Be Careful...

[aarthrj3811]

Original Post...States facts about transferring of electrical charges to objects and objects transferring their signature to other objects.

Reply 1...A simple plan for a Dowsing contest.
Reply 3...No question...nothing to answer.
Reply 6...Again...No question to answer.
Reply 8...Sorry...you did ask a question I did not answer....Yes
Reply 12..No questions for me..nothing to answer.
Reply 14. To properly answer your question I need the answer to 3 questions.
Reply 18. Just stating the fact about your post.
Reply 20..Sorry it took so long to answer you. I had to finish processing some gold from all my
emty holes

What proposed test? Reply # 1

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[ClonedSIM]

I had a nice long post here, but I just deleted it. You'll never learn, Art, and you have nothing to teach us.

 

[Carl-NC]

A pre-test, consisting of 5 full-view attempts.

This is the first part of Carl's test. Could this part of the test be clarified. Are these the targets with the paper plates over them.

I s'poze a better name for this part of the test is "known location" instead of "full-view". Basically, the purpose is to completely run through the protocol exactly as it is done in the double-blind test, with the sole exception that the target is placed while the dowser is watching, so he knows exactly where it is located. Yes, if paper plates are used, then the target is put under a plate.

The "known location" runs are used to show everyone involved all the steps of the test, and how they are executed. They also give the dowser a chance to chceck out his equipment, to make sure things are working as expected. Finally, the results of the "known location" runs can be compared with the double-blind runs, to see if knowledge of the target location plays a crucial role in successful dowsing.

- Carl

 

[Carl-NC]

OK...Here;s some simple Questions for you AF.

If Dowsing does not work why can people find unknown objects?

If dowsing does NOT work, this is irrelevant... my test does not address this.

What causes the Dowsing Rod to cross?

Doesn't matter... my test does not address this.

What is the difinition of Ideomotor Response?

Doesn't matter... my test does not address this.

None of your questions address any perceived flaws in my test. So what, exactly, is unfair in placing a gold target on the ground and seeing if you can dowse its location?

The test you described could be the basis for a good test, but you left a whole lotta details out. The single biggest one being, what is the threshold for dowsing success? For one single test as you described, it cannot simply be one more target than the fellow guessing. (Do you know why? Yes, this is a question for you to try and answer.)

I would think that, for you, the best test is the one you have already claimed proficiency with. That is, the heel-on-a-coin test. The one where your rods cross when you step on a coin. Can you do this, when you have no knowledge of whether the coin is under your heel, or not? (You answered this question in the past, so I'll remind you that you've already said 'yes'.)

- Carl

 

[ClonedSIM]

I would think that, for you, the best test is the one you have already claimed proficiency with. That is, the heel-on-a-coin test. The one where your rods cross when you step on a coin. Can you do this, when you have no knowledge of whether the coin is under your heel, or not? (You answered this question in the past, so I'll remind you that you've already said 'yes'.)

- Carl

That's a really good question, Carl. Thanks.

 

[aarthrj3811]

The single biggest one being, what is the threshold for dowsing success? For one single test as you described, it cannot simply be one more target than the fellow guessing. (Do you know why? Yes, this is a question for you to try and answer.)

Why not..Thats how you score most contest...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

It's not a contest, dowsing v. guessing. The only reason the guesser would even be present is to satisfy your requirements. The only thing to be gleaned from the test is the comparison of dowsing results against random guessing. No winner, no loser, only data.

 

[Rich NY]

After going over Carl's test, my opinion would be the results would be invalid. First of all, I don't think you can use fresh targets. Most lrl devices detect the field around the target, not the target. Ask anybody that metal detects. Once they find the target, and dig and disturb the ground. Are they are going to have the same signal that they had before they dug? Most people call it the halo. Just go out in a freshly plowed Field with a metal detector and see if you have as many targets as you had before it was plowed. I do not think you can conduct a fair test with fresh targets. Most people that test different metal detectors have a test garden. They don't try to evaluate them by air testing. It doesn't give them a fair evaluation.

 

[Carl-NC]

The single biggest one being, what is the threshold for dowsing success? For one single test as you described, it cannot simply be one more target than the fellow guessing. (Do you know why? Yes, this is a question for you to try and answer.)

Why not..Thats how you score most contest...Art

Because if dowsing doesn't work, then such a contest ends up comparing one person's guesses, with another person's guesses. That results in a very good chance of the dowser "winning", even if dowsing doesn't work.

I had already posted a very thorough explanation of this right here, so when I said this was a question for you to try and answer, all you had to do was the old copy-paste. But you didn't, so it gets back to what I said on thunting... either you aren't reading the posts, or you just don't comprehend what's being said.

- Carl

 

[ClonedSIM]

After going over Carl's test, my opinion would be the results would be invalid. First of all, I don't think you can use fresh targets. Most lrl devices detect the field around the target, not the target. Ask anybody that metal detects. Once they find the target, and dig and disturb the ground. Are they are going to have the same signal that they had before they dug? Most people call it the halo. Just go out in a freshly plowed Field with a metal detector and see if you have as many targets as you had before it was plowed. I do not think you can conduct a fair test with fresh targets. Most people that test different metal detectors have a test garden. They don't try to evaluate them by air testing. It doesn't give them a fair evaluation.

Well, it think it depends on who you're talking to. I've been told over and over again that metal detecting and using an LRL are nothing alike, as I have tried to compare the two before today. But the test in this thread was proposed by Art specifically for dowsing.
Conversely, if you were to apply an LRL to Carl's ten plate/gold bar test, there should be no reason it wouldn't work, because the target would be on the surface and easily found with a metal detector and you would have to assume an LRL could as well, but then we're comparing the two again.

 

[aarthrj3811]

It's not a contest, dowsing v. guessing. The only reason the guesser would even be present is to satisfy your requirements. The only thing to be gleaned from the test is the comparison of dowsing results against random guessing. No winner, no loser, only data.

Well said AF

 

[Carl-NC]

After going over Carl's test, my opinion would be the results would be invalid. First of all, I don't think you can use fresh targets.

Dowsers test with fresh targets all the time. Ask Art. I've seen LLAD manufacturers demonstrate their wares with fresh targets. Are you saying that these devices give absolutely no response to a fresh target? Art, is that right?

Most lrl devices detect the field around the target, not the target. Ask anybody that metal detects. Once they find the target, and dig and disturb the ground. Are they are going to have the same signal that they had before they dug? Most people call it the halo.

The "halo" theory is largely a myth.

Just go out in a freshly plowed Field with a metal detector and see if you have as many targets as you had before it was plowed.

Yes, almost always. Ask any Civil War relic hunter.

I do not think you can conduct a fair test with fresh targets. Most people that test different metal detectors have a test garden. They don't try to evaluate them by air testing. It doesn't give them a fair evaluation.

People set up test gardens to include the effect of soil mineralization.

Also, gold is inert. Doesn't matter if it's been buried one minute, or 100 years.

- Carl

 

[ClonedSIM]

It's not a contest, dowsing v. guessing. The only reason the guesser would even be present is to satisfy your requirements. The only thing to be gleaned from the test is the comparison of dowsing results against random guessing. No winner, no loser, only data.

Well said AF

Thank you, Art.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Because if dowsing doesn't work, then such a contest ends up comparing one person's guesses, with another person's guesses. That results in a very good chance of the dowser "winning", even if dowsing doesn't work.

So if the Dowser finds more Silver Dollars in my test he had more luck. Now if the Dowser finds 7 coins in your test he wins. Has he proved that Dowsing Works. Maybe he was lucky and made some good guesses. One test with one person means nothing. It may give someone bragging rights until people think about it for a while. In the end it proves nothing

I use fresh targets to test new equipment. After using for a while they stop working but washing them seems to restore the signals. Buried objects have a halo that comes to the surface at a 45 degree angle. L-Rods will respond to this signal. My piece of iron has been in the ground for about 3 years and I see no difference in the signal yet.They are resposible for a lot false signals. I heard that the halo is also detected by some MD's.

Carl well not agree but to me Gold is not inert as people think. Gold may come out of the ground most of the time looking clean but not always. When you dig gold that is below the water line there is always a certain smell went you get to it.

When it comes to air testing it works OK. To me there is a big difference between the signal above the ground and below the ground. I have no problem with them but it maybe a big problem for some Dowsers....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

But you're basing this on the premise that dowsing doesn't work. By your own words, dowsing does work, so you should be able to easily recover more targets than the guesser.

 

[aarthrj3811]

But you're basing this on the premise that dowsing doesn't work. By your own words, dowsing does work, so you should be able to easily recover more targets than the guesser.

The premise is that all Dowsing is equal to chance guessing. You can use all the buzz words and it always will comes back to random guessing. How come no one wants to talk about what a contest would prove? I have said it will prove nothing. So if no one disagrees with me there is no need to have a contest except to have fun..

I found this in one of my files

I didn't say finding stuff using L-rods was impossible. Lots of treasures have been found using natural intuition, best guessing, logic and a big helping of dumb luck. However, when you couple all those things with dowsing rods, it will always be impossible to sort out the exact contribution from the Dowsing Rods and all the other inputs. And, there are those who will credit the Dowsing Rods when in fact they have no evidence for making such an assumption.

What I do know ---and Will say, is this. The basic premise and idea of using Dowsing Rods is bogus and not supported by conventional science and physics. This fact has been documented many times over and WHEN Dowsing is tested in an environment that eliminates the "wish science", they always produce results on a par with plain old guessing..................Author Unknown

 

[ClonedSIM]

Wow. Okay, so working from that point of view, a test wouldn't really prove anything. I guess you really would have to decide between a winner and a loser. Well said, Art.

 

[Carl-NC]

How come no one wants to talk about what a contest would prove? I have said it will prove nothing. So if no one disagrees with me there is no need to have a contest except to have fun.

My challenge is not intended to prove or disprove dowsing, nor have I claimed it would. In fact, it cannot... it can only show whether a certain person can dowse at a certain place and time.

But if a lot of supposedly experienced dowsers try these tests, and continuously fail, then that information is a good indicator that dowsing does not work. Again, it doesn't prove it.

So far, the fun in these contests is listening to the alibis dowsers come up with, to avoid doing what they otherwise claim they can do all the time. And with $25,000 (or $1 million) waved in front of them. I get a very strong impression that most dowsers don't really think they can dowse.

- Carl

 

[aarthrj3811]

But if a lot of supposedly experienced dowsers try these tests, and continuously fail, then that information is a good indicator that dowsing does not work.

Thats would be a way to prove if dowsing works or not. I think you can see that Dowsers are independant and won't do any thing that they see as a threat to their well being. At this time my stepping on a coin experiments are not working. I have an excuse but thats my business....Art

 

[Carl-NC]

I think you can see that Dowsers are independant and won't do any thing that they see as a threat to their well being.

Yes, I've noticed that... though I've never considered knowledge to be a threat, and always find it to be better than just believing.