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

[ClonedSIM]

Art, Art, Art...There you go getting all defensive, and I wasn't even directing that comment towards you! I'll clarify but first, just for you, random guessing can best be illustrated by trying to guess the outcome of a coin-flip before the coin lands. Unless you have some sort of supernatural ability, over the course of 100 or 1000 or a million flips you will guess correctly, on average, 50% of the time.

Just to clarify for you, I was referring to Dell's post and all of the comparisons he makes to Carl and Randi's tests and random guessing. Take this for instance:

If they themselves can't do as they appear to claim that can easily be done by guessing, then they are promoting a deception.

As near as I can figure, this is Dell's was of saying that if Carl and Randi can't pass their own tests by guessing, then the tests must be unfair.

Personally, I don't think even Carl, or Randi, can random guess a treasure location 70%-80% of the time as they require for you to pass their test?

This I see as Dell's way of saying that he randomly guesses at targets, and would do this in either Randi or Carl's tests as well. But since random guessing rates, on average, at just 50% accuracy, then asking 70-80% accuracy is just plain mean.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

Thats what random guessing is. Your tell me that when my rods cross I am guessing about something. OK Now what would be informed guessing? I'm not getting defensive. Just seeing if you guys understand the words you keep thowing around.

 

[ClonedSIM]

You want to see if I understand the words I'm using yet you do not question Dell's grammatically terrifying post?
Informed guessing, or a hypothesis, is what you would project an outcome to be based on previous experience, experimentation and research. This is what you would use in Carl or Randi's tests to obtain 70-80% accuracy. This is what you say you use. But you also say you can't pass their tests using informed guessing. So what do you use?

 

[aarthrj3811]

The measurement task is to differentiate between random guessing, which contains no information, and informed guessing, which contains some information

Do you agree with this statement?

 

[jeff of pa]

Odd…I do not recall anyone stating gold coins under paper plates had to be 1,000 miles away on this thread. Did the Moderator delete some posts?

No posts about that were deleted SWR

only Advertisements.

 

[ClonedSIM]

The measurement task is to differentiate between random guessing, which contains no information, and informed guessing, which contains some information

Do you agree with this statement?

Naturally I agree. Random guessing averages approximately 50% accuracy. Complete accuracy is 100%. Informed guessing, by process of elimination, is going to fall somewhere in between. Say...75%? Carl and Randi's tests require about 75% accuracy. You say you utilize informed guessing. (My personal belief is that any treasure-seeking device should involve more than informed guessing, but I digress.) So what's the problem?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Did I say what kind of dowsing methods I use. Could you please tell me where you find this information, Random guessing averages approximately 50% accuracy. Is there some base line study of dowsing that shows this fact?...Art

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl, I certainly wouldn't consider an unrealistic test comparing the locating of buried treasure against tests designed for 50/50 chance guessing, as exactly fair.

What in the world are you talking about?

Personally, I don't think even Carl, or Randi, can random guess a treasure location 70%-80% of the time as they require for you to pass their test?

Huh? Are you saying that dowsing is just a guessing game?

If they themselves can't do as they appear to claim that can easily be done by guessing, then they are promoting a deception.

You really ARE saying that dowsing can do no better than guessing, aren't you?

Carl, Unless, you can test compare and prove your own guessing ability against the results of the product being test compared to random guessing, and pay the $25,000 if your guesses don't produce as good of results as the product that is being compared while using the same DB test protocol, you are promoting a fraud.

For example, 10 repeated tests, each consisting of Carl's random guessing, compared against the remote tool assisted locating of a single target, within 25 posibilities, from 30 feet away?

OK, that REALLY sounds like an admission that dowsing is a guessing act. You want to compare a dowser's guessing, to my guessing, and hope that he eeks out one more guess than do I.

That's quite a revelation, Dell, to admit that dowsing really does produce chance results when it's tested.

By the way, you still owe me $25,000 by default.

Huh? Please explain...

 

[ClonedSIM]

Interesting. You dowse, but all of the sudden you're interested in facts. Random chance is very easy to determine, Art. Stop being intentionally thick and come up with a response that isn't completely asinine.

It's called random because you aren't employing a method that gives you consistently successful results. Okay, if you're guessing at coin flips or true/false questions, then you're looking at a 50% success ratio. If you're guessing at rolls of a die, then you're looking at 16.67% accuracy. Is that what you wanted to hear? Does it change the fact that what you're doing is akin to random guessing? Not really. But we come back to the challenge if we're looking at it like this. Do you experience 70% success when you go out? No, you don't. If you did, then you could pass the challenges. You either don't have faith in your dowsing, or you're lying about your results.

You dowsers crack me up. You go on and on saying that there's no reason you can find, no cause, that makes dowsing work. You simply say, "It just works." Then when you're faced with a challenge that asks you to prove that dowsing works, all of the sudden you're mathematicians on par with Einstein, asking for facts and studies and base line equivalents. If you were to apply these numbers with your actual finds, basing the number of finds versus the number of empty holes and non-dug "targets", I think you'd be amazed at exactly what you're not doing.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Who's upset now... Quite, run around in circles. If you don't know the answers just let us know. Where do you get this information....Fliped coins. true and false questions....I was just wondering if you guys knew what you were saying. Af has no answers...any one else know where to find information about Ransom Guessing and Informed Guessing?

 

[Carl-NC]

OK folks, let's get past this guessing=50% nonsense. This is exactly the kind of misinformation that Dell latches onto, and repeats endlessly.

Guessing only has a 50% chance of success when there are two equally possible choices. Such as guessing the flip of a coin.

Other situations can produce better, or worse, chances of success. My chances of guessing whether my car will start in the morning are phenomenally high, even though there are only two choices. My chances of winning PowerBall are dismally non-existant*.

My dowsing test (as well as Randi's) does not have a 50% chance of success by using guesswork. If it did, my money would be gone by the 2nd or 3rd claimant, even if dowsing didn't work at all.

Instead, I use a series of tests, each of which has a 10% chance of success by guessing. But is dowsing equivalent to guessing? Or is it better? If it is equivalent to guessing, then the total results from a series of tests will be, on average, 10%**. This is, in fact, what I have found in all the dowsers I've tested. Sometimes slightly better, sometimes slightly worse... that's called a statistical distribution, and this kind of variation is expected in probability outcomes.

If dowsing is better than guessing, then the overall results should be better than 10%**. How much better? It depends on how well dowsing works, but to make the test worthwhile, the results should be better than any reasonable guesswork would allow. A dowsing test can be designed to test against any claimed rate-of-success, even if the dowser says he is accurate only 10% of the time. It just takes a lot longer.

Now, most dowsers claim very high rates of success. Ferinstance, Art*** says his rods will close every time he steps on a coin. I propose that Art's rods only close when he knows he is stepping on a coin. If his exact same test were made double-blind, with a single coin randomly placed/not placed under a single location, then his ability to dowse correctly would fall to 50%. If we randomly placed a single coin under 1-of-4 locations, his ability to dowse the correct one would be around 25%. And so forth.

The same is true of dowsing for gold. If this kind of dowsing really works, then it can be tested, and compared to guessing. My test is designed around what treasure dowsers claim they can do: locate gold. So I own a 10-ounce gold bar, for the sole purpose of these tests. Can a dowser find a 10-ounce gold bar, laid on the ground, right in front of him? When he knows where it is, yes. When he doesn't know where it is, no.

Dell understands all this very clearly, which is why he tries so hard to discredit these kinds of tests, and why he tries to muddle dowsing vs. guessing. Obviously, treasure hunting does not involve walking out in a field, and digging up gold in 50% of the holes you dig. No one has ever made this ludicrous claim, nor is this a valid comparison to any dowsing tests. This is the kind of disinformation that Dell produces, and it's just plain silly.

- Carl

*The odds of winning a state lottery are roughly the same whether you play or not.
**For my test, other tests will vary
***Not picking on you Art, just an example

 

[aarthrj3811]

Thanks Carl...Thats close to my Web Research and my personal research....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

That's just like you, Art. Find a point of information you like and ignore everything else. You notice that Carl pointed out his feelings on your dowsing? But you choose to ignore this. Why? Silence breeds acceptance, Art. So, I can assume that your rods cross only when you know you're stepping on a coin? This is a post filled with questions, Art. You like to get answers, and so do I, and all of these questions are directed at you.

And I had plenty of completely accurate answers for you, Art. You didn't like them, so you just kept fishing until you found answers you did like. Just like the challenges. You say they're crooked, but you can't prove it. So, you just keep spouting mindless rhetoric until you find someone equally mindless who agrees with you, then take this to mean you're right.

 

[aarthrj3811]

1. Find a point of information you like and ignore everything else. answer ....Find the real facts and ignore the bad information
2. You notice that Carl pointed out his feelings on your dowsing? But you choose to ignore this. Why? answer..... I have answered that many times.
3. Silence breeds acceptance ...... answer
4. So, I can assume that your rods cross only when you know you're stepping on a coin?
answer .....no you can not
Hope you learned something as these questions had little or no content..

 

[musstag]

Well, lets consider a little change in the testing. I have successfuly found the gold target in two of two tries, in a single blind test, but I will tell you that I had a little trouble because of trying not to step on or knock over the bags. (this is without my LRL, Its much easier with the LRL) So it think I will use the target area marked in some way, and shallow bury the Prized object when NOT using the LRL.
Now , using a LRL , we can use bags, BUT I also like my idea of a confirmation target bags (use different color for the confirmationbags) set up behind each target bag, that can be handled by my assistant, Now it can be bags, several, one or more with gold in it, and one or more without gold (gold being what we will be trying to find) and my assistant will move the confirmation bags in and away from the searched-for target several times, while he looks to see if the rods cross or not, THEN: If he currently has a dud, non gold bag, after MAYBE just having a gold bag, behind the tested target spot, and rods don't cross He KNOWS thats not the Prized target spot. If and when the tested target has crossed rods and he knows he currently has a DUD, non gold bag, behind the target being tested, he knows THATS the PRIZED Target. If he KNOWs he has a gold carrying bag behind the target and the rods do NOT cross he knows that some sort of interferance or Jamming is taking Place. Now what....... maybe not use that Target anymore and finsh that test cycle with 9 targets, then at the end of that test cycle , or....if that FOUL target (or one of multiple Foul targets bags ,HAS the prized target, it would count as FOUND.....
The switching of the confirmation bags is to keep Jamming less likey to occur or to spot it if it does. That is a concern I have, Jamming. If using a LRL, we can use different color bags, and kept 2 feet or more behind the Seached-for bags, to make sure my helper doesn't switch or tamper with the searched-for target bags. But he makes the CALL, by watching the rods, because only he knows which confirmation bag he has behind the tested target at that time. (Of course the LRL operator will know when the rods cross that it it is either the Prized target, or a conformation bag with gold in it.) Testing with magnets, I can stop the rods from crossing over gold, but ,with magnets I have't been able to make them cross withOUT gold as the target.
Now, my testing might have to wait, I have set up 2 trips that I will be taking, searching for treasure in one and Gold nuggets at the other. Later!
OH, by the way my LRL DOES Transmitt!!!!! Its not a hollow box, it has a transmitter, maybe we should call it a Metal detector, Long range!

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl, I'll repeat this again. Your's and Randi's test are not designed for testing Dowsing, and have no scientific value.

Your only complaint so far is that, in these tests, dowsing is held to a higher standard than guessing. Do you have any other objections?

That is why I suggest you leave meta-physics out of the category, and discussion, and stick to trying to design a fair physics related test for LRL.

Well, let's do that here & now. I'll start a new thread.

- Carl

 

[aarthrj3811]

SWR...Please tell us where we can find this information. You seem to have some top secret info....Are you a Treasure Hunter?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey....I see a lot of information about how Randi's test is run.....Where's this information at. I can't find it. What your saying is not on Randi's web site.

 

[ClonedSIM]

10 plates, 1 gold bar....simple. I love how you guys like to muddy the water to the point there's almost no resemblance of the original challenge.

 

[Carl-NC]

"Jamming" can be a legitimate concern*, regardless of whether it is even possible. The test protocol can address this, by requiring measures to prevent anyone from bringing any kind of jamming device to the test field. Or, the protocol can be designed so that dowser can self-test for the presence of jamming.

Jamming can also be the test itself. The gold target can become the known entity, and a jamming device of your choice becomes the blind entity. Can you tell when it's turned on, or off?

So you see, there are several ways to address this. Let's stop using it as a reason to decline a million bucks.

- Carl

* Though it's more likely the latest cain't-do-it excuse.