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

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom_in_CA said: "....Hence all we can do is study claimed results today......"

Les replied:

... Don't forget 8000 years of dowsing history that shows it works.... .

I luv ya like a bro Les. You are extremely sportsman like, respectful, sincere, passionate, fair, etc...

My answer to that quote above, is as I always say: "Anecdotal". Yes, there is 8000 yrs. of "finds" showing it "works". No shortage of personal testimony, stories, etc... But nothing to ever test them to make sure other more plausible explanations couldn't have been at play. Since you yourself admit that they won't pass DBT's

As for the body-dowsing and the most recent dime: I own a street sweeper business. And we used to have routes of shopping centers to clean up their parking lots each night. And because of my hobby of metal detecting, I got a keen eye for spotting goodies on deserted vacated parking lots at night. To the point where I even found gold jewelry in seeming clutter of debris and trash. It bugged my coworkers no end, because every night I'd come back to the truck with a $5 or a $10, (and a few times even a gold ring). So they too would start to keep their eyes peeled. But to no avail. I'd find stuff, and they wouldn't . Strictly because my brain was tuned, via my md'ing hobby, to spot-such things.

Hence so too might that explain your dime. Nothing to do with "dowsing". Eh ?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

And as I re-read my post, I realize you might hone in on my statement ... of my own "brain being tuned". And you might be tempted to say "Aha ! You were dowsing !".

If that is someone's definition of "dowsing", then sure, by all means, I was dowsing. But that's just playing with semantics. Because sure as heck, anyone who starts to use that vocabulary to define anyone who has a keen eye and reads landscapes well, is simply trying to make the bridge to rods, and willow sticks, etc... Which is an altogether different definition and form of "dowsing".

So please please please don't define my story as "dowsing". That's just word play.

 

[Kray Gelder]

I wouldn't call myself an infestation, just an occasional browser. Being an "Agent of the Devil", I drop in and see if anything new and exciting is going on. I read this entire, tedious debate, all the way back to the beginning of this thread. I kind of like the ram's horn thing, and the marching around seven times, and the shouting part at the end especially. I'm going to find myself a ram's horn, and try this the next time I go to the park. I'm going to march around the park 7 times while blowing my cool ram's horn, then I'm going to shout "SEVEN!" seven times, before I begin with my detector. Stay tuned!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....I'm going to march around the park 7 times while blowing my cool ram's horn, then I'm going to shout "SEVEN!" seven times, before I begin with my detector. Stay tuned!

And I'll bet that you'll find something metal (maybe even something cool) with your detector. And when you do, you can triumphantly attribute that success to the march around the park, the blowing of the ram's horn, and the shouting of "7". I mean ... duh .... that directly preceded the find. Right ? So who can argue with that connection of the dots. Right ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Tom_in_CA said: "....Hence all we can do is study claimed results today......"

Les replied:



I luv ya like a bro Les. You are extremely sportsman like, respectful, sincere, passionate, fair, etc...

My answer to that quote above, is as I always say: "Anecdotal". Yes, there is 8000 yrs. of "finds" showing it "works". No shortage of personal testimony, stories, etc... But nothing to ever test them to make sure other more plausible explanations couldn't have been at play. Since you yourself admit that they won't pass DBT's

As for the body-dowsing and the most recent dime: I own a street sweeper business. And we used to have routes of shopping centers to clean up their parking lots each night. And because of my hobby of metal detecting, I got a keen eye for spotting goodies on deserted vacated parking lots at night. To the point where I even found gold jewelry in seeming clutter of debris and trash. It bugged my coworkers no end, because every night I'd come back to the truck with a $5 or a $10, (and a few times even a gold ring). So they too would start to keep their eyes peeled. But to no avail. I'd find stuff, and they wouldn't . Strictly because my brain was tuned, via my md'ing hobby, to spot-such things.

Hence so too might that explain your dime. Nothing to do with "dowsing". Eh ?

Nice try, but not even close. My dime was buried about 2 inches below the surface and unseen by the naked eye to any extent. That's a lot different than seeing goodies lying on top of a cement parking lot that would reflect light from street lights at night, or from sunlight during the day that would give away the spot they were at.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... was buried about 2 inches below the surface.....

hmmmm

 

[Kray Gelder]

And I'll bet that you'll find something metal (maybe even something cool) with your detector. And when you do, you can triumphantly attribute that success to the march around the park, the blowing of the ram's horn, and the shouting of "7". I mean ... duh .... that directly preceded the find. Right ? So who can argue with that connection of the dots. Right ?

Hope so.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...... My dime was buried about 2 inches below the surface and unseen by the naked eye....

Here again, I would fall-back on my previous fall-back: It is stories like this, if true, that are quite compelling. To simply walk out to a random spot, and dig, and find a dime, with NO detector to pinpoint, is .... yes ... beyond random chance. Right ?

I would say that there must be some sort of subtle visual terrain clues. Or that you were in a spot with "lots & lots of dimes" so it was eventual-random-odds. And other such Tom_in_CA pushbacks. Eh ? To which you would tell me that none of those things were factors. Right ? We've been down this road before.

So I would do as I did before, and say "Ok, let's grant that this is true, and beyond random chance, and repeatable (thus not "eventual odds" and "dumb luck"). To which you'd tell me "yes". Then I would say: If it is that reliable, and not random chance, and is repeatable, then why oh why oh why oh why can't someone go show the world this wonderful skill ? Ie.: to subject it to a DBT ?

Notice in that case, I'm not denying the finding of the dime. Right ? I granting it "as a given" for "sake of argument". And then merely saying that if we accept all those as "givens", then presto: It ought to be able to pass a DBT. To which you'd say that dowsing never works in DBT's. To which I'd say: "Given the level of confidence, and these stunning stories of repeatable success with zero terrain clues, I can't imagine why it wouldn't pass tests showing exactly what you are claiming".

Have I got the progression of back-forth exchanges pretty dialed down ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Whew. I'll be back Monday.

 

[lesjcbs]

My dowsing gets me close to a target, then I use my MD to pin point the target. My average distance to the dowsed target has been and still is 18 inches.

 

[Darke]

My dowsing gets me close to a target, then I use my MD to pin point the target. My average distance to the dowsed target has been and still is 18 inches.

Have you tried narrowing it down with a bobber? Should get you within about a 8" radius depending on the length.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

My dowsing gets me close to a target, then I use my MD to pin point the target. My average distance to the dowsed target has been and still is 18 inches.

Ok. Fair enough. An interesting test, for a scenario like that, would be to:

1) take the exact same field .

2) Have an md'r enthusiast there, who is a non-dowser.

3) Let each side go out into the field, while the other person remains shielded from view of the other.

4) Then see if the md'r (who has no benefit of dowsing rods) can .... likewise .... attain an "average distance of 18 inches" to a target.


If this comparison test showed that the non-dowsing md'r could attain the same results, what would you say to that ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Ok. Fair enough. An interesting test, for a scenario like that, would be to:

1) take the exact same field .

2) Have an md'r enthusiast there, who is a non-dowser.

3) Let each side go out into the field, while the other person remains shielded from view of the other.

4) Then see if the md'r (who has no benefit of dowsing rods) can .... likewise .... attain an "average distance of 18 inches" to a target.


If this comparison test showed that the non-dowsing md'r could attain the same results, what would you say to that ?

I would say "great", the MD enthusiast is dowsing and having to use the detector as a dowsing pin pointer. Furthermore, by placing the MD coil on the ground here and there, it would look like that person is trying to kill snakes.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I would say "great", the MD enthusiast is dowsing....

I believe this attempt at re-defining "dowsing" is going against the standard definition. Example: If you gather 10,000 people in a room. You show them all the same video clips:

Video clip #1 : Man arrives at field with a metal detector, studies the horizon, and picks a direction to walk to start. Turns on his metal detector.

Video clip #2: Man arrives at a field with a dowsing rod, points the rod to the horizon, follows the direction to walk. Turns on his metal detector.

Then you ask those 10,000 viewers the following question: "Which of these 2 men was dowsing ?" I'll bet that all 10,000 of them would answer: "The 2nd man". I doubt that any of the 10,000 persons would say "both of those men were dowsing".

If so, for purposes of the definition of dowsing : Are all 10,000 people wrong with their conventional dictionary definition of dowsing ? Or maybe (just maybe) your 1 person's definition is wrong ? (just maybe)

 

[BLK HOLE]

 

[lesjcbs]

If you are saying the MD enthusiast turns on his detector, then starts to scan as he goes, that is not dowsing. If he turns on his detector after sensing a need to, that is dowsing and using his detector to pin point. I have done that consciously and missed because I was pushing my rods. In other words, scanning with your metal detector is not dowsing.

I turn on my detector to pin point after my rods cross, and not until.

 

[lesjcbs]

I believe this attempt at re-defining "dowsing" is going against the standard definition. Example: If you gather 10,000 people in a room. You show them all the same video clips:

Video clip #1 : Man arrives at field with a metal detector, studies the horizon, and picks a direction to walk to start. Turns on his metal detector.

Video clip #2: Man arrives at a field with a dowsing rod, points the rod to the horizon, follows the direction to walk. Turns on his metal detector.

Then you ask those 10,000 viewers the following question: "Which of these 2 men was dowsing ?" I'll bet that all 10,000 of them would answer: "The 2nd man". I doubt that any of the 10,000 persons would say "both of those men were dowsing".

If so, for purposes of the definition of dowsing : Are all 10,000 people wrong with their conventional dictionary definition of dowsing ? Or maybe (just maybe) your 1 person's definition is wrong ? (just maybe)

Beats what you are trying to imply.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If you are saying the MD enthusiast turns on his detector, then starts to scan as he goes, that is not dowsing. If he turns on his detector after sensing a need to, that is dowsing and using his detector to pin point. I have done that consciously and missed because I was pushing my rods. In other words, scanning with your metal detector is not dowsing.

I turn on my detector to pin point after my rods cross, and not until.

In my questioning of your definition of "dowsing", in post # 134, I did not mean to imply that the man with the detector walks along detecting the entire way into the field. I mean that he too .... like you with the rods, .... would walk out to a spot he feels is likely looking . And THEN turn on his detector. And proposed that : Odds are, on average, like you, would get something within 18" of the spot he turns on his machine.

BUT WHETHER OR NOT he did or didn't find anything in that 18" area, that was not the point. I was questioning your definition of "dowsing". You had said in #133 that my man was "dowsing". I disagree. And I did so by pointing out, that 10,000 people who watch those 2 persons (one with the rods, and the other without rods) and asked them : "Which of these 2 men is dowsing ? " I'm betting that all 10,000 would answer: "The man with the rods".

Hence, your definition of dowsing is not common vernacular normal usage of the word, if/when you apply it to a man who detects with no rods.

 

[lesjcbs]

In my questioning of your definition of "dowsing", in post # 134, I did not mean to imply that the man womith the detector walks along detecting the entire way into the field. I mean that he too .... like you with the rods, .... would walk out to a spot he feels is likely looking . And THEN turn on his detector. And proposed that : Odds are, on average, like you, would get something within 18" of the spot he turns on his machine.

BUT WHETHER OR NOT he did or didn't find anything in that 18" area, that was not the point. I was questioning your definition of "dowsing". You had said in #133 that my man was "dowsing". I disagree. And I did so by pointing out, that 10,000 people who watch those 2 persons (one with the rods, and the other without rods) and asked them : "Which of these 2 men is dowsing ? " I'm betting that all 10,000 would answer: "The man with the rods".

Hence, your definition of dowsing is not common vernacular normal usage of the word, if/when you apply it to a man who detects with no rods.

You are correct about what is commonly understood to be dowsing. That is only because "deviceless dowsing" is not the common image the public (your 10,000 observers) has, knows about let alone understood.

When I dowse with rods, I go in the direction the rods point in. The other maneuver is I walk forward, then when my rods cross, I stop and pin point. I dowse where people have been.

Treasure is where treasure is. Gold, silver, metal junk do not float on top of the ocean waters. If you want to find something in Mexico, you do not go to Alaska for it. This applies to both dowsing or using a metal detector. I dowse and metal detect where people have been. It only makes sense and is a cardinal rule that will not yield to anyone wishing otherwise.

Why anyone who claims to have been MD'ing for a long period would question that just boggles my mind. Further, those who question that have an unstable mind.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... "deviceless dowsing"...

Well, this is a new one to me ! "Device-less dowsing" is simply an synonym for "metal detecting", if I'm understanding you correctly.

What's odd is, that if you asked 10,000 people to Define "device-less dowsing" I'll bet dollars to donuts that none of them would ever dream up to answer: "metal detecting" . So again: You know definitions that most everyone (by your own admission) doesn't know of. Hmmm, kind of makes you wonder, eh ?

And what makes this even more ironic, is that some (a lot) of those md'rs could actually even dis-believe in dowsing . Silly them that didn't know that ..... actually, ..... they ARE dowsing. Wow. Ok