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

[Carl-NC]

I am not in a position to judge their honesty or the worth of their tests.

Which is what you proceed to do.

But concerning these challenges that are conversed about here, the truth is that these are not meant to find whether dowsing works or not.

Well, they are. If dowsing works, then surely someone, somewhere, can propose a simple test that they can perform, and pass, while someone is watching. But if dowsers consistently fail doing the very thing they claim they can do, in a way they claim they can do it, then it's more likely they are wrong about what they claim they can do, and dowsing does not work. These tests have been going on for 250 years now.

You do not have these tests to find the answer concerning whether dowsing works or not, they are meant to prove your preconceived conclusions.

I do have preconceptions about dowsing, I won't deny that. I'm asking for someone to prove me wrong, and I will pay them to do it.

Actually, my challenge was originally targeted strictly to LLAD manufacturers, whose products have, so far, all turned out to be high-dollar junk. Since these people are selling devices, and are making explicit or implicit claims of being able to locate treasure, then they should be taken to task to prove those claims. So far, they all refuse.

Most of these LLADs are dowsing devices, and I kept getting queries about my challenge from ordinary dowsers, so I decided to open the challenge to them as well.

Unlike LLAD makers, I've found that dowsers are universally an honest bunch of folks, who really believe they can do it. But most, when told there is a $25,000 prize, or a $1 million prize, offer a variety of alibis as to why they won't do it. Some, like Art, attack the people offering the prizes, or attack the fairness of a test they would get to define, as their alibi. I think what some of the skeptics here are saying is these attacks are unwarranted, and Art (and any other dowser) would find that out if he/they would just give it a go.

It's funny, but the challenge is actually a win-win proposal. You (the dowser) get to define a test that you feel 100% confident in. If you can do it, you win $1 million. (Art, that's about $650,000 after taxes.) If you can't do it, you still win... knowledge and time. Knowledge that maybe dowsing doesn't work the way you thought it worked, and the future time you might have wasted on a technique that does not work.

- Carl

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Sandsted]

"'I am not in a position to judge their honesty or the worth of their tests.'

Which is what you proceed to do. "

Carl, you don't get it. I'm not attacking your honesty or the fairness of your test, as you said, the dowser can create the test. But you admit you have preconceptions concerning dowsing and you said the purpose for your test was to prove that the LLAD instruments don't work and by proving that you hoped to keep the manufacturers from conning people.

I stated quite clearly that the test and yourself, to my knowledge, may be completely fair and honest. But the purpose of your test, you know as well as I. I need not and will not explain that again.

By my observations dowsing is dependent on a lot of confidence. You have to have that inner peace because it is very easy to alter the results of your dowsing. If you have a preconceived notion as to where the object is that your searching for then you have to be very careful not to accidently alter the dowsing. If you tell yourself there is gold there and you kept telling yourself that as you dowsed, you would get a reaction there. It's very easy to make mistakes with dowsing. If I were under the conditions of a test I wouldn't be able to dowse. I wouldn't call it a nervousness, but it is a lack of confidence due to my lack of experience.

Perhaps in the future I may submit to your test Carl. But the test wouldn't have ten plates with gold under them. This is so far from what I using dowsing for. Something like dating gravestones, finding underground waterlines or something. I could show you many ships here too.

Anyway, just so it's clear. I have not made any judgement concerning your test or the honesty of anyone. But I can clearly, from months of reading the same thing over and over, acknowledge the fact that these tests aren't performed scientifically. Performed perhaps isn't the right word, but the mentality of the tester isn't scientific.

I just wanted to point that out...now you can all go back to arguing with each other.

Farewell,

Sandsted

 

[Bill]

This was taken from George Hansen's DOWSING: A REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH........... Harvalik (1978) reports a study with dowsers detecting low-power high-frequency electromagnetic fields. Fourteen reputed dowsers participated with 694 trials (661 hits, 33 misses). But dowsing doesn't work, right?

 

[Sandsted]

I could type for hours about everything I've seen and learned through dowsing, but those aren't constructed tests...well...some of them are, but there wasn't a true skeptic there, and even in the ones that there was this is coming from me so it isn't credible. I've also seen results from very large dowsing tests that resulted in the conclusion that dowsing works.

And even you believe dowsing doesn't work, I have benefited from it. If you believe I am fooling myself that's okay, but don't say I'm wasting my time and energy. I've gained a lot of knowledge concerning my Scandinavian studies, especially by knowing these guys that have been studying it for many many years. And through this dowsing I've gotten to know the other Viking researchers that use dowsing and through them have found out about many evidences of Vikings in North America that would never be known of if I didn't study with these guys. There are thousands of PHYSICAL evidences to support the fact that Europeans were here for thousands of years before Columbus. But they've been smothered because of all the fuss made over the KRS. This stone was "proven" to be a hoax so all these other evidences must have been brought by pioneers and then accidentally dropped off in the wilderness to be found by Americans a hundred years later.

This is just like Runic divination and magik, which I suppose most don't believe in either. I won't explain the details concerning this, but I bought a rune set for looks and so I would have one as a part of my collection of Scandinavian literature and artifacts. And I found that it is quite powerful and very useful and I've never made a better investment in all my life.

But these two arts, dowsing and runic divination, are closely related. And whether they work does not concern me. You must look to the results of your efforts. I've benefited from the use of both of these. They have served their purposes. So I'd say they work.

What you have gained from the practices, I believe, is what matters. Do not forget this.

 

[ClonedSIM]

"So please don't point fingers when speaking of preconceived notions unless you're willing to point them at yourself as well."-Af

No offense but your statement is founded on nothing. I have not made preconceived notions or conclusions on anything.

So what are these?

But concerning these challenges that are conversed about here, the truth is that these are not meant to find whether dowsing works or not.

You do not have these tests to find the answer concerning whether dowsing works or not, they are meant to prove your preconceived conclusions.

And this is not the right way to find the truth.

Instead of building a test to find whether dowsing works or not, you have built a test in an attempt to prove your conclusion. This is the downfall of your research.

You must acknowledge this that these challenges are not formed and carried out from a neutral perspective (the way they should be).

How many times do you repeat that the test is only in place to prove a preconceived notion? And then you state that you are aware of the fact that the dowser is the one who sets the test parameters?

You have preconceived notions that the test wil fail no matter what, yet make no attempt to set forth a test that you find fair. I can guarantee you that I would have scored perfect every time if I got to make up my own tests through grade school and college.

We all have preconceived notions, Sand, even you.

 

[Sandsted]

How many times must I explain this? It is not the test! It is the mentality of it! The test’s purpose! Not the test itself.
I’ll make it more elementary so you may, this time, understand. If I were a high school instructor and I gave you a test. My point of view that I would tell others is that this test is to see if you have really learned anything (to see if dowsing really works or not). When in reality I believe you haven’t learned anything (believe dowsing doesn’t work) and even though the test is the same for all and is not made harder to support my belief, I believe you will fail. My real purpose for this test is to prove that you haven’t learned anything (prove that dowsing doesn’t work). And this poor student has to prove himself to me.
MY POINT! Again…is not attacking the test, I am not saying that you will fail no matter what. You put those words in my mouth. I’m saying the purpose for it is not scientific. This is not a challenge to see if dowsing works. This, I hope, is quite apparent to you. The purpose is to prove dowsing doesn’t work. This does NOT say that the test is a fraud; this does NOT say that Carl is a liar. What I am pointing out is quite evident. The purpose is to prove dowsing doesn’t work and to keep people from being fooled by it and to keep them from wasting time, money, and energy on this “fraudulent” art.
In conclusion! The study of a controversial subject should NOT be conducted in this way. One must study, unbiased, both sides of the subject THOROUGHLY before making a conclusion. Not set up a challenge to prove your preconceived notions. I’m not saying that the challenge can’t work, but there are better ways to answer the question of whether dowsing really works or not. But that’s just it…the question hasn’t been asked, it never has, instead of that, a challenge was built to answer it in your favor.
Do not accuse me of making prejudgment concerning this test, I have not. The test doesn’t concern me. Carl has admitted my point, the test was made to show that LLAD machines and dowsing, doesn’t work in order to keep these manufacturers from conning people.
This point has been stated before, directly from Carl's mouth. This point is not a composition of my immagination, it is not a prejudgment made against Carl and his test. It is a simple fact and I have just restated in hopes that you might become aware of that.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Are you listening to yourself, Sandy? You keep rebuffing everything on the premise that this test is set up to prove only one thing. But, get this, there is no test!

And dowsers call us skeptics.

When involving yourself with Randi or Carl, you get to let them know what you can do and be tested on that. There is no cookie-cutter test in place, scientific or not, that is designed to make you fail.

If you want a scientific test, then propose one! Why can you not understand it is actually this easy?
The study of a controversial subject should NOT be conducted in this way. One must study, unbiased, both sides of the subject THOROUGHLY before making a conclusion. -Sandsted
Fine, I agree with you. If you have so many problems with the way it's being done now, then tell us how you would do it.

If I were a high school instructor and I gave you a test. My point of view that I would tell others is that this test is to see if you have really learned anything (to see if dowsing really works or not). When in reality I believe you haven’t learned anything (believe dowsing doesn’t work) and even though the test is the same for all and is not made harder to support my belief, I believe you will fail. My real purpose for this test is to prove that you haven’t learned anything (prove that dowsing doesn’t work). And this poor student has to prove himself to me. -Sandsted
Your only flaw is this rather childish and self-service scenario is......drumroll please.......regardless of whether the teacher thinks I will fail, if I know the information, I will pass.

Do you actually think that just because Carl believes you will fail a dowsing test, you will actually fail because of his beliefs?

 

[Sandsted]

Okay af, you are almost there.

As I said at the top of my last post, "It is not the test! It is the mentality of it! The test’s purpose! Not the test itself!"

You keep acting as if I am attacking the test. I am not; I'm not saying there is a cookie-cutter test. I'm not saying that because of the test I would fail.

But you are almost to my point when you say,

"Your only flaw is this rather childish and self-service scenario is......drumroll please.......regardless of whether the teacher thinks I will fail, if I know the information, I will pass."

You can never understand the mentality of dowsing, what it takes to be successful. It is difficult and takes a lot of practice to do. Now...my problem is that...I find it very difficult to dowse under the conditions of having someone there that believes you’re lying, that believes this is all a fake and they strongly believe you are going to fail. I can't dowse like that. I also know that the minds of others around you can affect the dowsing. I've done it by accident to other people before. It's the same in Rune Casting, the other person with you while doing the cast MUST BE completely focused on the cast it self or you may not draw the wrong rune.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with the test itself or with Carl, except that the way this study is being conducted, the mentality of the study is wrong.

Don't complicate my point af, all I'm saying is that if you really cared to find out whether dowsing really worked or not you shouldn't conduct your "study" like this. This is wrong.

Yes the test can be completely fair; I'm not making any accusation against the test. I'm just making the point...that this test is not to find whether dowsing works or not.

This has been said about it and it is wrong and I think that should be known.

It's purpose is to show that dowsing doesn't work. That doesn't mean that the test is a fraud and fixed to make the dowser fail. But its purpose (not the test its self) is the prove dowsing doesn't work.

If you don't get it after this I'm not going to respond to you. So I'll end with this.

THIS IS NOT the way to approach a controversial subject. Randi has built for himself the title of the greatest skeptic ever and cares to prove that by offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove him wrong. You can never say this test meant to find whether dowsing works or not, it is meant to prove his conclusion.

That's it; the test is made to prove his conclusion.

I'm not saying the test is rigged, I'm not saying he's a fraud; I don't know him and don't care to.

But this is not a scientific study; don’t pretend that it is.

Do you understand?

 

[ClonedSIM]

Of course, Sandy. But how do you propose dowsing be tested and studied, if you don't like what's in place now?

I understand everything you're saying, but how can it be proven that anyone can actually dowse unless there are some sort of parameters in place to quantify the results? What's a miss and what's a hit?

It's easy to say this this or that isn't scientific or fair or right, but until a better option presents itself, the structure in place will have to serve. That's why Carl and Randi are willing to work with someone who wants to be tested, because certain constraints will work for some and not for others. And the test will prove whether that particular person can dowse, and isn't an attempt to debunk it entirely.

This is why I asked you what type of test would work for you. A question you still haven't answered.

So, since you seem to have trouble with this as well, allow me to reiterate.
That's it; the test is made to prove his conclusion. -Sandy
Please admit to me that you understand that Randi does not define the test. There is no "The Test." As far as you believing that skeptics around you will sully your test results, I just don't know what to tell you. It's a tough old world.

For some reason, you feel the need to talk to me like I don't understand you. You are a dowser, a rather odd animal in your own right, but when you throw in your irrational fear of skeptics being near you and a complete inability comprehend that you should be able to pass a test of your own design, it just gets stranger. You also believe in rune casting, and think that because you can dowse you are on some higher mental plane that a skeptic cannot possibly grasp. You are not. And please never refer to anything "scientific" again, until you can admit there is nothing scientific about dowsing.

 

[Sandsted]

"You also believe in rune casting, and think that because you can dowse you are on some higher mental plane that a skeptic cannot possibly grasp."
-Af

First off, I do not believe in rune casting. Do you believe you can tie your shoes? No, you know you can tie your shoes. There is a difference there, I know and utilize rune casting. Secondly, I do not think it is wise or honorable of you to tell someone else what they think. Unless you can actually read my mind and this is so then why don't you prove it to Carl through a controlled test?

When I am referring to "the test" I am speaking of Randi's and Carl's challenges, not a specific test.

If I were to develope a test I'd pick something that is better related to dowsing like dowsing at different areas where underground water pipes are known of.

For example, my heat source is a outside wood burner, this heats incoming water and then sends that water through an underground pipe to the house and to the shop. I know exactly where this pipe is so I could have a dowser come to see if he could mark where it is. Then I would be able to tell him whether he "hit" it or not.

I would like the test conducted by someone who is unbiased. Someone who cares not for the result either way.

Not only conducted by a someone with a neutral position on the subject, but I don't want some skeptic like yourself at the end of this test either.

In my test I wouldn't want there to be any unnecesairy payment, it would be a responsible study. Performed for the purpose of finding out whether dowsing really works or not.

"And please never refer to anything 'scientific' again, until you can admit there is nothing scientific about dowsing."
-Af

In the respect that I use "scientific" I am speaking about how the study is being conducted. A scientific study of what makes dowsing work or what makes the rod move would be interesting, but this is not what I was referring to before.

Another type of test would be like what I've done before with my Dowsing teacher...when we are working on a new Viking habitation site he works an area and I another. We then do each others to compare our results. We get the same results, sometimes they vary slightly and we go over them more careful to map it out correctly. But just like in the books he's written, all the information has been double checked by other dowsers such as my uncle. This way they are totally confirmed to be correct.

You should contact the "Water Witchers" company in Alexandria, Minnesota. They will dowse or "witch" your land for you. And if after you drill and there's no good water there like they said, you don't pay them. The first time I was going out to the Kensington Rune Stone park to work with my teacher they were talking about these people on the radio, I thought that was an odd coincidence. For we listen to that station everyday and that is the only time that I've ever heard anything related to dowsing on there.

Anyway, give me your thoughts concerning these tests.

Oh yeah...and dowsing is completely scientific. I've heard scientific theories how dowsing works, but this isn't something I put much effort in to study. And science concerning the mind is fairly primitive, pertaining to that subject nothing can be ruled out for sure.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee guy's.... There is no testing required. Just make a set of dowsing rods and give it a try. It will either work or it will not. The only one that knows if they can dowse or not is you. A simple set of dowsing rods made from free coat hangers will prove if you can dowse. Is is to simple for any one to understand?...Art

 

[Carl-NC]

This was taken from George Hansen's DOWSING: A REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH........... Harvalik (1978) reports a study with dowsers detecting low-power high-frequency electromagnetic fields. Fourteen reputed dowsers participated with 694 trials (661 hits, 33 misses). But dowsing doesn't work, right?

With 250 years of tests, I would be surprised if you could not find a few that support dowsing. I suspect the same is true for every kind of psychic ability that has been dreamed up.

- Carl

 

[Carl-NC]

This is not a challenge to see if dowsing works.

Yes! Absolutely, it is! Someone show me that dowsing (LLADs) works. That's what the challenge is for.

- Carl

 

[ClonedSIM]

If I were to develope a test I'd pick something that is better related to dowsing like dowsing at different areas where underground water pipes are known of.

See, this is what I was asking for! Would those pipes have to have water running through them, or could they be filled, capped and buried? How long would they need to be underground? Would this need to be an area that you know, or could it be completely foreign to you? These are the types of questions that would need to be answered for a complete test.
As far as who would be present, that would be up to Randi or Carl. Obviously, with their money on the line, they would want someone there who would be a disinterested third-party, but would be aware of the situation and what to look for white the challenge was going on, and who would look out for the best interests of both parties.
Remember what I said about not having skeptics around? This is one of the problems skeptics have with dowsers.
Time and time again we hear, "It works great when I'm alone, or when I'm with my dowsing buddies," but the ability suddenly leaves when there's a skeptic around. You can understand the criticism regarding this, I assume.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Gee guy's.... There is no testing required. Just make a set of dowsing rods and give it a try. It will either work or it will not. The only one that knows if they can dowse or not is you. A simple set of dowsing rods made from free coat hangers will prove if you can dowse. Is is to simple for any one to understand?...Art

Don't go back to this, Art. I've already been over this with you. If I took the rods out, and they didn't work for me, what then?
Do I take Randi's challenge and fail?
Do you blame it on the fact that I'm a skeptic, and that's why I failed?
Or do you assume they did work, and I'm lying by saying they failed?
And would it end this controversy? Not at all.
I've never claimed to be able to dowse. You have.
If I claimed I could jump off a building and survive, I probably wouldn't get a whole lot of believers. If I did it in front of a crowd of people, it would be much more convincing that if I just talked about it.
When are you going to stop "just talking" about it, Art?

 

[Sandsted]

I've read that it is hard and in some cases I've read that it is impossible to find stagnant water. I've never tested this, I think you would be able to. Perhaps that's something that could also be tried, try it with the water not runing, then try it when it is. Actually, I have dowsed on the water line from my wood burner during the summer when the water isn't running and I didn't get a reaction. So...yeah I'd say it would be best if it was runing.


How long it has to be underground I don't know, you wouldn't want there to be a sign of where it is on the ground.

I don't think it's necessairy to know the area. You have to be there of course.

"As far as who would be present, that would be up to Randi or Carl."
-Af

This test would not be conducted by them, I would find someone disinterested in the subject. Just for you I'll have my friend come out to the cemetary to see if I can do this with him there. He's not a skeptic of dowsing, but it didn't work for him when he tried...so he doesn't know what to think. I think he is a good person to try it with.

"Remember what I said about not having skeptics around? This is one of the problems skeptics have with dowsers."
-Af

I can understand that critisim. It is perfectly jutisfied. But my case is if I were one of those fancy skaters that can do those jumping...spinning things. And I've never been able to do that before, and once by myself I was able to do one. I quickly told some friends that I had done it, they didn't believe me. So now I am to prove to them that I can. But the time that I did it it was kind of luck and I haven't built that up that confidence that I can do it again around others. And so I try and fail out of this lack of confidence.

It takes much longer to build up this skill with dowsing, others will tell you the same...unless I'm just abnormally slow at the art.

Anyway, I hope you can understand this.

But in response to Carl's statement that his test is absolutly meant to see if dowsing works or not.

You say your test is to see whether dowsing works or not?

"My interests really aren't dowsing per se, but LRLs... which, as I've found out, are just high-priced dowsing devices, which has sorta led me into dowsing. My challenge is really targeted at LRL manufacturers, who should be willing to prove their devices work, but refuse. I own 20+ LRLs, and none of them work, at all. Two of them came from Dell. I don't think treasure hunters deserve to be ripped off like this, ergo my challenge."

-Carl

"As I said before, my primary interests are in treasure hunting equipment, including LRLs. I've yet to see an LRL that works, and believe that manufacturers should be taken to task to prove their equipment does something useful."

-Carl

"My challenge is primarily for commercial LRL devices, and is really targeted at the manufacturers of those devices..."

-Carl

You've said many more times than this, the purpose of your challenge is to prove that LRL or LLAD products don't work. You want to keep these manufacturers from conning people.

"Yes! Absolutely, it is! Someone show me that dowsing (LLADs) works. That's what the challenge is for."

It is not meant to see whether dowsing works or not. It is meant to prove your belief that dowsing doesn't work.

 

[aarthrj3811]

And would it end this controversy? Not at all.

Hey af1733.....The right answer...This discussion has been going on for around 15 years on T-Net. I don't understand how the fact that I can locate some thing with a set of Dowsing Rods is any threat to you or any one else. The comments made by some people on this forum make me doubt that they are treasure hunters. They sound a lot like comments made by people who use many AKA's and have been banned from posting on T-Net. I am moving to a new area and will contact the High School and see if I can again show students how to locate sewer, water and underground electric lines with a set of rods, so they will not be ripped off by the Companys that provide these services.....Art

 

[Sandsted]

I've never heard of that before now either.

 

[aarthrj3811]

The truth is, I can set the critter on the ground and it doesn't beep, jiggle, or move. It doesn't do anything but sit there.

This is a very truthful statement. The product Dell Winders is talking about does absolutely nothing, but sit there.

SWR. What did you expect it to do? Move over to the target and dig it. I don't know of any tool that will do that. First you need to turn the power switch on. Then you need to follow the Mfg. instructions. The tool is only as smart as the operator...Art

 

[jeff of pa]

This is a very truthful statement. The product Dell Winders is talking about does absolutely nothing, but sit there.

SWR. What did you expect it to do? Move over to the target and dig it. I don't know of any tool that will do that. First you need to turn the power switch on. Then you need to follow the Mfg. instructions. The tool is only as smart as the operator...Art

Turn a Power Switch on ?

I hope your talking about Dowsing Rods here. (No Electronics at all)
I don't want to have to Delete this thread.

Jeff