M
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
What does this have to do with dowsing?
If you look around the Internet you will also see quotes that this guy later admitted that the device he was using was in fact a standard biofeedback device that simply responds to blinking. He still has to "program the thing to ignore blinking". So he "thinks" he can shoot beams from his eyes but he doesn't have a device yet that actually can detect it. Hmmm... something tells me that Randi isn't too scared about this. I'm not doubting that it can be done. I just don't think that this guy is going to be able to prove anything. He seems like a real nutjob to me when you look at all of the other things he has been involved with over the years. Sounds like a con artist hurting science's ability to advance the study of a potentially real phenomenon.
But hey, what do I know?
What does this have to do with dowsing?
If you look around the Internet you will also see quotes that this guy later admitted that the device he was using was in fact a standard biofeedback device that simply responds to blinking. He still has to "program the thing to ignore blinking". So he "thinks" he can shoot beams from his eyes but he doesn't have a device yet that actually can detect it. Hmmm... something tells me that Randi isn't too scared about this. I'm not doubting that it can be done. I just don't think that this guy is going to be able to prove anything. He seems like a real nutjob to me when you look at all of the other things he has been involved with over the years. Sounds like a con artist hurting science's ability to advance the study of a potentially real phenomenon.
But hey, what do I know?
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
I can't believe the man would apply for a patent if he was using some kind of biofeedback device.
I just watched a video of him demonstrating how he does it. I think that you would have to have skin contact with a biofeedback device before it would do anything or the eyebeam might be able to affect it.
Here is a link to the demonstration
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2008/08/colin_ross_has_an_eyebeam_of_e.php
I can't believe the man would apply for a patent if he was using some kind of biofeedback device.
I just watched a video of him demonstrating how he does it. I think that you would have to have skin contact with a biofeedback device before it would do anything or the eyebeam might be able to affect it.
Here is a link to the demonstration
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2008/08/colin_ross_has_an_eyebeam_of_e.php
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
I've seen the demonstration. As for filing for a patent he is doing two things: reserving his idea for the day that he can finally develop/prove it, and increasing his credibility. The reaction you've had to his confidence in filing a patent is exactly what he is hoping for. Don't forget though that this guy likely believes that this is real. He just hasn't provided any credible evidence at all. As for the biofeedback detector, you don't need to make contact for it to detect that you have blinked. In most cases it works by shining an invisible light off of your eye and looks for cases where the reflected light off of your pupil is blocked when you blink your eye. But this is not "eye beam" technology. It is reflective technology which no one is doubting at this point. I have no idea how his detector works but I'd be surprised if he isn't simply modifying a stock detector of some kind. Creating his own detector specifically for "eyebeam signals" would surely require significant R&D and would likely be way beyond his capabilities. He's not an electromagnetics detector expert. He's a Psychiatrist. So technology is not likely to be his strong suit. So he is using a detector that was created for some other purpose and is trying to make it work for eyebeam signals. So it stands to reason that in order to prove this thing works you would need to make sure that the detector is not detecting the types of signals that it was originally designed for. And this is what he hasn't really done yet.
I've seen the demonstration. As for filing for a patent he is doing two things: reserving his idea for the day that he can finally develop/prove it, and increasing his credibility. The reaction you've had to his confidence in filing a patent is exactly what he is hoping for. Don't forget though that this guy likely believes that this is real. He just hasn't provided any credible evidence at all. As for the biofeedback detector, you don't need to make contact for it to detect that you have blinked. In most cases it works by shining an invisible light off of your eye and looks for cases where the reflected light off of your pupil is blocked when you blink your eye. But this is not "eye beam" technology. It is reflective technology which no one is doubting at this point. I have no idea how his detector works but I'd be surprised if he isn't simply modifying a stock detector of some kind. Creating his own detector specifically for "eyebeam signals" would surely require significant R&D and would likely be way beyond his capabilities. He's not an electromagnetics detector expert. He's a Psychiatrist. So technology is not likely to be his strong suit. So he is using a detector that was created for some other purpose and is trying to make it work for eyebeam signals. So it stands to reason that in order to prove this thing works you would need to make sure that the detector is not detecting the types of signals that it was originally designed for. And this is what he hasn't really done yet.
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
I didn't say that I didn't believe it was possible (quite the contrary). And I also didn't say that it was a reflection of any kind. I simply said that Dr. Colin Ross has not really done anything to prove it. In fact, I think that he does damage to the reputations of those who actually have done research and may be on the verge of a breakthrough. And when talking about reflections I was describing how some biometric eye sensors currently work. Obviously those sensors were not created with eyebeams in mind and operate off of the principles of reflection which is an entirely different topic.
What I will say is that you have made quite a leap in assuming that it is a carrier wave for consciousnous. It is clear that you have latched onto that and somehow think that it is related to dowsing in some way or another. I don't see the correlation. I think it is reasonable to assume that the eye is capable of broadcasting electromagnetic waves of energy. There doesn't have to be any psychic or paranormal backing for this to be possible and useful.
I still do not understand why this is in the dowsing forum other than you must somehow think that this helps prove dowsing. That or you are just a "Randi hater" and couldn't help but post about someone who you think is getting a raw deal from the Randi organization. I disagree with that and so far have no reason to believe that Dr. Ross has done anything concrete to demostrate this ability. If he can demonstrate it without reasonable doubt then I'm happy to believe it. But it will take a lot more than some guy in a mask raising his finger when the computer makes a sound for me to believe that it is actually eyebeams. It could be a million other things causing that behavior.
I didn't say that I didn't believe it was possible (quite the contrary). And I also didn't say that it was a reflection of any kind. I simply said that Dr. Colin Ross has not really done anything to prove it. In fact, I think that he does damage to the reputations of those who actually have done research and may be on the verge of a breakthrough. And when talking about reflections I was describing how some biometric eye sensors currently work. Obviously those sensors were not created with eyebeams in mind and operate off of the principles of reflection which is an entirely different topic.
What I will say is that you have made quite a leap in assuming that it is a carrier wave for consciousnous. It is clear that you have latched onto that and somehow think that it is related to dowsing in some way or another. I don't see the correlation. I think it is reasonable to assume that the eye is capable of broadcasting electromagnetic waves of energy. There doesn't have to be any psychic or paranormal backing for this to be possible and useful.
I still do not understand why this is in the dowsing forum other than you must somehow think that this helps prove dowsing. That or you are just a "Randi hater" and couldn't help but post about someone who you think is getting a raw deal from the Randi organization. I disagree with that and so far have no reason to believe that Dr. Ross has done anything concrete to demostrate this ability. If he can demonstrate it without reasonable doubt then I'm happy to believe it. But it will take a lot more than some guy in a mask raising his finger when the computer makes a sound for me to believe that it is actually eyebeams. It could be a million other things causing that behavior.
ClonedSIM
Silver Member
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
jb, this is unfortunately about the best response you can hope for coming from Mike, especially when the conversation has steered towards theories that have actually been fleshed out. He tends to put all his faith in the latest unproven or completely unproveable technology.Mike(Mont) said:
An Ri Rua
Full Member
- Apr 7, 2008
- 176
- 10
- Detector(s) used
- Mermet brass pendulum; Aqua Locator (antique), Luddite Skeptic detector
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
JB, I can't tell you any more about this man's challenge to Randi but I can tell you that mental rays are indeed a central concept of dowsing. Further study of Abbé Mermet will add flesh to the bone here. Is it provable? hard to know. Has it been theorised? Yes.
JB, I can't tell you any more about this man's challenge to Randi but I can tell you that mental rays are indeed a central concept of dowsing. Further study of Abbé Mermet will add flesh to the bone here. Is it provable? hard to know. Has it been theorised? Yes.
ClonedSIM
Silver Member
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
However, you've been useful in proving my throughts from before.
It's hard to know if it's proveable, but it has definitely been theorized.
Was that sentence useful at all? Hard to know. Has it been typed? Yes.
Well, I certainly can't disagree with you in saying that mental rays are a central concept in dowsing, especially since no one really knows what a central concept in dowsing is. Asked, never answered.An Ri Rua said:
However, you've been useful in proving my throughts from before.
It's hard to know if it's proveable, but it has definitely been theorized.
Was that sentence useful at all? Hard to know. Has it been typed? Yes.
An Ri Rua
Full Member
- Apr 7, 2008
- 176
- 10
- Detector(s) used
- Mermet brass pendulum; Aqua Locator (antique), Luddite Skeptic detector
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
af1733, what is your problem? Do you hide behind a keyboard like a road-rager who thinks the other guy 100% won't get out of the car and make you sorry for your inane taunting? Metaphorically speaking of course, fellow Tneter.
So how is your treasure hunting going AF? Do you actually own a metal detector? Typed? Yes! Actually own one and spend time using it rather than notching up posts on Tnet? Very very doubtful dAFt1733. Are you on the wrong forum, lost in cyberspace? Shall I dowse your way home for you, you unfortunate reactor to others' lives?
'Found anything lately' AF1733? Oops, sounds like one of your intellectual OPs . . . .
Perhaps Marc will open up a sandbox / preschool area for you?
I would prefer if you did not address yourself to me any longer. I did not address you directly, so please mind your manners. If we were in a public space, as a gentleman, I would retire from your inane conversation and if you persisted in hounding me, I would stop you dead in your tracks. You have no manners AF, none whatsoever. Are you searching for truth or seeking to annoy people? I believe you are a disgrace to this Tneter community. And an amateur wannabee sceptic/skeptic.
af1733, what is your problem? Do you hide behind a keyboard like a road-rager who thinks the other guy 100% won't get out of the car and make you sorry for your inane taunting? Metaphorically speaking of course, fellow Tneter.
So how is your treasure hunting going AF? Do you actually own a metal detector? Typed? Yes! Actually own one and spend time using it rather than notching up posts on Tnet? Very very doubtful dAFt1733. Are you on the wrong forum, lost in cyberspace? Shall I dowse your way home for you, you unfortunate reactor to others' lives?
'Found anything lately' AF1733? Oops, sounds like one of your intellectual OPs . . . .
Perhaps Marc will open up a sandbox / preschool area for you?
I would prefer if you did not address yourself to me any longer. I did not address you directly, so please mind your manners. If we were in a public space, as a gentleman, I would retire from your inane conversation and if you persisted in hounding me, I would stop you dead in your tracks. You have no manners AF, none whatsoever. Are you searching for truth or seeking to annoy people? I believe you are a disgrace to this Tneter community. And an amateur wannabee sceptic/skeptic.
ClonedSIM
Silver Member
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
If I have no manners, you seem to have a very thin skin, surprising for one who chooses to post messages about controversial subjects on the Internet.
As far as my time spent on Treasurenet, I hardly see how that's any business of yours, but since you seem to revel in droning on an on about subjects you have little or no knowledge of, simply take a look at my posting history. I log on once or twice a week, at most. I own an XLT, use it as often as possible. As for my finds, how about yours? I make a nice find every so often, although I don't get out as often as I'd like. My last really notable find was a thin 14K band set with a little 1/4 karat diamond. Didn't have it tested, don't really care. But since I've been building a house, my weekends are pretty tied up with that.
Interesting story that none of you will believe, I'm sure. This weekend we set about running 2400 feet of PVC to connect to city water. On that path we ran through the back portion of a neighbor's property. He said he had laid a line there about 15 years before, had pictures showing the installation, but no real trace of the original trench existed and some of the landscape had changed, concealing a couple of key landmarks. Fortunately, the man had a pair of dowsing rods, and put a lot of stake in what they told him. He wandered back and forth for a bit, announced he had found the line and flagged that area for us. Said he was sure the line was buried 3 feet below so we were safe to trench down to 2 feet in that area. We did, got over the area safely, and dropped back down to three feet when we should have been well clear of the line. Hit it 50 feet away from where the neighbor told us it was......
Newsflash....this is a public space. If you wish to have a private conversation with Mike or anyone else, there's a function on this site built specifically for that purpose. It's called a private message, or PM for short. Self-explanatory, I would hope.An Ri Rua said:
If I have no manners, you seem to have a very thin skin, surprising for one who chooses to post messages about controversial subjects on the Internet.
As far as my time spent on Treasurenet, I hardly see how that's any business of yours, but since you seem to revel in droning on an on about subjects you have little or no knowledge of, simply take a look at my posting history. I log on once or twice a week, at most. I own an XLT, use it as often as possible. As for my finds, how about yours? I make a nice find every so often, although I don't get out as often as I'd like. My last really notable find was a thin 14K band set with a little 1/4 karat diamond. Didn't have it tested, don't really care. But since I've been building a house, my weekends are pretty tied up with that.
Interesting story that none of you will believe, I'm sure. This weekend we set about running 2400 feet of PVC to connect to city water. On that path we ran through the back portion of a neighbor's property. He said he had laid a line there about 15 years before, had pictures showing the installation, but no real trace of the original trench existed and some of the landscape had changed, concealing a couple of key landmarks. Fortunately, the man had a pair of dowsing rods, and put a lot of stake in what they told him. He wandered back and forth for a bit, announced he had found the line and flagged that area for us. Said he was sure the line was buried 3 feet below so we were safe to trench down to 2 feet in that area. We did, got over the area safely, and dropped back down to three feet when we should have been well clear of the line. Hit it 50 feet away from where the neighbor told us it was......
ClonedSIM
Silver Member
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
The man laid the line, the man had pictures of the freshly buried line, the man had rods that he said always worked for him, and the closest he could get to his own water line was 50 feet.
Now, I did physically see his rods cross several times in several locations, so I can't say that there might not have been "something" there, but it certainly wasn't his water line and, according to the land owner, there shouldn't have been any other lines in that area.
Who knows, though?
I think you may have missed the point of this post, Dell, though I do appreciate your response.Dell Winders said:
The man laid the line, the man had pictures of the freshly buried line, the man had rods that he said always worked for him, and the closest he could get to his own water line was 50 feet.
Now, I did physically see his rods cross several times in several locations, so I can't say that there might not have been "something" there, but it certainly wasn't his water line and, according to the land owner, there shouldn't have been any other lines in that area.
Who knows, though?
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
Dell, apparrantly the difference between your physical dowsing and my mental dowsing is that you build
?? a contraption?? to find a plastic pipe and I build up a mental image of the same target. I am scratching my head as I type, trying to picture your plastic pipe physical dowsing rod.
Yours perplexed
Max
Dell, apparrantly the difference between your physical dowsing and my mental dowsing is that you build
?? a contraption?? to find a plastic pipe and I build up a mental image of the same target. I am scratching my head as I type, trying to picture your plastic pipe physical dowsing rod.Yours perplexed
Max
An Ri Rua
Full Member
- Apr 7, 2008
- 176
- 10
- Detector(s) used
- Mermet brass pendulum; Aqua Locator (antique), Luddite Skeptic detector
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
[/quote]
Newsflash....this is a public space. If you wish to have a private conversation with Mike or anyone else, there's a function on this site built specifically for that purpose. It's called a private message, or PM for short. Self-explanatory, I would hope.
If I have no manners, you seem to have a very thin skin, surprising for one who chooses to post messages about controversial subjects on the Internet.
As far as my time spent on Treasurenet, I hardly see how that's any business of yours, but since you seem to revel in droning on an on about subjects you have little or no knowledge of, simply take a look at my posting history. I log on once or twice a week, at most. I own an XLT, use it as often as possible. As for my finds, how about yours? I make a nice find every so often, although I don't get out as often as I'd like. My last really notable find was a thin 14K band set with a little 1/4 karat diamond. Didn't have it tested, don't really care. But since I've been building a house, my weekends are pretty tied up with that.
Interesting story that none of you will believe, I'm sure. This weekend we set about running 2400 feet of PVC to connect to city water. On that path we ran through the back portion of a neighbor's property. He said he had laid a line there about 15 years before, had pictures showing the installation, but no real trace of the original trench existed and some of the landscape had changed, concealing a couple of key landmarks. Fortunately, the man had a pair of dowsing rods, and put a lot of stake in what they told him. He wandered back and forth for a bit, announced he had found the line and flagged that area for us. Said he was sure the line was buried 3 feet below so we were safe to trench down to 2 feet in that area. We did, got over the area safely, and dropped back down to three feet when we should have been well clear of the line. Hit it 50 feet away from where the neighbor told us it was......
[/quote]
An anecdotal story AF? hardly scientific old boy. Not even that well told unfortunately. Just because your scientific subject was an apparently poor dowser doesn't mean that others are. I am sure you followed all skeptic protocols though before using such whimsical 'evidence' here.
PM is self explanatory, yes. Thanks for that. AF is not, I thought AH was closer but that's just me. Perplexed as to what AF might stand for. Answer-finder? Searching a long time for those elusive answers, God help you. Let he who has ears listen. Not just talk, talk, talk. Post counts old boy? ;-)
Oh, and my finds? Well I have a few pairs of dowsing rods and a gee whiz Garrett GTI 1500, but if you think I will post any finds of value here, you are sadly mistaken. In Ireland, you can own a metal detector but you cannot use it on any land anywhere without a licence. In other words, you can't. So officially, I find nothing. If I find stuff via dowsing rod, at least I am safe (apart from trespass) should someone chance upon me. But should I find gold, like Scotland, it is the property of the State. So no, I won't be posting finds here for your titillation. Though I did find a wonderful whiskey bottle steel token from the late 19th century.
I accept that this is a public debate. I do not, nor do others, accept the notion that bad manners are acceptable, either online or otherwise.
[/quote]
Newsflash....this is a public space. If you wish to have a private conversation with Mike or anyone else, there's a function on this site built specifically for that purpose. It's called a private message, or PM for short. Self-explanatory, I would hope.
If I have no manners, you seem to have a very thin skin, surprising for one who chooses to post messages about controversial subjects on the Internet.
As far as my time spent on Treasurenet, I hardly see how that's any business of yours, but since you seem to revel in droning on an on about subjects you have little or no knowledge of, simply take a look at my posting history. I log on once or twice a week, at most. I own an XLT, use it as often as possible. As for my finds, how about yours? I make a nice find every so often, although I don't get out as often as I'd like. My last really notable find was a thin 14K band set with a little 1/4 karat diamond. Didn't have it tested, don't really care. But since I've been building a house, my weekends are pretty tied up with that.
Interesting story that none of you will believe, I'm sure. This weekend we set about running 2400 feet of PVC to connect to city water. On that path we ran through the back portion of a neighbor's property. He said he had laid a line there about 15 years before, had pictures showing the installation, but no real trace of the original trench existed and some of the landscape had changed, concealing a couple of key landmarks. Fortunately, the man had a pair of dowsing rods, and put a lot of stake in what they told him. He wandered back and forth for a bit, announced he had found the line and flagged that area for us. Said he was sure the line was buried 3 feet below so we were safe to trench down to 2 feet in that area. We did, got over the area safely, and dropped back down to three feet when we should have been well clear of the line. Hit it 50 feet away from where the neighbor told us it was......
[/quote]
An anecdotal story AF? hardly scientific old boy. Not even that well told unfortunately. Just because your scientific subject was an apparently poor dowser doesn't mean that others are. I am sure you followed all skeptic protocols though before using such whimsical 'evidence' here.
PM is self explanatory, yes. Thanks for that. AF is not, I thought AH was closer but that's just me. Perplexed as to what AF might stand for. Answer-finder? Searching a long time for those elusive answers, God help you. Let he who has ears listen. Not just talk, talk, talk. Post counts old boy? ;-)
Oh, and my finds? Well I have a few pairs of dowsing rods and a gee whiz Garrett GTI 1500, but if you think I will post any finds of value here, you are sadly mistaken. In Ireland, you can own a metal detector but you cannot use it on any land anywhere without a licence. In other words, you can't. So officially, I find nothing. If I find stuff via dowsing rod, at least I am safe (apart from trespass) should someone chance upon me. But should I find gold, like Scotland, it is the property of the State. So no, I won't be posting finds here for your titillation. Though I did find a wonderful whiskey bottle steel token from the late 19th century.
I accept that this is a public debate. I do not, nor do others, accept the notion that bad manners are acceptable, either online or otherwise.
ClonedSIM
Silver Member
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
As far as my anecdotal story goes, what is regularly tossed up here by you dowsing folks? Are those tales considered factual, simply because a dowser told them?
I stood and watched the man not find his own water line, even when he had photographic evidence of the dig and was present when it was done. As for him being a poor dowser, I guess that's subject to opinion. He certainly believed that it worked, he believed he had been doing it for years, and isn't that what your group claims is key? A belief of dowsing and years of practice?
And whimsical? Are you serious? What can possibly be considered whimsical about having to repair a high pressure water line that you've just trenched through because the owner was absolutely convinced that his line was 50 feet to the south? Maybe you should put down the rods and pick up a shovel, Annie, you seem pretty detached from the real world....
As far as scientific, it wasn't at all, and I never claimed otherwise. But, again, refer back to posts from Art and Dell and their ilk. All scientific tests are skewed to make a dowser fail, according to your clan. Seems you don't like stories of dowsing failures at all, scientific or otherwise. Well, I did claim that you wouldn't believe my story, and it looks like I was right. Thanks for proving my point, Annie.
And then to finds...... So, when I don't post finds it's some sort of controversy, but when you don't post finds, I'm supposed to accept whatever excuse you offer? Resort to double standards much?
Oh, I almost missed addressing the post counts..... I have 3822 is almost 5 years. That breaks down to, let's see......barely over 2 per day........ Somebody stop me! An average of 2 posts a day?!? It's a wonder I even have fingers left to type with!!!
To infer that my screenname should be AH instead of AF is an example of good manners?? Seems like Annie doesn't even believe what he writes. AF are my initials, since you seem so interested. Please note I could give less of a care about your screenname as it has no bearing here.An Ri Rua said:
As far as my anecdotal story goes, what is regularly tossed up here by you dowsing folks? Are those tales considered factual, simply because a dowser told them?
I stood and watched the man not find his own water line, even when he had photographic evidence of the dig and was present when it was done. As for him being a poor dowser, I guess that's subject to opinion. He certainly believed that it worked, he believed he had been doing it for years, and isn't that what your group claims is key? A belief of dowsing and years of practice?
And whimsical? Are you serious? What can possibly be considered whimsical about having to repair a high pressure water line that you've just trenched through because the owner was absolutely convinced that his line was 50 feet to the south? Maybe you should put down the rods and pick up a shovel, Annie, you seem pretty detached from the real world....
As far as scientific, it wasn't at all, and I never claimed otherwise. But, again, refer back to posts from Art and Dell and their ilk. All scientific tests are skewed to make a dowser fail, according to your clan. Seems you don't like stories of dowsing failures at all, scientific or otherwise. Well, I did claim that you wouldn't believe my story, and it looks like I was right. Thanks for proving my point, Annie.
And then to finds...... So, when I don't post finds it's some sort of controversy, but when you don't post finds, I'm supposed to accept whatever excuse you offer? Resort to double standards much?
Oh, I almost missed addressing the post counts..... I have 3822 is almost 5 years. That breaks down to, let's see......barely over 2 per day........ Somebody stop me! An average of 2 posts a day?!? It's a wonder I even have fingers left to type with!!!
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
Good morning my former jousting buddy AF: I am a bit bored lately, need to get away from writing, so can I rejoin you on the subject of Dowsing? Naturally I will be on the dowsing pro side simply because I have seen it proven to 'MY' satisfaction and have also done a bit myself in a self test.
I have a series of aerial photographs and maps which were dowsed from Alaska on a mining property that I own. The gentleman has never been within 500 miles of the properties, yet he successfully dowsed perhaps 80% of the mineral structure we had proven.
So, either you have to admit to Telepathy, or that dowsing does have some successful practitioners, note I said 'SOME', most are self disillusioned on their ability. A crude analogy is baseball. Most of us are convinced that we too are pro materiel, yet in the showdown, 90 % cannot even qualify for a try out.
So it is with dowsing, most pick up whatever device they use to subconsciously indicate a sub liminal response and happily go on their way. If they can solicit a response over a pipe with water, traditionally the most easily found condition. they are convinced that they are finished dowsers. When they try a test, they 'will' fail, thus giving a bad name to dowsing.
Any way, since your former statisticians aren't here, you will have to hold the 'pass' yourself.
Don Jose de La Mancha
p.s. what happened to the subject of Lights, luminous gas, being emitted by buried metal
Good morning my former jousting buddy AF: I am a bit bored lately, need to get away from writing, so can I rejoin you on the subject of Dowsing? Naturally I will be on the dowsing pro side simply because I have seen it proven to 'MY' satisfaction and have also done a bit myself in a self test.
I have a series of aerial photographs and maps which were dowsed from Alaska on a mining property that I own. The gentleman has never been within 500 miles of the properties, yet he successfully dowsed perhaps 80% of the mineral structure we had proven.
So, either you have to admit to Telepathy, or that dowsing does have some successful practitioners, note I said 'SOME', most are self disillusioned on their ability. A crude analogy is baseball. Most of us are convinced that we too are pro materiel, yet in the showdown, 90 % cannot even qualify for a try out.
So it is with dowsing, most pick up whatever device they use to subconsciously indicate a sub liminal response and happily go on their way. If they can solicit a response over a pipe with water, traditionally the most easily found condition. they are convinced that they are finished dowsers. When they try a test, they 'will' fail, thus giving a bad name to dowsing.
Any way, since your former statisticians aren't here, you will have to hold the 'pass' yourself.
Don Jose de La Mancha
p.s. what happened to the subject of Lights, luminous gas, being emitted by buried metal
ClonedSIM
Silver Member
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
As far as your Alaska story goes, I guess I'd have to see the breadth of the photos your friend was dowsing. It'd be easy to understand him being able to pick the areas you had previously proven if the photo was limited to the mine entrance(s) and the surrounding area. Also, you said he was able to pick out 80% of the proven areas. What kind of limitations did you have set on this number? Did he make 100 red marks on the map and 80 of them landed on the proven areas? Or did he choose 5 spots and 4 of these were within the proven areas?
When it comes back to my story, there is a bit of an addendum. I spoke to this same neighbor a few days back and he said he went back and was able to successfully locate his line after we had completed the trenching and burial of our line.
As far as the gold lights post goes, I'm not sure where it went. Maybe it's further down the page??
Glad to see you back, Don Jose!Real de Tayopa said:Good morning my former jousting buddy AF: I am a bit bored lately, need to get away from writing, so can I rejoin you on the subject of Dowsing? Naturally I will be on the dowsing pro side simply because I have seen it proven to 'MY' satisfaction and have also done a bit myself in a self test.
I have a series of aerial photographs and maps which were dowsed from Alaska on a mining property that I own. The gentleman has never been within 500 miles of the properties, yet he successfully dowsed perhaps 80% of the mineral structure we had proven.
So, either you have to admit to Telepathy, or that dowsing does have some successful practitioners, note I said 'SOME', most are self disillusioned on their ability. A crude analogy is baseball. Most of us are convinced that we too are pro materiel, yet in the showdown, 90 % cannot even qualify for a try out.
So it is with dowsing, most pick up whatever device they use to subconsciously indicate a sub liminal response and happily go on their way. If they can solicit a response over a pipe with water, traditionally the most easily found condition. they are convinced that they are finished dowsers. When they try a test, they 'will' fail, thus giving a bad name to dowsing.
Any way, since your former statisticians aren't here, you will have to hold the 'pass' yourself.
Don Jose de La Mancha
p.s. what happened to the subject of Lights, luminous gas, being emitted by buried metal
As far as your Alaska story goes, I guess I'd have to see the breadth of the photos your friend was dowsing. It'd be easy to understand him being able to pick the areas you had previously proven if the photo was limited to the mine entrance(s) and the surrounding area. Also, you said he was able to pick out 80% of the proven areas. What kind of limitations did you have set on this number? Did he make 100 red marks on the map and 80 of them landed on the proven areas? Or did he choose 5 spots and 4 of these were within the proven areas?
When it comes back to my story, there is a bit of an addendum. I spoke to this same neighbor a few days back and he said he went back and was able to successfully locate his line after we had completed the trenching and burial of our line.
As far as the gold lights post goes, I'm not sure where it went. Maybe it's further down the page??
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
Good evening AF: He marked 20 positions. As for eye generation of energy, I suggest researching 'Pavlita's psionic machines'. They are powered simply by eye movement and energy.
Don Jose de La Mancha
Good evening AF: He marked 20 positions. As for eye generation of energy, I suggest researching 'Pavlita's psionic machines'. They are powered simply by eye movement and energy.
Don Jose de La Mancha
ClonedSIM
Silver Member
Re: Colin A. Ross and his eyebeam draw ridicule from Randi
So of the 20 positions, he located 16 of them in the areas you had already researched? What did the photographs he dowsed look like? Was it a large area, or a more close-up shot of the mining area?Real de Tayopa said:
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest Discussions
-
vashikaran puja in Italy 91-7597780800 vashikaran mantras in Belgium
- Latest: shobhaesay202
-
