ClonedSIM
Silver Member
Yeah, what's been going on with Musstag? Anyone know?
$1,000,000 for anyone who can dowse.
- Thread starter Captain Trips
- Start date
ClonedSIM
Silver Member
Dell Winders said:
That would be "moot," not mute.
So, I guess your new quote should be, "If it hasn't been done, it can't be done?"
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Challenge
Noun
1. A demanding or stimulating situation;
2. A call to engage in a contest or fight.
3. Questioning a statement and demanding an explanation;
4. A formal objection to the selection of a particular person as a juror.
5. A demand by a sentry for a password or identification.
Verb
1. Take exception to;
2. Issue a challenge to;
3. Ask for identification;
4. Raise a formal objection in a court of law.
Twist and spin this
Noun
1. A demanding or stimulating situation;
2. A call to engage in a contest or fight.
3. Questioning a statement and demanding an explanation;
4. A formal objection to the selection of a particular person as a juror.
5. A demand by a sentry for a password or identification.
Verb
1. Take exception to;
2. Issue a challenge to;
3. Ask for identification;
4. Raise a formal objection in a court of law.
Twist and spin this
ClonedSIM
Silver Member
Awwww.... Art found his Wikipedia again. And exactly why are you copy-and-pasting* definitions?
*You can tell it's copied because all the spelling and grammar is correct.
*You can tell it's copied because all the spelling and grammar is correct.
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
I had a long reply about every thing I have proved to you over the past few weeks. I decided that you wouldn't understand that you have been wrong about everything. Give Randi a big hug as we have totally destroy his so called Challenge as the Scam that it is....Art
Carl-NC
Bronze Member
- Mar 19, 2003
- 1,877
- 1,373
- Detector(s) used
- Custom Designs and Prototypes
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
aarthrj3811 said:
Art, could you please say what, exactly, it is about Randi's challenge you object to? Or what makes it a "scam"?
- Carl
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
You guys seem to read and understand information different than most of us....I will put this as simple as I can so you will not have to twist and spin it.....1964-2006----no-one has been allowed to take the test for $1,000,000. What's the odds on this happening?
Captain Trips
Sr. Member
- Jul 24, 2006
- 265
- 0
- Thread starter
- #248
Dell -- the only links I posted are JREF links. I had posted one to the FAQ for the challenge, and then another specifically showing only Randi's weekly columns regarding you from last year. I did not post any other links. (Links showing on pages I linked to are not under my control.) Therefore, since the links I posted directly relate to the JREF challenge, which was the subject of this thread, I am not worried. And I have not verbally abused you -- more like the other way around. All I have done is provide the ability for others on this thread to see what the "other side" of your arguments against Randi has to say. Never argue a point unless you are prepared for a response. If you think my posting Randi's response to your arguments is verbal abuse, that's your opinion.
Art -- it's not that "no one has been allowed to take the challenge." Read the faq again, read the "challenges" page of the JREF forum. No one has even passed the preliminary test! If you don't pass the prelim, you don't go on to the finals. Your argument is like saying that I haven't been allowed to play in the PGA Masters Tournament. It's not that I haven't been allowed to play, it's that I never even made the cut in the prelims. (The fact that I don't play golf just may have something to do with that, though.) When someone takes the challenge, and if they actually pass the preliminary test, then they will move on to the final stage of the challenge.
Art -- it's not that "no one has been allowed to take the challenge." Read the faq again, read the "challenges" page of the JREF forum. No one has even passed the preliminary test! If you don't pass the prelim, you don't go on to the finals. Your argument is like saying that I haven't been allowed to play in the PGA Masters Tournament. It's not that I haven't been allowed to play, it's that I never even made the cut in the prelims. (The fact that I don't play golf just may have something to do with that, though.) When someone takes the challenge, and if they actually pass the preliminary test, then they will move on to the final stage of the challenge.
ClonedSIM
Silver Member
Dell Winders said:
Odds against, test challenge? The odds are only against you if you can't do what you say you can. If dowsing works as you say it does, the odds are in your favor for this challenge.
This is a point I think a lot of people are missing. The odds of the challenges are set up to be prohibitive against guessing. Dowsing is not guessing, according to the dowsers here.
Let me ask you this, and please only respond it you have a valid answer or suggestion, and remember this is a hypothetical question!
Hypothetically, let's say you were approached by a man that did not believe in dowsing, and wanted to see proof of its ability. If it was proven to him beyond a shadow of a doubt, he would give you a $50,000 contract to travel across the country and perform demonstrations at his expense for one year. Now, why he wants to do this is immaterial, but you would be touching millions with the skill of dowsing and making some pretty good coin while you were at it. What would be the test you would perform to prove this to him?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
All I have heard for weeks are Excuses for Randi and Carl...
ClonedSIM
Silver Member
Art, quit responding to your own posts when no one else does. If no one replies to your thought, then it probably wasn't much of a valid thought to begin with.
Carl-NC
Bronze Member
- Mar 19, 2003
- 1,877
- 1,373
- Detector(s) used
- Custom Designs and Prototypes
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
aarthrj3811 said:
Art, that's simply not true.
Could you please say what, exactly, it is about Randi's challenge you object to? Or what makes it a "scam"?
- Carl
:10 PM » Quote Modify Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about a test where you take a 2 acre field and have someone hide 10 targets on it. Have 2 people search it at separate times. One would use dowsing rods or a lrl. The other person would chance guess it. Repeat this 10 or 20 times. Record each parties targets that they recover. At the end of the test if both parties recover about the same amount of targets, then dowsing is no better than chance guessing. On the other hand if the dowser recovers quite a few more targets, then dowsing works better than chance
I know that Dell and Art have said no to the Challenge. I'm asking Carl if this would be an exceptable test for his $25,000 Challenge for anybody else that might want to take his test. That would also go for Randi's Challenge also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about a test where you take a 2 acre field and have someone hide 10 targets on it. Have 2 people search it at separate times. One would use dowsing rods or a lrl. The other person would chance guess it. Repeat this 10 or 20 times. Record each parties targets that they recover. At the end of the test if both parties recover about the same amount of targets, then dowsing is no better than chance guessing. On the other hand if the dowser recovers quite a few more targets, then dowsing works better than chance
I know that Dell and Art have said no to the Challenge. I'm asking Carl if this would be an exceptable test for his $25,000 Challenge for anybody else that might want to take his test. That would also go for Randi's Challenge also.
ClonedSIM
Silver Member
Well, I would certainly hope that this would be agreeable to both Carl and Randi. It's a triple-blind test with a contol group to boot.
Any word on what Musstag is up to?
Any word on what Musstag is up to?
Carl-NC
Bronze Member
- Mar 19, 2003
- 1,877
- 1,373
- Detector(s) used
- Custom Designs and Prototypes
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
The "field" test is feasible, but is more difficult to execute than the "discrete-location" test I describe in my challenge. Let's call my test the "Plate Test" and this 2-acre test the "Field Test".
First, what is a "success"? The recovery of a target? OK, how big of a hole is allowed? A 1-foot diameter hole? A 3-foot hole? A 10-foot hole? This sounds silly, but it needs to be defined. Otherwise, a dowser could legally dig a 2-acre hole, recover the targets, and claim success. That's what I would do, if offered $1 million with no stated limit on the hole size.
Hole size also plays into the odds of finding targets by guessing. In a 2-acre field (87120 sq feet) a 1-foot hole (0.785 sq feet) gives a probability of about 1-in-111,000 for a single target. A 10-foot hole (78.5 sq feet) gives a probability of about 1-in-1110 for a single target. Both of these sound highly unlikely, but when you bury a number of targets then the likelihood of finding one is not as bad for the 10-foot hole, versus the 1-foot hole. So you need to limit the hole size to be very small compared to the field size.
In the plate test, none of this is an issue, because the target is hidden in a discrete, marked location. There is no "get close and get lucky"... you either hit it, or you don't.
Second, the dowser will probably want to pre-scan the field for anomalies. In the Plate Test, I strongly recommend this before the test begins. In the Field Test, this means the dowser will have to check the field, then leave while the targets are buried. Depending on the surrounding area, you would need to exercise extreme caution to prevent observation, because it's difficult to disguise the digging of a hole. In the Plate Test, I can easily conceal the target with no fear that anyone can tell where I place it, even if they are watching.
This brings up a third issue. Burying several targets in a field will likely leave evidence as to where they are buried. One obvious solution is to "age" the field. That is, wait several weeks until the evidence is gone. Problem is, if the dowser pre-scanned the field, then there is a possibility of cheating. When I put up $25,000 in a challenge, I refuse to make "trust" a key requirement for the test. Likewise, I don't expect a dowser to trust me, and I try to design my tests so that trust plays no role.
Another solution is to dig lots of holes (someone mentioned using a coin planter) and only bury the targets in randomly selected ones. But this gets right back to being exactly like the Plate Test.
And where do you bury the targets? The locations should be chosen by a randomized method, to avoid bias. This means dividing the field up into small squares, and randomly selecting squares. Also, if you let a guesser take the field first, then you will need to exactly record his selected locations and remove all traces of those selections before the dowser arrives. That means an extremely accurate method of measuring the locations from a reference point.
Another potential problem is target recovery. Let's say you plant 10 silver dollars. If dowsing doesn't locate them, then you absolutely have to be able to retrieve them, in order to prove they were buried in the first place. So if you do a really really good job of not leaving any traces of burial, then you better not bury them beyond the reach of a metal detector. This, of course, limits your ability to let a field age. If the dowser has pre-scanned the field, and you have to leave it for 2 weeks with the targets easily detectable... well, like I said, I'm not interested in putting my money up against someone's honesty.
Finally, what are you judging against? The guesser? How much better does the dowser have to do? One better? Twice better? 3 or more? You need a threshold. This, again, gets back to calculating the probabilities of guessing and placing the threshold higher, exactly as I do in the Plate Test.
One reason I bring all this up because I have actually been presented with a request for such a test. The claimants wanted me to bury a single target in a 10-acre the field that they would get to pre-scan. They also insisted that a witness of their chosing get to watch me bury the target. That requirement was obviously not going to happen. Unfortunately, they weren't willing to work out anything we could both agree on, so it went nowhere.
So, yes, a Field Test is a possibility, but it will be difficult to work out so that it 100% fair, and trust is not a requirement. It can also be expensive and difficult to execute. That's why I use a Plate Test as a standard test; it's easy to do. And, if dowsing works, success should be remarkably easy. But I would be willing to explore a field test for the formal Challenge, and would eagerly agree to it for informal testing.
- Carl
First, what is a "success"? The recovery of a target? OK, how big of a hole is allowed? A 1-foot diameter hole? A 3-foot hole? A 10-foot hole? This sounds silly, but it needs to be defined. Otherwise, a dowser could legally dig a 2-acre hole, recover the targets, and claim success. That's what I would do, if offered $1 million with no stated limit on the hole size.
Hole size also plays into the odds of finding targets by guessing. In a 2-acre field (87120 sq feet) a 1-foot hole (0.785 sq feet) gives a probability of about 1-in-111,000 for a single target. A 10-foot hole (78.5 sq feet) gives a probability of about 1-in-1110 for a single target. Both of these sound highly unlikely, but when you bury a number of targets then the likelihood of finding one is not as bad for the 10-foot hole, versus the 1-foot hole. So you need to limit the hole size to be very small compared to the field size.
In the plate test, none of this is an issue, because the target is hidden in a discrete, marked location. There is no "get close and get lucky"... you either hit it, or you don't.
Second, the dowser will probably want to pre-scan the field for anomalies. In the Plate Test, I strongly recommend this before the test begins. In the Field Test, this means the dowser will have to check the field, then leave while the targets are buried. Depending on the surrounding area, you would need to exercise extreme caution to prevent observation, because it's difficult to disguise the digging of a hole. In the Plate Test, I can easily conceal the target with no fear that anyone can tell where I place it, even if they are watching.
This brings up a third issue. Burying several targets in a field will likely leave evidence as to where they are buried. One obvious solution is to "age" the field. That is, wait several weeks until the evidence is gone. Problem is, if the dowser pre-scanned the field, then there is a possibility of cheating. When I put up $25,000 in a challenge, I refuse to make "trust" a key requirement for the test. Likewise, I don't expect a dowser to trust me, and I try to design my tests so that trust plays no role.
Another solution is to dig lots of holes (someone mentioned using a coin planter) and only bury the targets in randomly selected ones. But this gets right back to being exactly like the Plate Test.
And where do you bury the targets? The locations should be chosen by a randomized method, to avoid bias. This means dividing the field up into small squares, and randomly selecting squares. Also, if you let a guesser take the field first, then you will need to exactly record his selected locations and remove all traces of those selections before the dowser arrives. That means an extremely accurate method of measuring the locations from a reference point.
Another potential problem is target recovery. Let's say you plant 10 silver dollars. If dowsing doesn't locate them, then you absolutely have to be able to retrieve them, in order to prove they were buried in the first place. So if you do a really really good job of not leaving any traces of burial, then you better not bury them beyond the reach of a metal detector. This, of course, limits your ability to let a field age. If the dowser has pre-scanned the field, and you have to leave it for 2 weeks with the targets easily detectable... well, like I said, I'm not interested in putting my money up against someone's honesty.
Finally, what are you judging against? The guesser? How much better does the dowser have to do? One better? Twice better? 3 or more? You need a threshold. This, again, gets back to calculating the probabilities of guessing and placing the threshold higher, exactly as I do in the Plate Test.
One reason I bring all this up because I have actually been presented with a request for such a test. The claimants wanted me to bury a single target in a 10-acre the field that they would get to pre-scan. They also insisted that a witness of their chosing get to watch me bury the target. That requirement was obviously not going to happen. Unfortunately, they weren't willing to work out anything we could both agree on, so it went nowhere.
So, yes, a Field Test is a possibility, but it will be difficult to work out so that it 100% fair, and trust is not a requirement. It can also be expensive and difficult to execute. That's why I use a Plate Test as a standard test; it's easy to do. And, if dowsing works, success should be remarkably easy. But I would be willing to explore a field test for the formal Challenge, and would eagerly agree to it for informal testing.
- Carl
ClonedSIM
Silver Member
You brought up a ton of great points I hadn't thought about, Carl. Nicely done.
H
Henry Hartley
Guest
This Carl fella says he would dig up the hole 2 acre field. Sounds like a guy that is ready to cheat?
Henry
Henry
It would not be much of a problem if you used a gps and marked each target when planted as a waypoint. What if you didn't dig any holes. Both the dowser and the guesser would mark there target locations with a flag. When each party was done with there test the locations could be recorded with the same gps. Then it would be downloaded onto a map of the field. If either party got within 3 feet of the target they would get a target recovery. If either party does 20% better than the other, I would consider that a success.
Carl-NC
Bronze Member
- Mar 19, 2003
- 1,877
- 1,373
- Detector(s) used
- Custom Designs and Prototypes
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Rich NY said:
GPS isn't accurate enough.
What if the guesser gets 0 and the dowser 1? That's infinitely better, and could have been achieved via guessing, depending on the test parameters. Guesser=4 and dowser=5 also satisfies 20%.
- Carl
Carl-NC
Bronze Member
- Mar 19, 2003
- 1,877
- 1,373
- Detector(s) used
- Custom Designs and Prototypes
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Henry Hartley said:
Cheating means breaking the rules. If I can negotiate rules that give me a clear advantage, then that's not cheating, it's just taking advantage of someone's ignorance.
Since I have $25,000 on the line, it is imperative that I think of every possible loophole that could make me lose my money to a non-dowser. Randi has to be even more careful.
- Carl
Top Member Reactions
-
1936 -
1060 -
1003 -
997 -
863 -
861 -
856 -
753 -
707 -
585 -
398 -
361 -
356 -
351 -
343 -
335 -
E
335
-
312 -
294 -
287
