Dowsing for what?

[stilllookin]

My father was a Dowser for water. He could tell you where it was and how deep. (at least as far as a backhoe could reach he could tell you how deep) I have the ability to tell you where there is water ( at least the stick will twist from my hand) but I can't tell you how far down the water is. Is the branch twisting from my hands because I have found water or is there gold down there? Now!

there are Dowsers for water, gold, copper you name it . If I'm dowsing for water am I hitting on water, gold or something else.

How can I tell? What tells me it's what I'm looking for down there? If your rods cross is it gold, water or something else?
I have first hand experience dealing with water, I grew up with water witching and see the results. In the process we never found any treasure other than the water we were looking for. There must be others with the same questions, what do you think? Maybe all this time I've been dowsing for gold and didn't know it.

---

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[teleprospector]

Hi stilllookin,
The dowsing tools will react to the concepts in your brain. I always think and picture in my mind what my search is centered around and ask specific questions. This is how dowsing works for me. I've not gone out on a search and just let the rods wander without baiting and/or employing mental input. I have also mentally dowsed without a bait I have baited the instrument and employed no metal input with less accurate results than using mental input.
Jon

 

[bobsreturn]

its amazing but it works for me on water . must try it on gold ,good info . cheers Bob

 

[G.A.P.metal]

My father was a Dowser for water. He could tell you where it was and how deep. (at least as far as a backhoe could reach he could tell you how deep) I have the ability to tell you where there is water ( at least the stick will twist from my hand) but I can't tell you how far down the water is. Is the branch twisting from my hands because I have found water or is there gold down there? Now!

there are Dowsers for water, gold, copper you name it . If I'm dowsing for water am I hitting on water, gold or something else.

How can I tell? What tells me it's what I'm looking for down there? If your rods cross is it gold, water or something else?
I have first hand experience dealing with water, I grew up with water witching and see the results. In the process we never found any treasure other than the water we were looking for. There must be others with the same questions, what do you think? Maybe all this time I've been dowsing for gold and didn't know it.

---

stilllookin
I think your Dowsin in All M=all mineral.....you need to Dows in Disc. -you seem to have a good ground balance in All M..... my brother can find water like you, and the stick twists from his hands too but can`t find his Disc. yet
Hope you find it .
Thanks Gary

 

[MrBalance]

Underground water stream generates a significant amount of energy.

Classic electrical and magnetic field energy, and other energies not understood by modern science.

If we only take into account the electromagnetic aspect, an underground stream generates so much energy that regular physics has an explanation why the L-rods will react the way they do when you connect the:

1 human body as an antenna
2 L-rods
3 waves of magnetism and electrostatic fields

Imagine wast amounts of one material (water) flowing under pressure through a different material (soil), electrical and magnetic fields must occur.

Once when you have those fields it is easy to detect them because L-rods will move apart or come together based on the charge.

That is the reason why it is easier to detect water, it usually takes textbook physics.

On the other hand detecting more subtle things, like little pieces of gold, is not textbook physics anymore.

That is why it is harder to do.

 

[woof!]

The key word in Mr. Balance's post is "imagine".

Dowsing is mysterious. People who have no knowledge of magnetic and electric fields (which are also mysterious) often use physics as a pseudoscience explanation for how dowsing rods work. (It gets a lot worse with LRL's.) It may seem plausible to them, but they are mistaken.

It's the people who actually do have a working knowledge of magnetic and electric fields who quickly dismiss such explanations for how dowsing rods work. The most common form of dowsing equipment is the L-rod, preferably but not necessarily having a mechanical pivot. Physically, the thing indicates the direction of the center of gravity with respect to the axis of rotation: in other words, it's a "gravitator" just as Thomas has named his widely advertised gizmo. It thus acts as a means to amplify small, almost imperceptible hand movements. Apparatus designed to detect magnetic fields (for example an ordinary magnetic compass) is useless for dowsing, nor will a dowsing rod held by anything other than a human being indicate the direction of a target.

Furthermore, there are many different kinds of dowsing apparatus all the way from forked sticks to Ouija boards, and dowsing without any apparatus at all. The real action is between the ears, which you have already seen described in this thread. The apparatus (if any) does not detect anything other than what human hands are doing under the control of the subconscious. The phenomenon has a name: "ideomotor response".

Scientific investigation into the nature of dowsing does not focus on the apparatus used, since all dowsing apparatus can perform under conscious control the same movements that dowsers report as happening seemingly spontaneously while dowsing. That having been said, the point that L-rods are "gravitators" is emphasized repeatedly because from a scientific perspective that is exactly what they are, and as long as one is believing they're something else one is going to be distracted from where the real action is.

There's another thing about dowsing that most practitioners thereof don't like: dowsing under double-blinded controlled conditions has a miserable record of failure. Dowsing apparatus doesn't know whether a trial is blinded zero, singly, or doubly: it's the dowser's brain that knows what the trial conditions are with respect to how much information is available regarding the location and nature of a target object.

The failure of dowsing under double-blinded controlled conditions naturally leads to the conclusion that dowsing is just plain bogus. The fact that dowsers almost universally avoid double-blinded testing (often even insisting that it's somehow "unfair"!) or complain that they were somehow cheated when they fail to produce under such conditions, certainly appears to substantiate the simple conclusion that it's all bogus.

There is a more rigorous conclusion to be had from these factoids, which is that dowsers who make claims about their abilities which seem to defy ordinary explanation, and who get proud enough to try to "prove it", get shot down. This is why I hold "claimants" responsible for the disrepute in which dowsing is held among rational thinkers, and at the same time hold rational thinkers' feet to the fire on the issue of just what it is that the failure of dowsing under double-blinded controlled conditions actually proves beyond a reasonable doubt (although of course an unreasonable doubt can be held about anything whatsoever).

Nearly all field dowsing is done without any attention paid to blinding: the dowser begins with some knowledge regarding terrain, history of the site, how treasures are stashed or lost (if treasure is involved), etc. A lot of this knowledge is processed subconsciously, which should lead to dowsing being a useful tool for fieldwork without any need to invoke any scientific mystery even though the process of dowsing itself may seem mysterious while you're doing it since it depends on subconscious information being revealed through ideomotor response (if dowsing apparatus is used). Someone with natural talent and skill in bringing subconscious information into consciousness without resorting to the ideomotor neurological channel could theoretically do just as well, but people who have that kind of dowsing ability don't normally even think of it as "dowsing".

The ability of people to fool themselves with stuff which they regard as being in the realm of majick or luck is well established, the subject of incisive commentary by philosophers for thousands of years. Right here on this forum you can find abundance of evidence of such, and if you want even more solid evidence, try the LRL forum where the use of apparatus that's outright fraudulent really messes up user's ability to reason about what's happening. That having been said, from a scientific perspective we should expect that unblinded field dowsing should be capable of producing results better than those attainable without dowsing, if the person doing the fieldwork has some skill in using their ideomotor channel (although they may not use that word to describe it).

* * * * * *

And then there's blinded dowsing (preferably double-blinded if possible). This is where "claimants" make their claims, and by refusing to have those claims to be put to the test they reveal what they already know: they ain't got squat. Once in a while a dowser who doesn't understand what's going on actually believes that they have double-blinded dowsing ability, and if the cameras are rolling they find out the hard way that dowsing doesn't work the way they think it does.

Meanwhile, there are anecdotal reports from seemingly honest people of blinded dowsing with results better than could reasonably be expected from chance or ordinary information leakage. The reason I find this interesting is that I've experienced such things myself, with witnesses. However, I have nothing to "claim" or "prove" about it since for anyone reading this, reports from other people or even their own experience should provide adequate material for careful reasoning.

If you accept that it may be possible for a person to have knowledge of something between their ears that had no "ordinary" way of getting there, the question is what the extraordinary way would consist of. It's a question that a very few people have addressed with some seriousness. My purpose in this particular post is not to go into such theories and to discuss their merits and otherwise, but to point out that it is possible to take the subject matter seriously even if at this point in history it is not yet possible to prove that any such theory is correct.

--Toto

 

[woof!]

A bit of explanation of my foregoing post.

I'm not a "treasure hunter" in the ordinary sense of that phrase as used on TNet. I'm interested in many things, and earn my living by applying physical and psychological principles to the engineered design of underground detection equipment. It is necessary to understand the psychological principles because it's human beings who use the apparatus, and if the gizmo works on the lab bench but not in the hands of a customer it is useless as a product.

Dowsing rods can be scientifically engineered products once you understand what they really are. I'd like to see someone take it seriously and get into that business. Too bad that dowsers themselves have so damaged the repute of such products that my employer doesn't dare go into that business. A few of y'all may have seen my posts on OKM and Mineoro, companies who mix dowsing apparatus with real electronic detection apparatus in their product lineup and can't resist the temptation to dealing in LRL's.

The phenomenon of dowsing, along with other parapsychological phenomena, deserves serious scientific inquiry. Unfortunately the whole field has been contaminated by the human insistence that reality be what one wants (to satisfy emotions), rather than what actually is. Dowsing is afflicted with the wants of dowsers to get something from nothing, and to paint failure as success. The dreaded "skeptics" are afflicted with the desire for security which can only be achieved when everything that can be believed can be proven (which of course will never happen). So you've got the perfect setup for noncommunication, two worlds driven by emotional desire with no common ground in the world of what really is which owes nothing whatsoever to human desire.

When I began posting on TNet ten years ago, I used to occasionally say, "understand dowsing, and understand everything". The issues which become so manifest as controversial in the world of dowsing, lurk behind nearly everything in everyday life where the controversies are not laid bare so clearly.

--Toto

 

[fenixdigger]

The tests that I have seen were loaded for failure before they started. In example; England (on tv show) dowsing targets--- water & sand. Items were in plastic bottles and THE CAPS SCREWED ON. Other targets sealed in a container of some sort. Chance to detect by dowsing ? NONE

Take the caps off and see what happens. I have developed rods that are a far cry from L-rods, and it took 35 years and a dozen people to do it. Now we use an antenna system with the rods. I had no chance to do this by myself and Tnet allowed me to meet the right folks. (despite the critics)

 

[fenixdigger]

One last thought. In the field, what I have seen and what I have done over the last 35 years, leaves no doubt as to the results. How many times have we ended up on top of or within a foot of a target that was picked up at 1/4 mile? Put the probe through a container once before the detector came out. Were there other targets close to account for "random chance" ? Maybe within 500 ft. A laughable explanation. Some people may be fooling themselves, but the ones I run with are to the bone on point. I asked the best one if I could film him and he said he didn't want anyone to know he could do this. Most are paranoid and for good reason. You have people on here that would burn you out of jealousy. I have seen it in person and withdrew from posting here because of it. I withdraw again to the shadows.

 

[aarthrj3811]

http://twm.co.nz/dowsing_jse_com.html
Water Diviner - Article 3
How does a water dowser work

Newer difinations than the one from 1852

Taught Ideomotor Response
Trained Ideomotor Responce

 

[MrBalance]

I have to agree with all of you, all points are valid, let me write more of what I know about the subject.

Instead of dowsing - lets talk about yoga.

On yoga I will explain a principle that is not easy to explain on dowsing.

But the principle will help us understand dowsing.

When you are young and strong you think that all yoga coaches are freaks. Losers without muscles!

When you get sick for the first time you start thinking, and hopefully you are able to save yourself and are not injured by the sickness.

Then you know that there is something in yoga, but you do not know what?

Our society has a nasty habit.

It will promote yoga methods, but the instructor must either be a charlatan wanting only money, or a lunatic.

Remember only charlatans or lunatics can get space in the media, that is how things are!

Charlatan is easy to understand: man makes money by pretending he knows yoga

Lunatics are not easy to understand: without having the long lost knowledge they did too much yoga, now they just walk around in their pajamas and smile whole day. The invisible energies have friend them and they do not even understand that they are mad. That is the biggest problem. When a person thinks the is normal but is actually mad.

Then, since you are now health conscious, you want to go to yoga school. You do not want to be sick!

Only charlatans or lunatics are able to come with their message to you.

You chose one of them.
After some time you are disappointed, and you give up the search for change.

The state of affairs stays the same. You get sick again. You go to pharmacy to buy (poisonous) drugs that cannot heal. But can keep you alive so you buy more drugs...

That is how the system protects itself.

The same principle can be applied to all lost knowledge, one of them in dowsing.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~MrBalance~

The same principle can be applied to all lost knowledge, one of them in dowsing.

I don’t think that the knowledge of Dowsing is lost...You can read everything that you want to and all you get is how Dowsing works for that person. The only way to learn to Dowse is to practice. Read everything and take what works for you. I know a lot of Dowsers and none do it the same...It all comes down to hard work and how good you want to be...Art

 

[woof!]

Nobody taught me how to dowse. I discovered it on my own quite by accident, without using any kind of apparatus (hence bypassing ideomotor response), double-blinded. Only many years later did I try rod dowsing, blindfolded in an area I hadn't been before, and nailed the utilities dead-on without any ambiguity whatsoever, verified afterwards by visual inspection. The owner of the property knew where the utilities were so this was not double-blinded dowsing, but I did not want any clues and despite being alert for information leakage I did not detect any.

--Toto

 

[aarthrj3811]

Information leakage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Information leakage happens whenever a system that is designed to be closed to an eavesdropper reveals some information to unauthorized parties nonetheless. For example, when designing an encrypted instant messaging network, a network engineer without the capacity to crack your encryption codes could see when you are transmitting messages, even if he could not read them. During the Second World War, the Japanese for a while were using secret codes such as PURPLE; even before such codes were cracked, some basic information could be extracted about the content of the messages by looking at which relay stations sent a message onwards.
Designers of secure systems often forget to take information leakage into account. A classic example of this is when the French government designed a mechanism to aid encrypted communications over an analog line, such as at a phone booth. It was a device that clamped onto both ends of the phone, performed the encrypting operations, and sent the signals over the phone line. Unfortunately for the French, the rubber seal that attached the device to the phone was not airtight. It was later discovered that although the encryption itself was solid, if you listened carefully, you could hear the speaker, since the phone was picking up some of the speech! Information leakage can subtly or completely destroy the security of an otherwise secure system.
Generally, only very advanced systems employ defenses against information leakage - there are three main ways to do it: