My today's dowsing finds.

[lesjcbs]

From the rain last night, it is very muddy around here so I will not do any dowsing and thus, no dowsing finds today. Maybe tomorrow.


Dowsing skeptics want dowsing rods to detect targets like a metal detector does. They do this by waving a target in front of a dowsers rods, then when the rods do not move, they say: See dowsing does not work.


If dowsing is to work like a metal detector works, then a metal detector will work like dowsing rods work.


Raise an electronic metal detector so the coil is pointing straight ahead and see if it will beep on a target out there, say 90 feet. If it does not, then metal detectors must not work.


The fact is, both work but in their own way if used correctly.

Stay tuned, hopefully I will have more dowsing pictures tomorrow, if the ground is not too muddy.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Thanx for the update lesjcbs. Love your enthusiasm and thought processes on this.

.... but in their own way if used correctly....

I have no doubt that some tests can be dismissed because you could say "that's not the way they're supposed to be used". But a lot more of the cited/supposed failures of tests, is not testing them "like as if they were a metal detector". A lot of the tests, are tests done testing the way dowsers themselves say it works.

 

[lesjcbs]

Dowsing out in the field with a metal rod is a hard concept for me to understand how it works. But pendulum dowsing on a map is just beyond my limited comprehension. I must say it looks like fun though. Do dowsers accept all methods of dowsing.... meaning there is a single underlying principal to dowsing or are there separate camps that promote their own dowsing method as being the only true dowsing? You know how cliquey metal detectorists can be with their favorite brand of machine. Is it the same with dowsers? I worked with a guy that would use two rods to find buried pressurized industrial water lines. He was pretty accurate sometimes, other times not. I could and would never put my faith in it though. I didn't want my guys getting killed by digging in the wrong place.

Jeff: I speak for myself. As you can see, I dowse. I read what other dowers opinions are then take from it what I find makes sense to me. If I do not get anything from their input, I will never criticize.

In the video showing James Randy in Australia, after every dowser failed to find even one water pipe, Mr. Randy asks how many of them still say dowsing works? Everyone raised their hands showing that despite their failure that day, they still maintain that dowsing works. What they know is what Mr Randy wants to take away from them and that is the many number of satisfied customers they have had in the past they found water for them.

 

[lesjcbs]

Thanx for the update lesjcbs. Love your enthusiasm and thought processes on this.



I have no doubt that some tests can be dismissed because you could say "that's not the way they're supposed to be used". But a lot more of the cited/supposed failures of tests, is not testing them "like as if they were a metal detector". A lot of the tests, are tests done testing the way dowsers themselves say it works.

How do you like my treasure hunting pal?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Lesjcbs, You actually watched the Randi video I linked ? I commend you for your fairness and open mind ! You have much integrity to consider. Even if not agreeing with conclusions, I commend you for fairly considering it.

... many number of satisfied customers ...

Don't forget that this is not the measure of truth . Because there are also "satisfied customers" of things like astrologers. fortune tellers, etc... Or how about some quack medical practices (dreamed up to bilk customers, later exposed and shut down, etc...): Yet ... oddly ... some of the recipients expressed satisfaction with the results. Obviously they were benefiting from the placebo effect.

Don't get "lost in the example", but ... just trying to point out that "satisfied customers" can be attributed to other factors. Hence the real test would be: Double blind scientifically conducted tests.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

How do you like my treasure hunting pal?

Because you post results . I don't recall seeing other dowsers finds on the finds forum. Maybe they put them on the dowsing forum only, I dunno. Perhaps I just missed some in the past here @ this forum ? But anyhow, it answers the challenge I posed awhile back of: "Why don't we see dowsing finds on the show & tell?"

And because you follow through and answer questions. And appear to be giving challenges a fair shake.

 

[lesjcbs]

Because you post results . I don't recall seeing other dowsers finds on the finds forum. Maybe they put them on the dowsing forum only, I dunno. Perhaps I just missed some in the past here @ this forum ? But anyhow, it answers the challenge I posed awhile back of: "Why don't we see dowsing finds on the show & tell?"

And because you follow through and answer questions. And appear to be giving challenges a fair shake.

Thanks. I have not seen other dowsers post either but I wished they would. I know it is not because they have not found anything. Maybe it is because they do not like the challenges they know they will receive.

I posted many finds several years ago in the dowsing threads. You can find them and view them.

Stay tuned, hopefully more dowsing finds coming tomorrow, weather permitting.

 

[aarthrj3811]

I spent the weekend hunting. I traced a signal for about 3 miles. I found a small gold vein that was 30 feet deep and about 100 yards long. I marked it and turned my findings over to the Indian Tribe that owns the land. I also marked 3 signals that crossed my original line for later use. The Indian that was with me says he has the equipment to extract the gold...Art

 

[lesjcbs]

Lesjcbs, You actually watched the Randi video I linked ? I commend you for your fairness and open mind ! You have much integrity to consider. Even if not agreeing with conclusions, I commend you for fairly considering it.



Don't forget that this is not the measure of truth . Because there are also "satisfied customers" of things like astrologers. fortune tellers, etc... Or how about some quack medical practices (dreamed up to bilk customers, later exposed and shut down, etc...): Yet ... oddly ... some of the recipients expressed satisfaction with the results. Obviously they were benefiting from the placebo effect.

Don't get "lost in the example", but ... just trying to point out that "satisfied customers" can be attributed to other factors. Hence the real test would be: Double blind scientifically conducted tests.

Yes, I watched that video. Why not? There is not a video made that can void out or change my past results in dowsing.

The best principle I got from that video is what I have always maintained about my dowsing: I cannot and do not guarantee anyone I can find any thing. All I can guarantee is I will give it a try.

Maybe those dowsers should have said that too. A lot less negative pressure on oneself.

For me, every next dowsing attempt is like a new adventure. What am I going to find today?

 

[aarthrj3811]

I ask the guy that does the double blind studies for Proctor and gamble. He said that it would cost at least $500 thousand to do the test properly. ..Art

 

[lesjcbs]

Lesjcbs, You actually watched the Randi video I linked ? I commend you for your fairness and open mind ! You have much integrity to consider. Even if not agreeing with conclusions, I commend you for fairly considering it.



Don't forget that this is not the measure of truth . Because there are also "satisfied customers" of things like astrologers. fortune tellers, etc... Or how about some quack medical practices (dreamed up to bilk customers, later exposed and shut down, etc...): Yet ... oddly ... some of the recipients expressed satisfaction with the results. Obviously they were benefiting from the placebo effect.

Don't get "lost in the example", but ... just trying to point out that "satisfied customers" can be attributed to other factors. Hence the real test would be: Double blind scientifically conducted tests.

No, the double blinded test is not the final answer or truth in dowsing.

I have no problem when it comes to the Double Blinded Scientific Testing process except for testing dowsing A double blinded test protocol of dowsing is not appropriate or compatible with dowsing, any more than sticking an 8" electronic metal detector coil straight out there to see if it can detect and beep on a target 90 feet away, and you can see the target as it is an aircraft hanger to boot.

As far as I have heard, every Double Blinded Test dowers have submitted themselves to has failed, and I am not surprised. That in itself points to the need to look elsewhere for the proof which has been present since long time ago, even down through history.

I would not submit to a Double Blinded dowsing test.

 

[aarthrj3811]

As far as I have heard, every Double Blinded Test dowers have submitted themselves to has failed, and I am not surprised. That in itself points to the need to look elsewhere for the proof which has been present since long time ago, even down through history.

I would not submit to a Double Blinded dowsing test.

The truth is that all those double Blind studies are missing a lot of the key facts. You need two groups of testers. The Dowsers and non dowsers. Without those you have no way to verify results or figure the odds. They are just made for publicity....Art

Just check some of million dollar double blind tests on drugs. They pass the test and a few months later they are recalled because they are killing people.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... There is not a video made that can void out or change my past results in dowsing .....

True. But it could offer "more plausible explanations" for the seeming results.

.... I cannot and do not guarantee anyone I can find any thing. All I can guarantee is I will give it a try......

Well, neither does the md'r "find a goodie" every time he goes out either However, the difference is: If you prop up the detector on the table, turn it on, and then 100 people wave a penny in front of the coil: It beeps for all 100 of them. Or if 100 people swing the coil over the flagged spot on the ground, it beeps for all 100 of them. So in *that* sense, the same can not be said for dowsing. But then the dowser, I know , would merely say "they don't have the gift", eh ?

..... A double blinded test protocol of dowsing is not appropriate or compatible with dowsing, any more than sticking an 8" electronic metal detector coil straight out there to see if it can detect and beep on a target 90 feet away, and you can see the target as it is an aircraft hanger to boot....

But that is not what a detector is capable of in the first place. Isn't that like saying since a Volkswagon beetle can't do 300 mph, therefore the Volkswagon doesn't exist ?

In any case, as said above: The detector passes the "double blind scientific test", in that of 100 people that wave the coil over the target, it beeps for all 100 of them.

...., every Double Blinded Test dowers have submitted themselves to has failed, and I am not surprised. That in itself points to the need to look elsewhere for the proof which has been present since long time ago, even down through history....

Interesting concession. Because many supposed successful tests (like the link Art posted) purport to show scientific validation. Hmmmm. So in-lieu of this "test failure", you say the proof is therefore in the successes of history. I propose that the seeming successes in history might have "more plausible explanations", as their roots.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The truth is that all those double Blind studies are missing a lot of the key facts. You need two groups of testers. The Dowsers and non dowsers. ....

It has been done. But the problems are immediate: Any "non-dowsers" that can't perform, are immediately dismissed as "not having the gift". Hence their conclusion of "it doesn't work" is immediately dismissed. And any non-performance (ie.: conclusions/statistics of 'random chance') on the part of the succesful dowsers will also be immediately dismissed (like you did with my counter link to your professor Betz above). For a variety of reason like "unfair test" or "sunspots and solar flairs" or "hostility vibes on unbelievers tainted the results" or "the scientists had magnets in their pockets" and so forth.

...Just check some of million dollar double blind tests on drugs. They pass the test and a few months later they are recalled because they are killing people.

Interesting. So if scientific tests showed that rat poison is not good to digest, would you disbelieve that and sprinkle it on your dinner tonight anyways ? After all, those scientist's tests are always flawed and worthless, right?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Well, neither does the md'r "find a goodie" every time he goes out either However, the difference is: If you prop up the detector on the table, turn it on, and then 100 people wave a penny in front of the coil: It beeps for all 100 of them. Or if 100 people swing the coil over the flagged spot on the ground, it beeps for all 100 of them. So in *that* sense, the same can not be said for dowsing. But then the dowser, I know , would merely say "they don't have the gift", eh ?

Do you test a chain saw the same way you test a hand saw?

But that is not what a detector is capable of in the first place. Isn't that like saying since a Volkswagon beetle can't do 300 mph, therefore the Volkswagon doesn't exist ?

Good comparisons.

In any case, as said above: The detector passes the "double blind scientific test", in that of 100 people that wave the coil over the target, it beeps for all 100 of them.

Does it?

It has been done. But the problems are immediate: Any "non-dowsers" that can't perform, are immediately dismissed as "not having the gift". Hence their conclusion of "it doesn't work" is immediately dismissed. And any non-performance (ie.: conclusions/statistics of 'random chance') on the part of the succesful dowsers will also be immediately dismissed (like you did with my counter link to your professor Betz above). For a variety of reason like "unfair test" or "sunspots and solar flairs" or "hostility vibes on unbelievers tainted the results" or "the scientists had magnets in their pockets" and so forth.

Can’t you find some different excuses?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Do you test a chain saw the same way you test a hand saw?....

Art, even when the dowsing rods are tested IN THE WAY THE DOWSER SAY THEY WORK, they are found to be nothing more than random chance and subliminal terrain clues. So the "testing criteria" is set by the believer's own stated claims. Of how it's supposed to work. So the chain-saw vs hand saw analogy does not apply.

 

[Jeff H]

Interesting discussion. I applaud you both for staying civil for so long.

I don't believe in dowsing because the criteria I use (science) clearly indicates that dowsing doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I think most dowsers don't care much about the science behind dowsing. The criteria they use is "belief". It's hard to compare and discuss those two very different sets of criteria and find any common ground.

 

[aarthrj3811]

I don't believe in dowsing because the criteria I use (science) clearly indicates that dowsing doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I don’t use science to Dowse. I use a set of rods

I think most dowsers don't care much about the science behind dowsing.

None needed
T

he criteria they use is "belief". It's hard to compare and discuss those two very different sets of criteria and find any common ground.

When you go out time after time and locate what you are seeking why do you need a criteria or common grounds?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I don’t use science to Dowse. I use a set of rods ....

Right. Rods that are not bound by the laws of science. Eh ?

I don’t use science to Dowse.... None needed .....

Correct. Just "belief" right ?

....When you go out time after time and locate what you are seeking why do you need a criteria...

Unless those "time after times" have more plausible alternative explanations.

 

[aarthrj3811]

I am what is called a Physical dowser. I use no metal action . so if you want to give dowsing a try
[url]http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/dowsing/10838-want-try-dowsing.html[/URL]

don't be afraid because the boogie man will not come