Blind dowser.

[lesjcbs]

More insults......Art

Hmm, could be autistic.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

You mean blind to reality? I'd say most people who claim to be a dowser fit that category. Claimed map dowsers x 10.
but refuses to get daily feedback, they are blind in thinking they can dowse accurately and reliably. Sorry to say that includes the vast majority of people on this forum

To get real feedback the easiest way is to hide the test target yourself like by spinning around with your eyes and ears covered and toss the target. At that point you can either physically dowse it or map dowse it. If a person is not performing this practice several times each day they are hiding the truth from themselves

Especially in the case of map dowsing they will find out the accuracy and reliability are just not there. After ten thousand map dowsed marks on this forum you would think someone is going to find something sooner or later.

I know dowsing works because I have found stuff several times. I have also failed more times than I can count. Come on, maybe one in five like with the frequency generators I would be very happy

If you try to dowse while using a frequency generator you will fail.

And yes, I will say if you don't get daily feedback I have no other course than to say it's arrogant and ignorant. Look, I like most of these guys. I'm here to say I know things are not right. You know what they say about changing your ways--you won't change until you get sick and tired of the way you are.

A little advice here. Take it or leave it. Beware the false prophets, what I laughingly refer to as "false profits". Anyone who feels threatened by me probably has good reason to be.

Failed Dowser.....Everything he does is for the skeptics....Art

 

[Dave Rishar]

The facts are that some of us will not look for people....It is my hobby and I make my own rules..Art

No one had to look for people. Looking for a plane would have been enough.

Good grief Dave, I almost missed your side posts. Say, have you ever dowsed?

I attempted to. I couldn't make it work, but there are other things that don't work for me and do for others. There are people who have swum across the English Channel, but I'm certainly not one of them and probably never will be. I won't claim that something is impossible simply because I can't do it, just as long as someone else can show me that it can actually be done.

I'm admittedly troubled by the airliner thread though. Here, we had a target which had a location that would be independantly confirmed eventually. Nailing the location to within, say, a few hundred miles would have essentially proved the existance of an ability which cannot yet be explained by science, or else required the sort of luck that's reserved for Megamillions winners; even skeptics would have had a very hard time writing such a thing off as luck though. The forum's response to this challenge was...underwhelming, I suppose. A few rose to the challenge and my hat's off to them (as this required no small amount of confidence to place their reputations on the line like that), but they appear to have been unsuccessful.

Everyone is willing to help with coins and gold and such, but there seems to be some reluctance on the whole to help with a humanitarian effort. I'm not sure that I understand this.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Have you ever looked for a airplane and found it? The person was still alive. No one would listen and the guy lived 10 days...Never again..I did some maps from Syria..It turned out bad so I do not do that again...I make my own rules.....Art

 

[10claw]

Helloooo Dave, if i should tell you that I dowsed for the lost airliner and found it, and gave the location, how in the world
would you go about proving me right or wrong??

 

[lesjcbs]

No one had to look for people. Looking for a plane would have been enough.



I attempted to. I couldn't make it work, but there are other things that don't work for me and do for others. There are people who have swum across the English Channel, but I'm certainly not one of them and probably never will be. I won't claim that something is impossible simply because I can't do it, just as long as someone else can show me that it can actually be done.

I'm admittedly troubled by the airliner thread though. Here, we had a target which had a location that would be independantly confirmed eventually. Nailing the location to within, say, a few hundred miles would have essentially proved the existance of an ability which cannot yet be explained by science, or else required the sort of luck that's reserved for Megamillions winners; even skeptics would have had a very hard time writing such a thing off as luck though. The forum's response to this challenge was...underwhelming, I suppose. A few rose to the challenge and my hat's off to them (as this required no small amount of confidence to place their reputations on the line like that), but they appear to have been unsuccessful.

Everyone is willing to help with coins and gold and such, but there seems to be some reluctance on the whole to help with a humanitarian effort. I'm not sure that I understand this.

OK, you attempted dowsing. Good. If you are truly interested in it, you will continue working at it.

For eons of time now, people, including myself, have been finding things while dowsing, yet the skeptics don't believe it works. Moreover, when a dowser misses a target skeptics will say: "See dowsing doesn't work." Now if a dowser did locate the airliner, it would be the same story all over again ie, just blind luck etc., and you know what, it might be just luck. But I can tell you this, I have missed targets many times while scanning with my electronic metal detector (EMD). So that must mean it doesn't work despite the many other times I have found things while using it. In addition, manufacturers make little electronic things called: "Pin Pointers" that a person using an EMD pulls out to locate a target their EMD has beeped on, yet after digging a great big hole in the ground, they can't find the target. Bring on the Pin pointer.

In fact, my dowsing is more accurate than my EMD. But without question, it is faster and has a gigantic farther range in distance to a target than my EMD. My last long distance dowsing shot was 90 feet away from where I was standing, and I went straight to an unseen target that was about 2" in the ground and under grass. It took me about 2 minutes to locate it. If I had eventually worked my way to it with my EMD by overlapping my coil, it would have taken hours perhaps a day or two to eventually come to and scan that particular spot. In part, that is the value. advantage, and characteristic in dowsing. I have no idea how long the item had been there. Perhaps years.

Dowsing to find an airliner is not the last word and it will never be the last and final word as to whether or not dowsing works.

 

[Dave Rishar]

Have you ever looked for a airplane and found it? The person was still alive. No one would listen and the guy lived 10 days...Never again..I did some maps from Syria..It turned out bad so I do not do that again...I make my own rules.....Art

As a matter of fact, I have looked for one, but we didn't find it. We found neither the aircraft nor the pilot. I'm not sure whether the pilot ejected or survived the impact. We weren't told that. All I know is that we didn't find anything, but even a small area of the Pacific Ocean is a pretty big stretch of water. The search was actually a formality. I don't think that anyone was expecting us to find it.

Did you post about any of these? Are there any timestamped records of these dowsings anywhere? That was a missed opportunity from this tragedy - we had a missing plane that everyone knew about, and nobody had any idea where it was. The search went on for weeks before they were even close. Had someone drawn a box in the Pacific two weeks ago and the plane is eventually discovered there...well, that's awfully hard to argue with. In short, this was something verifiable with a neutral referee. It was nearly an ideal test.

And yes, few would have listened and people might have died because of it - exactly the same situation that would have occurred if you hadn't attempted it in the first place. What happened wouldn't have been your fault either way, but a noteworthy success might have made people more receptive to such things in the future. (This also brings up the question of why so many people aren't receptive to ideas like this, but that's a topic for another thread.)

Helloooo Dave, if i should tell you that I dowsed for the lost airliner and found it, and gave the location, how in the world
would you go about proving me right or wrong??

It will probably be recovered eventually. Then you would be proved right or wrong. As I said earlier, even if you were accurate only to within a few hundred miles, it would be awfully hard to write that off as sheer luck. The ocean is just too big for lucky guesses.

OK, you attempted dowsing. Good. If you are truly interested in it, you will continue working at it.

For eons of time now, people, including myself, have been finding things while dowsing, yet the skeptics don't believe it. Moreover, when a dowser misses a target skeptics will say: "See dowsing doesn't work." Now if a dowser did locate the airliner, it would be the same story all over again ie, just blind luck etc. But I can tell you this, I have missed targets many times while scanning with my electronic metal detector (EMD). So that must mean it doesn't work despite the many other times I have found things while using it. In addition, manufacturers make little electronic things called: "Pin Pointers" that a person using an EMD pulls out to locate a target their EMD has beeped on, yet after digging a great big hole in the ground, they can't find the target.

In fact, I can say my dowsing is more accurate than my EMD. But without question, it is way faster than my EMD. Dowsing to find an airliner is not the last word and it will never be the last and final word as to whether or not dowsing works.

It would not be the last word, but it would be a useful, verifiable test.

The metal detector is an interesting comparison. When it fails to find something (or finds the wrong thing), we can easily explain why that happened. We can even explain the occasional "hole to nowhere," although I've noticed that those tend to rapidly disappear after a bit of time on the machine. Explaining dowsing is much more difficult.

Also, there are folks on this forum (and certainly elsewhere) who have an order of magnitude more experience with dowsing than I have with metal detecting. Yet even with a machine that's very new to me, I can reliably dig good targets with bystanders watching. I can even usually tell them what I'm going to dig before I take out the shovel. I do admittedly dig a lot of crap, but I usually (but not always!) know that it's crap before I dig it; this is part of learning the machine and gaining confidence with it.

Finding lost jewelry by request is a fairly frequent task for detectorists. How often are dowsers consulted for this? (Not a challenge - this is an honest question, as it's seldom discussed.) And how do the success rates compare with one another?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Finding lost jewelry by request is a fairly frequent task for detectorists. How often are dowsers consulted for this? (Not a challenge - this is an honest question, as it's seldom discussed.) And how do the success rates compare with one another?

SWR had a business doing just that....We all know what happened there.....Considering the time it takes to locate objects with a metal l detector we win hands down....When detecting junk they will always win...Sorry that we don’t do anything like you do but that is way we treasure hunt...Art

 

[lesjcbs]

As a matter of fact, I have looked for one, but we didn't find it. We found neither the aircraft nor the pilot. I'm not sure whether the pilot ejected or survived the impact. We weren't told that. All I know is that we didn't find anything, but even a small area of the Pacific Ocean is a pretty big stretch of water. The search was actually a formality. I don't think that anyone was expecting us to find it.

Did you post about any of these? Are there any timestamped records of these dowsings anywhere? That was a missed opportunity from this tragedy - we had a missing plane that everyone knew about, and nobody had any idea where it was. The search went on for weeks before they were even close. Had someone drawn a box in the Pacific two weeks ago and the plane is eventually discovered there...well, that's awfully hard to argue with. In short, this was something verifiable with a neutral referee. It was nearly an ideal test.

And yes, few would have listened and people might have died because of it - exactly the same situation that would have occurred if you hadn't attempted it in the first place. What happened wouldn't have been your fault either way, but a noteworthy success might have made people more receptive to such things in the future. (This also brings up the question of why so many people aren't receptive to ideas like this, but that's a topic for another thread.)



It will probably be recovered eventually. Then you would be proved right or wrong. As I said earlier, even if you were accurate only to within a few hundred miles, it would be awfully hard to write that off as sheer luck. The ocean is just too big for lucky guesses.



It would not be the last word, but it would be a useful, verifiable test.

The metal detector is an interesting comparison. When it fails to find something (or finds the wrong thing), we can easily explain why that happened. We can even explain the occasional "hole to nowhere," although I've noticed that those tend to rapidly disappear after a bit of time on the machine. Explaining dowsing is much more difficult.

Also, there are folks on this forum (and certainly elsewhere) who have an order of magnitude more experience with dowsing than I have with metal detecting. Yet even with a machine that's very new to me, I can reliably dig good targets with bystanders watching. I can even usually tell them what I'm going to dig before I take out the shovel. I do admittedly dig a lot of crap, but I usually (but not always!) know that it's crap before I dig it; this is part of learning the machine and gaining confidence with it.

Finding lost jewelry by request is a fairly frequent task for detectorists. How often are dowsers consulted for this? (Not a challenge - this is an honest question, as it's seldom discussed.) And how do the success rates compare with one another?

OK Dave, you say you dowsed but "could not make it work." Why do you think you "could not make it work"?

 

[Dave Rishar]

SWR had a business doing just that....We all know what happened there.....Considering the time it takes to locate objects with a metal l detector we win hands down....When detecting junk they will always win...Sorry that we don’t do anything like you do but that is way we treasure hunt...Art

SWR used to be a member here IIRC, but no longer seems to be. I missed whatever it is that caused this. Can you give me a recap?

As for the second part, what is that based on? If someone says that they lost a ring in the yard, I know that if I maintain a tight search pattern and don't do anything stupid, I'll find the ring. About the only thing that might screw this up is if it landed directly on top of a large enough chunk of iron to overload my detector. Does dowsing work this accuately? Honest question.

Even with this new to me detector, if I resolved not to dig up any trash, I would dig up very, very little of it. With the machine that I'm more familiar with, I would not dig up any trash at all - period. I can guarantee it. However, I can also guarantee that I may be walking over a few things that are worth digging up in the process, but have iffy signals. Nearly any search mode can be refined with various cherry picking protocols to reduce trash recovery to a minimum, but that doesn't mean that effective searching is being done. I could easily notch up to 80 or so and only dig repeatable two-way signals with the new machine, and I would dig hardly any trash at all...maybe even no trash at the right site. I'd also miss most (if not all) of the gold in the process. Would I be hunting effectively then?

What is being missed due to your protocol, and how do you know? I know what I miss, and I understand why. I adjusted my protocol accordingly. How have you adjusted your protocol? What made you do so?

OK Dave, you say you dowsed but "could not make it work." Why do you think you "could not make it work"?

I don't know. Art started a thread about it a while back. I followed the instructions. The rods didn't cross for me unless I made them cross. When science has an explanation for dowsing, I may be able to explain why I couldn't do it. Not everyone produces asparagus pee either, but we know why those people don't. (I do, before anyone asks.)

As a reminder, being able to do something that I can't doesn't make me doubt it. My ego is not that large. I could never quite break a five minute mile, but others have done it so it can obviously be done, even if I almost certainly will never do it myself. I've never flapped my arms and flown as a result either, but I'll believe that it can be done just as soon as someone shows me so.

The airliner was notable because it was a chance to show that this really worked, with the understanding that any results would be fact-checked by an independant third party. Not only were there no successes, but there were barely any entries in the first place. Almost nobody was interested in dowsing this, but everyone is more than happy to assist in things that are less verifiable. Why? I'm looking at motives now, not technique.

 

[lesjcbs]

Almost nobody was interested in dowsing this, but everyone is more than happy to assist in things that are less verifiable. Why? I'm looking at motives now, not technique.

Less verifiable? Technique is everything. Motives have nothing to do with dowsing. Further more, do you think the estimated 400+ and counting successful dowsing shots and verified fact of the presence of targets by my EMD or by physically recovering the targets are not dowsing verifiable? Their very physical presence flies into the face of your statement.

Here we go again folks. What you are really saying is unless a dowser detects and recovers high valued items, such as gold or silver bars or a cache of gold or silver coins only, wires or nails or other kinds of junk are are not verifiable. I remind you that even crushed aluminum soda cans and aluminum pull tabs, which are considered by many to be junk also, when gathered in large quantities, are high valued items and very verifiable. We haven't talked about the brass in bullet shells yet but they have high value also.

You have things backwards. Up to this time, the only target that has not been found by a dowser and verified, as you put it, is the airliner. Everything else has.

 

[lesjcbs]

This will be my last post until Sunday night or Monday morning. We are leaving town for the weekend. I will catch up when we come back.

 

[aarthrj3811]

You have things backwards. Up to this time, the only target that has not been found by a dowser and verified, as you put it, is the airliner. Everything else has.

Hey Les...I almost always use baited rods...If the rods say there is gold there that is what it is there..I have about 20 different baits made from lab grade minerals...There are times when I don’t have the proper bait and I use mental dowsing on those rare occasions’...As far as that airplane goes what difference does it Make?....Just because the rods will move for you does not make you a dowser...You have to practice until you learn what they are telling you...If they will not swing it may be all in your head...give them a chance and don’t be afraid as they do not bite...Art
Art

 

[Dave Rishar]

Less verifiable? Technique is everything. Motives have nothing to do with dowsing. Further more, do you think the estimated 400+ and counting successful dowsing shots and verified fact of the presence of targets by my EMD or by physically recovering the targets are not dowsing verifiable? Their very physical presence flies into the face of your statement.

So you say. I'm not going to call someone that I don't know a liar, but I'm not automatically going to assume that what they say is true either. Had you marked a spot in the ocean and this plane (or any plane really) was found there, I would be unable to call you a liar, even if I wanted to. Our posts would be timestamped. It would be verified in a way that's not subject to interpretation or simple belief. Our discussion would not be based on anecdotes, but established facts - you said it was there, a third party found it there, so you were right. It would be the end of the story.

Here we go again folks. What you are really saying is unless a dowser detects and recovers high valued items, such as gold or silver bars or a cache of gold or silver coins only, wires or nails or other kinds of junk are are not verifiable. I remind you that even crushed aluminum soda cans and aluminum pull tabs, which are considered by many to be junk also, when gathered in large quantities, are high valued items and very verifiable. We haven't talked about the brass in bullet shells yet but they have high value also.

I have yet to see someone on here asking for the locations of wires, nails, junk, soda cans, or pull tabs. They generally ask for precious metals, and help is nearly always forthcoming quickly in those cases.

One of the reasons why the plane was a good target is because it is rare. I could, without using anything other that a basic knowledge of public spaces, point to a spot in a local park and tell you with complete certainty that I will find a piece of aluminum, a bottlecap, or a nail (or perhaps all three) within five feet of that point. I could then go out with a MD and again, with complete certainty, locate one or all of these. I could even show you (or anyone else) a picture of that park and have them pick a spot by whatever means they felt like using and still complete the objective. When the target is a blade of grass, it's pretty hard not to find one in a field. It's extremely difficult to locate a plane in the middle of an ocean by using random chance - hence the value of the exercise. Chance is essentially excluded from the equation.

You have things backwards. Up to this time, the only target that has not been found by a dowser and verified, as you put it, is the airliner. Everything else has.

I agree, and it was one of the very few things that couldn't reasonably be found by playing the odds. Almost nobody tried. Why not?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee Dave—Most everyone here comes to find treasure.....What don’t you understand about the statement that we will get you in the area?....Art

 

[lesjcbs]

So you say. I'm not going to call someone that I don't know a liar, but I'm not automatically going to assume that what they say is true either. Had you marked a spot in the ocean and this plane (or any plane really) was found there, I would be unable to call you a liar, even if I wanted to. Our posts would be timestamped. It would be verified in a way that's not subject to interpretation or simple belief. Our discussion would not be based on anecdotes, but established facts - you said it was there, a third party found it there, so you were right. It would be the end of the story.



I have yet to see someone on here asking for the locations of wires, nails, junk, soda cans, or pull tabs. They generally ask for precious metals, and help is nearly always forthcoming quickly in those cases.

One of the reasons why the plane was a good target is because it is rare. I could, without using anything other that a basic knowledge of public spaces, point to a spot in a local park and tell you with complete certainty that I will find a piece of aluminum, a bottlecap, or a nail (or perhaps all three) within five feet of that point. I could then go out with a MD and again, with complete certainty, locate one or all of these. I could even show you (or anyone else) a picture of that park and have them pick a spot by whatever means they felt like using and still complete the objective. When the target is a blade of grass, it's pretty hard not to find one in a field. It's extremely difficult to locate a plane in the middle of an ocean by using random chance - hence the value of the exercise. Chance is essentially excluded from the equation.



I agree, and it was one of the very few things that couldn't reasonably be found by playing the odds. Almost nobody tried. Why not?

Well, I do have access to a computer after all.

Dave. you go into the mountains of western Utah where you have never been before, pull out your dowsing rods, they cross over a spot and you find two spent 22 caliber brass shells directly under the rod cross (Ground zero) about 2" below the surface? Then, about one foot away and under the surface you find a shot gun shell base. That is exactly what happened one time while I was dowsing out in western Utah.

Here's another fact. At our city park, I threw a tennis ball many times in the air and scanned with my metal detector within reach without moving off the spot where the ball landed. I then dowsed the same number of times and scanned in the same manner. My dowsing shots yielded 15% more hits than my random tennis ball throws. During that exercise, even though I tossed the ball first, my dowsing shots never fell behind in successful hits. A miss by an inch is the same as missing by a mile and the ball toss missed more times than my dowsing shots.

Your turn.

 

[Dave Rishar]

That plane's still out there. Still no takers, I see. It's probably too late at this point anyway, as they seem to have a pretty good idea where it is now. Oh, well.

Let's go back to telling each other stories. That seems safer for all parties anyway.

 

[lesjcbs]

Dave: You said in an earlier post that you dowsed but your rods crossed only when you made them cross. That's not dowsing, that is something else. So how many times have you actually tried to dowse?

 

[Dave Rishar]

Have I actually tried to dowse? Once, following Art's instructions. I spent about a half hour at it. Part of that time was spent trying a pendulum instead; while it certainly moved, I could not get consistant movements of any sort. I may try it again sometime. I'm coming across as a jerk (as I normally do on the internet) but it's actually an interesting subject to me. I don't personally believe in it, but I've changed my beliefs in the past based on irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

To go back to your prior post (which I admittedly made a rather snarky response to that was unwarranted, and I apologize for that), I noticed that you confirmed your hits with a metal detector. Is this a common practice for dowsing? I bring this up because as a metal detectorist, one of the first things that I do when arriving at the site is to look around and perhaps walk it a bit. What I TELL myself I'm doing is that I'm looking for useage patterns, evidence of past digging, evaluating areas for how well they should produce, and trying to get the site in its contemporary state to synch up with its historical states, as revealed by research. What I'm REALLY doing is "getting the lay of the land," or getting a "feel" for the land actually. Certain areas will just look better than other areas. Most of this makes rational sense on some level, but my subconscious mind will catch it more quickly that my conscious mind and my conscious mind, in turn, will make me notice the spot without quite knowing why. Sometimes, when I'm fruitlessly walking back and forth to cover the grid, I'll stop and look around a bit for something interesting, something that may have more potential, and go there instead. It was exactly this tendency of mine that got me another ring today, along with a cool old toy car and some odds and ends - not exactly treasure, I know, but the kinds of stuff that I wanted to find. I'd avoided it in the past because it was a spot that had no picnic tables or playground equipment or anything, so there was no reason for anyone to go there. But there was obviously a reason to go there, wasn't there? Someone went there and lost a ring; another, a toy car. Someone lost a few coins as well. Unfortunately a few bottlecaps (and one entire bottle) were lost in the process, but you have to take the good with the bad.

I wonder if we're not doing the same thing in a sense, but using vastly different methods. I do rely upon my subconscious to some degree to catch the things that I may not spot through direct observation and logic (and this is indeed what occurred today); perhaps dowsers, through the ideomotor response, are simply using their subconscious in the same way. ("That looks interesting, although I'm not entirely sure why." Looking at period photographs and a few hours' of contemplation would probably show me why, but my subconscious caught it much more quickly, as it's working without filters.) We look around and get that gut feeling that that's the place to go to, perhaps without even understanding why - and then we do, and we find something good, and our behavior is reinforced. In this case, there is nothing mystical or even currently unexplainable by science involved. We take in so much raw data every second that we can't possibly process it all, so we focus on what's immediately important and our subconscious catches the other important stuff that we miss.

Interesting. I'll have to think about this a bit more.

Still though, only 15% more accurate than random chance? Unless you repeated this experiment thousands of times, that's not even a statistically significant difference.

Have you considered skipping the rods entirely and just going with your hunches? It's worked for me, and again, I now suspect that we're doing the same thing.

 

[lesjcbs]

Dowsing only once is not enough for anyone. You mentioned earlier, and others have said it many times before that to understand what your electronic metal detector (EMD) is telling you, one must practice, practice, and practice more at it. The same goes for dowsing.


Your apology is noted and accepted.


I for one verify my rod crosses using my metal detector. Is it common among dowsers? I believe so, but not all. My dowsing gets me in the immediate area and my EMD is a “pin pointer.” Many times, the target is directly under my rod cross which I call “Ground Zero.” Others are off to one side or the other.


The first law of ANY type of treasure hunting is to go where treasure is. Break that law while dowsing or EMD/ing and you will find NOTHING. I obey this law to the letter and it has paid off handsomely.


I am not going to sit here and critique your method of using your EMD or your dowsing, other than what I said at the first which is dowsing once is not enough for anyone. What I am going to do here is tell you how I dowse. If you find something in my method you can use, use it and discard the rest.


I go to places where people have been such as parks, school grounds etc. The only exception to this was the time I dowsed out in the mountains of western Utah and dowsed out two 22 brass shells and one shotgun shell base. It was great.


I take my rods into my hands in the traditional way and walk forward. My right rod indicates direction while my left rod indicates arrival. Without fail, my right rod has ALWAYS turned to the left. As it does, I turn left or follow it. When my left rod swings right and crosses the right rod, that is ground zero. At that time, I fold up my rods and put them in my pocket. I then use my EMD to Pin Point the target. For me, it's as simple as that.


When I “Rush”, “Push”, "Jump" or “Force” my rods to cross, that is when I miss. This usually happens when for whatever reason, I really want them to cross.


Now comes the question that everyone debates over: “How does dowsing work?” Well, I have my idea and theory that I favor, but I really don't know for sure. What I do know for sure is finding what I have found.


Here is what I believe makes dowsing work the way it does. First and foremost, the rods DO NOT turn on their own. I am turning them subconsciously through the idiomatic action, as it is called. I believe what Einstein supposedly said is key. He said:I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as they do astrology, as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the uncanny reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time.


There are those who try to discredit this statement by saying he did not say it. Whether he said it or not is not the key. The key is that dowsing works because our nervous systems can and dose pick up energy from targets. To me it is like this: You put gas into your car's gas tank. The float rises. As it does, an electrical current is sent to the gas gauge where you see the needle move. The needle did not move on it's own. It moved because of the electrical impulses sent to it. So, our hands move the rods because our brain and nervous system senses a targets' energy and moves our hands. Can I prove this? No, but it makes sense to me.


Consider this. Perhaps you have had this happen to you. While sitting in a meeting, you are focused on the speaker. Suddenly you turn your head and your eyes fix on someone who is looking or starring directly at you. They are startled, or even embarrassed that you caught them starring at you and they look away. Perhaps you have been in a meeting and while listening to the speaker, you are starring at someone in the audience. Suddenly, without looking elsewhere, they turn and look directly at you. You are startled and perhaps embarrassed at being caught starring at them and you look away. Is there an subconscious sensing of energy existing in these examples? I think so. This happens all the time to people and I believe the dowsing ability exists and works from this kind of energy sensing.