What's new
By:

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

Okay, Art. If you don't like the statement you so brilliantly commented on, why don't you take a look at Carl's most recent post? ??? ??? ??? right back at ya!
 

MAYBE This will help end some confussion.... TERMS, dowsing sticks, L-rods, LRL (LongRangeLocator) , and MFD . Refer to Carls building instruction on the New Tread. I found we had a mis-understanding of terms. COMMENTS ANYONE? (see below)

Ohoops.... I am calling the rods in that 1st set of
instructions, L-rods, I use those either alone, plain
dowsing, or with what I have called a LRL , which is
similar to the 2nd set of instructions. Looks to me
that in this transmitt or NOT transmitt discussion we
were not calling the same items by the same names? I
maybe be wrong in what I called them, either way,
would you agree you and I are using different
meanings or terms for those items?.. So That to me my
LRL and to you , your MFD will transmitt? So is your
term MFDs' (LRL to me) allowed in both your and Randis
Test?

You see, using just the rods, (L-Rods) I can only get
a cross when directly over the target. They will
"NOT" sway or tell a direction to go, that I can
determine. So they are not Long Range Locators, LRLs. But my "black box" LongRangeLocator, LRL
to me, MFD to you, will cross when ever I AM in
between the target and the LDL/MFD. And I don't use
connecting wires or probes in the ground.
 

Dell Winders said:
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. ]
Click to expand...
No need to blame others for not wanting to partake in a worn out publicity gimmick that needs to be described for what it is. The authors aren't forthcoming in telling folks why they are here making so much effort to badger and solicit candidates to take their test. Their so called challenges are a totally un-scientific approach to obtaining test subjects, and therefore is a good reason to be highly suspect of "Pretend Science" to promote a cheap publicity gimmick.

AF1733, If you believe it so simple, then you have the same opportunity as everyone else to learn to dowse, or use a locator, and easily win Randi's million if that is what you think can be done. So, what is your excuse? 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
Click to expand...

Well, Dell, when you start calling Carl and Randi's challenges unscientific, you have to place some close scrutiny on the way you perform your own tests. You routinly "heckle" and "badger" those who offer up these challenges, while never offering to submit your own sound testing parameters.

I don't believe the test simple. In fact, I don't believe the challenges will ever be accomplished, but not for the reasons you're here to protest. Dowsing, I have no doubt, is a real skill. But not in the form it is being presented. When we progress from locating an underground water source to being able to unknowingly step on a coin and have your rods cross is indeed a giant leap, but each of you stand by your claims that you can do this. When you're pressed to provide proof of this, you have two options: to withdraw your claim, or to step up and provide proof. Actually, you have a third option, which is the path you've chosen. You can complain that you don't have to prove anything and that any tests (except for your own) and flawed and don't prove a thing.

If you can step on a coin, and the rods will cross, then let Carl put ten plates on the ground, a coin under one, and proceed to step on each one until your rods cross. If the coin is under that plate, and you can duplicate those results, then you're a million bucks richer. I'm not claiming I can do it, nor am I selling devices that claim to be able to do this, so there's no point in my undertaking the challenge. Now, if he suddenly opened the challenge up to metal detectors, then I'll be the first in line. There's no chance of this because Carl knows that the detector will pass the test.
 

Good work Dell,,,,They can't keep their stories straight...When you don't have any knowledge of dowsing and your pretending to know how something works just give them enough rope. Af..you have twisted and turned so much that you can't keep or tell which player is which...Are you a treasure hunter?
 

aarthrj3811 said:
Good work Dell,,,,They can't keep their stories straight...When you don't have any knowledge of dowsing and your pretending to know how something works just give them enough rope. Af..you have twisted and turned so much that you can't keep or tell which player is which...Are you a treasure hunter?
Click to expand...

Lame, lame, lame..... Is there a question in here somewhere?

When I say the test is simple, I'm referring to the claims you and Dell (and others) make when using your respective devices. A situation like these challenges should be no bother at all if you can hunt as you claim you can. However, you raise such a fuss as to make myself and others believe that maybe, just maybe, you can't really locate as you say you can.

If you can do as you say, then the test is a cakewalk. If, however, you can't hunt like you say you can, then the test is impossible. If this is the case, then LRL's and MFD's and the like are shams and frauds.
 

Double-blind trials
Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigour.

In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group. Only after all the data are recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the placebo effect, observer bias, and experimenter effect). Random assignment of the subject to the experimental or control group is a critical part of double-blind research design. The key that identifies the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party and not given to the researchers until the study is over.From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia....

How about that.....How many times have we told you that your double blind test sucked...Art
 

Heres another definition to ponder,,,
Paranormal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Paranormal is an umbrella term used to describe a wide variety of purported anomalous phenomena. According to the Journal of Parapsychology (Parapsychology Association), the term paranormal describes "any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions."
Many see the term paranormal as synonymous with parapsychology, which deals with psychical phenomena like telepathy, ESP, and survival studies like ghosts. However, the paranormal also includes subjects considered to be outside of the scope of parapsychology, including UFOs, cryptozoology, the Bermuda Triangle and many other non-psychical subjects.

current scientific assumptions. And your hanging you hat on what Randi says?? Phyco Babble
 

The subject of this forum is about Mental Dowsing, which I interpret as a communication method to link between the Sub-conscious part of our brain, with the conscious part of our brain, in a manner with the use of simple physical tools and an Ideomotor response language, that our conscious mind can interpret and understand.

In essence the automatic Ideomotor function can be consciously overriden and it's function of a specific task can be trained and controlled manually. An Ideomotor mind/muscle response can be manually trained and controlled, and it is frequently exercised in this manner by everyone before we allow it to become an automatic function that does not require conscious thought to perform that function.

An Ideomotor response can be consciously programmed through the use of thought and suggestion, consciously controlled, and switched to auto response to release to sub-conscious control. In effect, many of the sub-conscious Mind/Muscle Ideomotor functions we utilize every day have been manually (consiciously) trained and manually (consciously) programmed to serve our desires and survival. Ideomotor response is not exclusive to Dowsing, nor is it an exception.
Click to expand...

Hey Dell...This is great. Well written and to the point.
 

I must say, I am getting disappointed here. Musstag, you are forgetting one principle - K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple, Stupid. (Please don't take offense, it's just a saying.) You are making your tests more and more complex. Confirmation bags, juggling who knows what, heck -- I can't even follow what you are doing any more. If you are having a problem with not kicking over the paper bags, use paper plates. But again, keep it simple. One gold ring under one of ten plates. Have someone place the ring, leave the area, you come in and find the ring. In a "real test" there would be someone observing you who also does not know which plate the ring is under.

Don't make it more complicated. The more complex the scenario, the easier it is to debunk it. If you want to prove you can do a simple "find the ring" test, keep it simple.

As to Dell, well, he is so twisted up in doubletalk and misunderstandings of the scientific process, not to mention laws of probability, I can no longer read his posts -- they are just self-contradictory and plain confusing. As to the other people on this thread, well, it has gotten so flaming flamey that I'm having a hard time even caring anymore -- and I'm the one that started this thread.

I originally presented the JREF challenge wondering why those who "know" they can dowse don't go for it. So far, the only one with any real desire to do so is Musstag, and he has been getting more complicated. Really, it's very simple. Literally. Simply do what you claim, in a simple demonstration that is obviously more definitive than random chance, and win a megabuck. I'm not looking for people who say why they won't, only those willing to try. This is why I don't care about Dell -- all he is willing to do is expound on why he won't try.

Okay, Musstag is willing to try to prove his claims. (Sounds like a good possibility he will, too.) Who else is willing to come forward and say, "I'll try it?"
 

"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
 

Statements such as made BELOW, made me think, AW HAH, someone knows how to FOUL Dowsing some WAY!!!
Heres one comment::
“”” I've tested a number of dowsers informally and formally (before I created the challenge), probably a dozen or so, I don't recall. Most considered themselves to be very experienced dowsers, and most claimed very high rates of success. In every single case -- in even the simplest test conditions -- they could dowse no better than chance guessing. In every case, they were very surprised at the results. In every case but one, they dismissed the test results as an anomaly. Beale, so far, is the only person who has even considered that the test results might be real.......””” (end)

Note Experienced Dowsers " In every case, they were very surprised at the results "

So I AM working on a simpler way to Monitor the conditions needed for successful dowsing, maybe a 2nd L-rod operator or the use of a magnetometer, Spanish dip needle, aimed at a second target while the test is going on.
""" Nothing to Jam """" , maybe thats it ... check the princple of a Spanish Dip Needle. I think I know how to Foul IT!!! http://www.thortech.org/thortech/en/spanish.dip.needle1.html
Here is part of whats on page 2 of that site.
The magnetic flux lines cannot puncture or go through gold, hence the flux lines will be pushed away.
This repelling push away flux magnetic lines can also be detected thousand's of feet up in the air or down in the surface of the ground. The South (Negative) end of the Spanish Dip needle will Dip on the presence of iron, and will "Go up" in the presence of gold, silver or copper
That is why the Spanish Dip Needle Works.
 

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
 

Dell Winders said:
Af1733, You seem to allow your support for a Skeptic Cult Publicity Gimmick to get in the way of the facts, and common sense.
Click to expand...

After Several Complaints about being called names,
like "Liar, Thief, Scammer etc."
I feel it is only fair things should be equil here.

I looked up the word "Cult".

cult Pronunciation Key (klt)
n.

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
The followers of such a religion or sect.


And I do believe this may be offensive to some.

Dell, Please change Cult to Community or other word.

Due to the fact, I would get too backed up, I won't go through all past posts.
However

Any "future" use if the Word "Cult" in Posts describing Skeptics will
cause complete deletion of posts.

Thank you For your Cooperation on keeping TreasureNet a Cut Above the rest.
Jeff
 

Thanks, Jeff. I've stated this to Dell on numerous occasions on his forum and he agreed with me there, but apparently that respect does not carry onto this forum.
Dell Winders said:
af1733, You are just as qualified, probably more, to write a protocol or conduct illegitimate Scientific testing as I am, so don't complain about me not doing it, when you can do it your self.

The tests and experiments I have conducted have been done discretly without fanfare. No one was publicly challenged, badgered, questioned, ridiculed, humilated, or financially enticed into participating. That relates to over 5,000 volunteer participants in the past 30 years.
Click to expand...
I could easily suggest a test/challenge protocol, but what are the chances you would accept? From your history with things of this nature, there's very little chance you would find the test fair, and we'd be right back where we started. But, for argument's sake, let's say we take 10 five-pound bags of sand. In one of those bags, we place a 10 ounce gold bar. From there, a disinterested third party places these bags in a 50-foot wide circle. You stand in the center with your device of choice under the challenger's supervision, and we go from there. The protocols would remain the same after that, with multiple tests and what have you. Of course, it's just a suggestion, because I can't presume to speak for Carl, but please tell me what's wrong with the test.

And on to Art! Art, my friend, did you even bother to read the definition for double blind testing that you posted? It is defined perfectly (especially for Wikipedia) and shows why Carl and Randi choose to test in this way. Double blind testing is there to remove any bias, from either party, that could affect the results of the test. If neither the tester nor the tested knows where the target is at the beginning of the test, then any results of those tests are going to be as valid as is possible. You don't like this???

Sandsted said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

See AF ...Thats where we have a problem. I read the whole thing. Carls test is not a Double Blind test. We don't know what Randi's test is. It's not on his WEB Site. I know you guy's love Wikipedia difinitions. I posted it before someone changed the difinition. I don't understand why you keep wanting a test. A test will prove nothing. It will change nothing. We put prove on this forum and you ignore it and keep on wanting a test. I'm sure you will find something to twist and turn but the truth will still be there....Art
 

aarthrj3811 said:
See AF ...Thats where we have a problem. I read the whole thing. Carls test is not a Double Blind test. We don't know what Randi's test is. It's not on his WEB Site. I know you guy's love Wikipedia difinitions. I posted it before someone changed the difinition. I don't understand why you keep wanting a test. A test will prove nothing. It will change nothing. We put prove on this forum and you ignore it and keep on wanting a test. I'm sure you will find something to twist and turn but the truth will still be there....Art
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite. Can you show me the proof you're speaking of? 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.
 

Why do you insist on talking about conventional and traditional science when talking about these challenges? They may utilize some aspects of these sciences, but they are exactly what they claim to be. Tests to determine, at least to those administering the tests, whether dowsing or other LRL-type devices functions as they claim to do. The rules have been laid out, numerous times, and this is how you should accept them. This may not be the definitive, end-all, be-all dowsing test, but it is for this particular challenge. Again, quit trying to muddy the waters and take the test how it's offered, or stop trying to discredit the thing and carry on with your self-mollifying tests that you seem stuck on.

Dell Winders said:
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.
Click to expand...
Soooooo, stop badgering and harassing folks that aren't interested in participating in cheap Publicity stunts. When someone says NO, and provides their reason when asked. Accept it, and get over it.
Click to expand...

If Sandstead enters a thread labeled "$1,000,000 for anyone who can dowse" and then chooses to talk about how he is 100% convinced that dowsing works 100% of the time but expresses no interest in taking a shot at the million, then why is he even here? The thread is pretty specific in it's contents, and he chose to ignore this. I'm trying to get him back on topic or off the thread entirely.
 

Dell Winders said:
I could easily suggest a test/challenge protocol, but what are the chances you would accept? From your history with things of this nature, there's very little chance you would find the test fair, and we'd be right back where we started.
Click to expand...

What a coincidence. I have the same situation with Carl.
Click to expand...

Jeeze, here you go again.....maybe if I shouted. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE TEST I OFFERED TO YOU????
 

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????
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Dowsing at Rune Stone Hill

⬅️ Previous Thread

Marion Dahm died.

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Similar threads

dowser
Dowsing made easy
Replies
1
Views
255
dowser
dowser
Carl-NC
Map dowsing experiment
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
signal_line
signal_line
marlee
Hey Dowsers !! Is gold dowsabel ?
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
weregolf
weregolf

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Metal Detecting Stuff

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom