Any Carl Anderson dowsing rod success stories?

[nmarsh]

Have any of you dowsers out there used a Carl Anderson dowsing rod and had success with it? Or know anyone who has and used it successfully? Please reply within a couple of days if you can help me out.Thanks,Norm Marsh

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[fenixdigger]

4 of my crew have used them. We have successfully found empty holes. 1 of the other people I hunt with swears he witnessed a find with one of them and uses one. He has not made and finds.

You will come out better with a witness sample and an L rod.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Hi ted: You posted -->If any one of these LRLs "seems" to work it is because if you dig enough holes, sooner or later one will have something in it that resembles what you thought you were looking for
*************
quite possible but time wise? Say looking for a 1 oz gold nugget in a single acre, there are 6.27264 x 10 /8 power sq inches. Assuming an adequate hole of 2 sq inches per dig, down to 6 ", just how much time must you need to cover it completely to be sure that the instrument had failed??

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Saturna]

Hi ted: You posted -->If any one of these LRLs "seems" to work it is because if you dig enough holes, sooner or later one will have something in it that resembles what you thought you were looking for
*************
quite possible but time wise? Say looking for a 1 oz gold nugget in a single acre, there are 6.27264 x 10 /8 power sq inches. Assuming an adequate hole of 2 sq inches per dig, down to 6 ", just how much time must you need to cover it completely to be sure that the instrument had failed??

Don Jose de La Mancha

You save alot of time if you plant the gold yourself, and then 'find' it with the LRL.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Hi randi Sat: You posted -->You save alot of time if you plant the gold yourself, and then 'find' it with the LRL
***************
True , snicker, but that would be acting like a sceptic.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Saturna]

Hi randi Sat: You posted -->You save alot of time if you plant the gold yourself, and then 'find' it with the LRL
***************
True , snicker, but that would be acting like a sceptic.

Don Jose de La Mancha

That doesn't even make sense, even for you. Have you not seen Arthur's videos ?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI randi sat: You posted -->That doesn't even make sense, even for you.
****************
so I am improving eh? gracias.

As for aa's video ?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

ER---

You've got it backwards.

You made the claim that you can find things for sure, so it's up to you to prove that you can do it.

Just take Carl's test. If you pass, I will apologize. And everyone else that opposed you can eat crow, too.

That alone should make it worth it to you, huh?

Plus you'll get a cool $25K! It's like your birthday! Go for it!

 

[EddieR]

ER---

You've got it backwards.

You made the claim that you can find things for sure, so it's up to you to prove that you can do it.

Just take Carl's test. If you pass, I will apologize. And everyone else that opposed you can eat crow, too.

That alone should make it worth it to you, huh?

Plus you'll get a cool $25K! It's like your birthday! Go for it!

Wrong. I said that I found my ring with a LRL. I didn't say "things". Perhaps a little reading comprehension is in order...hmmm? However....Ted says that I found an object that "resembled" my ring. That is the claim that I am saying is extraordinary. . I wonder what the odds are that someone else with my name and the same wedding date lost a ring in the same field where I had been working previously?

BTW...I'm still working on my list in my spare time....I've just been busy lately. And of course, when I do get it on here I won't have time to analyze each and every post like you do... after all, I do have a life. But I'm sure all the others will chime in to help when they have time.

 

[EE THr]

ER---

That's being rather picky, isn't it? I didn't think you would try to rebut a point with only one lucky find! That is misleading. And, if you intend to use your story as proof, then you've got to be able to actually prove it. Do you have video of the fresh dig?

And if you are going to be so exact, you hadn't mentioned your ring yet in this thread, when Ted made his statement. So how could he be referring to your ring?

If you're talking about some other discussion than what's in this thread, then you shouldn't assume that everyone reading is familiar with all your exchanges with Ted.

I'd say the problem isn't so much my reading, as it is your writing.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~"Scientific Proof of Scientific Claims Advocate (SPSCA)"~

That's being rather picky, isn't it? I didn't think you would try to rebut a point with only one lucky find! That is misleading. And, if you intend to use your story as proof, then you've got to be able to actually prove it. Do you have video of the fresh dig?

And if you are going to be so exact, you hadn't mentioned your ring yet in this thread, when Ted made his statement. So how could he be referring to your ring?

~EddieR~

Wrong. I said that I found my ring with a LRL. I didn't say "things". Perhaps a little reading comprehension is in order...hmmm? However....Ted says that I found an object that "resembled" my ring. That is the claim that I am saying is extraordinary. . I wonder what the odds are that someone else with my name and the same wedding date lost a ring in the same field where I had been working previously.

Do you have a third Job EddieR ? Maybe a Carpenter as you sure know how to hit the nail on the head..Art

 

[EddieR]

ER---

That's being rather picky, isn't it? I didn't think you would try to rebut a point with only one lucky find! That is misleading. And, if you intend to use your story as proof, then you've got to be able to actually prove it. Do you have video of the fresh dig?

And if you are going to be so exact, you hadn't mentioned your ring yet in this thread, when Ted made his statement. So how could he be referring to your ring?

If you're talking about some other discussion than what's in this thread, then you shouldn't assume that everyone reading is familiar with all your exchanges with Ted.

I'd say the problem isn't so much my reading, as it is your writing.

Or perhaps you should check into things that others are talking about before you jump in with your high and mighty self. If you would research, you would see that the story I have repeated several times involves my ring. And if it was such a "lucky find", I guess that metal detectors aren't needed anymore. We can all just go to the park (consisting of several acres) and just walk straight to dropped coins and jewelry. That is your claim, right? That it was a lucky find? So...your claim can be repeatedly proven, correct? In a test situation, a coin or ring could be dropped in a field, and then a hunter just walk straight to it and pick it up? You can prove this, no doubt.

If you aren't familiar with previous exchanges with other members, perhaps you shouldn't comment at all until you know what you are talking about.

If yours and the general pseudo-skeptical posts are based on the typical EE logic and thinking, and IF you all are indeed educated in electronics, I can truly understand why the electronics jobs are outsourced.

I am not offering my story as proof. Once again....for the leventy leventh time....I am not here to prove anything!!!! I couldn't care less what you think, because to me...your opinion is like pinto beans...you hold it in for awhile until it erupts and fouls the air, then it dissipates and everybody forgets about it.

 

[EE THr]

ER---

When I was a kid, the family was at the beach in Santa Cruz, CA. My aunt lost a ring off her hand, in the surf, and she didn't notice it until she came back to the beach blankets. She and my mother agreed that it was gone for good, because of the way the continually re-wetted sand at the surf line absorbs things.

She felt so bad about it, that I decided to go find it for her.

She pointed out the general area she had been, at the waterline. It was about a 15' x 15' area, so I started in the middle and worked out. The water would rush over the area, then recede, so when it went out I would quickly dig a hole with both hands, dog paddle style, before the water came in again. When the water went out, I would move a little and dig again.

After about 10 holes, I found here gold and ruby ring.

Does that mean that LRLs are better than simple dowsing?

Your single example, if it is true, is not even worth mentioning; much less as any kind of rebuttal to Ted's statement.

Get real.

 

[EddieR]

ER---

When I was a kid, the family was at the beach in Santa Cruz, CA. My aunt lost a ring off her hand, in the surf, and she didn't notice it until she came back to the beach blankets. She and my mother agreed that it was gone for good, because of the way the continually re-wetted sand at the surf line absorbs things.

She felt so bad about it, that I decided to go find it for her.

She pointed out the general area she had been, at the waterline. It was about a 15' x 15' area, so I started in the middle and worked out. The water would rush over the area, then recede, so when it went out I would quickly dig a hole with both hands, dog paddle style, before the water came in again. When the water went out, I would move a little and dig again.

After about 10 holes, I found here gold and ruby ring.

Does that mean that LRLs are better than simple dowsing?

Your single example, if it is true, is not even worth mentioning; much less as any kind of rebuttal to Ted's statement.

Get real.

Of course it isn't worth mentioning to you...it flies in the face and eradicates all you have posted. But....it's all beans, as I said.

I have never claimed that LRL's or dowsing is better than the other. It all interests me. I'm fascinated by the theory and possibilities, that's all. When I found my ring, I had no idea what a LRL was. A neighbor had one and showed me how to use it. I found the ring. Triangulation perfect. Now go ahead and claim it was luck, blah, blah, blah.....but have another bowl of beans as you speak.

You see, IF you knew how to research and read, instead of jumping in barrel over butthole and just disputing people's stories, you would have read some of the older posts in order to see what you were getting into. It is painfully obvious that you have not researched, so your posts are pretty much.....beans.

Nice story, by the way....if it's true. I'm assuming you have a video as proof of your successful recovery?

<toot> <toot>

 

[EE THr]

ER---

Your first mistake was, by your own admission, expecting everyone to follow your every post like some kind of fan club. To make yourself understandable, you should some kind of indication that you discussed your ring find before, and that there may be more to the story.

Your second mistake was your anger. That pretty much exposes that there is something wrong with your story. A simple explanation would have sufficed.

But even then, it was pretty lame to use one single event to try and rebut Ted's statement. You should know better. it just shows that your argument is weak, but you just threw it in there for the sake of arguing. I've seen that picture many times before. boring.

Your claim to be "middle of the road" on the subject of LRLs appears to merely be an excuse for you to argue with both sides. What else can one think about it? I mean, you don't seem to be accomplishing much, or arriving at any specific conclusions.

Ted has every right to his conclusion about LRLs, because none of them will go ahead and just take the test. Do you think you can find your ring, under the same circumstances, as reliably as a metal detector can?

Do you think you can do it ten times in a row, if someone else placed it, under the same conditions as when you lost it? Because your use of your "ring find" as a rebuttal to Ted's statement sure sounds like you think you can.

So let's see you do it, then!

 

[EddieR]

ER---

Your first mistake was, by your own admission, expecting everyone to follow your every post like some kind of fan club. To make yourself understandable, you should some kind of indication that you discussed your ring find before, and that there may be more to the story.

Your second mistake was your anger. That pretty much exposes that there is something wrong with your story. A simple explanation would have sufficed.

But even then, it was pretty lame to use one single event to try and rebut Ted's statement. You should know better. it just shows that your argument is weak, but you just threw it in there for the sake of arguing. I've seen that picture many times before. boring.

Your claim to be "middle of the road" on the subject of LRLs appears to merely be an excuse for you to argue with both sides. What else can one think about it? I mean, you don't seem to be accomplishing much, or arriving at any specific conclusions.

Ted has every right to his conclusion about LRLs, because none of them will go ahead and just take the test. Do you think you can find your ring, under the same circumstances, as reliably as a metal detector can?

Do you think you can do it ten times in a row, if someone else placed it, under the same conditions as when you lost it? Because your use of your "ring find" as a rebuttal to Ted's statement sure sounds like you think you can.

So let's see you do it, then!

And your first mistake, even though you would NEVER admit it, is jumping in and talking about something when you know NO details about it. Just wanting to see your words on a page, I suppose.
If you want something that is illegible, check out the part of your post above that I highlighted..

Second mistake is thinking that I expect everyone to follow my posts. Nope. But you would think that someone with a modicum of common sense would at least try to know what they are talking about in the first place.

Third mistake is thinking I'm angry. Nothing to that one at all. I have posted many times in the past that I consider the pseudo-skeptic camp to be here for entertainment purposes. Kinda hard to be mad when I'm smiling a lot.

You see, the only thing that is wrong with my story is.....nothing. It happened. The end. Dowsing or LRL? I dunno. Doesn't matter one way or the other.

And you saying that my using one story as a rebuttal to Ted was weak.....and in an earlier post you posted ONE story about finding a ring yourself. Talk about entertainment value! Of course, we shouldn't believe that extraordinary claim, as you have not produced one shred of evidence to back up your claim....and can't, correct?

I fully agree with you that Ted has the right to believe what he wants about LRL's. The problem is...I believe that everyone else should be able to believe what they want....but the pseudo-skeptic camp just can't seem to swallow that, so they cajole, accuse, and attempt to belittle the people that believe differently from them. That really shows the insecurities that are deep within the psych.

As far as my success finding the ring ten times in a row, I have no idea. I really doubt it. But I also doubt that a detectorist could find it ten times in a row. Why do I believe that? Because of the human interface. If it was the detector ONLY then yep, ten times no problem. But with a person swinging it, they may miss it, correct? Thus the success rate of detectorists that go back to "hunted out" sites. Now if a detector is infallible, and is used at a site, then how in the wide world of sports can someone come along behind them and find things they missed?

 

[EE THr]

ER---

You have no excuse for using your single experience with your ring as a rebuttal against what Ted stated. It was in no way balanced to the magnitude of his statement. And that's what gave me the impression that you were indicating many such experiences on your part. In other words, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't being irrelevant.

That was my mistake!

But I'll play it your way, and from now on I won't make the mistake of thinking that you are at least semi-intelligent. Thank you for clearing that up for me!

As for your "pseudo skeptics," there are only about a half dozen people posting in the LRL Section lately, and none of them are either skeptics or pseudos. That's been made clear. So how about your reading comprehension? Probably the same as your writing skills.

And for the metal detectors, yes, some are better at certain things than others, but your ring was a fresh drop. Offer me $25K to find it seven out of ten times, and I'll be there. Can you say the same for Carl's test?

Didn't think so!

That's why I don't know why in the World you are on here advocating LRLs. It's a losing proposition. Makes me wonder why you keep it up? It sure doesn't sound like "middie of the road" to me. If you were really "on the fence," you wouldn't be attacking people, you would be asking pertinent questions.





Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EddieR]

ER---

You have no excuse for using your single experience with your ring as a rebuttal against what Ted stated. It was in no way balanced to the magnitude of his statement. And that's what gave me the impression that you were indicating many such experiences on your part. In other words, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't being irrelevant.

That was my mistake!

But I'll play it your way, and from now on I won't make the mistake of thinking that you are at least semi-intelligent. Thank you for clearing that up for me!

As for your "pseudo skeptics," there are only about a half dozen people posting in the LRL Section lately, and none of them are either skeptics or pseudos. That's been made clear. So how about your reading comprehension? Probably the same as your writing skills.

And for the metal detectors, yes, some are better at certain things than others, but your ring was a fresh drop. Offer me $25K to find it seven out of ten times, and I'll be there. Can you say the same for Carl's test?

Didn't think so!

That's why I don't know why in the World you are on here advocating LRLs. It's a losing proposition. Makes me wonder why you keep it up? It sure doesn't sound like "middie of the road" to me. If you were really "on the fence," you wouldn't be attacking people, you would be asking pertinent questions.





Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Oh geez...once again.....I am not advocating LRL's. I simply had an experience, posted about it, and I've been slammed for it ever since.

I've come to the conclusion that anything posted here that is contrary to your beliefs will be considered irrelevant. So carry on, I suppose. Have fun.

And trust me, even though you say no pseudo skeps are posting.....well.....all ya gotta do is read the advertisement.

 

[fenixdigger]

OMG--- I go off for a while and this gets turned into the amazing EE show. How did a thread about anderson rods get turned into this??

EE since you don't know anything about them ,,,, why are you even in the mix You really don't have to respond to every post on this thread.

I know everyone is hanging on your next corrective post , but Really. Come on now.

This is just a weak suggestion, ask what problems in the field are and use that training to accomplish something, crazy I know, but it may serve to do the same thing as the bickering. Of course if you feel it is out of your range, I understand.

 

[EE THr]

Oh geez...once again.....I am not advocating LRL's. I simply had an experience, posted about it, and I've been slammed for it ever since.

I've come to the conclusion that anything posted here that is contrary to your beliefs will be considered irrelevant. So carry on, I suppose. Have fun.

And trust me, even though you say no pseudo skeps are posting.....well.....all ya gotta do is read the advertisement.

ER---

Nice #8.

Poor baby....


ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?