Dowsing rods or witching rods

[hound]

Look at that randi test--not only are the odds astronomical but then he requires the person to repeat it, so now the odds are more difficult than finding one item on the whole planet. And you can't pick up a freshly buried item very easily. Depending on depth it usualy takes months or years before it becomes detectable.

The Randi test is double blind. By making people repeat results they are just making sure that there is something more than random chance going on. That's statistics 101. If any ability to sense items is demonstrated then they'll obviously have results better than someone picking at random. Someone can get lucky in a single test and by repeating it multiple times you get valid statistical results. If there is actually something going on and someone is skilled at it there's no reason they couldn't do better than anyone else picking at random. The whole time in the ground excuse sounds like many others that are given when dowsing fails.

I'm a security researcher by trade but my education is computer engineering and physics. I'm particularly fond of nuclear physics and engineering. I'm a science geek. I'm also a huge fan of fantasy and folklore. I love myths and monsters. I would love for magic to be real and for things like dowsing to just work. If something works it should be repeatable. It should work consistently. If so there has to be something measurable.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[BillA]

well, if Dowsing is predicated on faith and not on any science we know
then one of the religious 'tests of faith' might be useful?
thinking about the qualifications of dowsers

 

[Kray Gelder]

One thing I noticed is no one that posts on the Dowsing Forum has a banner find. I would think if dowsing worked there would be more banner finds there than anywhere. Crickets from the Dowsing Forum. Gary

I asked something similar a couple years ago, of the dowsers. "How do you know we didn't find a lot of gold?" was the answer. Anyway, I told the dowsing forum some time ago, that I would leave them be. They enjoy what they do and talk about, and the map dowsing part of it. It is a belief system, and I'll respect that.

 

[signal_line]

The Randi test is double blind. By making people repeat results they are just making sure that there is something more than random chance going on. That's statistics 101. If any ability to sense items is demonstrated then they'll obviously have results better than someone picking at random. Someone can get lucky in a single test and by repeating it multiple times you get valid statistical results. If there is actually something going on and someone is skilled at it there's no reason they couldn't do better than anyone else picking at random. The whole time in the ground excuse sounds like many others that are given when dowsing fails.

I'm a security researcher by trade but my education is computer engineering and physics. I'm particularly fond of nuclear physics and engineering. I'm a science geek. I'm also a huge fan of fantasy and folklore. I love myths and monsters. I would love for magic to be real and for things like dowsing to just work. If something works it should be repeatable. It should work consistently. If so there has to be something measurable.

I know it seems logical for a dowsing test to be repeatable, but there are so many variables involved. The person's emotional state is probably the biggest factor.

 

[Kray Gelder]

I will answer your question, but after this I will not respond further due to the negativity that surrounds this subject.
Without going into every detail, what helped me the most was using what is known in the dowsing world as a "witness" sometimes referred to as "baiting" I had placed a small diamond into one of the handles. The rods are brass and the handles are copper.

GG~

This revelation surprises me, somehow, Goodyguy. I have to re-evaluate which cubby I put dowsing in. A solid endorsement.

 

[signal_line]

Diamonds give a good signal.

 

[BillA]

Diamonds give a good signal.

how about a double handful of cut diamonds in a cloth bag
buried in haste at the base of a bluff?
dowse remotely?

edit: MUCH more to the tale, my only tool was a shovel

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

how about a double handful of cut diamonds in a cloth bag
buried in haste at the base of a bluff?
dowse remotely?

edit: MUCH more to the tale, my only tool was a shovel

To bury or find?

 

[BillA]

To bury or find?

lol, to find - WWII stuff, in France

 

[GoDeep]

Not to mention that Randi is an admitted fraud and is not above using any and all tactics necessary to insure that no one passes his test including the use of electrical magnetism which is a known disrupter. The Amazing Randi has many tricks up his sleeve and would never allow a legitimate test to be performed.

The only "fraud" were the participants who faired no better then chance. Easy to claim it was rigged when you lose. Those who participated agreed in advance to the rules and even stated they were 100 percent sure they'd find it. They didn't claim they couldn't find freshly buried stuff. Regardless, his is just one of many tests that have been conducted on dowsing and any of the paranormal claims the world over that have shown them to be no better then chance at best and at worst, just outright fraud.

Bottom line, if it worked, it would be repeatable. The past 100 years, countless treasures the world over have been uncovered from lost ships to buried hoards, all found through research, conventional detecting equipment and good old hard work in the field. I'm not aware of any of them being found credibly attributed to only dowsing.

 

[GoDeep]

Sorry you were not able to get your questions answered satisfactorily.
You will have better luck posting your questions here: Dowsing

This thread should probably have been moved there in the first place.

GG~

Why, because moving there would not allow any dissenting opinions and it would just become an echo chamber of like thinking? That isn't helpful to the OP's question. Dissenting isn't being negative, it's applying science to claims. That should not be viewed as a negative, it is a step forward, a positive finding in evaluating the tools we use in the search for treasure. We do the very same thing to conventional detectors and the claims they make. Some claims by conventional detectors don't hold water (or hold out water in the case of the Equinox) and users let the world know. They put them through semi controlled test beds and compare in the field finds to other detectors before they are dug. This is good, not bad, not negative.

 

[signal_line]

The randi test rules stated the final decision to award the money would be determined by their panel of experts. In other words, if a quadrillion-to-one odds isn't enough they put in a catch-all phrase to make certian the money would NEVER to awarded.

Somewhere on the internet is some info about Dell Winders doing a demonstration of his Molecular Frequency Discriminator (MFD) for the randi group. Best I recall Dell dug 12 holes in the sand and the randi group placed a gold target in one hole. Can't recall but he was supposed run 10 or 12 tests. After several tests Dell said the locating conditions had deteriorated and he quit the demonstration. He had found the test target like maybe 6 or 7 times out of nine or something like that. To which randi replied "More tests are needed." In other words he had beat the odds but randi would never admit it. Dell said he knew nothing about any prize money at the time and was just doing a demonstration. He also said randi lied about it.

 

[signal_line]

This is the Contraption project I am working on. Target is a half-ounce of silver. The white ropes are there so you can more easily see the line to the target fifty feet away. Sorry for the poor quality video. You might have to turnup your volume to hear the clicking sound when the receiver is facing the target. When turned ninety degrees there is a null.
o

 

[GoDeep]

Interesting video. What happens though if you move the stand alone what appears to be a transmitter or receiver free standing behind you and point it in another direction?

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Simply by the nature of the topic alone, people have posted in manner that leans towards aggressive and insulting rather than friendly intelligent conversation. I suspect this is why moderators handle the dowsing forum with a stiff hand. I also suspect the topic was initially started for entertainment purposes, knowing the outcome.

I consider myself above average intelligence and have felt insulted slightly throughout this thread.
Not enough to get mad, but insulted none the less.

All I have done is relay my experiences of observing dowsing. Not once have I claimed to be able to swing a magical crystal over a picture and tell you a cave full of silver exists At 50.5 feet..but beware of booby traps....right

I can tell that certain individuals are thirsty for debate and a battle of intelligence.

I have only posted about some complicated topics to illustrate that there are things being proven daily that violate the laws of nature and that alone is reason for keeping an open mind regarding observations that are shared by intelligent and reasonable people.

To suggest otherwise is..well insulting. GoDeep, minus the reference to Google Earth, your tag line really says it all doesn't it?


This will be my last nibble at the bait presented.

Carry on.

 

[signal_line]

The transmitter broadcast area is about a ninety degree angle. Once a target hotspot is located, move the transmitter and take another shot for better reliability. But you can just search the first area (where the two lines meet).

 

[Honest Samuel]

Dowsing rods can find running water, the man has water in containers, no good.

 

[Carl-NC]

While there are some successful dowsing outcomes, there are untold numbers of failures. Untold because no one bothers to talk about all the times dowsing didn't work. In reality, it works as well as chance will allow. No better, no worse.

In looking for groundwater, chances are extremely high because groundwater is broadly distributed, not flowing in underground streams as dowsers believe. True story: when my ex-father-in-law was a kid his father bought a farm. They needed a well and a neighbor offered to dowse the best spot, which he did. When the well driller showed up he asked, "Where do you want the well?" The farmer said, "I was told it needed to be way over there." The well driller said, "I can put it there, or I can put it close to the house where it will be more convenient." He drilled the well close to the house and got excellent yield. Such is the case with groundwater.

With buried wires and pipes, GoDeep correctly surmises that people experienced with buried utilities can very often eyeball the locations withing a few feet. And dowsing rods are often used to bolster their confidence. Good chances, but it doesn't always work. True story: as a teenager I worked for an irrigation company, mostly installing nurseries and golf courses. I saw numerous times where the guys would pull out dowsing rods to locate pipes that they themselves had laid in the past. I was not impressed. One day we were on a golf course trying to locate where a main came out of the pump house. The owner of the company grabbed some dowsing rods and started at the pump house (where you could see the pipe enter the ground) and dowsed its path out to the fairway. I was the monkey with the shovel and dug where he told me to dig. No pipe. Over & over, no pipe. Then the company welder showed up and said, "Oh no, the main goes in the opposite direction, through those pine trees, to the other fairway." Completely opposite to what was intuitive.

Which is what dowsing is: Intuition and Luck. Treasure hunters can also eyeball hunt locations and intuit the best places to focus on. Dowsing rods simply indicate their subconscious selections. This explains why, in scientific testing, dowsing fails to work. A good test is designed to eliminate intuition and predict luck. I have studied dowsing and dowsers and, by extension, LRLs for over 20 years. I've personally tested quite a few who absolutely swore they "could do it" yet, when I was watching, they could not. It's been 20+ years of exactly the same outcome. There's no need to cheat to make a dowser fail (reference to the Randi comment), all you need is a good scientific test protocol. They will fail on their own because the hard reality is, dowsing doesn't really work.

For those who think they can do it and really want to know whether it's truth or illusion, I will gladly offer to help with that. For those who think they can do it and don't care whether it's truth or illusion, there's nothing more to discuss.

 

[hound]

It's funny how people started attacking Randi in this thread. I was simply asking for peer reviewed scientific evidence of a repeatable experiment as proof.

The burden of proof is high with wild claims, but then again something like a metal detector would pass the same tests easily. The stories of the tests being too hard are subjective. The data from tests is objective. The number of test runs and the setups are all to produce statistically valid results. Any instrument that works will pass. The people making claims and taking the test agree to the testing methodology as a fair assessment. Stories don't prove or disprove anything, they're subjective.

A basic bounty hunter detecter is more consistent with its results and doesn't have to be in the right mood, have the right phase of the moon, etc.

 

[hound]

Dowsing rods can find running water, the man has water in containers, no good.

The people taking the tests were dowsing experts who all had no problems in saying they could detect static water containers. I keep seeing more and more reasons stated by dowsers that it doesn't work. There needs to be someone in the correct mood, electromagnetism interferes with it, and it has to be running water which makes no sense since water is largely static in many areas and people dowse the location of wells.