How to successfully dowse

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Speak up gentlemen: But go easy on the theories since there appears to be no limit, each person has a dfferent idea., so just how to do it.

Tropical Tramp

[xupz]

STEPS TO SUCCESSFULLY DOWSING:

Begin by training your ideomotor response so your widgets react to a known object. After that, convince yourself that hakim's razor couldn't possibly apply and you are in fact special enough to have figured out some kind of magical unkown harry potter like ability that only works in non-test situations.

Apply the following conditional replies to skeptics:

1) If you take a test and fail to perform at claimed ability, Then state the test was flawed. If the test wasn't flawed, continue to come up with excuses as to what may have interfered with your performance. Example: A smurf was near the testing site throwing off my signal lines. Flawless.

2) Should a skeptic persist to ask you to show you can actually perform better than random, avoid the issue by stating you don't need to prove anything to anyone because you know for a fact it works, and of course, you do. The joke is on the skeptic for not believing you, so enjoy a nice laugh at the skeptics expense.

3) If the skeptic should attack with undeniable mathematics, simply ignore them or state they don't apply. There is no need to back your position up with anything, just say they don't apply.

4) If 1,2, or 3 don't apply, try to avoid or tangent the argument to some other meaningless broad topic such as psychology or philosophy of having an open mind. Make sure the skeptic is left not having a clue what you're talking about, afterall you shouldn't either, and move along.

[dowser 501]

Thanks for the laugh. Max

[Jean310]

STEPS TO SUCCESSFULLY DOWSING:

Begin by training your ideomotor response so your widgets react to a known object. After that, convince yourself that hakim's razor couldn't possibly apply and you are in fact special enough to have figured out some kind of magical unkown harry potter like ability that only works in non-test situations.

Apply the following conditional replies to skeptics:

1) If you take a test and fail to perform at claimed ability, Then state the test was flawed. If the test wasn't flawed, continue to come up with excuses as to what may have interfered with your performance. Example: A smurf was near the testing site throwing off my signal lines. Flawless.

2) Should a skeptic persist to ask you to show you can actually perform better than random, avoid the issue by stating you don't need to prove anything to anyone because you know for a fact it works, and of course, you do. The joke is on the skeptic for not believing you, so enjoy a nice laugh at the skeptics expense.

3) If the skeptic should attack with undeniable mathematics, simply ignore them or state they don't apply. There is no need to back your position up with anything, just say they don't apply.

4) If 1,2, or 3 don't apply, try to avoid or tangent the argument to some other meaningless broad topic such as psychology or philosophy of having an open mind. Make sure the skeptic is left not having a clue what you're talking about, afterall you shouldn't either, and move along.

I fail to see any humor in what Xupz has said above. Based on any random collection of past threads from this forum, it appears Xupz has summarized the how-to and follow-up exercises quite accurately.

Jean

[Oroblanco]

Gee I don't see why the skeptic has any thing to be bothered with - dowsing seems to me a pretty harmless activity/pursuit/hobby. If it works, then the dowser is finding what he/she is looking for, if it doesn't work they are having fun wasting time. When someone makes an outrageous sounding claim for dowsing, that person is surely going to attract the ire and attention of the skeptic.

How to successfully dowse:

First lets define what sort of dowsing we are talking about. If it is to dowse for underground water or power lines, I would get a pair of brass brazing rods 1/8 inch diameter and about 18 inches long, and bend them into "L" shape, so the short part goes in your hands. Then walk around the area to be searched in some kind of pattern, not in a wandering way, while holding the pair of rods in your hands out in front of you but with elbows bent and not held tightly - the rods must be able to move easily. The rods should be almost level with the ground but just slightly downward, so they stay pointing ahead. As you walk, the rods should start to point in the direction of where water or power lines are buried; then as you pass over the water/wires the rods should cross. If you then stand on the spot where the rods crossed, they should react by pointing away from each other, showing the general direction of the water vein or wires.

Wind can spoil your efforts completely by moving the rods so you need a calm day. I have read of many other possible problems from watches, clocks, the moon etc but in my very limited experience only the danged wind gives me fits.

If the dowsing is to be for buried treasures or a mine etc then I don't have any suggestions, since I have never tried this. Map dowsing is also something I don't have a bit of experience with. However just looking for water or power lines I have had good luck.

I did not believe it worked until I saw it and tried it, but still have not found a good way to differentiate between electric wires or water, nor how MUCH water is 'down there'. The depth methods I have tried seem to work, but not that accurate, at least not within a foot or so. Of course I am very much a neophyte to dowsing, NO expert and don't claim to be able to detect buried treasures or dowse maps - can't even tell between water or electric wires for that matter! Anyway for someone wanting to try it, it is very inexpensive for the 'equipment' and lots of fun!

Oroblanco

[Jean310]

Gee I don't see why the skeptic has any thing to be bothered with - dowsing seems to me a pretty harmless activity/pursuit/hobby. If it works, then the dowser is finding what he/she is looking for, if it doesn't work they are having fun wasting time. When someone makes an outrageous sounding claim for dowsing, that person is surely going to attract the ire and attention of the skeptic.
Oroblanco

In the context you are probably thinking, your statement "dowsing seems to me a pretty harmless activity/pursuit/hobby" is no doubt true. However, consider that a few clever entrepreneurs have skillfully mixed it with a well thought-out marketing scheme, where real scientific terminology is mixed with all kinds of pseudo-scientific baloney, in an effort to fool the unsuspecting treasure-hunter. Then, it's not so harmless, and yes, it's easy to attract the ire and attention of the skeptical community.

Jean

[Oroblanco]

Greetings,

Jean310 wrote:consider that a few clever entrepreneurs have skillfully mixed it with a well thought-out marketing scheme,

Well con-artists are no doubt at work in this area too - I would hope that any treasure hunter would think twice before putting up money for such types. For that type of 'dowser' - the type out to rip people off and who make all kinds of wild claims, I hope the skeptics will continue to expose for what they are.

Oroblanco

[Jean310]

Greetings,

Jean310 wrote:consider that a few clever entrepreneurs have skillfully mixed it with a well thought-out marketing scheme,

Well con-artists are no doubt at work in this area too - I would hope that any treasure hunter would think twice before putting up money for such types. For that type of 'dowser' - the type out to rip people off and who make all kinds of wild claims, I hope the skeptics will continue to expose for what they are.

Oroblanco

You'd be surprised at the number of THers that don't even think once - and merely plunk down the cold hard cash. Some even do it repeatedly, even after knowing what they have bought in the past was junk. Guess the thinking is; "Well maybe this is the one that will really work."

Jean

[Bill]

I think the post was about successful dowsing, not scam equipment. I wish the skeptics posting here would stick to the main ideas, and stop harping on bogus dowsing devices. I am a professional, I have used dowsing equipment, I have used conventional equipment, and I know the difference. Most treasure hunters do not keep coming back to equipment that does not produce. But I guess only successful ones would know the difference.

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good morning room
Sheehs I leave for a few days to conclude a mining contract that may well give me a few million over the next few years and when I return I see that the mice have come out of their holes and are running amok, squealing and fighting over "look at me, see how brilliant I am".

However, I still see that not one of them has even attempted to address the data in the now infamous posts #6 & #88. So the obvious conclusion must be that they simply cannot, so they just run away from it by ignoring it or simply using the "ignore " button, which is exactly the same thing..

I will, go over the past few days posts and address those that are not too silly or plain dumb. <- (polite)

As for my statement in post #1120 in the 1,000,000 series , no-one seems to have understood what I was saying apparently from the recent posts.

Carl very clearly wrote "Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - carl". In any court of Law that I have ever attended or practiced that is a complete, legally binding, statement with no modifiers or ambiguities.

He flatly states that dowsing exists, so all that the incredibly flawed statistic tests, or any of the others can show is only what that "particular dowsers ABILITIES are", nothing more.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


Tropical Tramp

[aarthrj3811]

Oroblanco....Your reply #4 is very good. I have never had the need to locate water. When locating pipes and electric lines my rods will cross. I think the fact that the rods reacting different from person to person confuses the skeptics. Knowing how to use the rods can save you money. If you plant a tree over power, water or sewer lines it will cost you in the end. I have used them to find keys and jewery when lost in the lawn. It is a hobby that pays off at times....Art

[xupz]

Hey Oro....I agree....
But you have to consider that a few clever Skeptics have skillfully mixed it with a well thought-out marketing scheme, where real scientific terminology is mixed with all kinds of pseudo-scientific baloney, in an effort to fool the unsuspecting dowser into believing they are authorities on the testing of dowsing ability....

Judy

Yak Yak Yak, don't let Judy confuse you with the fact that the math isn't up for debate, feel free to look back the numerous posts where not only do the dowsers not understand it to begin with (even the most basic stuff), they also haven't made a single argument as to why the math would be incorrect. Perhaps because it isn't. Math is devoid of opinion. As for "marketing" anything, that's a joke. We already know markets what around here. Dowsers are their own salesman.

She also neglected to mention that every dowsing claim on here is full of pseudo-scientific made up baloney not backed by anything, like for example, signal lines emanating from things like gold.

[xupz]

I just LOVE it when a skeptic proves my point....

Judy

The point that was flawed to begin with? What exactly did I prove here? Let's hear the almighty Judy's take on skeptics in a nice little concise "point". I mean sure, avoiding the points I made about the math and logic( points which can't be debated ), is a convenient way of not actually making any points and not looking "(o_O)" in the process, but I fail to see any humor whatsoever in your remark. I guess you win? Congrats. You have won the true challenge and will be rewarded with all the riches one can dowse. YAY FOR JUDY~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;>

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

STEPS TO SUCCESSFULLY DOWSING:

Begin by training your ideomotor response so your widgets react to a known object. After that, convince yourself that hakim's razor couldn't possibly apply and you are in fact special enough to have figured out some kind of magical unkown harry potter like ability that only works in non-test situations.

Apply the following conditional replies to skeptics:

1) If you take a test and fail to perform at claimed ability, Then state the test was flawed. If the test wasn't flawed, continue to come up with excuses as to what may have interfered with your performance. Example: A smurf was near the testing site throwing off my signal lines. Flawless.

2) Should a skeptic persist to ask you to show you can actually perform better than random, avoid the issue by stating you don't need to prove anything to anyone because you know for a fact it works, and of course, you do. The joke is on the skeptic for not believing you, so enjoy a nice laugh at the skeptics expense.

3) If the skeptic should attack with undeniable mathematics, simply ignore them or state they don't apply. There is no need to back your position up with anything, just say they don't apply.

4) If 1,2, or 3 don't apply, try to avoid or tangent the argument to some other meaningless broad topic such as psychology or philosophy of having an open mind. Make sure the skeptic is left not having a clue what you're talking about, afterall you shouldn't either, and move along.
************
An excellent of your flawed logic, ridicule what you don't understand sigh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


Tropical Tramp

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[JudyH ....IBut you have to consider that a few clever Skeptics have skillfully mixed it with a well thought-out marketing scheme, where real scientific terminology is mixed with all kinds of pseudo-scientific baloney, in an effort to fool the unsuspecting dowser into believing they are authorities on the testing of dowsing ability.... Judy

***********

Kudos gal (*****)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


Tropical Tramp





[/quote]

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=xupz linkYak Yak Yak,. . Math is devoid of opinion.
****************
but not devoid of the users misuse. intentionally or unintentionally.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.. Dowsers are their own salesman.
***************
I must say that they are amatuers compard to statisticians
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


Tropical Tramp

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=xupz author=JudyH ]
I just LOVE it when a skeptic proves my point.... Judy
\\\\\\\\

The point that was flawed to begin with? What exactly did I prove here?
******
You are a bit dense aren't you zu. You figure it out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


Tropical Tramp

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

JudyH [/;>Oh..alright.....here, you can have Thurman back....quit crying and go roll some coins or something.
*****************

Hehehehehhe cute and to the point Judy, go go gal, another (*****)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


Tropical Tramp


]

[BuckleBoy]

Wow. Now I just want to know why persons (who shall remain unidentified...) would ever get onto a dowsing thread and start causing trouble if they don't believe in it in the first place. Stop. Silly, silly people. I don't know what you're talking about, or why you posted the same thing multiple times, so here's a python caught in an electric fence:

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

I must say, she looks well fed.

Tropical Tramp