A Test for Sandsted

[Sandsted]

Apprehension in my statements? No, though I will tell you coin dating is not the easiest thing in the world. A test such as this will validate nothing, neither disprove anything. It's Carl's decision if he wants to send the coins, I disagree with a test...but I loose nothing by submitting to this particular one...so...I submit.

Concerning teaching dowsing, who are you that you believe you can instruct someone how to dowse?

It is not merely balancing a wire and letting it react over something. I tell you it is more simple to balance spinning plates on sticks rested on your knees and elbows.

It is not a simple thing to master and I have not. It takes much practice (that's obviously an excuse ). And one must be willing to learn.

"...will usually be emulating your responses exactly."

You know the first time I was at a dowsing lesson, I did not want to influence the results. I didn't want the rod to turn because I turned, I wanted to avoid self-deception. I did not immitate the response and did not have one for several hours until I felt a little more relaxed about the situation and got used to the activities.

This is a common misconception that skeptics and disbelievers have...they deceive themselves into thinking they understand dowsing.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Jean310]

Apprehension in my statements? No, though I will tell you coin dating is not the easiest thing in the world.

I would imagine it would be pretty difficult, especially if you claimed to demonstrate results significantly different from ordinary guessing (which I guess you are).

A test such as this will validate nothing, neither disprove anything.

Well..... I expect different observers might come to various conclusions, and to some it might serve to solidify in their minds what they already believed. However, as far as changing the mindset of a dowser, when smacked in the face with irrefutable test results, I would say 9 out of 10 would completely disregard the test (and the results) as somehow flawed, and go right on believing they still actually possess a bonefide dowsing talent. Apparently, you harbor that attitude right now, and you haven't even taken the test. Makes me wonder if you are also psychic, and already know the outcome of the test.

I only know of one such case where a dowser changed his mind, I believe Carl tested him. And after the test, the individual was literally devastated to learn that they had wasted years thinking they had some special talent. When in fact, their results were completely in line with what could be expected from ordinary guessing. But that individual was the exception to what usually happens.

Just curious, let's say you get 8 or 9 correct out of the 10 you dowse, will you still contend the test means nothing? More importantly, how many of the other dowsing proponents that frequent this forum will completely forget the results of the test, and never mention it again.

Jean

 

[ClonedSIM]

Just curious, let's say you get 8 or 9 correct out of the 10 you dowse, will you still contend the test means nothing? More importantly, how many of the other dowsing proponents that frequent this forum will completely forget the results of the test, and never mention it again.

Jean

LOL!
Nice thought.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Well..... I expect different observers might come to various conclusions, and to some it might serve to solidify in their minds what they already believed. However, as far as changing the mindset of a dowser, when smacked in the face with irrefutable test results, I would say 9 out of 10 would completely disregard the test (and the results) as somehow flawed, and go right on believing they still actually possess a bonefide dowsing talent. Apparently, you harbor that attitude right now, and you haven't even taken the test. Makes me wonder if you are also psychic, and already know the outcome of the test.

You have a big problem Miss Jean. People make that statement all the time...Wheres the prove of those statements? I know its all over Randi's and Carls web site but that does not make it a fact...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Well..... I expect different observers might come to various conclusions, and to some it might serve to solidify in their minds what they already believed. However, as far as changing the mindset of a dowser, when smacked in the face with irrefutable test results, I would say 9 out of 10 would completely disregard the test (and the results) as somehow flawed, and go right on believing they still actually possess a bonefide dowsing talent. Apparently, you harbor that attitude right now, and you haven't even taken the test. Makes me wonder if you are also psychic, and already know the outcome of the test.

You have a big problem Miss Jean. People make that statement all the time...Wheres the prove of those statements? I know its all over Randi's and Carls web site but that does not make it a fact...Art

It's her opinion, Art. When are you going to learn how to read posts

Oh, and by the way, you're hardly the one to be pointing out what you think are problems in others...

 

[aarthrj3811]

The fact is I only know one person who has taken a Dowsing Test. His screen name is Beale. He is by no means hiding under the bed but admits he failed...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

The fact is I only know one person who has taken a Dowsing Test. His screen name is Beale. He is by no means hiding under the bed but admits he failed...Art

All you do is argue the tests are rigged, but you haven't taken one yourself. Nice....

 

[Jean310]

You have a big problem Miss Jean. People make that statement all the time...Wheres the prove[sic] of those statements? I know its all over Randi's and Carls web site but that does not make it a fact...Art

Well, if I have a problem, at least it's not as big as your problem.

Apparently, you've got this fantastic dowsing talent, but rather than utilize it you spend the better part of your life talking about it on this forum. Then, if that weren't a big enough waste of time, you obviously have no way to demonstrate your claimed dowsing talent through a meaningful test or demonstration(**).

Now, I'd call that a real problem!​

One that I'm glad you have, and not me.

(**)BTW, posting pictures of micro-gold found through ordinary panning and sluicing procedures, and then attributing it to your claimed dowsing talent, in no way constitutes proof of said talent.

Jean

 

[Jean310]

Well..... I expect different observers might come to various conclusions, and to some it might serve to solidify in their minds what they already believed. However, as far as changing the mindset of a dowser, when smacked in the face with irrefutable test results, I would say 9 out of 10 would completely disregard the test (and the results) as somehow flawed, and go right on believing they still actually possess a bonefide dowsing talent. Apparently, you harbor that attitude right now, and you haven't even taken the test. Makes me wonder if you are also psychic, and already know the outcome of the test.

You have a big problem Miss Jean. People make that statement all the time...Wheres the prove of those statements? I know its all over Randi's and Carls web site but that does not make it a fact...Art

When I made the above statement, I was thinking specifically of the Kassel Dowsing Test. I can only assume you are familiar with that particular test. And, Art, when you ask for proof to back up a statement, and then in the same sentence declare that the references that might be given to you will not be considered as viable information... Errrrr, aaaaa what sort of logic(?) are you drawing upon to cause you to make that kind of a remark? Guess I'm not familiar with that kind of thinking.

Jean

 

[aarthrj3811]

Apparently, you've got this fantastic dowsing talent, but rather than utilize it you spend the better part of your life talking about it on this forum. Then, if that weren't a big enough waste of time, you obviously have no way to demonstrate your claimed dowsing talent through a meaningful test or demonstration(**).
(**)BTW, posting pictures of micro-gold found through ordinary panning and sluicing procedures, and then attributing it to your claimed dowsing talent, in no way constitutes proof of said talent.

If you find a meaningful test or demonstration that has any Scientific Value you may find a lot of Dowsers would want to take it. I do use a pan as it is the best way to take the gold from the other materials. By the way..I have not used any of the many types of sluices for more than 8 years. I do own and and still have a Gold Dredge....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Apparently, you've got this fantastic dowsing talent, but rather than utilize it you spend the better part of your life talking about it on this forum. Then, if that weren't a big enough waste of time, you obviously have no way to demonstrate your claimed dowsing talent through a meaningful test or demonstration(**).
(**)BTW, posting pictures of micro-gold found through ordinary panning and sluicing procedures, and then attributing it to your claimed dowsing talent, in no way constitutes proof of said talent.

If you find a meaningful test or demonstration that has any Scientific Value you may find a lot of Dowsers would want to take it. I do use a pan as it is the best way to take the gold from the other materials. By the way..I have not used any of the many types of sluices for more than 8 years. I do own and and still have a Gold Dredge....Art

Wait a minute, Art. Are you saying that you dig a hole, pan out the gold, and call it dowsing? In a gold-bearing area, no less?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI Room , Jean, Af, etc. I am now over my 14 day bout with the flue and can again think with some rationality.

A First I suggest that all of you, Jean ,af, etc. go read my post #6 in the bias room. So far no anti-dowser has challenged me on it, soo the data must have some validity.?

B) Af what is implied is that while you have the basic skill to compete in the Olympics you do not seriously qualify for their tests. Many dowsers fall a into the same category, They have occasional results, but not consistant ones, the very nature of the beast rules against it. So in an ill advised attempt of self confidence they submit to tests and fail. This does not negate the possibility of dowsing, only that "THEY" failed.

C) As Xu once stated , inadvertently I believe, the sheer no. of uncontrollable factors involved in testing dowsing eliminates statistics as a viable factor to determine if it accurately mirrors the results of the past tests.or even if it can be reasonably used to make a qualified positive statement.. All it can do is to anayize the results that another has concluded, whether correct or no - am extremely serious flaw. If conditions were not applicable why don't many of our great thinkers do their best work in say a boiler factory or in an assembly line inviorment?

As for simply tossing a coin, no human can do this consistantly sooo, we are back to a mechanical reference point I can devise a simple coin tossing machne which will give 100% results evey time and in every test sooo? This merely ponts out the infinate variables involved with the human factor, again negating any form of statistices that does not allow any of the incalculable factors to which humans are subjected to. .

Tropical Tramp

 

[Jean310]

Many dowsers fall a into the same category, They have occasional results, but not consistant[sic] ones, the very nature of the beast rules against it. So in an ill advised attempt of self confidence they submit to tests and fail. This does not negate the possibility of dowsing, only that "THEY" failed.

Tropical Tramp

If the results are occasional, and not consistent, isn't it just as likely that all they have experienced are the same results (plus or minus a norm) as could be seen from mere guessing? To credit the results to something other than guessing seems a biased stretch from someone who wishes that dowsing is more than it really is.

Along those same lines of consistency, if every dowser that takes part in a test or challenge, is more likely to fail; wouldn't this situation in itself tend to suggest that dowsing is in general on a par with guessing? Ooops, I forgot, I suppose those tests and challenges were flawed.

Jean

 

[ClonedSIM]

Many dowsers fall a into the same category, They have occasional results, but not consistant[sic] ones, the very nature of the beast rules against it. So in an ill advised attempt of self confidence they submit to tests and fail. This does not negate the possibility of dowsing, only that "THEY" failed.

Tropical Tramp

If the results are occasional, and not consistent, isn't it just as likely that all they have experienced are the same results (plus or minus a norm) as could be seen from mere guessing? To credit the results to something other than guessing seems a biased stretch from someone who wishes that dowsing is more than it really is.

Along those same lines of consistency, if every dowser that takes part in a test or challenge, is more likely to fail; wouldn't this situation in itself tend to suggest that dowsing is in general on a par with guessing? Ooops, I forgot, I suppose those tests and challenges were flawed.

Jean

Beautifully worded, Jean. I concur.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Along those same lines of consistency, if every dowser that takes part in a test or challenge, is more likely to fail; wouldn't this situation in itself tend to suggest that dowsing is in general on a par with guessing? Ooops, I forgot, I suppose those tests and challenges were flawed.

And you are assuming that all Dowsers would fail....Art

 

[Jean310]

Along those same lines of consistency, if every dowser that takes part in a test or challenge, is more likely to fail; wouldn't this situation in itself tend to suggest that dowsing is in general on a par with guessing? Ooops, I forgot, I suppose those tests and challenges were flawed.

And you are assuming that all Dowsers would fail....Art

You know, Art, I see what these people are talking about. I think if you are actually reading what others say, you seem to then be putting your own slant on the wording and coming up with a different meaning.

Did I say all dowsers would fail? I was referencing something that Realde had written. What he wrote was; So in an ill advised attempt of self confidence they submit to tests and fail.

And, what I said was; if every dowser that takes part in a test or challenge, is more likely to fail; wouldn't this situation in itself tend to suggest that dowsing is in general on a par with guessing?

The words, more likely to fail are not the same as saying all dowsers would fail.

I took some time to highlight these clarifications to you, this time -----but I probably won't do it again.

Nothing personal.

Jean

 

[xupz]

Along those same lines of consistency, if every dowser that takes part in a test or challenge, is more likely to fail; wouldn't this situation in itself tend to suggest that dowsing is in general on a par with guessing? Ooops, I forgot, I suppose those tests and challenges were flawed.

And you are assuming that all Dowsers would fail....Art

You know, Art, I see what these people are talking about. I think if you are actually reading what others say, you seem to then be putting your own slant on the wording and coming up with a different meaning.

Did I say all dowsers would fail? I was referencing something that Realde had written. What he wrote was; So in an ill advised attempt of self confidence they submit to tests and fail.

And, what I said was; if every dowser that takes part in a test or challenge, is more likely to fail; wouldn't this situation in itself tend to suggest that dowsing is in general on a par with guessing?

The words, more likely to fail are not the same as saying all dowsers would fail.

I took some time to highlight these clarifications to you, this time -----but I probably won't do it again.

Nothing personal.

Jean

Don't bother Jean, I already busted Art up for his poor selection of words in anything math related, even went so far as to bust out a proof by contradiction and example to prove him wrong and show him his logical fallacy. He either didn't understand it or just ignored the post. I'm not surprised in either case.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Wait a minute, Art. Are you saying that you dig a hole, pan out the gold, and call it dowsing? In a gold-bearing area, no less?

af1733....Have you ever saw any Placer Gold? Please tell me how to get 50 flakes of gold out of a 5 gallon bucket of dirt or gravel. We know you are an expert so tell us how to do it. If you are even from New Mexico guess what....Most of the gold in your state is Placer gold. When it comes down to extracting gold from all the garbage WATER is the most used method. Even people in the dessert use gold pans. It is called DRY PANNING. Why would anyone search for GOLD in a NON-GOLD BEARING AREA. Would that be like looking for a sunken Spanish Ship in New Mexico?.....Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=Jean310 .Along those same lines of consistency, if every dowser that takes part in a test or challenge, is more likely to fail; wouldn't this situation in itself tend to suggest that dowsing is in general on a par with guessing? Ooops, I forgot, I suppose those tests and challenges were flawed.
**********
I am glad that you said flawed not I. (being facetious) .

When I took the Mensa test I was informed that I rated fairly high, why is there a difference? Why don't we all score the same? Don't all dowsers, or statistician have the same same capabilities or lack of them?? Or is it simply that humans cannot be put into a box, only generalities.

I wonder what percentage of statistician are really tops in the profession and now many are just kidding themselves into thinking that they are really tops when in reality they are just modified clerks? Same applies to dowsing.

As a successful statistician, you, xu, ap and Carls etc must be very rich by having used it successfully to build up your stock portfolios? Also are now barred from the gambling Casinos because of your infallable successes based upon probabilities??

Troical Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=Jean310 ]Did I say all dowsers would fail? I was referencing something that Realde had written. What he wrote was; So in an ill advised attempt of self confidence they submit to tests and fail.
******
Ah ah jean naughty naughty, taking things out of context by not stating the entire paragraph. Shame on you for your lack of professional status and integrity..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I took some time to highlight these clarifications to you, this time -----but I probably won't do it again.
************

So nice of you to be so condescending Jean, Incidentally just what is your professional field?

Tropical Tramp
Nothing personal.

Jean




[/quote]