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

[Carl-NC]

"Can dowsing be demonstrated? I offer $25,000 for a successful demonstration."

I've already said at least 20 times why a test like this can not be done.

I didn't say anything about a particular test. I asked, "Can dowsing be demonstrated?"

"Regarding references in general, if you wish to cite past studies as evidence for your point-of-view, then it is your responsibility to provide those studies, not mine."

This is not my responsibility. You're the one with the problem. I'm not the one that needs the evidence, I'm just telling you of studies that I've become known to. If you refuse to face them that's your problem. I looked at several articles concerning those studies I spoke of, NONE of them were at a dowser site or written by a dowser.

You can find the studies for yourself or you can ignore them, I don't care.

OK, let me try a third time... please...read...carefully...

I looked for the 2 cited studies. I could not find them. I could only find people talking about them.

I don't have time to spend hours and hours searching for something that may not exist in the first place. I did that with the Chadwick experiment, and it turned out that no report exists for it.

Apparently, you can't find them, either. If you could, you would say, "Here they are." Therefore, I assume you've only read about the studies, and haven't read the actual studies themselves.

"...it is nothing but folly and fantasy."

You can not make this statement. You have not studied dowsing, you've made challenges to have people fail at dowsing and then call it a study. This is proof of nothing Carl and even if the people were sucessful it would still be proof of nothing.

I can make that statement, and I did. Prove me wrong.

"According to your definition of how I should study dowsing."

Carl, my "definition" or to be correct my opinion on how you should study dowsing is a good opinion. You can't dowse in situations where you have to prove yourself like one is forced to in your challenge. It is flawed in its construction. It will never, in all of its lifetime, prove anything and is a complete waste of time.

If you can't dowse when people are watching, then I have no reason to believe that you can dowse at all.

"Time: 2 hours
Money: 58 cents
Energy: near-zero"

Alright the time is good, I don't know how you think you can calculate the money to be 58 cents, but if that's true then that is good. Energy is more then zero...but this is if you believe that I don't even have to leave my property. Can Randi send someone to my doorstep, 173 miles North of Minneapolis? But even if he did, I don't believe I would be able to dowse under your conditions.

58 cents to mail a SASE to Randi, containing the application in which YOU propose a method for demonstrating your dowsing ability, that YOU are confident you can succeed with. I'll bet Randi can find someone reasonbly close to you. If you have to drive somewhere, I'll pay for your gas, up to $100. How's that?

So let's hear what test method you will propose. No excuses. No alibis.

- Carl

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

58 cents to mail a SASE to Randi, containing the application in which YOU propose a method for demonstrating your dowsing ability, that YOU are confident you can succeed with. I'll bet Randi can find someone reasonbly close to you. If you have to drive somewhere, I'll pay for your gas, up to $100. How's that?

So let's hear what test method you will propose. No excuses. No alibis.

- Carl

This is a heck of a deal, fellers! Let's hear it!
I volunteer $10 for lunch on day of the qualifying test.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Sounds good....I would like to ask Af1733 to apply to Randi's Foundation. It would be interesting to see if this application system is as simple as he implies. You could use a version of Carls Challenge. If all is like you tell us,Randi should jump all over it. You should be doing the pre-test in day's. After all, Randi just wants to give the money away. ..Art

 

[Carl-NC]

It would be interesting to see if this application system is as simple as he implies.

If you think it would be interesting to find out, then why don't YOU fill out an application? Then you would know, and would not have to believe.

No excuses. No alibis.

- Carl

 

[ClonedSIM]

Sounds good....I would like to ask Af1733 to apply to Randi's Foundation. It would be interesting to see if this application system is as simple as he implies. You could use a version of Carls Challenge. If all is like you tell us,Randi should jump all over it. You should be doing the pre-test in day's. After all, Randi just wants to give the money away. ..Art

Ummmm....and why would Randi consider an application from me? I don't claim to be able to do anything that cannot be scientifically explained. Nor would I make such a claim.

And before you get going again, Art, let me predict your next post:

"Well, af1733, if you won't apply for Randi's challenge, why should I?"

Maybe I'm psychic and should apply...

 

[Captain Trips]

Here's the application process in a nutshell:

Download the application form, and print it out.
State clearly and simply what you claim you can do.
Suggest a testing protocol and any necessary conditions.
Get it notarized.
Include a statement from a reliable professional who has observed your claimed ability. (e.g. a statement from an MD saying "I saw this man dowse with an 85% success rate.) (Note: a lot of claimants forget this step.)
Send it in to the JREF. Certified mail is recommended, but not necessary.

Total cost: envelope, stamp(s), notary fees, possibly paying a professional for their time to observe you. Yes, it will cost a little more than $0.58, as you no doubt will have to pay for the notary fee. (Unless, say, your financial institution provides that service for free. My credit union does for its members.) So what -- if you can really do as you claim, that is a tiny fraction of the amount you stand to gain!

As to the notarization and the reliable witness part, they do state on their website the reasons they have had to institute these requirements. They are basically to ensure that the applicant is serious, and that this person has demonstrated this ability to others already.

If not outright rejected (which only happens with claims that could cause harm to oneself or others, which does not apply to dowsing) they will respond to your application with either a "we can do that" or a "we suggest these modifications to your protocol" reply. They have no reason to reject a dowsing claim, but usually do have suggested modifications to ensure both objectivity and an outcome that will provide statistical proof of your claim.

Again, what have you got to lose, if you are certain about your abilities?

 

[Sandsted]

"Apparently, you can't find them, either. If you could, you would say, "Here they are." Therefore, I assume you've only read about the studies, and haven't read the actual studies themselves."

I have found some information about the study in Britain, not published by a dowsing site, not speaking about them. But I don't need to find them for you. You claim to study and have studied dowsing, why don't you prove it.

"When you try to open up to the effects of subliminal stimuli, or of psychic ones for that matter, the first most important factor to take on board is your attitude. For example, if you truly believe that you can dowse for water, or that you do have a magnetic sense of direction, or can find a lost object through clairvoyance, then you are far more likely to be successful than if you doubt your ability. The second most important fact is to be relaxed: if you try to hard, get tense and worked up, then you are unlikely to succeed. And the third most important thing to remember about the psychology of becoming aware of subliminal stimuli, is not to invest too much ego in the task: if it means too much to you, if you have to prove yourself, then you are bound to fail."

 

[ClonedSIM]

Sandy,
If you want to present information that supports your argument, then it is up to you to find this proof.
If a prosecuting attorney walked into court and told the judge that he talked to a guy whose cousin saw the crime being committed by the defendant, he'd be asked to provide proof. If he told the judge to find it himself, he'd probably get changed with contempt.

And I understand what you're trying to say when you're talking about the psychology of subliminal stimuli, but surely you realize how much this sounds like another excuse.
You're saying that being relaxed and letting it come naturally is the key to success, but that trying too hard to to prove your "abilities" will result in failure, right? The fault with this logic is you are more apt to be relaxed when around like-minded individuals, who hope for your success as much as you do. This can easily cause a misinterpretation of results from a bunch of folks who all want to see the same thing.

 

[Sandsted]

If a prosecuting attorney walked into court and told the judge that he talked to a guy whose cousin saw the crime being committed by the defendant, he'd be asked to provide proof. If he told the judge to find it himself, he'd probably get changed with contempt.

Sure Af, but I'm not the prosecutor. I am just a witness. Your conclusion on the court case doesn't affect me, I'm just proposing information. If you really care to learn the truth you would look for the information yourself. If you don't look then you don't care, doesn't bother me.

"...but surely you realize how much this sounds like another excuse."

I don't care if it sounds like an excuse, I can't change reality and no amount of believing can either.

"The fault with this logic is you are more apt to be relaxed when around like-minded individuals, who hope for your success as much as you do. This can easily cause a misinterpretation of results from a bunch of folks who all want to see the same thing."

This is true, around more open minded people or like minded people will allow you to dowse more easily. They won't hope that you fail or attack you for dowsing.

But I don't dowse around others most of the time, the times that I have it is in a lesson with an expert dowser with other "students" also hoping to learn how to dowse. This is a friendly environment of people that are there to learn something, not to prove something.

My previous statements are not logic they are fact. I have discovered these points concerning how to develope things like dowsing. They are not logic, interpretations, opinions, excuses, or anything else that you might believe them to be...they are fact.

At one time I was not able to dowse...I tried to hard, concentrated far to hard and did not get a reaction over top of the line I was dowsing for. I did not force a reaction and make myself believe it was dowsing. For a long time I could not dowse for I was not relaxed and for other reasons. These are facts...which I stand by.

 

[ClonedSIM]

If a prosecuting attorney walked into court and told the judge that he talked to a guy whose cousin saw the crime being committed by the defendant, he'd be asked to provide proof. If he told the judge to find it himself, he'd probably get changed with contempt.

Sure Af, but I'm not the prosecutor. I am just a witness. Your conclusion on the court case doesn't affect me, I'm just proposing information. If you really care to learn the truth you would look for the information yourself. If you don't look then you don't care, doesn't bother me.

But this is what you're missing, Sandy. You presented one very specific study that you claimed was evidence that supports your beliefs. But the "evidence" is only heresay if you can't produce the study itself. You stop being a witness when you start to support one side of anything over another.

This is true, around more open minded people or like minded people will allow you to dowse more easily. They won't hope that you fail or attack you for dowsing.

But I don't dowse around others most of the time, the times that I have it is in a lesson with an expert dowser with other "students" also hoping to learn how to dowse. This is a friendly environment of people that are there to learn something, not to prove something.

Having like-minded people around you makes it easier to convince one another that what they're seeing is real. Having someone around you that doesn't believe in what you are doing keeps everything real.

You've talked about skeptics only seeing one side of the story for some time now, but you apparently don't take your own advice. If you surround yourself with believers only, then you are refusing to see anything else except what you want to see.

 

[Sandsted]

...anyway,

"Having like-minded people around you makes it easier to convince one another that what they're seeing is real. Having someone around you that doesn't believe in what you are doing keeps everything real.

You've talked about skeptics only seeing one side of the story for some time now, but you apparently don't take your own advice. If you surround yourself with believers only, then you are refusing to see anything else except what you want to see."

Now you again resort to making assumptions and accusations.

Hear you are saying that I fool people and lie to them "...makes it easier to convince one another..." you have no justification for this statement...it is founded on nothing. Have I said I've never dowsed around people that don't believe in dowsing? Of course I have. Have I proved dowsing to people that didn't believe in it? Of course I have...but this is difficult and the only reason I could was because this person respected me enough to for a moment listen and learn.

"If you surround yourself with believers only, then you are refusing to see anything else except what you want to see."

See, now you again make unjustified accusations which are insulting to me. Who are you to tell me what I see; who are you to tell me I don't tell the truth. Why don't you, from now on, refrain from making such ludicrous accusations.

 

[Gluk]

Hey af! Do you have a visual memory? A somatic memory? Or no memory? You might want to make sure that when you type somthing about someone elses views, you check to make sure they heven't already disproven you in a previous post. I am certain 'sand-home' has stated both sides of the story in prevoius posts.

My reference for this post is this site... the one i am posting to... see that one post.. right there... no. scroll down a little further. There it is!... proof that sand-home's looking at both sides of the story.

After all; "the "evidence" is only heresay if you can't produce the study itself"

 

[Sandsted]

I forgot about this, "But this is what you're missing, Sandy. You presented one very specific study that you claimed was evidence that supports your beliefs. But the 'evidence' is only heresay if you can't produce the study itself. You stop being a witness when you start to support one side of anything over another."

Here's all I'm saying Af, it's quite simple.

There are studies out there that come to different conclusions then you are aware of. If you choose to ignore them because you're to lazy to look them up yourself...then it doesn't matter to me.

Listen to this: If you won't look them up, don't talk to me about them...your problems are of no concern to me.

The point is, if you really care to find the answer of whether dowsing works or not...you will study both sides of the controversy. If you don't care to find the answer, you will (in ignorance) just join the side that fits your unsupported judgments and ignore anything else because no one will do the work for you.

 

[Sandsted]

SWR, it is nice to see people so open and welcoming to new comers.

 

[ClonedSIM]

...anyway,

"Having like-minded people around you makes it easier to convince one another that what they're seeing is real. Having someone around you that doesn't believe in what you are doing keeps everything real.

You've talked about skeptics only seeing one side of the story for some time now, but you apparently don't take your own advice. If you surround yourself with believers only, then you are refusing to see anything else except what you want to see."

Now you again resort to making assumptions and accusations.

Hear you are saying that I fool people and lie to them "...makes it easier to convince one another..." you have no justification for this statement...it is founded on nothing. Have I said I've never dowsed around people that don't believe in dowsing? Of course I have. Have I proved dowsing to people that didn't believe in it? Of course I have...but this is difficult and the only reason I could was because this person respected me enough to for a moment listen and learn.

"If you surround yourself with believers only, then you are refusing to see anything else except what you want to see."

See, now you again make unjustified accusations which are insulting to me. Who are you to tell me what I see; who are you to tell me I don't tell the truth. Why don't you, from now on, refrain from making such ludicrous accusations.

Ah, Sandy....
Ludicrous accusations? You say you are comfortable dowsing in front of like-minded individuals because that's when dowsing works best, right? But dowsing in front of people that do not believe in dowsing can make dowsing near impossible because you are trying to hard to prove yourself, right? Might I remind you:
"When you try to open up to the effects of subliminal stimuli, or of psychic ones for that matter, the first most important factor to take on board is your attitude. For example, if you truly believe that you can dowse for water, or that you do have a magnetic sense of direction, or can find a lost object through clairvoyance, then you are far more likely to be successful than if you doubt your ability. The second most important fact is to be relaxed: if you try to hard, get tense and worked up, then you are unlikely to succeed. And the third most important thing to remember about the psychology of becoming aware of subliminal stimuli, is not to invest too much ego in the task: if it means too much to you, if you have to prove yourself, then you are bound to fail."
If you never step outside of your comfort zone when dowsing, then who's to say it will work at all when you're around folks that don't believe in it?

Also, I believe this is the first time I've heard this statement from you, but I could be wrong...

Have I said I've never dowsed around people that don't believe in dowsing? Of course I have. Have I proved dowsing to people that didn't believe in it? Of course I have...but this is difficult and the only reason I could was because this person respected me enough to for a moment listen and learn.

Who were these people and what did you prove to them?

 

[ClonedSIM]

Hey af! Do you have a visual memory? A somatic memory? Or no memory? You might want to make sure that when you type somthing about someone elses views, you check to make sure they heven't already disproven you in a previous post. I am certain 'sand-home' has stated both sides of the story in prevoius posts.

My reference for this post is this site... the one i am posting to... see that one post.. right there... no. scroll down a little further. There it is!... proof that sand-home's looking at both sides of the story.

After all; "the "evidence" is only heresay if you can't produce the study itself"

As for you, if you'd care to elaborate on your reference, I would be enthralled to read it...

 

[ClonedSIM]

I forgot about this, "But this is what you're missing, Sandy. You presented one very specific study that you claimed was evidence that supports your beliefs. But the 'evidence' is only heresay if you can't produce the study itself. You stop being a witness when you start to support one side of anything over another."

Here's all I'm saying Af, it's quite simple.

There are studies out there that come to different conclusions then you are aware of. If you choose to ignore them because you're to lazy to look them up yourself...then it doesn't matter to me.

Listen to this: If you won't look them up, don't talk to me about them...your problems are of no concern to me.

The point is, if you really care to find the answer of whether dowsing works or not...you will study both sides of the controversy. If you don't care to find the answer, you will (in ignorance) just join the side that fits your unsupported judgments and ignore anything else because no one will do the work for you.

Touched a nerve, didn't I?
Here's the problem with your line of thinking. I am able to produce test results, verifiable test results, in which the tests utilized a double-blind criteria in reference to dowsing. These test results show that dowsing, in those situations, did not work better than chance. You know of these tests as well.
You claimed to know of test results, or studies, that cannot be verified since they cannot be found and you refuse to produce them. This lends no credence to your argument. Were you able to produce these studies and test results, then I would happily read and consider them.
Why on Earth would I go out of my way to find a test that supports your argument, when you don't have the time to find it yourself?
And, this is a biggie so read close, if there is an example of a double-blind controlled experiment performed on dowsers that came to the conclusion that dowsing regularly produces results greater than that of guessing, then I have yet to find/see it.

 

[Captain Trips]

Let's see --- I do believe I started this thread looking for people who a) could successfully dowse AND b) were willing to put it to the test and walk away with a million dollars.

I have yet to find one. Instead, I have found several who said "Not me." And then proceeded to argue the point ad infinitum, ad absurdium! A classic Internet Threadjack!

So, can we start over? All those who can dowse AND are willing to be tested as such, please step forward. All those who say "such a test is hogwash," well, this thread wasn't directed at you anyway. So, please, step aside and let those who are more positive about being tested be heard.

 

[aarthrj3811]

if there is an example of a double-blind controlled experiment performed on dowsers that came to the conclusion that dowsing regularly produces results greater than that of guessing, then I have yet to find/see it.

A simple answer to your statement may be that the Scientific Community is not interested in Dowsing. It would be a little expensive to test 1000 Dowsers to get a base line. You have some stats on random guessing. Coin Flips, rolls of a dice and stuff like that. I could go out and find ten targets out of ten. I would beat the stats of random guessing. Did I beat the odds or did I just guess right that day. Unless you have a record or a base line to judge by the study would be inconclusive or needs more study.

Now we are back to the fact that one person taking a test means nothing. 1000 people taking the same test will provide some answers.......Art

 

[Gluk]

In responce to af :

Af, I understand that I can design the testing protocol and if you would have read my post you would know that it was my uncle and that due to my inexperience I can not yet dowse under the conditions of a test.

...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.

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.

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."

"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.

"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.

how's that? should i find a few more?
i might later, but i'm kinda busy now.