned now. Most of the things you have "learned" are excuses for why what you said didn't work. Not at any time have you ever considered the possibility that dowsing doesn't work. You just keep making new excuses for why it doesn't do what you said it did.

My experiments prove that what you call my excuses, have some relevance to facts.
Perhaps. I am skeptical. You keep proposing things that violate the known laws of science. By the way, whatever happened with that place where metal will levitate? You spoke of that like it was a sure thing, even though it would certainly be a miracle by any known laws of science. Why the lack of discussion now?

It would tell you if I was cheating if there were holes!
There might be something here greater than the money or cheating for the money.
That’s only if I win and you want to be totally convinced, that I didn't find a hole, twisted Tricky.
You're being incoherent again, Edge. This comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I said about lie detectors or cat scans.

But yes, if you can demonstrate a new law of physics, then yes there is something greater than the money here. Since you have virtually no understanding of physics, I find that scenario unlikely.

If you are looking to test for real science and truth then the time constraint should not be a factor in testing a dowser or else you are not interested in real science.....
The challenge is not a scientific experiment. It is a test to see if you can do what you say you can do. If you have some science, take it to the local university. While you're there, sign up for a basic physics course.

edge

15th September 2007, 11:03 AM

Normal Dude

15th September 2007, 01:27 PM

It's a new form of lie detecting.

That's a gross over-simplification if I ever heard one.

edge

17th September 2007, 01:44 PM

That is completely incorrect. A metal detector would work if you suspended it from a rope in a tree and swung it around. It does not need a person.

Ok Tricky who swings it.
You have a funny way of thinking.

Then you say,
Let's say the moon were made of green cheese. Would it be cheddar or Swiss?

If there was a piece of cheese that big out there, would it still have gravitational influences and a field associated with it?

Then you twist it again to make yourself look smarter,
Gobbledygook. If you can find an area of "Micro gravity" on Earth, again, your fame is assured. Do you understand the laws of gravity, Edge? Do you understand any physics?

It does get rather tiresome trying to give you a understanding of theory.

Gobbledygook. If you can find an area of "Micro gravity" on Earth, again, your fame is assured. Do you understand the laws of gravity, Edge? Do you understand any physics?

Where did I say on the Earth?
Obviously it has to be in space away from Earth Gee?
Are you a teenager?
I might understand physics better than you if I’m right about this.

Answerer this question and only this, do you think all of what is or could be known about physics has been accomplished?
It’s a simple yes or no response with out my intellectual capacity brought up in question.

Silly Green Monkey

18th September 2007, 11:13 PM

Hang a metal detector, bury a target in its arc, give it a shove, and it will detect the target when it passes over it.

Tricky

19th September 2007, 08:57 AM

Ok Tricky who swings it.
You have a funny way of thinking.
A machine could swing it. So are you now going to say "but who built the machine?" Face it Edge. You goofed. A metal detector will work with no physical connection to a human. Will a dowsing rod do that? If you swing it on a rope, will it detect gold like a metal detector will?

It does get rather tiresome trying to give you a understanding of theory.
Oh, the irony. Edge, you don't even understand basic Newtonian physics and you are attempting to lecture others on gravitational theory?

Where did I say on the Earth?
Obviously it has to be in space away from Earth Gee?
You said "We could attract". Since "we" are on earth, it would make sense to assume that is the location you were talking about. If I have been unable to follow your incoherent babble, you can hardly blame me for the confusion. Why don't you give us a brief explanation of your Theory of Microgravity?

I might understand physics better than you if I’m right about this.
LOL. And if the moon were made of cheese...

Answerer this question and only this, do you think all of what is or could be known about physics has been accomplished?
No.

Now if you would be so kind as to reply in a similarly brief fashion. Do you think you have the knowledge necessary to discover a new law of physics that contradicts existing laws?

It’s a simple yes or no response with out my intellectual capacity brought up in question.
And I answered it as you requested. I should say though that any discoveries about Newtonian physics will be refinements of what is known, not reversals, as you are suggesting. Feel free to ask any physicist about this. And while you're at it, why don't you mention that you have found an exception to Newton's Third Law. See what his or her "reaction" is.:D

edge

19th September 2007, 09:53 AM

Hang a metal detector, bury a target in its arc, give it a shove, and it will detect the target when it passes over it.

But can it find new gold or a target without a person behind it, moving it?

Czarcasm

19th September 2007, 12:22 PM

But can it find new gold or a target without a person behind it, moving it?No problem, Sparky. It should take no time whatsoever to attach a metal detector to a robotic vehicle.

Lanzy

19th September 2007, 12:35 PM

Paulhoff

19th September 2007, 12:55 PM

Tricky, to people who think like edge, not to know everything means not to know anything and therefore they think they have a right to believe in all things that they can think of.

Paul

:):):)

Tricky

19th September 2007, 01:23 PM

I have a metal detector, it doesn't care if I move it or not. You can turn it on and walk away. If metal is brought within its range it detects it all by itself. You can bring the metal within range by chucking it near it, no people need be nearby.
That's right. You could leave a metal detector by a railroad track and it would tell you when the trains go by.

If you live in a fairly modern city, you probably have traffic lights which "know" when there is a car. The way they work is that a simple metal detector is embedded in the asphalt and when a car stops on it, the light "knows" to change. It would work if a car without a driver accidentally rolled on top of it too.

Give up on this one, Edge, and get back to refining your protocol or changing the face of modern physics.

chillzero

19th September 2007, 01:26 PM

That's right. You could leave a metal detector by a railroad track and it would tell you when the trains go by.

Aren't the tracks metal? :confused:

edge

19th September 2007, 01:47 PM

edge

19th September 2007, 01:49 PM

Tricky

19th September 2007, 01:52 PM

Aren't the tracks metal? :confused:
Yes, but metal detectors are graduated. The more (or closer) the metal, the greater the response. If you hooked it to speakers, it would sound like a theremin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theremin)when a train goes by.

That's also why those "smart lights" won't change for a bicycle.

Paulhoff

19th September 2007, 02:00 PM

Aren't the tracks metal? :confused:
Yes, and trains are a hell of a lot more metal.

Paul

:):):)

Paul2

19th September 2007, 08:15 PM

A person still moves it to a location or moves it.
Who will a robot report to and who tells the robot to look?
And with out a battery a metal detector is non functional.
Who powers or powers up one of these machines?
Do they also have desires?How are any of these questions relevant, and to what question? Duh, some person has to *make* a metal detector! So what? It still works the way it works.

Tricky

19th September 2007, 08:23 PM

Without a person what use is it?
This is pretty lame. Obviously anything invented by humans had some human purpose in mind. That doesn't mean they need to be there when it operates. See the example of metal detectors used for traffic-light control. Nobody is touching those detectors when they are operating. They don't even have handles.

Why the handel? Because everyone likes a Messiah. Hallelujah!

Drs_Res

20th September 2007, 01:28 AM

Yes, a metal detector needs a power source.

No, a metal detector does not have desires.

A metal detector will do it's thing weather a person is holding onto the handle or not. If it "sees" metal, then it indicates that it is there, period.

Without a person it's not really of much use since it is a machine designed to aid a person. The metal detector could care less.

The handle is there to make it easy for a person to use it.

You know all of this already, or at least you should.

You should be spending your time coming up with a proper test, not arguing about how a machine designed to detect metal works.

I'm a person who has read through all of the posts relating to your application and your work (at least I think I read them all).

I have to agree with others that you are not the easiest person to interpret from your writings. Some of your posts are hard to decipher without multiple readings, and even then it's hard to get the gist of what you are trying to say at times.

Listen to the people here that are trying to help you out.
Take into consideration what these people are trying to tell you.

I would love to see you attempt a properly controlled test.

Best of luck to you.

chillzero

20th September 2007, 03:21 AM

Yes, but metal detectors are graduated. The more (or closer) the metal, the greater the response. If you hooked it to speakers, it would sound like a theremin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theremin)when a train goes by.

That's also why those "smart lights" won't change for a bicycle.

Thanks for that Tricky. I thought they just went off when any metal was there, and would therefore be squealing at the tracks. Didn't realise there could be a difference like this.

Sorry for the derail . Carry on.

(oh, good grief - pun not originally intended. :D)

William Smith

20th September 2007, 04:38 AM

Has this thread now officially become a Monty Python movie?

So, edge, when can we except your next application?

Marcus

20th September 2007, 08:30 PM

This thread has gotten so absurd I felt the sudden need to contribute. Metal detectors are often employed in manufacturing processes, frequentely to detect metal that has inadvertantly gotten into the product stream. They can go for years without getting anywhere near a human. Their output is fed to other machines, never even seen by people except later in the form of process summaries.

edge

21st September 2007, 10:23 AM

Take the battery out and then what will it do?
No power, no reaction.
So the similarity is when the instrument of dowsing leaves a persons hands there is no reaction.

Tricky

21st September 2007, 10:37 PM

Take the battery out and then what will it do?
No power, no reaction.
So the similarity is when the instrument of dowsing leaves a persons hands there is no reaction.
Gosh, this is what we've been telling you all the time, Edge, but you wouldn't believe us before. It is you that is making the dowsing rod twitch. The dowsing rod couldn't be "nearly pulled out of your hands" if you are the power source.

The twitch you see in the rod is your muscles (or "battery power", if you prefer) making the rod twitch. The idiomotor effect is what tells you (unconsciously) when to make the rod twitch.

Could it be that we've finally had a breakthrough?

edge

24th September 2007, 12:02 AM

Gosh, this is what we've been telling you all the time, Edge, but you wouldn't believe us before. It is you that is making the dowsing rod twitch. The dowsing rod couldn't be "nearly pulled out of your hands" if you are the power source.

The twitch you see in the rod is your muscles (or "battery power", if you prefer) making the rod twitch. The idiomotor effect is what tells you (unconsciously) when to make the rod twitch.

Could it be that we've finally had a breakthrough?

So what you are saying is that my unconscious mind knows that the gold is there when my conscious mind can't see the gold.
So we are back to the paranormal event that you have this classified as.
Horse patutty!

What if I'm right and there is a field from the body (aura) that connects to the stick that connects to the metal in the field of the Earth?

Then what?
Because your explanation on what’s going on with dowsing is even weirder than mine.
That would make muscles smart.
I know what you are going to say it’s a combination of geology and known facts about what traps placer gold in certain spots.
But what I have found out is gold is where you find it and it may be there or not.
And I have proved the negitive as well as the positive on that case.
And there is the fact that I should have been on a losing streak and found absolutely nothing at all.
In other words I should get a high percentage of total loser spots with out a trace of gold or any metals in the places that the dowsing rod or stick show that the metals are there.
There are a high percentage of places like that here and I have proved that on more than one occasion to be sure.

Cuddles

24th September 2007, 04:39 AM

So what you are saying is that my unconscious mind knows that the gold is there when my conscious mind can't see the gold.
So we are back to the paranormal event

No. What we are saying is that your unconcious mind tells your body to make the stick move. Whether it does so because it is detecting something through paranormal means, through mundane means, or not detecting anything at all is the whole point of testing.

Tricky

24th September 2007, 06:39 AM

So what you are saying is that my unconscious mind knows that the gold is there when my conscious mind can't see the gold.
So we are back to the paranormal event that you have this classified as.
Horse patutty!
No, I am saying you can't see gold at all, but your unconscious mind makes your hands twitch when it thinks there is gold. That is why you (and most other dowsers) pass tests when their mind knows where the gold is, but fail when they don't. Of course, you later told us you cheated at your "open" test with Randi and intentionally made your rod twitch over the targets where you saw the gold being placed, but do you think all dowsers cheat like that?

What if I'm right and there is a field from the body (aura) that connects to the stick that connects to the metal in the field of the Earth?
Then you have discovered a new law of physics. I find that very unlikely. Also, it makes a dowsing stick unnecessary. If there is an aura that your body can sense, then just feel the aura and point at the gold. If the stick picks up the "aura", then it doesn't need a human. If the human picks up the "aura", then you don't need a stick.

Of course, you have no evidence whatsoever of this "field". What kind of field is it? Why can't other instruments sense it? Answer these questions and you will have a Nobel Prize.

Because your explanation on what’s going on with dowsing is even weirder than mine.
LOL. That strawman you call "my explanation" is weird, but of course, that wasn't at all what I said. My explanation is simply that your brain plays tricks on you and makes you think you sense things when you don't. We all know this happens all the time. That is what happens when you look at an "optical illusion". Remember, your brain is easy to fool.

That would make muscles smart.
Are you saying the "aura" makes your muscles twitch without involving any messages from your brain? That's even weirder.

No, the muscles are under control of your brain, but often the control is subconscious. You admit that you can make the rod twitch if you want to, right? That is what you did at the "open test" with Randi, right? Well, your brain can make it twitch even if you don't tell it to.

Now in some of your stories, a strong force pulls the rod from your hands. In the most recent stories, the human body provides the force. You can understand why we are skeptical, can't you? You can't keep your stories straight.

I know what you are going to say it’s a combination of geology and known facts about what traps placer gold in certain spots.
Like the "open test" at your first trial, having information on where the gold is likely to be will cause you to be more likely to "sense" it when you dowse. You might be a great gold-finder, Edge, but it ain't because of some magical rod. It is because of experience.

But what I have found out is gold is where you find it and it may be there or not.
I hope you realize that the sentence above means, "When gold is there it is there." Yes, that's true, but not particularly illuminating.

And I have proved the negitive as well as the positive on that case.
No, you haven't proved anything. You have convinced yourself, but so far as I can tell, not many other people. If you could prove it, you could be hired by a mining firm to do it and you wouldn't have to dig or try to find available land.

And there is the fact that I should have been on a losing streak and found absolutely nothing at all.
Why should that be a fact? It makes no sense at all.

In other words I should get a high percentage of total loser spots with out a trace of gold or any metals in the places that the dowsing rod or stick show that the metals are there.
No it doesn't. The odds of finding gold don't change depending on the outcome of your dowsing. If it is a good spot, you will find gold whether or not you dowse it.

There are a high percentage of places like that here and I have proved that on more than one occasion to be sure.
No proof. Anecdotes.

By the way, did you take your scales to attach to your dowsing rod when you found these places? If not, then why do you need them for the test? That slows down the procedure greatly, and from what you have told us, you never used them until recently.

William Smith

24th September 2007, 10:47 AM

So, edge, when can we except your next appliaction?

edge

24th September 2007, 11:11 AM

Are you saying the "aura" makes your muscles twitch without involving any messages from your brain? That's even weirder.

No, the muscles are under control of your brain, but often the control is subconscious. You admit that you can make the rod twitch if you want to, right? That is what you did at the "open test" with Randi, right? Well, your brain can make it twitch even if you don't tell it to.

On a neutral spot I cannot make the rod move, so no I can’t .
I would say it's weirder if I found nothing at least half of the time.

On a neutral spot I cannot make the rod move, so no I can’t.

By the way, did you take your scales to attach to your dowsing rod when you found these places? If not, then why do you need them for the test? That slows down the procedure greatly, and from what you have told us, you never used them until recently.

In the field it would slow you down but for the test, it makes the test infallible.
We were going to try it in the field, but testing is all I need it for.
there are No mistakes in what I feel then.
The test can be made fast enough scales or not.
It was actually slower with out the scales.
I have to remember all of the pulls with out the scales, if I scan ten containers.

If I only scan with the scales then the metals are unmistakably noticeable and why would I want to scan the rest of the empties if I make my pick?
That would be really fast in a double blind test, just scan till I find the target.

I find the target and then that set is done whatever the number is that contains the target is after all the only one I’m interested in.
Speed is not the issue with you it’s about confusion.
Also there is no mistaking a quarter ounce reading with a quarter pound reading that’s why.
Both of those readings feel almost the same with out the scales they are a marker, a calibration that I don't have to memorize.
It is very difficult to sense the difference between ten different targets when all of the ten containers have different readings, there is not ten neutral spots and there lies the difficulty.
So In a double blind test that was run the same way that I did in the JREF office I at this point would not be satisfied with any placement of containers because it is impossible to do that and be satisfied that there are no readings from any of the containers that are empty.
I eliminated that problem for a honest test of dowsing.
It is merely an optimization of the protocol.
This also eliminates one excuse doesn’t it?

Besides it proves at the same time that the force behind dowsing can be measured which lends to the creditability of dowsing doesn’t it?
It’s like killing two birds with one stone, which would cinch it, and it does.

No proof. Anecdotes.

Proof to me and anecdotes to you, that's all.
If I hadn't witnessed the proof I wouldn't be here.

Tricky

24th September 2007, 01:19 PM

On a neutral spot I cannot make the rod move, so no I can’t.
LOL. One of your longest-running excuses was that you couldn't find a "neutral spot". As I recall, in your first test, one of your targets was a quartz crystal. Does the presence of quartz throw you off?

In the field it would slow you down but for the test, it makes the test infallible.
Why would it make it infallible? A false response is still a false response, regardless of whether or not it is measured by a scale.

The test can be made fast enough scales or not.
It was actually slower with out the scales.
I have a hard time believing that. You either have to set up the scales between each attempt or set up a new target between each attempt. Both of those things take time.

I have to remember all of the pulls with out the scales, if I scan ten containers.
No you don't have to remember anything. You can write it down if your memory is so poor. Are you saying that the pulls are so similar that you need the scales to tell which one is a real response? If so, how can you dowse without scales?

If I only scan with the scales then the metals are unmistakably noticeable and why would I want to scan the rest of the empties if I make my pick? That would be really fast in a double blind test, just scan till I find the target.

I mentioned this several days ago. Of course, you could simply blow off the rest of the tests (in a set of ten) once you had your target picked. You'd be a fool to do so though.

I find the target and then that set is done whatever the number is that contains the target is after all the only one I’m interested in.
Since you have not claimed 100% accuracy, any time you stopped before dowsing all of the containers would mean you were throwing potentially useful information which would tell you if you had a "false reading" on one of the earlier containers. Are you now claiming 100% accuracy?

Also there is no mistaking a quarter ounce reading with a quarter pound reading that’s why.
So again, if you cannot tell these things without a scale, how do you dowse in the field?

You have to realize, Edge, nobody cares what your "readings" are. They don't care if it is a quarter-ounce or a quarter-ton. All they care about is "can you find the container with the gold". If you are using as scale, then it is because you need it to tell the difference, not because it makes any difference to the observers.

Do you need it to tell the difference? What happened to that foolproof dowsing you did before you used a scale?

Both of those readings feel almost the same with out the scales they are a marker, a calibration that I don't have to memorize.
So they DO feel almost the same? So much the same that you couldn't dowse without scales?

It is very difficult to sense the difference between ten different targets when all of the ten containers have different readings, there is not ten neutral spots and there lies the difficulty.

Why can't you dowse ten neutral spots? What is your difficulty? If neutral spots are so hard to find, then how the heck do ever dowse successfully? If you can tell the difference between gold vs. no-gold in the field, then why can't you do it when the target is closer and larger?

This gobbledygook is simply you making more excuses.

So In a double blind test that was run the same way that I did in the JREF office I at this point would not be satisfied with any placement of containers because it is impossible to do that and be satisfied that there are no readings from any of the containers that are empty.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Empty containers should not give a response. If you could dowse, you could tell that. I don't get this, Edge. Sometimes you are absolutely certain of your abilities, and sometimes you can't tell the response of an empty container from that of a real target.

I eliminated that problem for a honest test of dowsing. It is merely an optimization of the protocol.
I cannot see that it has optimized the protocol. It seems to make it more difficult and incoherent. I suspect this is the reason the JREF rejected your application. You can't write a coherent protocol. Or sentence.

Besides it proves at the same time that the force behind dowsing can be measured which lends to the creditability of dowsing doesn’t it?
It’s like killing two birds with one stone, which would cinch it, and it does.
No, it does not. Nothing in your protocol indicates that the force comes from anything other than your muscles. Since you cannot dowse without holding the rod in your hands, you cannot show that the force exists when your muscles aren't involved.

Besides, nobody cares about your theories. First, show that you can do what you say, then worry about explaining it. It is a total waste of time to come up with theories for an effect which you have not shown exists. All the investigators care about is if can you do what you say you can.

Here's a thought for you though. If all you need is contact between you and your dowsing rod, why not make one that is suspended by string from the scale. In order to make it work, you simply touch it. That would allow the contact you need, but prevent any influence from your muscles. Have you ever dowsed while wearing gloves? If so, then you don't even need to touch the rod. You only need to be close, right?

Proof to me and anecdotes to you, that's all.
If I hadn't witnessed the proof I wouldn't be here.
Proof is available to all. What you are talking about is faith.

We know you believe your anecdotes, Edge. That is not in question. Can you demonstrate it for an objective audience? That is what is in question. Unless you can do that, it isn't proof. It's not even evidence.

edge

25th September 2007, 12:46 AM

Proof is available to all. What you are talking about is faith.

We know you believe your anecdotes, Edge. That is not in question. Can you demonstrate it for an objective audience? That is what is in question. Unless you can do that, it isn't proof. It's not even evidence.

But this audience isn't objective enough to accept a protocol that optimizes the conditions.
Because you believe that there are no conditions, that simply interfere with reception, and that's why they will never accept a protocol that proves it all.

That would make all you so called educated people look bad, or at least you believe that, subconsciously.

To not look at all the evidence I have now is pure ignorance to the highest degree.

If I were wrong about this then I would have to finally admit that you have been right.
If I am right think of the implications and where it would go, because do we not need some other way of producing power and fuel?
How long till we get what we need?
Simply test me, I will do it for free, there now there is no fear, or is there a deeper reason?
That way there is no pressure on me either.
I am going to leave this part of the country soon, within a couple of days.
I will be going through L.A. I wonder if the IIG will do it for free?
It will be their last chance; I might be knocking on their door.
I guess I should put it to them too, a free test.
My protocol should be accepted then.
If you can then find any flaws any holes I’ll kiss your pututty.

Tricky

25th September 2007, 05:58 AM

My protocol should be accepted then.
If you can then find any flaws any holes I’ll kiss your pututty.
I pointed out numberous flaws and holes with your protocol right here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2950197&highlight=randomizer#post2950197), Edge (post 1387 in this thread). You have not fixed them. It is still incoherent.

But you can keep your kiss. I just washed my pututty.

Reno

25th September 2007, 07:29 AM

Cuddles

25th September 2007, 07:47 AM

I don't understand why you keep going on about a 'free' test edge. No-one is charging you anything for a test. The only thing you have to pay for is the expenses YOU incur in the test. If you need to have the test performed on a special magical spot, then it's YOUR responsibility to cover the expenses of setting up a test in that spot.

I think by "free" he means he doesn't want the prize money. For some strange reason Edge seems to think that the main reason no-one wants to test him is that they don't want to give him the prize money, rather than it being anything to do with his lack of ability and inability to write a coherent protocol.

The Pig

27th September 2007, 11:11 AM

But this audience isn't objective enough to accept a protocol that optimizes the conditions.
Because you believe that there are no conditions, that simply interfere with reception, and that's why they will never accept a protocol that proves it all.Do you believe that the people offering the various paranormal challenges actually believe in the paranormal?

Which specific conditions of your protocol do you think have been unfairly rejected?

William Smith

27th September 2007, 02:26 PM

...
Which specific conditions of your protocol do you think have been unfairly rejected?

This has been discussed ad nauseam.

Through this discussion it became painfully obvious that edge had no idea how to set up a proper controlled test. He would not listen to propositions, either, and meander around and around and around...

I mean: Look at this very thread.

One million dollars for two successful controlled tests. One ****** million dollars.

Anecdotal evidence, stories, fish tales galore.

Solid evidence: Zilch.

A believer needs his belief to be true. Otherwise he would have to admit he wasted his one life on this planet. Do we really expect a believer to accept evidence, or the lack thereof?

Reno

28th September 2007, 05:19 AM

Tricky

28th September 2007, 07:26 AM

The Pig, Even though your question has been discussed to death in this and related threads, we still have not had a clear answer from edge. I think he's incapable of giving one.

edge claims his MDC test was flawed, but when I asked what he thought were the flaws, he failed to answer. edge ignores questions he doesn't like. He won't be pinned down with specific questions which involve simple answers he doesn't have, he'd much rather waffle on incoherently repeating and contradicting himself over and over. He's a lost cause.
I don't think Edge likes talking about it. If I recall correctly, Edge didn't make any complaints until more than a week after the test. He then started saying things like he was getting false readings from the fluorescent lights and other things in the building. When asked why he didn't mention them before the formal test, and why they didn't interfere with the open testing (which he got 100% right), he said something like "I didn't come all that way not to take my shot". He was implying, of course, that he knew about the "problems" but decided not to mention them because he hoped he could "luck" into finding the targets and win a million bucks.

I'm guessing he doesn't like to talk about this because it exposes the obvious fact that if this story is true, then he made false statements to James Randi when he told him that the conditions were satisfactory for the test, and he made false statements when he agreed that he was using his dowsing skills during the open test rather than just using the fact that he knew where the targets were.

So you can understand that he is reluctant to bring up this time when he engaged in deliberate deception. I don't hold it against him and if he could and would perform the same test where those interferences were minimal, that would be quite satisfactory. The problem is that since his first test, he seems to have discovered that there are interferences everywhere. He spent months rambling on about trying to find "neutral ground", oblivious to the fact that if the area where he is prospecting isn't clean enough to dowse, then dowsing wouldn't help him find gold there.

At some point you have to wonder if cognitive dissonance doesn't make Edge actually realize that he can't dowse, but he must continue to make ever-more-elaborate excuses, even to the point of defying Newtonian physics, because he thinks his honor is at stake. I for one would find it more honorable if he just admitted he was wrong about dowsing. I think we all know though, that that is not ever going to happen.

edge

28th September 2007, 05:37 PM

Lets see things that would optimize the conditions, for a human to do the test.

Lets take a day or two to do 100 scans, because that is grueling to do.
We can work on that.
But the whole test may require 200 scans.

One spot to measure the force with out many readings or calibrations keeps it simple to feel and read quickly.

One target so the high number on the scale is a heavy reading towards the limit of the scale upper end, as far away from the low number on the scale, of an empty containers measurement, to be sure.

9 empties and one targeted container so the numbers are as far away on the scale as possible from low to high, with Identical pulls that are part of the calibrations that the empties all read out, (they should be all the same measurement).

That leaves me with two numbers to deal with, and what I feel when dowsing.

In this way the target should also read the same measurements in any of the containers it is placed into.
No mistaking what is felt.
All containers that pass on the one spot under the scales are put into a container that hides the first container.

JREf knows the rest. How many people, who's watching whom...(% ages), blindfold, earplugs.
I think that's simple enough.

What would be real interesting is to blindfold me and let the second person that’s with me during the testing read the scales and then they choose by the readings.

EHocking

29th September 2007, 11:28 AM

Lets see things that would optimize the conditions, for a human to do the test.

Lets take a day or two to do 100 scans, because that is grueling to do.
We can work on that.2 days to do the test? That's NOT optimising.
But the whole test may require 200 scans.Not to fulfill the odds requirement of 1:1,000,000 for the MDC, nor the odds requirement of 1:10,000 to be "statistically significant". 100 is sufficient.

One spot to measure the force with out many readings or calibrations keeps it simple to feel and read quickly.

One target so the high number on the scale is a heavy reading towards the limit of the scale upper end, as far away from the low number on the scale, of an empty containers measurement, to be sure.... and so you change your "protocol" yet again. You stated, and most would agree, that dummy targets are required in the "empty" containers to disguise the contents from the people running the test.
9 empties and one targeted container so the numbers are as far away on the scale as possible from low to high, with Identical pulls that are part of the calibrations that the empties all read out, (they should be all the same measurement). Do they? Have you tested this to verify it, or are you merely creating yet another complication to a protocol?
That leaves me with two numbers to deal with, and what I feel when dowsing.

In this way the target should also read the same measurements in any of the containers it is placed into.
No mistaking what is felt.
All containers that pass on the one spot under the scales are put into a container that hides the first container.

JREf knows the rest. How many people, who's watching whom...(% ages), blindfold, earplugs.
I think that's simple enough.This is even more complicated than all previous protocols suggested in this thread. Cut it back to basics. If you can dowse, you don't need all the showboating with blindfolds etc. In fact, until you DO demonstrate that you can dowse with simple experimental blinding, the rest is merely smoke and mirrors.

What would be real interesting is to blindfold me and let the second person that’s with me during the testing read the scales and then they choose by the readings.
You have yet to demonstrate that you can do it WITHOUT the blindfold.

How about concentrating on THAT first?

edge

29th September 2007, 05:18 PM

I am Optimizing my conditions not JREFs.

Do they? Have you tested this to verify it, or are you merely creating yet another complication to a protocol?

Yes I have verified and that makes it easier too..

edge

30th September 2007, 03:45 AM

Ehocking says,
... and so you change your "protocol" yet again. You stated, and most would agree, that dummy targets are required in the "empty" containers to disguise the contents from the people running the test.

Quote: Edge,
9 empties and one targeted container so the numbers are as far away on the scale as possible from low to high, with Identical pulls that are part of the calibrations that the empties all read out, (they should be all the same measurement).

And he says,

Do they? Have you tested this to verify it, or are you merely creating yet another complication to a protocol?

If I am wrong I will lose, and yes they do.
I have wanted empties from the beginning of this protocol.
I never see the two people that hide the targets or talk to them.
They will know which it is or they couldn't do their job.

Everything I have stated is as logically simple as can be.
Then they hide the container in a bigger container, one that’s plastic too.
I will never see the original container empty or full.

I think that a blindfold would cinch it.

Here it is from my documents,
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.

( I am leaving this part out now)
“When the target is there according to me, we take a break”.

But I would have liked it in there too; I have my reasons and theory.

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.

To make it quicker when the target is picked out that set of ten containers is over.
I am looking for a target in a set of ten X ten.
Since time is such an issue.

One scan of a target, on lets say the space station in a micro-gravity situation would prove it once and for all, the laws of physics would have an addendum, to be added.
It would only take a few seconds!
I could tutor some one to do it.
The opposite reaction should be movement of the dowsers’ body to the target as he dowses.
Motion should occur.

Tricky

30th September 2007, 10:00 AM

If I am wrong I will lose, and yes they do.
I have wanted empties from the beginning of this protocol.
Which protocol is that? I can't keep track the way you keep switching. And what are "empties"? Does that mean without anything in them or only without the target in them?

Everything I have stated is as logically simple as can be.
That is completely incorrect. It is so poorly defined and complicated that nobody can even figure out what you want from one minute until the next. Numerous people have offered to help you with your protocol, but you've opted for continuing to ramble on without clarifying anything. This is why the JREF rejected your application, as you recall. If you don't stop with the gibberish, I expect nobody will be willing to test you.

Perhaps it all seems logical in your own head. Lots of things seem logical in your head that actually aren't.

Then they hide the container in a bigger container, one that’s plastic too.
I will never see the original container empty or full.
Don't you see, Edge, it doesn't matter if you see the container or not as long as you don't know what's in it. They don't really even have to be identical, but for the purpose of reducing post-hoc excuses, it is better that they are.

I think that a blindfold would cinch it.
No. It is totally unnecessary and a waste of time. And by adding another unnecessary item to the test, it gives you one more thing to use as an excuse. The protocol should be designed to prevent excuses.

No Sand rubber or plastic.
What is that supposed to mean?

I’m even willing to do it near their office.
So you've abandoned your earlier requirement for "neutral ground"? Funny, you used that as an excuse for several months. Now it's not important? I actually agree that it isn't important (you should be able to tell the difference, regardless of whether the ground is "neutral or not.) but it illustrates how your demands keep changing.

To make it quicker when the target is picked out that set of ten containers is over.
I am looking for a target in a set of ten X ten.
I think this is what you meant:

"To make the test go faster, once the target has been identified within a single test of ten potential targets, that test will be halted."

Is that what you meant?
If so, you are not only hurting yourself, but it is likely that the testing group won't agree. Leaving some potential targets undowsed is just opening the door for you to make excuses later.

One scan of a target, on lets say the space station in a micro-gravity situation would prove it once and for all, the laws of physics would have an addendum, to be added.
Oh? How would that work? What exactly would happen during this single scan? Explain why it would be significant.

No, on second thought, don't. The last thing you need is to get derailed a discussion of physics, which you know virtually nothing about.

It would only take a few seconds!
I could tutor some one to do it.
You can tutor someone to be delusional? Seriously, Edge, you can't even prove that you can do it yourself. How are you going to teach somebody to do something that you cannot do?

The opposite reaction should be movement of the dowsers’ body to the target as he dowses.
Motion should occur.
That makes no sense at all. If there is an attractive force between two objects, then the force acts upon both objects. Thus if there is an attractive force between your dowsing rod and the target, then both your rod and the target would be pulled toward each other. The less massive of the objects would move more. This can be shown to be the case with every force yet known to man. Yet you claim that your big dowsing rod, held by an even bigger human, cannot cause a tiny pendant of gold to move noticeably. Try suspending a tiny magnet pendant and approach it with a dowsing bar of iron and see if you can make the magnet move. I'll bet you can. You can try it with a pendant of a toy balloon and a dowsing rod of glass which you have just rubbed with silk.

That is how force behaves, Edge. They are physical laws. You cannot play a "Get out of reality free" card to avoid those laws.

William Smith

30th September 2007, 11:05 AM

I assume some people read the following exchange already. For those who have not:

Hopefully the guy who gets asked a simple question: When can we expect your next application, egde?

Probably never.
I will seek other channels.

So what is edge's purpose of posting in the MDC subforum if he probably has no interest in ever applying again? You be the judge.

Drs_Res

30th September 2007, 05:54 PM

Reno

30th September 2007, 06:54 PM

edge doesn't understand what double-blind means. He thinks it is putting the target in a container then placing that container in another. I think he thinks if he also wears a blindfold it means the test is triple-blind.

This is not meant as a derogatory post, or a joke. It's just meant to inform Drs_Res who may be unfamiliar with edge and his reasoning.

edge

1st October 2007, 10:38 AM

Edge,

Stopping any set once you think you have a hit effectively cancels out the double blinding, because now the people placing the targets know what your pick was.

Neither side of the test can know any results from the other side while testing is in progress. Results should only become know when both sides compare notes.

When I took the test in the office that's what happened.
We all knew what I picked when I chose it out of ten containers.
When I did a test with SezMe I didn't know till after.
I make my pick for that set It's done.
I would rather not know till it's over any way.

Reno says
edge doesn't understand what double-blind means. He thinks it is putting the target in a container then placing that container in another. I think he thinks if he also wears a blindfold it means the test is triple-blind.

These are just more checks to insure I don't cheat or can’t cheat.

Tricky

1st October 2007, 11:15 AM

These are just more checks to insure I don't cheat or can’t cheat.
A well designed double-blind protocol will not allow you to cheat and it won't require double containers or a blindfold. Besides, I don't think anyone here believes you would try to cheat. What is of greater concern is making sure you don't have anything you can use as an excuse for failure.

Paulhoff

1st October 2007, 12:46 PM

What is of greater concern is making sure you don't have anything you can use as an excuse for failure.
Good luck.

Paul

:) :) :)

Reno

1st October 2007, 07:16 PM

These are just more checks to insure I don't cheat or can’t cheat.

This illustrates my point about edge not understanding what a double blind test is.

Paulhoff

2nd October 2007, 08:19 AM

Edge, Double blind means;

You are blind to what is in each container, which is ONE level of blindness.

The tester with you, writing down your results is blind to what is in each container, which is SECOND level of blindness.

Paul

:) :) :)

edge

3rd October 2007, 10:27 PM

I thought you had me on ignore?
I know all that.
Either way I still would like an independent observer I never see till the end when the scores are compared.

Tricky

4th October 2007, 11:15 PM

I thought you had me on ignore?
Does it bother you that he read your post? FYI, you can read another person's post when you have them on "ignore" if you specifically choose to.

I know all that.
Then why can't you draw up a protocol that correctly (or at least coherently) employs a double-blind procedure?

Either way I still would like an independent observer I never see till the end when the scores are compared.
If you have some one-way glass, that might be possible. However, it is not necessary that the independent observer "never sees you", only that he doesn't have communication with you. This is one reason I recommend a video camera as (at least one) independent observer. They don't talk to you. They don't take sides.

edge

7th October 2007, 12:28 AM

If you have some one-way glass, that might be possible. However, it is not necessary that the independent observer "never sees you", only that he doesn't have communication with you. This is one reason I recommend a video camera as (at least one) independent observer. They don't talk to you. They don't take sides.

No it has to be a person.
Or a person has to run the camera.

William Smith

7th October 2007, 09:48 AM

No it has to be a person.
Or a person has to run the camera.

So, what is your purpose of posting in the MDC subforum if you probably have no interest in ever applying again?

Drs_Res

7th October 2007, 04:05 PM

Probably because we keep asking questions in this thread.

Maybe we should all just go to the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87845&page=3) and let this one die? :con2:

Tricky

7th October 2007, 06:59 PM

Probably because we keep asking questions in this thread.

Maybe we should all just go to the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87845&page=3) and let this one die? :con2:
I like this thread. It is moderated, so it limits "shoot from the lip" posting. Also moderation tends to keep it on topic. Of course, Edge has the final say so. If he doesn't post, the thread will die, or at least atrophy.

edge

25th July 2009, 05:47 PM

You all know the final protocol I had drawn up.
What is aggravating me is the links to the moderated thread from my last application a year ago or so.

I see the links to your deception even on my face book page to the right of my stuff on my site, so I am going to post it as I see it should be done in order to prove that dowsing works at least 70 to 80 % correct responses.
This page is my rebuttal to your links to the moderated sites you have on search engines and my own web pages where they shouldn’t be.
In this way you can and they the people out there can see how simple the protocol really was once I figured out exactly how I was to accomplish proving in a controlled test that dowsing really works.

I will not get caught up in fifty questions that lead us into arguments or further moderation where my rebuttals are deleted.

1: Nothing in the containers that will interfere with the test, ballast can be rice, corn or flour.

2: All targets will pass across one spot, one at a time and I do not care how long it takes the test can be done in two days if the JREF is really interested in proving the effect one way or the other as a supposed scientific test then they will spend the time as I see no other way for a legitimate test of dowsing.

3: There will be 100 passes with the target showing up 10 time in all the passes, once every ten sets of passes.

4: Let me put it another way each set of ten will have the target show up once there will be ten sets of ten containers.

5: As before you will want me to get at least 8 of ten correct, picking out the target each time they are present this will mean also that I have to get 90 correct hits on the empty containers with out the target present, that in it's self is an extraordinary accomplishment.

6: I pick the spot to test at in a park near their office for their convenience.
The test may not last the duration of the time it takes if I fail early enough to just end it, in other words I have to pretty much go the duration to hit 8 of 10 correct or better if I don’t then you can re-coop the time and we are done, no pressure, or we can go the duration if you want to.

7:One of your people hangs with me one of mine hangs with you.

8: Anything else you want to do to insure I don’t see or hear is up to you.

9: There is nothing else you need to know as far as I can see except that you can also cover the containers with a box also made of cardboard or plastic.

10: The target can be any kind of metal, gold, iron, nickel, silver, as long as it is metal.
I might even use mercury if you aren’t scared since mercury covered gold is mined where I was dredging.

Chances are gold or silver as I have yet to try mercury although I can and have access.
You shouldn’t have any questions cause any 9 year old can understand this.

There is no sense in filling out an application till there is an agreement on the protocol.

I will put up links to this post.

MattC

25th July 2009, 06:34 PM

Mr (pardon the presumption of gender). edge,

I am one of those who does not happen to know you at all, so I must ask your forgiveness for any questions or queries I may have which you have covered previously - they are not meant as insults. Before beginning any sort of attempt to understand your suggestions, are these considered by yourself as the genesis for a new protocol statement entirely or merely as additions or changes to your previous one? If the latter, I will happily go and study your prior protocol.

~ Matt

edge

25th July 2009, 08:08 PM

This is as fine as I can tweak it to eliminate any interference and at the very end of my last posting/thread this is what I finally was lucky enough to come up with at which point one of the members here, “SezMe” came up in Northern California on a vacation so we got together to do a short test with me, on ground that was loaded with interference/ gold in the ground. I basically have to find a spot that is neutral no hits or pull, and then it’s obvious when you put a target down.
The best thing I can tell you is this, there is a reading even then but real slight, put a target down and it is obvious but I have to measure the force both ways.
The place was famous and last year some people did really well there mining.
My biggest challenge was to find out why in a controlled experiment, in a building, I did so poorly but yet in the field I was locating at the time or before the test, I was pulling ounces.
Why I was able to do so well in the field and so bad in a controlled environment and in a building.

After many experiments this is the only way to get a clean reading each and every time.
My target was large to maximize the effect. I have to get a smaller target for a formal test that does the same thing.
Go here for a view to get an idea of how I am able to know this.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85571

It's the same.

IMST

25th July 2009, 08:24 PM

rsaavedra

25th July 2009, 09:31 PM

An opportune link here, with an example of testing a dowser's alleged ability. Check from about the 8th paragraph and on:

http://skepdic.com/control.html

edge

25th July 2009, 09:34 PM

Regarding the OP, I'm struggling a bit with your grammar, but as far as I can tell the test seems reasonable and similar to other dowsing tests done in the past. 8 out of 10 correct with each test having 1 in 10 available positives seems reasonable. Anyone else see any major issues here?
First glance, this seems like a very workable protocol.

It's the only way.

Excuse my grammar I am writing fast and in more than one place on the net.

What I thought would work didn’t the last time I did this I was struggling to find the right way as I was writing in here I had to work and mine and find the right way to do this.
I had to test in between all of the chores of survival as I wrote Ideas in here.
Then they booted my application.
They did that just as I found the way, as I was perfecting the protocol as you read it now.
Talk about frustrating.

edge

25th July 2009, 09:56 PM

An opportune link here, with an example of testing a dowser's alleged ability. Check from about the 8th paragraph and on:

http://skepdic.com/control.html

I get what your saying there.
You guys just don't know to what extent I have tested in the field. I have seen every little speck nugget I have sensed and pulled up.
Then I checked the other way, no reading in a spot then dig to prove that.

Like I said it works in the field then when tested in a double blind test even I got many readings and was confused.
Six out of ten containers had hits that weren’t there, and how can that be?

You have to figure out what it is that isn't there and eliminate it, what I found out is you can't, so how do you fix that?
My protocol answers that question and eliminates it.

JREF has the odds stacked in their favor, I have to get 90 hits that are not holding a target right then 8 that are, that leaves two mistakes or miss-readings as leeway, that’s pretty tough odds.

It all depends what’s under the targets, in the ground.

Cavemonster

25th July 2009, 10:16 PM

May I make a suggestion?

I think it would add quite a lot to the clarity of your protocol if you broke it down into three sections.

1) Setup
2) Procedure
3) Evaluation

Psiload

25th July 2009, 10:27 PM

What does this make? Five years now?

Seriously, Mike... you need to grow up already.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

lionking

25th July 2009, 10:49 PM

Have you ever seriously entertained the thought that your belief in your ability is wrong, edge?

edge

25th July 2009, 11:33 PM

Have you ever seriously entertained the thought that your belief in your ability is wrong, edge?

I would then switch teams.

What does SezMes' test say?

Psiload says, "What does this make? Five years now?

Seriously, Mike... you need to grow up already".

Well... attacking my maturity, if it was provable then what would you say to me?

My last problem is finding a compact target that has the same effect as that tray.

First thing I have been mining and dowsing since 1984, with a few years being a sub contractor. I have about a total of… 11 years mining and dowsing.

They aren't going to test me anyway not now.

Have you ever had a premonition?
A hunch.
It's not about the money so much as, what if they are wrong then what do we lose?

In a nutshell, we lose possibly, and this is theory, the ability to move about in a vacuum using electrical current only.

Compared to the energy input you get a greater work force as an output.

If true.

Am I mature or curious?

edge

25th July 2009, 11:40 PM

May I make a suggestion?

I think it would add quite a lot to the clarity of your protocol if you broke it down into three sections.

1) Setup
2) Procedure
3) Evaluation

They know what to do and how to do it.
It's the same as the original test except the containers; ten of them, are in motion and all will be placed on one spot one at a time.

They know exactly what to do and how to do it, switching the container that's holding the target, all that.
My job is to tell them where it's at.

Audible Click

26th July 2009, 12:11 AM

rjh01

26th July 2009, 12:53 AM

This may add something to the discussion as James Randi speaks about Edge and the test that was done with him. I believe this talk was given during TAM 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1JP0R6SHxQ&feature=channel

I like this protocol. You could try the same one. That way there will be very little discussion of the protocol.

The $1m question is what double blind testing have you done in the last year using that protocol? Also you mention in your OP that you use it in the field to discover gold. Are you a multi millionaire? If yes then dousing probably works. If no then you have failed to show that it works.

William Smith

26th July 2009, 01:44 AM

Hi edge. Good to see you're still around - not so good but unsurprising to see you are still clinging to your old shtick.

To the newer folks, here's a brief summary of Mike "edge" Guska's adventures with controlled tests. I recommend reading the links since it will eliminate most of the ensuing discussion. I have very few doubts though, that many will try to engage edge in the same points he has been engaged over and over and over in the past few years - with the lack of success all too apparent.

1. He took a MDC test back in 2002. Any guesses on how it went? (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/swift-archives.html) Please scroll down to March 29, 2002.

2. Then came this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=40)

3. Then this. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=43374)

4. And then this. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92885)

I'm not sure if I got all the relevant threads. Someone kindly post the ones I missed.

To sum it up:

Edge seems to have the heart at the right place. If someone needed a place to sleep he could have his couch any time, along with a healthy breakfast in the morning.

It seems to me that his mind, although also well-meaning, wanders off from time to time.

He has difficulties - or is unwilling - to write what most people call coherent, understandable language.

Pixel42

26th July 2009, 01:47 AM

The only way to prove Dowsing works is to eliminate the ideomotor effect as a factor and show that you can still find whatever you're dowsing for significantly more often than would be expected by chance. A test which eliminates the ideomotor effect is trivially easy to set up. With a protocol like the one in the OP, which is far more complicated than should be necessary, I would worry that there is too much opportunity for the ideomotor effect to creep back in.

I'm new to this particular case but it sounds to me like the original test proved that the applicant's perceived ability was due to the ideomotor effect, like every other dowser who's ever been properly tested. But instead of accepting this result he has been trying ever since to come up with a more complicated test protocol which looks convincing but doesn't completely eliminate the ideomotor effect, and hence shows a result better than chance.

My biggest challenge was to find out why in a controlled experiment, in a building, I did so poorly but yet in the field I was locating at the time or before the test, I was pulling ounces.
My guess would be because in the controlled environment the ideomotor effect was completely eliminated, whilst in your field testing it was not. In other words there were visible clues in the field environment which your brain was unconsciously processing, but no such clues were available under properly controlled conditions. Have you considered this explanation? If so, why did you dismiss it?

ETA: Just saw the previous post. Thanks for the information, I won't waste any more of my time.

MattC

26th July 2009, 10:05 AM

edge,

As per your suggestion, I have read through SezMe's report of your demonstration to him pertaining to this matter. While certainly an interesting demonstration, it does raise several questions that seem (at least to me) worthy of further experimentation or at least consideration - speculation is easy on my part, but ultimately I fear it is you who will have to evaluate whether or not these ideas hold merit relative to your own abilities.

My confusion about the demonstration fall generally into three categories - the target items, the purpose of the scale, and the presence of the dimes in the dowsing rod (my apologies if this has been covered before, but in light of SezMe's report I think they deserve a bit of consideration now as well). Originally I had experienced some minor confusion in regards to the presence of this Danny individual, but from rereading the report it seems he was assigned to observe and report the readings of the scale.

The target items employed for this test seem to have been a silver tray, composition unknown, and a RubberMaid drain pad. Many silver trays, however, are merely silver plated and not fully themselves made of silver. Someone with greater metallurgical knowledge than I undoubtedly knows of a method to quickly tell or identify the composition of the tray. Advance warning though - several of these tests involve breaking off a piece of the tray (cutting it off really, probably with a pair of scissors or a blowtorch depending upon thickness) and subjecting it to chemical analysis. If the tray has any sentimental value to you, I would suggest finding something else to use - an idea would be something made of aluminum or some other comparatively cheap item. WikiAnswers suggests that iron is mildly magnetic, while admittedly it isn't the greatest source in the world it does seem possible that the tray may be partially composed of iron and that you are feeling the magnetic effects of the tray on the dime.

The scale's purpose is also not quite clearly elaborated upon in SezMe's report. I gather from what he mentions that you are concerned in some way about the gravitational effects upon your downsing rods? If this is indeed the case, the consistent pull downward from gravity on the rods would seem easily discernable from the rapid jerk downward when the target metal was detected (presuming that there is some sort of rapid movement downward, the document is not quite clear on what the dowsing rods do on a hit or miss). In any event, a reaction caused by the target materials would certainly differ from that caused by normal gravitation?

SezMe's report states that the dimes in the dowsing rods give it the ability to locate metals, and if read literally suggest that they are the sole cause of this ability. Put a slightly different way, would a dowsing rod capable of detecting water (e.g. one without dimes) also be capable of detecting precious metals to any degree? Further note that the composition of dimes has changed greatly over the years (Wiki offers an interesting list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dime_(United_States_coin)#Design_history ) and that the current model of dime (those produced after the passage of the Coinage Act of 1965) now also contain nickel, another ferromagnetic material.

My biggest challenge was to find out why in a controlled experiment, in a building, I did so poorly but yet in the field I was locating at the time or before the test, I was pulling ounces.
Why I was able to do so well in the field and so bad in a controlled environment and in a building.

I am curius to see what you discovered in this area.

Thanks for your time,

~ Matt

William Smith

26th July 2009, 11:29 AM

To give the new folks an idea how difficult a discussion with edge might be, please view the following quotes from consecutive posts in this very thread,

...
6: I pick the spot to test at in a park near their office for their convenience.
...

Translation: I can do this in a park near the JREF office.

Then there's this, around two hours later:

This is as fine as I can tweak it to eliminate any interference and at the very end of my last posting/thread this is what I finally was lucky enough to come up with at which point one of the members here, “SezMe” came up in Northern California on a vacation so we got together to do a short test with me, on ground that was loaded with interference/ gold in the ground. I basically have to find a spot that is neutral no hits or pull, and then it’s obvious when you put a target down.
The best thing I can tell you is this, there is a reading even then but real slight, put a target down and it is obvious but I have to measure the force both ways.
...

Allowing for the possibility that edge might not find a suitable spot, the translation: I can do this in a park near the JREF office, IF...

Tricky

26th July 2009, 04:15 PM

Before you spend too much time on this, Edge, I think you need to read the application rules (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html). They have changed a little since the last time you applied, particularly as regards to the twelfth rule:

This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions: First, he/she must have a “media presence,” which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person’s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified.

It is possible that the Swift write-up (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html)of your previous trial seven years ago, or the small blurb in Newsweek may count as a "media presence". But unless you convince an academic to witness and sign off on your "powers", then you needn't waste any more of your time time.

edge

26th July 2009, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by edge
My biggest challenge was to find out why in a controlled experiment, in a building, I did so poorly but yet in the field I was locating at the time or before the test, I was pulling ounces.
Why I was able to do so well in the field and so bad in a controlled environment and in a building.
I am curious to see what you discovered in this area.

Thanks for your time,

~ Matt

What I discovered is pig wire in the slab we were standing on as with most fairly modern buildings.
Or possibly in that building rebar crisscrossing for reinforcing of the concrete.

The same thing has happened in and on other locations where I have tested on slabs.

Pixel42 says:
My guess would be because in the controlled environment the ideomotor effect was completely eliminated, whilst in your field testing it was not. In other words there were visible clues in the field environment which your brain was unconsciously processing, but no such clues were available under properly controlled conditions. Have you considered this explanation? If so, why did you dismiss it?

All I can tell you is I am measuring the force in a spot with minimal attraction then with the target there on that spot so there are two different numbers , one with the target and one with out.

Sure there are visible clues in the field but those spots, like a boulder pack a crack an inside turn where the gold should be do not necessarily have the gold trapped there.
Have I checked yes, because those places should have been holding and I was curious to see?

GzuzKryzt how ya been? If you get to high you can spend the night.
Well late at night I get tired so sorry if I start losing my train of thought.

My confusion about the demonstration fall generally into three categories - the target items, the purpose of the scale, and the presence of the dimes in the dowsing rod (my apologies if this has been covered before, but in light of SezMe's report I think they deserve a bit of consideration now as well). Originally I had experienced some minor confusion in regards to the presence of this Danny individual, but from rereading the report it seems he was assigned to observe and report the readings of the scale.

Alright let me start with this, I was watching my arms and my hands to see if it was the ideomotor effect in other words I made sure I didn’t move at all.
No looking away from my hands or arms.
Meditating to be perfectly still. He was assigned to observe and report the readings of the scale.
By the way the dime was pure silver 1913 I believe.
The metal in the end of the stick is for finding metal just a willow stick locates water.
There was a lot on the line.
Now that I know that I was perfectly still. Having some one do this isn’t necessary for the test; we had to learn much quickly as I had just figured out this important part of the test measuring the force both ways.
If I need some one to help see it for me because it also twists it will be a JREF rep.

rjh01 I watched the video you supplied.

That is the first time I heard they moved the cups, this I didn’t know.
Had I known then I would have stopped.
In the next protocol they will be all on the same spot.

What happened in the past doesn’t matter.
Only I know what I felt in that office that day and my concerns or excuses didn’t come at the end but in the beginning.
There will be no question about it in this protocol, I will eliminate or find a place with no distractions…

As soon as I placed the cups down I knew I would fail, I should have called it off, I wanted to see how they ran it.

If I fail miserably with this protocol I will switch sides like I said.
I don’t think that will happen.