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

[ClonedSIM]

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?

Here we go...... A disinterested third party takes 20 bags of sand. He divides these into two sets of ten, and places a gold bar in one of the bags. One group of 10 bags is placed in some formation, and the second group is arranged in the same formation in a separate area. The disinterested third party records the bar's location then leaves the area, and a dowser and an examiner enters the area. First, the dowser searches one set of 10 and then the other set of 10. The dowser then decides which group of ten the gold bar is in, then which of those 10 contains the bar. The results are recorded, then all parties leave the area, and a second disinterested third party entered, locates the bar using the records of the first disinterested party, moves the bar, rearranges the sacks, records his information, and so on. If you really want this, then the odds of guessing have dropped dramatically.

Of course, the double blind study is partly in place to keep those being tested from discovering the results in advance. Since the dowser would be the one being tested, a non-double blind study would benefit him greatly if there was a way to discover the bar's location prior to the test. Why would you protest this?

And another question, if you don't accept the control set of sand bags, then who do you propose to be the control group? A different dowser, perhaps? Of course, that would leave you open to argue that the other dowser was not up to par with your ability and was skewing the results of your test, or some other such sorry excuse.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

Or, if this doesn't work for you, try this on for size. If someone walked up to you and said, "I'll give you $25,000 to prove, through a test or series of tests, that you can dowse accurately 70% of the time, and I'll let you come up with testing criteria that is approved by all parties," what would your testing criteria be?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hold on...don't put words in my mouth. I said " these test will prove nothing " Do I have to give you more difinitions. What part of the word "no" don't you understand. Every thing that anyone needs to prove that Dowsing Works is on this forum. If you don't want to know the truth thats your bussiness.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Hold on...don't put words in my mouth. I said " these test will prove nothing " Do I have to give you more difinitions. What part of the word "no" don't you understand. Every thing that anyone needs to prove that Dowsing Works is on this forum. If you don't want to know the truth thats your bussiness.

A: Where did I attempt to speak for you?

B: You didn't address a single item in my response to you.

C: You seem to know only excuses, nothing more.

D: Definitions you copy from Wikipedia don't count as your own thoughts.

E: "No" is your answer to what, exactly?

F: If Carl and Randi's tests prove nothing, how about the one that I offered, or the one I asked you to offer?

There's 20 more letters in the alphabet, (but I'm sure you can pull that up in Wikipedia if you need) and I have points to fill each of them and beyond. Just respond to my post.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Your more than welcome to do any test you want but your afraid you would learn the "truth about Dowsing"...Test...That' a interesting word.

This thread is about Randi's test. It is about who can prove they can dowse in a scientific experiment. Note: a scientific study requires a double-blind experiment.
There is nothing on Randi's Web site that tells you anything about the so called test except " we will work out the detail's" and of course the small detail about no lawsuits if we screw you.
Now that we know Randi's test is not Scientific you want to change the rules ?

 

[musstag]

I'm leaving in the AM on a trip. While on it, a group of us will discuss a proposed test. We will set one up and work out the kinks overselves first. Then we will take on Carls challange, and use it to qualify for Randis Challange. NOW rest assurred we will come up with the best means we can to instill in this test some way to test MAN made interfance, and if found during the a test ... well we need to decide and agree of what to do.. if we just skip that test session, and continue with the reamaining ones of the 10, and then if another is found, then what... we need to talk about that. I Think I will use one LRL/MFD and two doswers, 11 bags or plates and each real test cycle only begins when one or more of the two dowser get a read on the one target only they know its location . One dowser may be screened from ALL views. If the Prized target happens to be at the same spot... no problem, we won't know that untill the end of that one sessioni. More in a couple of weeks. Why such planning? , Because as Dell points out, ITS Never been won before in 20 years, and it seems a number of dowser that took Carls Challange were Very Suprised, so we must learn from history and try to determine why they failed and do something to counter act some of the things that might have caused them to fail, and we may still get outsmarted!! But thats allrigth, sounds Like FUN!! Oh and no private autos nearby.

 

[packerbacker]

I can find water repeatedly with a golfball and a nine-iron

 

[ClonedSIM]

I can find water repeatedly with a golfball and a nine-iron

ROFLMAO!!!
Good one, Packer.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Your more than welcome to do any test you want but your afraid you would learn the "truth about Dowsing"...Test...That' a interesting word.

This thread is about Randi's test. It is about who can prove they can dowse in a scientific experiment. Note: a scientific study requires a double-blind experiment.
There is nothing on Randi's Web site that tells you anything about the so called test except " we will work out the detail's" and of course the small detail about no lawsuits if we screw you.
Now that we know Randi's test is not Scientific you want to change the rules ?

You certainly have a one-track mind, Art. I'll take the fact that you refuse to actually address anything other than what's bouncing around in your head as a sign that you do not have an answer for anything I've offered or asked, and you only repeat yourself because you've run out of things to say.

 

[ClonedSIM]

I'm leaving in the AM on a trip. While on it, a group of us will discuss a proposed test. We will set one up and work out the kinks overselves first. Then we will take on Carls challange, and use it to qualify for Randis Challange. NOW rest assurred we will come up with the best means we can to instill in this test some way to test MAN made interfance, and if found during the a test ... well we need to decide and agree of what to do.. if we just skip that test session, and continue with the reamaining ones of the 10, and then if another is found, then what... we need to talk about that. I Think I will use one LRL/MFD and two doswers, 11 bags or plates and each real test cycle only begins when one or more of the two dowser get a read on the one target only they know its location . One dowser may be screened from ALL views. If the Prized target happens to be at the same spot... no problem, we won't know that untill the end of that one sessioni. More in a couple of weeks. Why such planning? , Because as Dell points out, ITS Never been won before in 20 years, and it seems a number of dowser that took Carls Challange were Very Suprised, so we must learn from history and try to determine why they failed and do something to counter act some of the things that might have caused them to fail, and we may still get outsmarted!! But thats allrigth, sounds Like FUN!! Oh and no private autos nearby.

Good luck, Musstag. I honestly thank you for attempting these challenges.

 

[ClonedSIM]

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

Sorry Af1733, you offered your test proposal to Art. I wasn't mentioned.

If selecting the target from either one of two possibilities is the test you propose, I think a correct Dowse 6 out of 10 times shows the Dowser is doing more than just guessing. and that is a fair test. I posted that a Photo dowser got 15 out of 23 possibilities correct for the Tampa Bay Skeptics, But Carl, has already posted to the effect, that if he and Randi, paid out on the possibility that the locations could be guessed they would be paying out over and over again. I think yours is a fair test, but I doubt if it's difficult enough to prevent anyone from winning for another 20 years. Dell

Well, I was actually referring to a test earlier in the thread when I resorted to CAPS, but if the test that I proposed to Art sounds fair, what would stop you from offering this as a challenge possibility to Carl or Randi? With one target in twenty bags of sand, the chances of guessing are reduced severely, and if this was possible on a repeated basis with a minimum of 60% accuracy, I don't see a reason in the world why this example wouldn't be acceptable to all parties involved, especially if you think it's fair.

A disinterested third party takes 20 bags of sand. He divides these into two sets of ten, and places a gold bar in one of the bags. One group of 10 bags is placed in some formation, and the second group is arranged in the same formation in a separate area. The disinterested third party records the bar's location then leaves the area, and a dowser and an examiner enters the area. First, the dowser searches one set of 10 and then the other set of 10. The dowser then decides which group of ten the gold bar is in, then which of those 10 contains the bar. The results are recorded, then all parties leave the area, and a second disinterested third party entered, locates the bar using the records of the first disinterested party, moves the bar, rearranges the sacks, records his information, and so on.

 

[musstag]

Naw, I think 20 bags is too many, I need 10 or more feet between each target. And sand could be a problem, depends on where it comes from, maybe a scoop of dirt or sand whatever is there from each exact location where each bags is placed. I see a 120 foot or so, semi-circle of 10 or 11 targets The gold target that we place can be outside and behind a bag, might be covered with dirt. The prized target will be in one bag. One dowser will be screened from everyones view just outside the open end of the semi-circle of bags. The prime dowser may be close to that or move up into the semi-circle area and back several timies. He may go beyound, outside the semi-circle to better determine a possible false or non Prized read from off in the distance. The screened dowser will mostly be targeting his target, and if the reading is lost he knows something has interferred with this session... that session maybe skipped or halted untill he gets another read on it within several minutes. This is for the purpose of Trying to determine any type of stop and go induced interferrence, natural or otherwise. Remember, others that could dowse, failed these test, I mUst be given some extra measure to better control what I can. I can do it without outsiders present. I mUst try to insure that things that caused previous test to fail are not in my test, without any Great undue burden on the test. What What more can I say.
If we want NO burdens, on anyone, I will video my test and submitt it for the Carl Award!! And then Carl can sell each of you a copy at $1000.00 a piece, limted supply of 25 copies....

 

[Captain Trips]

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.

That's because Randi doesn't have "A" test. 1 - he doesn't do the testing, although sometimes he does observe. 2 - the JREF has not specified ANY testing protocols because they are willing to test any "out of the normal" claims on any subject, and can not pre-create protocols for claims they don't even know about. (They test claims ranging from dowsing to reading through blindfolds to claims for "Penta Water" to ceramic disks that supposedly improve the taste of wine.)

As to a dowsing test, they want to know what YOU can do, how YOU would propose testing it, and they will work with you on developing the test so that it is conducted in a scientific manner. (Note: they treat "science" as an adjective, not a noun.) The claimant is the one who proposes the testing protocol. Yes, even YOU, Dell, can suggest a method of testing to them. If they agree it is scientific, they will do it. If they don't, they will make some suggestions. The final protocol is negotiated in this manner. And it can be different from one person to another, and still meet their requirements.

 

[Captain Trips]

Here we go...... A disinterested third party takes 20 bags of sand. He divides these into two sets of ten, and places a gold bar in one of the bags. One group of 10 bags is placed in some formation, and the second group is arranged in the same formation in a separate area. The disinterested third party records the bar's location then leaves the area, and a dowser and an examiner enters the area. First, the dowser searches one set of 10 and then the other set of 10. The dowser then decides which group of ten the gold bar is in, then which of those 10 contains the bar. The results are recorded, then all parties leave the area, and a second disinterested third party entered, locates the bar using the records of the first disinterested party, moves the bar, rearranges the sacks, records his information, and so on. If you really want this, then the odds of guessing have dropped dramatically.

Of course, the double blind study is partly in place to keep those being tested from discovering the results in advance. Since the dowser would be the one being tested, a non-double blind study would benefit him greatly if there was a way to discover the bar's location prior to the test. Why would you protest this?

And another question, if you don't accept the control set of sand bags, then who do you propose to be the control group? A different dowser, perhaps? Of course, that would leave you open to argue that the other dowser was not up to par with your ability and was skewing the results of your test, or some other such sorry excuse.

This suggested protocol sounds good to me. It is a true double-blind test, with a control group, a test group, and no way the person being tested can know (or have contact with someone who knows) which group the test object is located in. This is a good test. Who can pass it? Who can pass it repeatedly? THAT is the person (or people) to take the challenge! (I believe Musstag wants to place restrictions on the makeup of the sand, to ensure it is the same as the ground the bags are placed upon. This is okay. As long as these conditions are stated up front, it works. Now, if he took the test and failed, and THEN said, "well, I failed because the sand wasn't the same as the ground beneath it," then he would have violated the terms of the challenge. But he didn't -- he said that was what he needed BEFORE taking the test, and this is acceptable.)

Good thinking people. We have a good testing protocol here. Next, we need someone who can succeed with it.

Oh, and I wish those who are "poo-poo-ing" the tests would take it to another thread. This thread was about who would be willing to take the challenge, not about why the challenge itself is flawed.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Didn't take you long to catch on Captain..."out of the normal" test are not what Randi is about. He calls it paranormal tests. Did you know that paranormal is no in my Webster's Dictionary? You may be right about how he runs his test. But when you read some of the applications it's a different story....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

And let the excuse-marathon begin!

 

[ClonedSIM]

Ah Yes, Af1733, your original post seems to have been elaborated on, or the greater possibility that perhaps I read it wrong.

Here is the reply I posted to the test I thought you proposed.

If selecting the target from either one of two possibilities is the test you propose, I think a correct Dowse 6 out of 10 times shows the Dowser is doing more than just guessing. and that is a fair test. I posted that a Photo dowser got 15 out of 23 possibilities correct for the Tampa Bay Skeptics, But Carl, has already posted to the effect, that if he and Randi, paid out on the possibility that the locations could be guessed they would be paying out over and over again. I think yours is a fair test, but I doubt if it's difficult enough to prevent anyone from winning for another 20 years. Dell

Apparently, we are not talking about the same test. I had the mistaken impression that the sand bags could be stacked in two seperate piles. My mistake. Sorry. Dell

How would two piles of bags be a challenge? You'd only have two options?

 

[Captain Trips]

AF, I have read many of the applications. Some are outrageous, some are unclear. And some (many, actually) just don't follow the stated rules of application. They are very specific: "In two paragraphs, state clearly and simply what you can do, how you want to be tested, and what special conditions you need. Send it to us on a printout of the PDF form we have available, notarized." Okay, so there are a couple more details to the application process. But quite a few are rejected because they either cannot state clearly what they claim, they cannot come up with a way of testing it, or they cannot read the submission rules.

I started this thread to find out who here actually wants to take the challenge. Towards that end, I wanted to make sure people are clear about what they claim, help them to develop a simple and decisive testing protocol, and make sure they are clear on the submission requirements. Well, I've found some people who are certain of their abilities, and you've suggested a simple, clear, and decisive testing protocol. Next is for those who are able to dowse successfully to apply for the challenge. If they want, I'll even help to write the submission so it can't be rejected as "unclear."

 

[ClonedSIM]

Oh, I've been all the way through Randi's site, and I don't find anything to make me think there's anything crooked going on. He asks you to define exactly what it is you claim to be able to do and then the details are worked out from there. Judging from his responses, I think Art has yet to actually visit the site.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Wrong again AF