$1,000,000 for anyone who can dowse.

[ClonedSIM]

If I'm wrong about you visiting Randi's site, then you knowingly misconstrued information when you said that there are no test details on Randi's site. You would have known there are no testing details on the site because each test is unique, and do not fit into this cookie-cutter method you would like.
Using this information, it can be concluded that you cannot be trusted.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[musstag]

2 set of 20 bags is still too many, you see I may have to test each 10 directionaly, of one area, to determine if its in tha group, but if I get a reading its there, but without testing the other 10, and make my choice it may be a mistake, I may get a better reading from one in the other group, SO I would have to test all 2O. I'm going with TEN! And Carl hasn't chimed in, and he doesn't have too yet, and He doesn't have to do it on this site, ever if thats his desire. I will post some things in afew days or week+, BUT I will notify Carl directly, not on these post when I'm ready. He can use this as a heads up. NOW THIS is related to Randis test, becasue I intend to use Carls test as the successful test you must complete before you can take Randis, you must Submitt test results for Randis. But I think Carl and I will agree to post the results. ONE More major point is the Location..... I will take suggestions from Carl, but I may reserve the right to pick the spot, and it may be different from any he suggest. Thats it for awhile.

 

[Captain Trips]

2 set of 20 bags is still too many, you see I may have to test each 10 directionaly, of one area, to determine if its in tha group, but if I get a reading its there, but without testing the other 10, and make my choice it may be a mistake, I may get a better reading from one in the other group, SO I would have to test all 2O. I'm going with TEN! And Carl hasn't chimed in, and he doesn't have too yet, and He doesn't have to do it on this site, ever if thats his desire. I will post some things in afew days or week+, BUT I will notify Carl directly, not on these post when I'm ready. He can use this as a heads up. NOW THIS is related to Randis test, becasue I intend to use Carls test as the successful test you must complete before you can take Randis, you must Submitt test results for Randis. But I think Carl and I will agree to post the results. ONE More major point is the Location..... I will take suggestions from Carl, but I may reserve the right to pick the spot, and it may be different from any he suggest. Thats it for awhile.

I must be missing something. This 2-set-of-10-bags test should be simple enough to do, just test each of the 20 bags, and find the gold. (Actually, I personally think setting up a zero result test group is going a bit overboard, though. I would be happy with a 1-set-of-10 with only one having the gold in it, and I think this would also satisfy the JREF challenge. The second set of ten is a good double-check, but may not be necessary. Especially if you repeat the 1-in-10 test ten times. After all, with a 1-in-10 test, there are still 9 that should come up blank. And I am a fan of keeping it simple.)

 

[musstag]

Yep, you see to lay out 20 Bags, will take a lot of room, and depending on the place selected, its hard to not get a reading or two in some directions. So even if I get two readings at a the TEST Ground, its OK, if I have no readings for at least 180 or more degree continous area. AND if there are other readings at that site, I must ALSO test that I get a reading in each spot where the 10 bags will be set, using it/and my test gold as the target before the Real test.
Some might find this interesting. You know I can detect Jewely in people houses, I've told ya;ll that before, or even if they are weariing a ring and within 300 yards of me. Well, I have been working on a unit designed to work, detect gold only for a shorter distance. Out in the field it would be good to only detect in 100 feet after test with a Longer range Locator.
SO I get this new unit ready, go 350 yards away from my stepmother House, (at which I always get a reading) set up and test, well the Neighbors house next to hers, I get cross, a reading, OK, they must have a lot of gold, THEN -- NO Readiing in her direction... GREAT, Just what I wanted!! Did a quick check reading with the LONGER LRL, NO Reading......what..... wait a mintue, I jump in my car and drive to her house.... SHEs NOT Home!!! (went to a town weariing her rings.)

 

[ClonedSIM]

I must be missing something. This 2-set-of-10-bags test should be simple enough to do, just test each of the 20 bags, and find the gold. (Actually, I personally think setting up a zero result test group is going a bit overboard, though. I would be happy with a 1-set-of-10 with only one having the gold in it, and I think this would also satisfy the JREF challenge. The second set of ten is a good double-check, but may not be necessary. Especially if you repeat the 1-in-10 test ten times. After all, with a 1-in-10 test, there are still 9 that should come up blank. And I am a fan of keeping it simple.)

Heck, I just threw in the other 10 bags to appease Art and his double-blind desires.
1 in 10 sounds like a fine test, and you have to admire Musstag's excitement about the tests. I'm very anxious to see what happens.

 

[Carl-NC]

And, I'm sure Carl will chime in here, but his original test (if I remember correctly) was a double blind test but so many people complained and protested that the test changed again and again to the point that it's not even recognizable anymore.

My standard test hasn't changed... and, yes, it is double-blind.

 

[Carl-NC]

The proof is all over this forum and I have given you the URLs many times. Carl's test is not, or never was a Double Blind Test. Same old gimmicks. Still trying to get all the Dowsing Information deleted.

In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group.
Now that you know what a doulble blind test is and that's the only proof that is acceptable are you going to pay for the test?

*Sigh*... That definition is for a particular type of DB test, where comparative testing is done between groups of people. It is most commonly used in testing drugs, where one group gets the Real Deal, and one group gets a placebo. It's done this way because the people being testing know that they are taking something, so it's important that they don't know whether it's the drug or the placebo. The "double-blind" means that not only do the test subjects not know what they are getting, but the people administering the test don't know either. This prevents information leakage (intentional or not) from the administrators to the subjects.

My test is also comparative testing, but with a single person. The comparison is between a location that contains a gold target, and several that don't. To prevent information leakage, no one who is present during the dowsing attempts should know the real location of the target.

So, Art, my test really is double-blind. Just not identical to drug testing.

- Carl

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl, & Randi's test's have no scientific value.

Why would that matter? They have a cash prize!

 

[Carl-NC]

Hey Musstag....I will send you an e-mail tommorrow on how to jam the rods with a potentiometer. Carl knows how and if SWR can't jam the rods he's just not who he claims to be...Art

Ummm... you'll have to tell me, too, 'cause I sure don't know what the heck you're talking about!

 

[Carl-NC]

As to a dowsing test, they want to know what YOU can do, how YOU would propose testing it, and they will work with you on developing the test so that it is conducted in a scientific manner. (Note: they treat "science" as an adjective, not a noun.) The claimant is the one who proposes the testing protocol. Yes, even YOU, Dell, can suggest a method of testing to them. If they agree it is scientific, they will do it. If they don't, they will make some suggestions. The final protocol is negotiated in this manner. And it can be different from one person to another, and still meet their requirements.

That's all perfectly true. To add one more thing, if you decide that the final test protocol is not exactly what you want, then you don't have to take the test. And the cost of applying for the challenge and working out a test protocol? $0.00! Nope... scratch that... you have to mail in the application. So $0.39.

If nothing else, it's a wonderfully cheap way to find out if you can do what you think you are doing, or if you've merely deceived yourself.

 

[aarthrj3811]

If nothing else, it's a wonderfully cheap way to find out if you can do what you think you are doing, or if you've merely deceived yourself.

Could you please explain how I am deceiving myself??

 

[Carl-NC]

I'm OK with the 20-location test, but it really isn't any different than my standard 10-location test. Just more locations.

...and it seems a number of dowser that took Carls Challange were Very Suprised.

Musstag, sorry I haven't replied to your emails... first, no one has ever taken my challenge. The dowsers I've tested so far, were on an informal basis.

I now understand the proposal you made in your emails. It would be fine to add 5 locations with an extra gold target, but the target location should be known to the dowser. So, if I have 10 blue locations, and you have 5 interspersed red locations, then I would place my target in a randomly selected blue location while no one is watching. Then, while I'm not watching, you would place your target in a red location. Thus, during the dowsing attempt, you will be able to check for jamming on the red target you know about, but I don't.

- Carl

 

[Carl-NC]

If nothing else, it's a wonderfully cheap way to find out if you can do what you think you are doing, or if you've merely deceived yourself.

Could you please explain how I am deceiving myself??

No, sorry, I won't. I'm offering all the tools you need to find out for yourself, so that you won't have to believe what I say.

 

[Sandsted]

"Quote from: Sandsted on August 16, 2006, 10:29:31 PM
I know, 100%, that dowsing works and I'm not real concerned with proving it to sceptics. I know some that speak illy of dowsing and I know they would not care to learn so I don't talk about it, it really doesn't concern me. I know people that would like to learn that may carry the art on and teach it to other people eager to learn.

I am not satisfied with the theory, for obvious reasons, I can and am successfully dowsing all the time so I am, as in my faith in dowsing, 100% percent certain you are wrong.


Sooooooooo.....you don't need the million bucks Is that what I'm hearing? So then pass the test and give it to your favorite charity."

Af, I have no time for people like your kind! I give you clear, definite reasons as to why I will not take these stupid tests AND YOU IGNORE IT! I am sick of listening to you! You quote me and cut out words to fit your purpose! You are not hear for your concern for the truth, you are here to annoy people, to see how many arguements you can start.

I will not lower myself to your level by participating in this stupid thread any longer.

Farewell

 

[oldman]

SWR, I am a dowser and You are a skeptic! There is nothing wrong with that as long as it's keep clean. BP

 

[aarthrj3811]

I am skeptical

So whats the problem....

 

[ClonedSIM]

"Quote from: Sandsted on August 16, 2006, 10:29:31 PM
I know, 100%, that dowsing works and I'm not real concerned with proving it to sceptics. I know some that speak illy of dowsing and I know they would not care to learn so I don't talk about it, it really doesn't concern me. I know people that would like to learn that may carry the art on and teach it to other people eager to learn.

I am not satisfied with the theory, for obvious reasons, I can and am successfully dowsing all the time so I am, as in my faith in dowsing, 100% percent certain you are wrong.


Sooooooooo.....you don't need the million bucks Is that what I'm hearing? So then pass the test and give it to your favorite charity."

Af, I have no time for people like your kind! I give you clear, definite reasons as to why I will not take these stupid tests AND YOU IGNORE IT! I am sick of listening to you! You quote me and cut out words to fit your purpose! You are not hear for your concern for the truth, you are here to annoy people, to see how many arguements you can start.

I will not lower myself to your level by participating in this stupid thread any longer.

Farewell

You're right, Sandstead. This is your entire post from which I drew the above excerpt.

"Your posts give the impression you only participate in a Dowsing forum to heckle people who dowse, and complain about what other people do? Dell" With some on here I agree with that.

But I can not pass the test, I don't think I could dowse correctly when under a test like that. I test myself all the time. There is a ancor stone of Viking Origin that my Great Uncle found in the 30s or 40s. Olof Ohman threw it in a rock pile so it wouldn't draw more attention to himself and his family...people were so cruel to him.

Anyway, today I was wondering how old it was, I figured it would have been used by the Kensington party in 1361-1362. But I (I use sensor boards), through the style of dowsing I know, checked the date and got a reaction to lower 1200s, which supprised me but it was a strong clear reaction so I didn't question it. I called my Great Aunt who is still living and I thought she might know and so she got Gil's (my great uncle) folder of information on artifacts like this that he has compiled for years and she just put that stuff in there so she knew which one it was in. And he dated the stone to 1216 A.D. Also he had written in there something I didn't consider to check where the stone originated. It is an igneous that was formed in 4,000 B.C. (time of creation...roughly) and comes from some part of Norway.

Anyway, to make it clear I really don't think I could dowse under the pressure of being tested by someone. I tried it once when I was first learning to dowse and it was really hard which I didn't expect and it hurt my confidence which then I couldn't dowse for a long time afterwards. I had to practice and work real hard for a long time to be able to do anything again.

Another thing, I don't understand was a LRL.

And anyway I see this thread doing anything. To answer your question of why people aren't taking this test that can dowse, perhaps it is the same reason I won't.

I know, 100%, that dowsing works and I'm not real concerned with proving it to sceptics. I know some that speak illy of dowsing and I know they would not care to learn so I don't talk about it, it really doesn't concern me. I know people that would like to learn that may carry the art on and teach it to other people eager to learn.

So if I have in any case directed any ill feelings to anyone I am sorry. This subject doesn't really interest me. One thing I would like to know is Dowser501's thinking.

I am not satisfied with the theory, for obvious reasons, I can and am successfully dowsing all the time so I am, as in my faith in dowsing, 100% percent certain you are wrong.

Now, telling someone that they are wrong can be a very hurtful thing, but I'm not going to beat around the bush. I think you should consider the possibility that you are wrong and you should practice and legitimately dowse just go out, relax, and...do whatever style of dowsing it is that you do. You have nothing to loose by taking this advice.

Anyway I may not reply in this thread again so if not I wish you all well and I hope that all of you may discover your potential in dowsing and I hope that to all of you it is beneficial.

Farewell,

Jade Sanstead[/color

You say you can't pass the test because of the pressure, even though you're 100% positive that dowsing works. This is, of course, just another excuse that allows you to keep your ability all to yourself.

But you did say you don't understand LRL's, and I have to agree with you on that one.

And to say that I'm here to start arguments is correct. A conversation, whether nice or not, is the ultimate path to a conclusion and an understanding. From what I understand, you had a bad experience with a test when you first began to dowse, and that turned you off of it entirely. Isn't that kind of like falling off a bike once and never getting back on? This is a million bucks, Sandstead!! Wouldn't it be worth it to get over your fear of a public expedition of your talent and become a millionaire at the same time? I hear all the time how closed-minded and skeptical critics of dowser's skills are, but you refuse repeatedly to allow anyone else to see these skills. Why should anyone change their opinion without a reason?

Yes, I'm skeptical. But you would much rather write me off as a skeptic than do anything to change that! At least Randi and Carl are trying to do something to settle the dispute one way or the other. What are you doing?

 

[Carl-NC]

At least Randi and Carl are trying to do something to settle the dispute one way or the other.

The only thing I'm trying to do is shine a light on LooksLikeADuck devices, so that THers won't get ripped off buying something that doesn't have a prayer of working. I have no illusions that this dispute will ever be settled.

- Carl

 

[aarthrj3811]

Carl and AF....Randi's and Carls Tests are just that...TEST,...Randi does not tell us how his test is ran ..just that it is fair and Scientific... The same for Carl but he says it is a double blind test...no way. Carl ...Your test has been exposed for what it is...You want someone to prove your right about dowsing. AF...Learn to Dowse..usless your afraid you will cheat your self on the testes...Art

 

[Carl-NC]

My test is DB, just not the same as the way drug tests are done. I guess you don't understand that, do you?

Art, I really wish I could have met up with you in Reno. Unfortunately, it looks as though Bob has completely withdrawn from the challenge. I've tried to schedule a date for the test, and he won't even reply.

However, there's something I'd like you to consider... send in an application for Randi's challenge, just for the heck of it. Specify a test that YOU feel 100% confident in. See if Randi will work out something you agree to. You don't actually have to do the test if you don't want to, it can be an exercise just to see whether Randi will work with you or not. It doesn't cost anything to do this, so you have nothing at all to lose. And you gotta admit, it would be interesting to see what happens.

How about it?

- Carl