$1,000,000 for anyone who can dowse.

[Captain Trips]

It's just not your thinking thats effected. I think It can also affect your whole nervous system and cause blockages. I have also found out the more relaxed you are the more successful you will be. You just have to let things happen, you can't force things.

Right, I can give you that one. I still think you've posted one of the best challenge opportunities I've ever seen.

I'm afraid I disagree. It isn't necessary to have someone perform a "random chance" attempt to have a double-blind experiment. Random chance is something that can be calculated by the mathematics of probability. Furthermore, someone trying to find 10 objects in a two-acre field by random chance would almost certainly come up with nothing. Assume we are using coins, about one square inch each. We are trying to find ten square inches in two acres. There are 6,272,640 square inches per acre, or 12,545,280 per two acres. So, the odds of finding ten seperate square inch objects are 10 in 12,545,280, or worse then one in a million! Of course, these odds apply to either a dowser or a guesser.

To be a controlled test, the one using ten specific spots, with only one of those being a positive, is much easier to administer, and the odds are much easier to work with. Someone just guessing is known to have a 10% chance of finding the test object, and repeating this test multiple times reduces those chances in a measurable manner. (The actual probability of success by guessing is one-tenth as much for each repitition of the test. So, repeating the test twice is gives 1% odds, three times gives 0.1%, etc. Repeating it ten times is one-in-ten billion odds, or 0.0000001% chance of success. If dowsing gives succes even only five times out of all ten repitions, it has shown a 50% chance of success, which is five billion times more accurate than guessing, and therefore is an acceptable proof that it is a valid method of hunting.)

As I have said, keep it simple. Ten bags in an area, say, 40 feet square, is a much more controlled environment. (This size room would allow the placement of the bags more than ten feet apart, so there would be no "interference" from one bag to another.) Also, the probabilities involved are much easier to work with.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

The guesser in the situation described by Rick would allow a baseline to establish what the guessing probability would be, in order to determine the ratio of guessing against dowsing. It's a great idea, actually. This way you have just one field, just 10 targets, but you actually have a triple-blind scenario, where neither the challenge administrator, the guesser nor the dowser has any fore-knowledge about the placement (assuming you have a disinterested party hiding the targets who is not present for the tests.)

 

[ClonedSIM]

Right, I can give you that one. I still think you've posted one of the best challenge opportunities I've ever seen.

Af1733, if you like the odds, go for it! Your chances of winning the prize are as good as any one elses, and they sure seem desperate to get someone to take their test. Dell

Ahh, it would be great, wouldn't it? But, alas, I don't believe dowsing can be used to locate treasure like gold, silver, etc, nor do I believe in the functionality of LRL's or MFD's, and I don't think I could use my metal detector in the test.

 

[aarthrj3811]

You guy's are afraid of the truth or you wouldn't keep putting false information out thier. I have told you that when I let Ideomotor Response as you people define it control the rods I am right about 20% of the time. Other people may be right 100% of the time. Jeff was right 0% of the time if the test was honest. You odds are just a bunch of Skeptic junk because no Scientific Double Blind tests have ever been preformed. By the way. One 9 volt batttery will cause the dowsing rods not to close on a silver dollar from any distance. Now all you Internet Scientific Electronics experts tell me I'm wrong as I just finished the experiment.......Art

 

[Captain Trips]

You guy's are afraid of the truth or you wouldn't keep putting false information out thier. I have told you that when I let Ideomotor Response as you people define it control the rods I am right about 20% of the time. Other people may be right 100% of the time. Jeff was right 0% of the time if the test was honest. You odds are just a bunch of Skeptic junk because no Scientific Double Blind tests have ever been preformed. By the way. One 9 volt batttery will cause the dowsing rods not to close on a silver dollar from any distance. Now all you Internet Scientific Electronics experts tell me I'm wrong as I just finished the experiment.......Art

Hey, I'm not putting ANY information out there other than the nature of the Randi Challenge, I'm just responding to what other people post. As to your being accurate 20% of the time, that might qualify for the challenge in itself -- if your claim is 20% accuracy, all you have to do is perform in a challenge where random chance would only give 5% accuracy. You would then be showing an accuracy rate four times greater than random chance, which is "statistically significant." So, for you I would say take the ten-bag test one hundred times, and if you get twenty positive hits you would show that you are doing what you claim.

No, odds are not "skeptic junk" but are a simple, mathematical estimate of how often random chance gives an accurate response. If you can be twice as accurate as random chance, then you are showing that dowsing is twice as accurate as guessing -- and, if you have stated that as your claim, you win!

 

[ClonedSIM]

Hey, I'm not putting ANY information out there other than the nature of the Randi Challenge, I'm just responding to what other people post. As to your being accurate 20% of the time, that might qualify for the challenge in itself -- if your claim is 20% accuracy, all you have to do is perform in a challenge where random chance would only give 5% accuracy. You would then be showing an accuracy rate four times greater than random chance, which is "statistically significant." So, for you I would say take the ten-bag test one hundred times, and if you get twenty positive hits you would show that you are doing what you claim.

No, odds are not "skeptic junk" but are a simple, mathematical estimate of how often random chance gives an accurate response. If you can be twice as accurate as random chance, then you are showing that dowsing is twice as accurate as guessing -- and, if you have stated that as your claim, you win!

Captain Trips,
It's an exercise in futility to try and reason with Art. As you can plainly see, even after being hand-delivered a perfect experiment, he's now arguing the tests aren't scientifically double blind again. This, after saying just two or three posts up that he agreed the challenge sounded good.

And your chance statistics and estimates are perfectly sound, but he won't think so because they don't sound fair to him.

And you mentioned something I had forgotten about. You can claim only 20% accuracy and have the test reconfigured to suit this. I just can't imagine how anyone could possibly find the challenge unfair when all it asks people to do is what they say they can already do.

"If it has been Done, it can be Done!" right Dell? If you can do 20% in your backyard, then you can do 20% in a field trial.

 

[Rich NY]

Captain Tips:

Your test sounds more like going to a carnival. Why not have a test under actual field conditions?

 

[Captain Trips]

Captain Tips:

Your test sounds more like going to a carnival. Why not have a test under actual field conditions?

Because the test I propose is a more controlled situation, more likely to win the challenge. Yes, like a carnival, if you want to use that analogy. The games in a carnival are set up to have specific odds of success, which is how they make their money. The payoffs are set to be less than what random chance would give. Just like the "games of chance" in a casino. A "field condition" test introduces more random elements, and actually decreases the odds of success. Not to say that a "field condition" test would not work, just that it lacks the controls that many dowsers say they need, or would be needed to keep the test to a proper scientific standard.

Also, the controlled situation is more likely to be accepted for the challenge, as it's conditions can be regulated to meet the requirements of the challenger. Once again, as I've said many times before, it falls into the realm of keeping it simple.

 

[Captain Trips]

It's an exercise in futility to try and reason with Art. As you can plainly see, even after being hand-delivered a perfect experiment, he's now arguing the tests aren't scientifically double blind again. This, after saying just two or three posts up that he agreed the challenge sounded good.

Yes, this is why many challengers fail the challenge -- because they are never clear in their claims, or keep changing what their test protocols would be.

And your chance statistics and estimates are perfectly sound, but he won't think so because they don't sound fair to him.

Yes, that is usually the response from those who don't understand how simple probability mathematics really are.

And you mentioned something I had forgotten about. You can claim only 20% accuracy and have the test reconfigured to suit this. I just can't imagine how anyone could possibly find the challenge unfair when all it asks people to do is what they say they can already do.

"If it has been Done, it can be Done!" right Dell? If you can do 20% in your backyard, then you can do 20% in a field trial.

Right. The JREF challenge simply asks people to prove what they claim they can do, if their claim is outside of what is normally accepted as "natural phenomenon." Claiming that dowsing is more accurate than guessing certainly qualifies, it needn't be that "dowsing is 100% accurate." But, again, this is one of the arguments that people use when saying the challenge is unfaire -- they didn't actually read the challenge, but assume it requires things of them that it doesn't.

I have found here that arguing with both Art and Dell can be a waste of time. They don't seem to want to stick to the subject of the thread, which was a call to take the challenge. They just want to argue why they won't take it, and have "beaten a dead horse into the ground." To them I say, "ENOUGH. Let those who are willing to take the challenge continue in this thread, and those of you who don't want to take it should ignore the rest of this thread!" After all, it's a big enough forum for all points of view.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee... sounds good to me......respond to your self over and over... Did you win the arguement with your self? There is to much information on this forum to risk getting it all deleted to tell you what I think about your posts....Art Flowers....AKA...art3811...aarthrj3811.....I do not have a re-mailer so I can be some one else. I have one E-Mail address and is availible on my profile on every web site that I belong to. Will a skeptic cheat if he can? My answer is ....It is my experience that they will do anything that they can to put false information on the internet about Dowsing.

 

[ClonedSIM]

So we're cheaters now? Even after all the bending over backwards to accomodate your unrealistic desires to see a test you'll never take?

Oh, and by the way, Captain was responding to my post, not his own. There you have it, folks! Definitive proof Art does not read the posts!

And who said anything about remailers?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Oh, and by the way, Captain was responding to my post, not his own

DUH...I was wrong once but I can't remember when....Art

Sorry Jeff if I made your job harder. A few beers and the truth seems to jump out.

 

[aarthrj3811]

James Randi's foundation has one million dollars sitting in escrow, and anyone who can prove they can dowse in a scientific experiment can go home with it. It is real, it is there, and it is yours.

This is the first sentence in this thread. A little wrong but that's OK. The challenge is concerning psychic, supernatural or paranormal claims.

Check this web site....http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#1.1

1.3. How many applicants have there been for the Challenge?
Between 1964 and 1982, Randi declared that over 650 people had applied [3]. Between 1997 and February 15, 2005, there had been a total of 360 official, notarized applications.

1.4. How many people have passed the preliminary test?
None. Most applicants never agree to a proper test protocol, so most are never tested.

1.5. How many people have passed the formal test?
No one has ever taken the formal test, as one must first pass the preliminary test.

2.2. What do you mean by "paranormal"?
This is a remarkably difficult word to define correctly.
Webster's Online Dictionary defines it as "not scientifically explainable; supernatural", and it defines "supernatural" as, "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature; attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)".
The writen Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language has no word under this spelling.

Hey Dell...Your correct again...No one has ever passed Randi's Challenge...Heck ..No one has ever taken it.....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Heck, I'll bet he would even allow you, or I to use a Metal detector as a Dowsing, tool to take his Dowsing, or LRL test. Just stand back 20-30 feet, swing the metal detector back and forth a few times, and point the metal detector at the target. You can surely do that as well as anyone else can. I'll bet Capt. Trip can arrange with Randi, for you, or me to use our metal detector under the same requirements of a mental Dowsing, or LRL test. What's your excuse for not trying? You wouldn't refuse an easy chance to win a million dollars, would you? Come on AF1733, give it a try. Help Randi & Carl, promote their Publicity Gimmick. What do you have to lose? You might even receive a Free "I LOVE RANDI" T-shirt. Dell

Wow, talk about twisting and turning! I ask you and Art why you won't take the test if you believe in your skills and, instead of answering, you try to ask me the same question. "I know you are, but what am I?" Pee-Wee Herman, anyone?

I have no reason to believe in dowsing or LRL's with the evidence I've seen, why would I attempt to take a test to verify these devices? Kinda like trying to pilot the Space Shuttle after 5 minutes of training. I would use my metal detector in the challenge, but only the way it is supposed to be used. You don't fry eggs with a baseball bat, I won't use a metal detector to dowse.

On the other hand, I could flip sides, become a huge LRL and dowsing proponent while secretly having no belief in the devices, then fail the test miserably, repeatedly, and scratch my head in wonder. No, then I'd live up to Art's crack, and I pride myself on being the bigger man here.

Fine, if you don't believe that dowsing works, and you don't believe that LRL's work, then don't take the challenge, continue to test yourself with your questionable methods and deceive yourself into thinking you're getting amazing results, and leave the challenge to people that believe in what they do.

 

[aarthrj3811]

I have no reason to believe in dowsing or LRL's with the evidence I've seen, why would I attempt to take a test to verify these devices?

I done know what to tell you...Most if not all of the evidence that you have talked about comes from two web sites. We give you difinitions of what the real meaning of the words you rely on. From Randi's mouth comes the evidence that his challenge is an out and out scam.

Fine, if you don't believe that dowsing works, and you don't believe that LRL's work, then don't take the challenge, continue to test yourself with your questionable methods and deceive yourself into thinking you're getting amazing results, and leave the challenge to people that believe in what they do.

It's not a matter of believing that dowsing works. It is knowing for a fact that it works. If you had any Scientific Evidence it would be posted every where. Do you think I am stupid enough to take a test that may be rigged and will not shut you people up no matter how I preform...I don't like to stand in lines so I will leave the challenge to all those people who can't wait to except the challenge.

why would I attempt to take a test to verify these devices?

If you verify that they operate as advertised you would have nothing to do but sit around and feel bad because your believe system is shattered...

 

[ClonedSIM]

Okay, since I don't have time to point out all the grammatical errors in your response, I'll just touch the high points.

I done know what to tell you...Most if not all of the evidence that you have talked about comes from two web sites. We give you difinitions of what the real meaning of the words you rely on. From Randi's mouth comes the evidence that his challenge is an out and out scam.

I don't know where you see "evidence" of any type that I have listed. I, along with Randi and Carl, are trying to find evidence. I've visited many different sites, however, including those of dowsing rod and LRL manufacturers along with skeptic sites. The topic of this thread is Randi's offering, though, so there is a lot of information regarding the challenge listed here.

It's not a matter of believing that dowsing works. It is knowing for a fact that it works. If you had any Scientific Evidence it would be posted every where. Do you think I am stupid enough to take a test that may be rigged and will not shut you people up no matter how I preform...I don't like to stand in lines so I will leave the challenge to all those people who can't wait to except the challenge.

Here's where you're wrong. It does matter if you believe dowsing is functional in locating treasure. I don't and you do. So who's right?
And the challenge "may be rigged" now? You held the opinion for so long that it was rigged, I can only come to the conclusion that you've changed your mind.
And you're also wrong that we'll "shut up" if you perform better than chance in the challenge. Not only will we shut up, but you will have struck a huge blow for dowsers everywhere. "ART DEFEATS RANDI AND HIS CHALLENGE!!" will be heard from the mountaintops if you succeed. Skeptic "cults" will crumble upon hearing these words.

If you verify that they operate as advertised you would have nothing to do but sit around and feel bad because your believe system is shattered...

Why would I waste time and money trying something I know won't work? There's been no proof that I've seen yet that show they do function as advertised. If I were to look into actually making a purchase, just the poor assembly of a lot of LRL websites would send me, and my money, running for the hills.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Can't you post a reply without breaking the Forum Rules.

This forum is limited to the discussion of simple, inexpensive (or FREE!) devices and techniques. That means NO discussion of electrical devices of any kind.? Feel free to discuss L-rods, Spanish dip needles, map dowsing, and other dowsing related subjects.

I don't know where you see "evidence" of any type that I have listed. I, along with Randi and Carl, are trying to find evidence.

Come and talk to me when you get some evidence. Don't twist my words in trying to make up evidence.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Show me where I twisted your words, Art.

 

[Captain Trips]

I see you figured out who Capt. Trips, runs, stumbles, and falls again, is before I did. He said he was not a shill, for Randi, and for all the bad will he was creating towards Randi , I believe it. Randi, certainly wouldn't have any association with someone damaging to his reputation.

It's that Same A$$ Monkey, nutcase seeking JELAD revenge against Dowsers. The Watcher, said he had a couple of surprises in store. Oh well, it's a free country. People can pretend to be any one they wish.

Huh? Who am I? I can honestly say that I have never heard of this "The Watcher" before. I can guarantee to you that the only handle I have ever used on this forum is "Captain Trips." I have never been here under any other name. I'm sure that our board admin can verify this for you, by doing an IP address confirmation, or by checking registered e-mail addresses.

Geez, Dell, you are one confused person!

I find it interesting, also, that you admit you have never read the Randi Challenge FAQ before. This undermines all your arguments against the challenge. How can you argue against something you know nothing about? And you say you did submit a challenge to Randi? And he "added a rule" that you didn't like? Well, that is a stated part of the rules of the challenge -- if they feel the need, they will make suggested changes to your testing protocol. You have the option of accepting it, suggesting something different, or walking away. Seems you chose the last of the three options. Don't hold it agains them (or me) that you didn't like the testing protocol that they would have found agreeable.

Know what? If you don't like reading what I'm posting, there's a little button on the left hand side of your browser window "ignore user." Why don't you use it on my posts? That way, you don't have to read my posts and have your little illusionary world shattered by honest inquiry.

 

[Captain Trips]

Aft1733, why do you keep trying to shove these Publicity Gimmick Challenges in our face. We have said over and over again why we aren't interested. It's a mute subject. Get over it.

No, you have said over and over again why YOU aren't interested. (Of course, Art has said over and over why HE isn't interested.) This thread was started (by me) to find dowsers who ARE interested. There are some who are. To those, stick around. To those who aren't intersted, well, why are you still here? This thread isn't for you. Go away. Leave room for those confident enough in their abilities to take the challenge.