My Dowsing Test

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Bigfoot_four...I keep my Dowsing as simple as possible. If someone tells me of a short cut I test it...If I like it I use it. I don't have equipment to test with and if I did I would not understand the results. When I get a chance to use others equipment I jump on it. I jammed my signals doing a simple experiment. I was having to much fun so my wife made me put it back in the house. Dowsing is just a tool and the way I use L-Rods sure isn't a test of how super or powerful my brain is....Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Carl-NC]

Carl was caught by one or more of the forum posters here trying to trick a dealer at a fair. From memory he had removed a sample to see whether the LRL would still move to it but my memory is not clear. He had exhibited an inability to use LRLs at Quartzite (this Fair?). Ex-NASA LRL maker xxxxx said he tested Sam and Carl at this fair and they could not use the things. Somebody else on the forum expressed dismay at Carl's shenanigans.

Wow, talk about a whole bunch of wrong.... did you make all this up yourself?

- Carl

 

[serpent]

Wow! Havent been around for awhile, but I see the forums are still full of misinformational rubbish. The Carl Morelands and The " Karl Millers" of this website are the real snake oil salesman. The atheist who spends there life trying to prove there is no God. Unfortunately there is no way to settle the dispute with any finality because no one who is succesful would waste the time to argue and dispute with you or to tell you of there finds. I have always said in reference to the often stated " If there is a target giving off a feild, then it must be detectable through conventional means" , then perhaps a breakthrough in the feild of monitering is at hand because this feild does exist and is detectable through the body, conventional science needs to pull its weight..right carl?

 

[Carl-NC]

I have always said in reference to the often stated " If there is a target giving off a feild, then it must be detectable through conventional means" , then perhaps a breakthrough in the feild of monitering is at hand because this feild does exist and is detectable through the body, conventional science needs to pull its weight..right carl?

Absolutely... problem is, when randomized blind tests are applied to those unconventional methods, the alleged "target feilds" seem to just vanish... poof... nothing. If these alleged "target feilds" cannot be demonstrated objectively in the unconventional way, then I doubt science will exert much effort on something that only seems to work, when no one is looking.

Get LRLs to work under randomized blind tests, then science will be interested. I guarantee.

- Carl

 

[Born2Dtect]

In the famous words of my idol, Charlie Brown.


AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHH!!!!!


Thank you,

Ed

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee Karl.....You guys want to take all the fun out of dowsing...Testing is just a part of why I dowse. The fun comes into play when I go to a pretty stream in the mountains on a nice day. When I track down a nice nugget and I am the first man to have every see it doesn't get any better than that.

I was wrong about Ideomotor Response. I do use it in my dowsing. I didn't know that until Dell pointed it out in one of his post. I let it control the rods as I walk around trees, boulders and other obstacle. It does a good job of keeping the rods steady. When I encounter a natural or man made signal my mind has standing orders to release control of the rods. I can see where you would have a big problem with this simple concept as you don't take orders.....Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Right on Karl....Lots of folks have been confounded and fooled by the simple ideomotor effect. Just take control and you will no longer be confounded and fooled by ideomotor effects. It's easy to do....Art
P.S. Please don't modify your post after I answer it..

 

[aarthrj3811]

We all know you can not control your mind but it's not honest to change the Question after it has been answered. ..Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Quote from: aarthrj3811 on February 01, 2006, 09:42:53 am
Gee Karl.....You guys want to take all the fun out of dowsing...Testing is just a part of why I dowse. The fun comes into play when I go to a pretty stream in the mountains on a nice day. When I track down a nice nugget and I am the first man to have every see it? doesn't get any better than that.

I was wrong about Ideomotor Response. I do use it in my dowsing. (Yes, you do, otherwise your dowsing wand wouldn't move.) I didn't know that until Dell pointed it out in one of his post. I let it control the rods as I walk around trees, boulders and other obstacle. It does a good job of keeping the rods steady. When I encounter a natural or man made signal my mind has standing orders to release control of the rods. (But of course you can't do that, so the ideomotor effect takes charge.) ..Art

Thanks Karl

 

[Jean310]

The Skeptics are always crying and telling us that Dowsing is just chance guessing. I have done my own tests about 20 or so times. I use plastic Easter eggs to hide a 1/4 oz nugget. That gives me 6 possible locations. I set in the house and my wife puts the nugget under one of the egg haves. She walks around the house and knocks on the front door. I go out and find the nugget. I come back in and hand her the nugget and then we repeat the test again. We do this until she refuses to do it again. Usually around 20 times. I don't need an odds chart as 100% is good enough odds for me. I know I will be told that my test means nothing as for some reason it's not scientific....Guess What...I'm the only one I have to prove anything to....Art

I go out and find the nugget. What is the process your wife uses to hide the nugget? Does she disturb all 6 egg halves, or just the one where she places the nugget? What is the process you use to recover the nugget?

Jean

 

[aarthrj3811]

Ok Jean...I do not know the way see picks or choses where to hide the object. We do not discuss it. I have killed the lawn in a 6 inch by 20 foot area. The egg halves are placed in a random manner in this area. I walk beside this area until the rods cross. I uncover the object and take it back to my wife.....Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI Jean, one of your friends will alert you to this - if he allows you a place at his feet - but aren't you a bit slow on uptake? ??
Almost one year ? hmm

Tropical Tramp

 

[Jean310]

Ok Jean...I do not know the way see picks or choses where to hide the object. We do not discuss it. I have killed the lawn in a 6 inch by 20 foot area. The egg halves are placed in a random manner in this area. I walk beside this area until the rods cross. I uncover the object and take it back to my wife.....Art

Are all the egg halves picked up and put down, each of the 20 times this test is conducted? (Yes/No)

Am I understanding correctly, that you walk beside the area, and when the rods cross you ALWAYS (20 times in a row) correctly identify the egg half that contains the nugget? (Yes/No)

I suppose you've repeated this test many times. Three times would be 60 total trials. In 60 trials have you ever identified the wrong egg half? If you have, what happens next? Do you search again until you've located it, or return to the house not knowing where it was located?

Jean

 

[dg39]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, I'm sorry, Doze-what? I am an electronics engineer besides a museum director..Ran several dowsing or whatever test and guess what? I must be polarised wrong.
Hit don't work for me. Every time I have gone out in the field with someone who claimed they could use the rods, it just didn't happen. Weather conditions were not right or the temperature was too high or low, etc..Move on.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Are all the egg halves picked up and put down, each of the 20 times this test is conducted? (Yes/No)

I supect that the answer would be no.

Am I understanding correctly, that you walk beside the area, and when the rods cross you ALWAYS (20 times in a row) correctly identify the egg half that contains the nugget? (Yes/No)

Yes

I suppose you've repeated this test many times. Three times would be 60 total trials. In 60 trials have you ever identified the wrong egg half? If you have, what happens next? Do you search again until you've located it, or return to the house not knowing where it was located?

I have never identified the wrong egg half...Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=dg39 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, I'm sorry, Doze-what? I am an electronics engineer besides a museum director..Ran several dowsing or whatever test and guess what? I must be polarised wrong.
Hit don't work for me. Every time I have gone out in the field with someone who claimed they could use t
************
HIO EE dg. How are your experiments on proving if life exists in the universe going? If you haven't had any positive results yet I presume that we can scientifically state that there isn't any, that we are unique and alone. so toss that theory in the junk pile along with dowsing.

Tropical Tramp

 

[Jean310]

Are all the egg halves picked up and put down, each of the 20 times this test is conducted? (Yes/No)

I supect that the answer would be no.

Oh dear! That would explain a lot. Thank you for your honesty. I'll not comment further on your test protocol.

Art, I mean this in all sincerity. I know you are retired, and you seem to genuinely enjoy your dowsing and your gold prospecting. I'm sure the exercise and fresh air alone is worth the pursuit. I would probably be among the last to ever suggest to you that you should change your beliefs, or what you are doing to enjoy your hobbies. And not that it would influence your thinking one iota, but I really hope that you and others like you (of the same mindset), would some day expose yourself (and your dowsing talent) to the rigors of a real and proctored double-blind test. Wouldn't need to be Carl's or Randi's or anything related to the challenges as they've described. I'd just like to see you get involved in a real test, that was truly d-b. If you never choose to get involved in something like that, the next best thing would be if you could just observe one that was being executed on someone else.

As I say, I would not expect you to change your mindset, but I think the experience would be very beneficial to you.

Jean

 

[aarthrj3811]

Thank jean310.....When I had to quit diving for gold it was a bad time for me. Dowsing provide me with the chance to keep enjoying a way of life that had been good to me. When I put my ways of testing and experiments that I use on the forums it is just to give information to others. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good argument. Right or wrong it is the way I do things. I have attended one of Carls Double Blind Test. It was a bad day for me. I made an honest report on T-Net and my web group site an lost a friend. There is so much more to know about dowsing that I think the surface has not been scratched yet. Do I think the sub-concsious mind can be controled?...I know it can. Do objects emit a signal?..My tests prove they do. Can these signals be read by a set of Dowsing Rods?..Yes they can...Can I prove these statements....I think so but the fact is....I am the only one I have to prove anything to......Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=aarthrj3811 know about dowsing that I think the surface has not been scratched yet
************
Absolutely correct art
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do I think the sub-concsious mind can be controled?...I know it can.
**********
Done daily medical hypnotists
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`~~

Do objects emit a signal?..My tests prove they do.
*************
Proven by the Nuclear Resonance instruments used to recover artifacts in deep mud at Alexandra.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am the only one I have to prove anything to......Art
*******************
now you have it ART

Tropical Tramp

 

[Jean310]

Thank jean310.....When I had to quit diving for gold it was a bad time for me. Dowsing provide me with the chance to keep enjoying a way of life that had been good to me. When I put my ways of testing and experiments that I use on the forums it is just to give information to others. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good argument. Right or wrong it is the way I do things. I have attended one of Carls Double Blind Test. It was a bad day for me. I made an honest report on T-Net and my web group site an lost a friend. There is so much more to know about dowsing that I think the surface has not been scratched yet. Do I think the sub-concsious mind can be controled?...I know it can. Do objects emit a signal?..My tests prove they do. Can these signals be read by a set of Dowsing Rods?..Yes they can...Can I prove these statements....I think so but the fact is....I am the only one I have to prove anything to......Art

.....one of Carl's double blind tests Where at? Who was being tested?

You've voiced a lot of confusing innuendo above....... care to elaborate, for someone who isn't privy to the history?

What made it a bad day? Did you lose a friend because of Carl's test?

Your tests, which prove to you that objects emit signals, which your dowsing rods respond to, are simply that. Without peer review, corroboration and supporting data those tests and your results are only important to you. You said; I (Art) am the only one I have to prove anything to. Okay, I can accept that declaration.

But then if that's true - why do you spend what appears to be several hours of each day of your life, vehemently arguing and defending a theory or notion that you just admitted was only important for you to believe in?

You see, the one facet of this drama doesn't go with the other. If you are completely convinced about how your dowsing system works, and it is only important to you, then you certainly don't need anyone to concur with you for you to be satisfied. Alternatively, if you spend a good share of your waking time in debate, and argument, defending your theory and beliefs; can't you see how it would only be natural for those you are debating with to constantly goad you for tangible proof in the form of "real" test results and repeatable demonstrations of the hypotheses you are defending? That's a normal process. It is the way that theories become elevated to axioms. You may not like that process, but that is how real advancements in any field of endeavor must eventually be tested and validated.

Can you see the dichotomy of what you are describing to me?

Jean