Can lucky number "7" be used in dowsing and in metal detecting for better performanc?

[elh]

Count me in. I'm on my way.

I've just sent an email, and left a voicemail. To the city staff there. Asking: "Can I dig up gold in the city park there ?". Which, will no doubt, be passed on to their city attorney. Who ... of course ... will say "no". Which, of course, simply means: They are trying to hide the treasure and keep it for themselves ! So the "no" will be all-the-more proof that this "gold" exists, and further the validation of the dowsing that showed the gold there !

Tom, with all the metal detecting you brag about and you have to ask park officials about digging up and destroying their park?? Pretty sad.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom, with all the metal detecting you brag about and you have to ask park officials about digging up and destroying their park?? Pretty sad.

I am the LAST one to "ask bored pencil pushers" for permission. Thus what was only tongue-in-cheek. I am as brazen as they come. Hence: I am on my way to the park "100 miles north of Salt Lake city", that is "loaded with gold"

 

[lesjcbs]

Here are the things I found Saturday, 26 Jan 2019. Notice my #7 lucky charm. An aluminum bottle cap seal and a straight wire.

I just got back from dowsing. I will post a picture of today's find tomorrow.

Enjoy.

 

[aarthrj3811]

I am the LAST one to "ask bored pencil pushers" for permission. Thus what was only tongue-in-cheek. I am as brazen as they come. Hence: I am on my way to the park "100 miles north of Salt Lake city", that is "loaded with gold"

Wow

 

[lesjcbs]

More dowsing finds.

Here is a Penney and a bottle cap sealer.

I first located the Penney then saw the seal lying nearby on top of the ground. As I posted before, anything I see on the surface while dowsing, is a hit. It would be crazy to rigidly stick to where the rods cross only and ignore some valuable target that is lying nearby on top of the surface.

At the top is my #7 lucky charm.

Enjoy.

 

[boogeyman]

Gee Tom...Did you ever try dowsing? Most of us could care less about all the fake stuff you guys talk about. I can dowse and will not stop by a fake Boogie man.

You calling me a fake? Just kidding.

 

[lesjcbs]

This question is a continuation from the thread digital cameras can see gold.

Tom:

Got an example that apples to long distance dowsing shots?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

This question is a continuation from the thread digital cameras can see gold.

Tom:

Got an example that apples to long distance dowsing shots?

Hey there les-jcbs, I answered there. But here it is, cut-&-pasted :


I would say that: "terrain clues" start for any person, even when out-of-visual line-of-sight. For example, you start walking a certain direction, on a hunch. Then as you get closer to whatever set of trees, a prominent rock outcropping, a cellar hole foundation, etc... That THEN you are in line-of-sight, for the "subtle terrain clues".

Thus: The terrain clues eventually present themselves for WHATEVER direction your hunches tells you to start walking to. And it wasn't the rod that gave you the "hunch". Or the eventual "terrain clue". It was all in your brain and mind. Just as it is for any skilled md'r who wonders: "Where's the best place to start?"

But, let's just assume for the moment that this explanation is not adequate to explain how someone could have a "hunch" for something that is outside their visual range. Ok ? Let's just assume that ... therefore ... the rods *must be doing something* that "hunches" and "terrain clues" did NOT tell the operator about. Ok. Then all I can say is: This would be all-the-more-reason to let it be subjected to tests. If you're saying it's beyond random chances, subtle terrain clues, eventual odds, and so-forth, I'd say : Fine: Then with that level of confidence, then it would seem like all-the-more-reason to gladly let it be tested @ DBT.

 

[Tpmetal]

So why is it that dowsers are expected to find only that big, rich, treasure things when we going dowsing and when we don't, all of a sudden dowsing does not work?

Because the majority of the time that is EXACTLY what dowsers themselves claim they can do. They say I can specifically find gold when looking for gold, they say I can find your water source when looking for water, and so on. So this is why you get questioned and why you are doubted and why you are asked to do proper scientific testing to prove it. Otherwise you would be out on your own dowsing and no one would care.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Because the majority of the time that is EXACTLY what dowsers themselves claim they can do....

Ha, good answer tp-metal. But you have to admit, the push-back is very compelling on the dowser's part . It goes something like this :

"When an md'r goes out md'ing, does he always find a goodie on every outing? Of course not. Some days you come back with nothing but some junk. Or you go to the beach after a storm, only-to-discover that mother nature left the beach totally sanded in and sterile. So you go home utterly empty handed. Right ? And no one would say, for a moment, that : 'Therefore metal detectors don't work.' Right ?

But wait !! ?? Why the double standard for dowsing then ? Why is it that a skeptic md'r tries to conclude 'dowsing doesn't work', when a dowser fails a staged test. When the skeptic md'r will sometimes LIKEWISE 'fail a test' and come home with no goodies ? So why the double standard for dowsers ??

Pretty compelling argument, eh ? The only answer I could come up with , is this: If you take a detector, and prop it up on a table, and set it to have a slight threshold hum. Then take 100 random people off the street, who have utterly no experience with detectors. Tell each of those 100 people to wave a quarter in front of the coil. And you'll notice that it beeps for all 100 of them. Even if they weren't experienced md'rs. Even if the sun and moon phases aren't correct, etc.....

 

[lesjcbs]

Hey there les-jcbs, I answered there. But here it is, cut-&-pasted :


I would say that: "terrain clues" start for any person, even when out-of-visual line-of-sight. For example, you start walking a certain direction, on a hunch. Then as you get closer to whatever set of trees, a prominent rock outcropping, a cellar hole foundation, etc... That THEN you are in line-of-sight, for the "subtle terrain clues".

Thus: The terrain clues eventually present themselves for WHATEVER direction your hunches tells you to start walking to. And it wasn't the rod that gave you the "hunch". Or the eventual "terrain clue". It was all in your brain and mind. Just as it is for any skilled md'r who wonders: "Where's the best place to start?"

But, let's just assume for the moment that this explanation is not adequate to explain how someone could have a "hunch" for something that is outside their visual range. Ok ? Let's just assume that ... therefore ... the rods *must be doing something* that "hunches" and "terrain clues" did NOT tell the operator about. Ok. Then all I can say is: This would be all-the-more-reason to let it be subjected to tests. If you're saying it's beyond random chances, subtle terrain clues, eventual odds, and so-forth, I'd say : Fine: Then with that level of confidence, then it would seem like all-the-more-reason to gladly let it be tested @ DBT.

Start walking in a direction on a hunch? Yes, one can do that while dowsing but that is not triangulating that can be done also while dowsing.

While standing in one spot and not moving from it, you scan from left to right, or right to left. The rods will cross in one certain direction and you take a magnetic bearing. Now move to the right or left some distance. Swing in the direction your rods first pointed. When your rods cross again, take this last magnetic bearing. Where the two lines intersect is the area or spot your target is located.

This maneuver is called "triangulation" and is done while dowsing over very long distances. Do that with your MD and see if it will beep when pointed in any of those two directions. So far, mine has not, but my rods have. How about your MD?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

This is the dowsing forum, no one has to prove anything to anyone and the constant badgering of members who do believe to prove it to skeptics is getting REAL OLD. I can personally douse power lines, telecom lines., water lines even conduit that has never had anything in them, done so for years and cant care less who believes or doesnt believe, dont need to know why it works either, just knowing it works is enough.

 

[lesjcbs]

This is the dowsing forum, no one has to prove anything to anyone and the constant badgering of members who do believe to prove it to skeptics is getting REAL OLD. I can personally douse power lines, telecom lines., water lines even conduit that has never had anything in them, done so for years and cant care less who believes or doesnt believe, dont need to know why it works either, just knowing it works is enough.

Treasure Hunter.

You might be wondering why I stick around with these guys? Let's say I don't have anything going at the moment, so I don't mind them. In fact, I find it entertaining.
Les
1Lt. USAF Retired. 1970 -1990.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... no one has to prove anything to anyone and the constant badgering of members ....

T-H'r : I was given a personal invitation to continue this discussion, in a consensual relationship, by les-jcbs. It has been/is an intellectual "non-badgering" discussion. That I guess you were not aware of, that preceded this recent addition to this thread.

I guess we are each equally as intrigued by the : "How does the other view factor various data , factor various explanations, etc....?". If nothing is "proved" (ie.: neither view budges) it is at least a platform where the flow-chart of logic is allowed to see-where-it-goes.

I warned lesjcbs that this forum section might not allow dissenting views. But after reviewing this, and several other threads here on this sub-section, it seemed like it was allowed, if civil. And as you can see: This is civil, eh ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Start walking in a direction on a hunch? .....

... So far, mine has not, but my rods have. How about your MD?

Lesjcbs, it seems that the current discussion is : You were not completely accepting that your dowsing results could be the result of subtle terrain clues and visual hunches. Since, of course, it will work from long distances. Ie.: It works beyond the horizon of line-of-sight . Right ? Thus that removes the possibility that it could be attributed to visual subtle terrain clues. Right ?

However, in post #1453 of the "camera" thread, you said : "I know there are dowsers who say their rods move by themselves. I do not ecxpect mine to do that. So you are talking about someone else, not me."


But here , in this thread's post # 91, you seem to be retreating back to saying that : They move on their own. Can you please clarify ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Lesjcbs, it seems that the current discussion is : You were not completely accepting that your dowsing results could be the result of subtle terrain clues and visual hunches. Since, of course, it will work from long distances. Ie.: It works beyond the horizon of line-of-sight . Right ? Thus that removes the possibility that it could be attributed to visual subtle terrain clues. Right ?

However, in post #1453 of the "camera" thread, you said : "I know there are dowsers who say their rods move by themselves. I do not ecxpect mine to do that. So you are talking about someone else, not me."


But here , in this thread's post # 91, you seem to be retreating back to saying that : They move on their own. Can you please clarify ?

No where in post "91 do I say or even suggest my rods move all by themselves. If I thought they did, I would have said so. There are dowsers who claim they do, but I am not one of them. Now what part of that don't you understand?

Post "91 is about triangulation not rods moving on their own.

No need to try to put words in my mouth.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Post "91 is about triangulation not rods moving on their own....

Ok, then it is your subconscious movement of the rods, that is causing them to "triangulate". Ok. Then my answer is that ... even at a distance, beyond visual line-of-site, that someone can have hunches.

For example: My buddy and I studied to find the location of a stage stop for weeks and weeks. It disappeared at the turn of century, when modern roads bypassed it by a mile or so. And the meager mentions we found in history books, did not give an exact site. So we took off walking in the desert, in the suspected direction. Randomly hiking, studying the ground, etc... Eventually I spotted a random piece of crockery. So I slowed down, and started doing circles in that area. Allowing me to spot random blue glass hither and yonder. Thus I turn on the detector , and .... bingo : We'd found the spot.

We have about 20 to 25 period coins so far from this site (1850s to 1900) and a rare $5 gold so far.

Point being : Even though the actual ground zero was out-of-line of site from where we started our hike: The mere fact of research to put us close, and then "hunches" as to where someone might have chosen to put the stop (eg.: close to water, on high ground, etc....) allowed us to practically walk right to the site.

So too could the same phenomenon be occurring with you. You study to where a likely spot is to find goodies. And then you hike around, and visually hone in on "most likely spots". EVEN if the eventual spot you come to was not in the line-of-site of where you started.

Hope that makes sense.

And actually, I suppose that since you're acknowledging that the rods do nothing on their own, and it's merely you pointing them, then it seems you'd agree with this theory/explanation. Hence ... so too could you accomplish the same thing with no rods. Eh ? Just as my buddy and I found this remote desert stage stop location with no rods. Eh ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Sure, one can walk in ever increasing circles and find things. But, that is not triangulating in any sense of the word. Furthermore, triangulating from two or more target signals lines takes you directly to the target the signal is coming from. Big difference here. You might as well be compare tomatoes with tennis balls.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Sure, one can walk in ever increasing circles and find things.....

We did not walk in "ever increasing circles". We practically walked in a straight line, right to the eventual location. Strictly d/t hunches in the landscape. And asking ourselves: Where would be the likely place to have put a stage stop ? Even though the eventual site was beyond our line-of-sight from where we started the hike.

So too would you be going "directly to the target". Which could .... just as with my buddy and I, be attributed to simply going to "most likely zone". And then when getting closer, hone in with subtle terrain clues. And that could be practically a straight line. Not "random widening circles". Hence could that explain what is happening with you ? Thus having nothing to do with rods ?

 

[lesjcbs]

No not so. You are not even close.

When doing long distant dowsing shots, the rods first point in the direction of the target, then the dowser goes in that direction to the target. In my case the target I dug out of the ground was a spent .22 bullet casing that I did not know or even suspect was there. I was dowsing to see what I could find.

Again, stop trying to put words into my mouth. It won't work for you.