Dowsing now

[dowser]

Here is a Gold frequency I Dowsed 102 Hz, I multiplied x 7 for 714, then multiplied that by 7 for a square wave Gold frequency of 4.998
I tried many harmonics multiply and divide, many numbers resonate same stuff to different degrees.

 

[robertk]

When did you start realizing you had disagreements with dowsers?

I have no problem with dowsers. I do have a problem with pseudo-scientific explanations for theories that are not demonstrable to work. Those who dowse and find things and don't really know why it works for them will impress me a whole lot more than those who write encyclopedic tomes to rationalize why nobody can reliably do it.

 

[dowser]

I have no problem with dowsers. I do have a problem with pseudo-scientific explanations for theories that are not demonstrable to work. Those who dowse and find things and don't really know why it works for them will impress me a whole lot more than those who write encyclopedic tomes to rationalize why nobody can reliably do it.

Is the problem from a personal Dowsing failure, or you read the problem?
Have you ever looked for supporting facts?

 

[Carl-NC]

Tim Williams did work on this several years ago. Originally a NASA scientist Bill Morgan said the frequencies and acoustic. Tim shows in this video how to calculate the frequency of an item by measuring the wavelength.

I've met both of these guys. I like Tim, nice guy, but I completely disagree with all his LRL stuff. I've offered to work with him on realistic testing but he didn't seem interested.

The video shows the typical dowsing test where targets are simply placed on the ground and the dowser walks around showing how the rods respond. I use the same kind of protocol, except that the dowser never knows exactly what and/or where the target is actually located, and many dowsers complain that my protocol is unfair because it doesn't accurately reflect long-time buried treasure.

 

[dowser]

I've met both of these guys. I like Tim, nice guy, but I completely disagree with all his LRL stuff. I've offered to work with him on realistic testing but he didn't seem interested.

The video shows the typical dowsing test where targets are simply placed on the ground and the dowser walks around showing how the rods respond. I use the same kind of protocol, except that the dowser never knows exactly what and/or where the target is actually located, and many dowsers complain that my protocol is unfair because it doesn't accurately reflect long-time buried treasure.

I've never Dowsed a past target, I wouldn't know how to test that.
"The dowser never knows exactly what and/or where the target is actually located" ?
Is the dowser Dowsing for a connection, or a target?

 

[dowser]

I have no problem with dowsers. I do have a problem with pseudo-scientific explanations for theories that are not demonstrable to work. Those who dowse and find things and don't really know why it works for them will impress me a whole lot more than those who write encyclopedic tomes to rationalize why nobody can reliably do it.

Funny how pseudoscience works.
The gov gathers the info, tells everyone what to think.
That's how I see it, because I know they are 100 percent incorrect on their Dowsing assessment..

 

[WEF_Insect_Burger]

I have no problem with dowsers. I do have a problem with pseudo-scientific explanations for theories that are not demonstrable to work. Those who dowse and find things and don't really know why it works for them will impress me a whole lot more than those who write encyclopedic tomes to rationalize why nobody can reliably do it.

Officially anything which violates the laws of physics is "not demonstrable to work", and the scientists and parrots will repeat that like bots for all eternity, believing their scriptures are the final proof.

Dowsing/Radiestesia/Telekinesis is 100% pseudo-science fraud and not able to reconcile with mainstream science, as someone who investigates and experiments with these fields, i dont care much how much disagreement exists. Accept the fact that your belief and faith
in your scriptures are incompatible with the "fraudsters", there's nothing you can do to get experimenters who have proven things to believe otherwise, especially in this field.

If you want to "reliably" demonstrate to yourself the scriptures you hold as the eternal truth need some revisions, look up the Mpemba effect and instantly freeze hot water for yourself, it took a third world student in Africa making ice cream to do this observation, after decades of scientific gas lighting by the narcissist mainstream science community, and their parrots, no consensus can be reached, yet, children and normal people are replicating this effect everywhere and easily. Any person freezing hot water quicker than cold water becomes a pseudo-scientist.

This small effect demonstrates why "official science" cannot be taken seriously, the scientific method is not implemented, their defense
is gas lighting and narcissism, which then gets repeated by the mainstream media.

 

[WEF_Insect_Burger]

What is a proper dowser? Certainly not you!

Someone who will execute the protocol without being emotionally attached to the outcome.

There is no way someone who is perceived by some as the grand master of dowsing on internet forums (because of post count stripes) will reliably pass any test, the guys from Myth Busters on Discovery Channel said they did not want to test or "bust" dowsing, because they did not want to hurt someone's feelings on TV and humiliate them. This is a real reason.

And now i get it, the dowsers while definitely having some dowsing abilities, but definitely also have very little abilities to control their emotions, especially when being gas lighted by skeptics. The skeptics who specialize in "debunking" dowsing are not even rigorous and can easily be defeated and humiliated, but avoid their fate by avoiding experimenters who propose real non mickey mouse tests, and choose the weakest possible subjects.

You are as much into dowsing skepticism as Carl, whether you see it this way or not, you guys are different sides of the same coin, he repeats "physics uber alles", you repeat the EMF suit stories, together all useful info that appears around here will be attacked from both sides, what better than having someone called "dowser" attacking and mocking the dowsing bible from Christopher Hills. Actual dowsing skeptics come to try and rescue you from people who propose actual dowsing.

The first time dowser who received 5 minutes of training in a certain protocol, constitutes more of a proper dowser than someone who posts endless pages of disinformation and skepticism of dowsing.

 

[dowser]

Someone who will execute the protocol without being emotionally attached to the outcome.

There is no way someone who is perceived by some as the grand master of dowsing on internet forums (because of post count stripes) will reliably pass any test, the guys from Myth Busters on Discovery Channel said they did not want to test or "bust" dowsing, because they did not want to hurt someone's feelings on TV and humiliate them. This is a real reason.

And now i get it, the dowsers while definitely having some dowsing abilities, but definitely also have very little abilities to control their emotions, especially when being gas lighted by skeptics. The skeptics who specialize in "debunking" dowsing are not even rigorous and can easily be defeated and humiliated, but avoid their fate by avoiding experimenters who propose real non mickey mouse tests, and choose the weakest possible subjects.

You are as much into dowsing skepticism as Carl, whether you see it this way or not, you guys are different sides of the same coin, he repeats "physics uber alles", you repeat the EMF suit stories, together all useful info that appears around here will be attacked from both sides, what better than having someone called "dowser" attacking and mocking the dowsing bible from Christopher Hills. Actual dowsing skeptics come to try and rescue you from people who propose actual dowsing.

The first time dowser who received 5 minutes of training in a certain protocol, constitutes more of a proper dowser than someone who posts endless pages of disinformation and skepticism of dowsing.

Why do you write like you have an audience?
If the protocol doesn't make sense, who would do it?
You need to quit writing gibberish, get with the program. If you hate Dowsing, which you do, start your hate thread..
Stay away from legit Dowsing discussion!

 

[robertk]

Officially anything which violates the laws of physics is "not demonstrable to work", and the scientists and parrots will repeat that like bots for all eternity, believing their scriptures are the final proof.

Dowsing/Radiestesia/Telekinesis is 100% pseudo-science fraud and not able to reconcile with mainstream science, as someone who investigates and experiments with these fields, i dont care much how much disagreement exists. Accept the fact that your belief and faith

You're missing my point. I'm not talking about physics or the scientific method (though both would be great arguments), I'm talking about simple actual results. There is a grand total of one person on these forums who I have seen post actual results of dowsing. Maybe he has a skill, or maybe he got lucky. Either way -- he got an actual real result. That's what I'm questioning here -- whether all this chatter about how dowsing works (or fails to) has produced any real hold-it-in-your-hand results. I don't need to know or care how it works, only whether it does. The things I call pseudo-science are what dowsers are doing to pretend to understand how it works -- they are the ones pulling up nonsense like quantum drains, frequencies, NMR averaging, and other such things. They throw out all these terms to make it sound like there is scientific basis and proof for this, when there just isn't. It's disingenuous. If dowsing works for you -- great! Do it! Find something! If if doesn't work, maybe before spending your life researching what you might be doing wrong, first consider the possibility that it just doesn't work, at least for you.

 

[dowser]

You're missing my point. I'm not talking about physics or the scientific method (though both would be great arguments), I'm talking about simple actual results. There is a grand total of one person on these forums who I have seen post actual results of dowsing. Maybe he has a skill, or maybe he got lucky. Either way -- he got an actual real result. That's what I'm questioning here -- whether all this chatter about how dowsing works (or fails to) has produced any real hold-it-in-your-hand results. I don't need to know or care how it works, only whether it does. The things I call pseudo-science are what dowsers are doing to pretend to understand how it works -- they are the ones pulling up nonsense like quantum drains, frequencies, NMR averaging, and other such things. They throw out all these terms to make it sound like there is scientific basis and proof for this, when there just isn't. It's disingenuous. If dowsing works for you -- great! Do it! Find something! If if doesn't work, maybe before spending your life researching what you might be doing wrong, first consider the possibility that it just doesn't work, at least for you.

You keep saying "they" and you mention quantum drains, and Frequencies. Other than me who posted anything like me, it's not in any book.
Have you ever looked for supporting facts?

 

[dowser]

You keep saying "they" and you mention quantum drains, and Frequencies. Other than me who posted anything like me, it's not in any book.
Have you ever looked for supporting facts?

You say you read my 100's of Dowsing content posts.
So, you must understand them? If you don't understand them, how can you judge me.

 

[dowser]

There is a grand total of one person on these forums who I have seen post actual results of dowsing.

Funny 🤣
It CAN BE ANYONE BUT YOU

 

[robertk]

You keep saying "they" and you mention quantum drains, and Frequencies. Other than me who posted anything like me, it's not in any book.

I’m not singling you out, it was just an example. Others make similar comments.

Have you ever looked for supporting facts?

Isn’t that what you supposedly post?

You say you read my 100's of Dowsing content posts.
So, you must understand them? If you don't understand them, how can you judge me

I don’t have to understand things that are nonsensical. I have previously questioned whether you even believe your own postings or if you’re just trolling, because it’s just so far out in left field that you can’t even see the fence anymore.

And I’m not judging you. I’m judging your arguments.

Funny 🤣
It CAN BE ANYONE BUT YOU

It wasn’t me. I have not found anything by dowsing, and probably never will. I have better methods for wasting my time.

 

[dowser]

I’m not singling you out, it was just an example. Others make similar comments.


Isn’t that what you supposedly post?


I don’t have to understand things that are nonsensical. I have previously questioned whether you even believe your own postings or if you’re just trolling, because it’s just so far out in left field that you can’t even see the fence anymore.

And I’m not judging you. I’m judging your arguments.


It wasn’t me. I have not found anything by dowsing, and probably never will. I have better methods for wasting my time.

We were discussing Dowsing
You want the topic about you, that's fine.
Send Pepper more likes!

 

[robertk]

We were discussing Dowsing
You want the topic about you, that's fine.
Send Pepper more likes!

Uh huh. Troll much? You’re about to make the honor roll of my ignore list.

 

[dowser]

So, the last thing I was discussing was the difference of the Dowsing rods, from then to now. Then being 25 yrs ago.
Now most all Dowsing rods for sale are a swivel Antenna type.
Years ago, swivel Antenna were "WAY" to sensitive a rod to use for Dowsing.
I lived in Arizona, and most floors are big tile squares.
It was impossible to Dowse in the house, because every tile grout crack Dowses.
Now a sensitive swivel rod doesn't hardly move on a big chunk of Element.
A big difference from the signal strength, from then to now.

 

[Merlin-Midas]

EFNMR earth field nuclear magnetic resonance

Tim Williams did work on this several years ago. Originally a NASA scientist Bill Morgan said the frequencies and acoustic. Tim shows in this video how to calculate the frequency of an item by measuring the wavelength. He also figured out the frequencies he was calculating were very near EFNMR frequencies. This cannot be a coincidence. I don’t know how Bill Morgan came to his conclusion if acoustic wavelengths but the numbers don’t lie.

Yes, Tim Williams has helped me many times with dowsing research and went out of his way to help me build one of his devices for plotting metal detector hits. His EFNMR software was my first experience in calculating dowser frequencies for individual elements for given magnetic field strengths (but he never revealed how he calculated frequencies for compounds, so I invented my own method, which is what I tentatively am calling "averaging"). His using wave lengths to calculate frequencies makes sense to me, but I already have methods of deriving frequencies (I prefer sweeping through sound wave frequencies on my PC, so I can just sit at the table until I get a reaction; the whole process takes less than 15 minutes). Even if you get a frequency for a "fresh" target, it probably does not work to pinpoint an "aged" target (something in the ground for several years), and the only proof is to dig every target, which I do. An "aged" target essentially projects a detectable "magnetic image" or "copy" of itself, so that the real target nearby becomes undetectable (every time you dig the "false target", it jumps to a new location, but it virtually never goes to the real location); I suppose most dowsers don't know this, because they get discouraged and give up too soon. The biggest mistake dowsers make is not marking their buried practice targets to the very inch, because you won't realize if it moves a few inches or several feet. Only by knowing exactly where a target should be can you have a chance of find out why you missed. Tim's ring theory reminds me of what my predecessor called "auras", which is a circle of energy around a target whose radius gives the approximate depth.

 

[Merlin-Midas]

Not the formula but the frequency of the chemical, sure..

Yes, frequencies for chemicals can be derived directly by dowsing a sample while sweeping through frequencies (which I prefer, because the frequency is stable, not changing with magnetic field strength). But a dowsing frequency can also be calculated from a chemical's formula (by "averaging" every occurring element in the formula). The quickest method is to have preset ratios to a given magnetic field strength for each element (i.e., 50,000 nT), then simply multiply the magnetic field by the ratio.

 

[dowser]

I spent a lot of time Dowsing and testing Frequencies.
My little DDS frequency generators don't get to Ghz.
I didn't want to buy an expensive generator to Dowse higher Frequencies, Ghz and above, but I was searching for a stronger frequency, and higher cycles was a place to look.
So I did something never know to everyone else.
I instruct my phone to generate any frequency I want, as many numbers as I can type, my phone can generate.
If you down load a frequency app, they don't generate resonating Frequencies, they sound good but don't Dowse, I don't know why.
But our cell phones are computers, and you can override the running frequency, if you know how..
I don't like dialing up any unknown number, some are up in the illegal ranges.
I haven't yet discovered a stronger frequency than others of the type in elements.
Meaning my Hz Gold Frequencies are the same strength as my Mhz Gold Frequencies..
The difference I have seen is using a Master key frequency in the background of any other test.
My main choice is 13.5 khz, or 13,500 Hz, whichever you run.
Has anyone found a stronger than average frequency number?