Dowsing sceptics!

[aarthrj3811]

I ask again...If you have any proof that I cannot Dowse, please post it. In fact, if you have any proof that Dowsing does not work from any place but the skeptic's web sites, please post that too. Can you please give me the definition of Ideomotor Response from a reliable source? I may be uneducated, but I can tell when someone has no idea what he's talking about.

You are the one that states all dowsing is because of the Ideomotor Response. I just ask for a difinition...I can't find one except in some off the wall site. If you don't know what the Ideomotor Response is it may be that it's just a "buzz" word and has nothing to do with Dowsing.

Freque_T....That how you learn. I try to learn something new every day.

lucky1777,,,,Good Question

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

Fine, Art. What do you consider a reliable source? As I recall, almost every definition you've given to me has come from Wikipedia. Should I assume this would be sufficient?
I mean, if it's good enough for you, that's fine with me. Here you go...

The ideomotor effect is a psychological phenomenon wherein a subject makes motions unconsciously, especially while attributing the motion to a paranormal or supernatural force in which he/she believes. Unexplained phenomena such as automatic writing, dowsing, facilitated communication, and Ouija boards can be attributed to the ideomotor effect. The effect is extremely powerful and many subjects cannot be convinced that their actions are originating solely in their own minds.

How about Merriam-Webster?

Main Entry: ideo·mo·tor
Pronunciation: "I-dE-&-'mO-t&r, "i-
Function: adjective
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
: not reflex but motivated by an idea <ideomotor muscular activity>

Encarta?

ideomotor
- relating to body movements: describes body movements triggered by thoughts rather than by external stimuli

Dictionary.com?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
i-de-o-mo-tor/
–adjective Psychology of or pertaining to involuntary motor activity caused by an idea. Compare sensorimotor (def. 1).

American Heritage Dictionary?

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source i·de·o·mo·tor (d--mtr, d-) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Of or relating to an unconscious or involuntary bodily movement made in response to a thought or idea rather than to a sensory stimulus.

And you say you had trouble finding a definition?
Admit it, Art. You keep asking this question because you can't think of anything else to say, right?

 

[xupz]

AF it's all going to end like we know it will. We're not going to convince them with logic and reason. It's just not going to happen. I mean they defend it despite having so much factual evidence thrown in their face. In return, we get nothing but excuses and ignorant comments. Deep down, I think they probably know they're wrong, but they're so stubborn to face the fact they've duped themselves that they'd rather just fight it out until the end. Art will just ignore all those definitions and post another irrelevant comment, and yes, I did use my mental dowsing rods to predict his responses

Since you dowsers defend your positions so adamentally, I pose this question. How exactly would you go about proving that dowsing is more than just random? Please refrain from using any arguments like "because I can do it" or "it's my experience" or anything that is opinion. How about a test to prove dowsing works created by dowsers. Let's hear it.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Deep down, I think they probably know they're wrong, but they're so stubborn to face the fact they've duped themselves that they'd rather just fight it out until the end. Art will just ignore all those definitions and post another irrelevant comment, and yes, I did use my mental dowsing rods to predict his responses

Hear, hear!

Since you dowsers defend your positions so adamentally, I pose this question. How exactly would you go about proving that dowsing is more than just random? Please refrain from using any arguments like "because I can do it" or "it's my experience" or anything that is opinion. How about a test to prove dowsing works created by dowsers. Let's hear it.

Oh, they have suggested tests, xupz, they have. However, their test scenarios usually include caveats like, "My dowsing friends can be there to prove I passed the test, but Carl or Randi can't be around because they put out negative energy," or "I can't dowse in front of other people because I get too nervous." Art's favorite happens to be, "I don't have to prove anything to anyone, and I don't need Randi's million dollar prize."

 

[xupz]

Art's favorite happens to be, "I don't have to prove anything to anyone, and I don't need Randi's million dollar prize."

Haha that's pretty funny considering he claims to be a "professional treasure hunter", yet won't pony up to take the million dollars. It's sitting there waiting for the magical dowser to take the money.

I looked over that million dollar contest thing yesterday, seems EXTREMELY reasonable to ask of dowsers and the results would more than enough to show anything greater than random probability. It's too bad each and every dowser who tried failed. Obviously though it has to be Randi causing them to fail because there's no way dowsing doesn't actually work

 

[ClonedSIM]

I looked over that million dollar contest thing yesterday, seems EXTREMELY reasonable to ask of dowsers and the results would more than enough to show anything greater than random probability. It's too bad each and every dowser who tried failed. Obviously though it has to be Randi causing them to fail because there's no way dowsing doesn't actually work

According to the dowsers around here, the test is extremely unscientific, angles deeply against the dowsers, and a scam. The problem with their rationale is that they get to define the test themselves. They actually get to dictate to Randi what they claim to be able to do, and then simply have to perform those claims in a controlled environment that would eliminate the "chance" element. Granted, the test they propose has to be agreed to by Randi, but this is to be expected. I don't see where he has turned down an applicant that has proposed a reasonable test and has followed the procedures for submitting that test to Randi.

 

[musstag]

Carl told me NO one has ever taken his test. And I understand the same is true of Randi's test.
Why would I subject myself to the abuse that I would recieve if I fail, WHILE Knowing that I CAN FOIL THE DAMN TEST myseslf, meaning I CAN MAKE A DOWER FAIL THE TEST!!!

I can Dowse, but I will make a challange, If a Dowser wants to take Carls test and I know of it and Can BE there, I TOO will offer $25,000.00 to the sucessful dowser who passes the Test, I expect the test to be much like what Carl and I have had Private email about.

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl told me NO one has ever taken his test.

That is true, so far as the formal challenge is concerned. But I have tested a number of people informally.

And I understand the same is true of Randi's test.

That is not true, as has been repeatedly stated on this forum. I don't understand why people continue to insist that Randi's never formally tested any dowsers.

Why would I subject myself to the abuse that I would recieve if I fail, WHILE Knowing that I CAN FOIL THE DAMN TEST myseslf, meaning I CAN MAKE A DOWER FAIL THE TEST!!!

So here's another protocol...

I place my 10-ounce gold bar on the ground, in plain view... would you be able to walk over it, and dowse its location? Now, let's add an interferring transmitter. Would you be able to dowse the visible gold bar with the transmitter turned on? Off? Can you then determine, by attempting to dowse the visible gold bar, whether the transmitter is on or off? If you can consistently dowse the state of the transmitter, you win.

Another protocol...

The interferring transmitter (turned on) is hidden in 1-of-10 discrete locations. If you can consistently dowse the location of the transmitter, you win.

Or, you can propose something.

- Carl

 

[musstag]

I appreciate your trying to make something work, and it sounds inticing I admitt. BUT Can you understand what JUST one transmitter that I don't know is being used, can do to all of the test we have spoke of or that you mentioned above.
Its like a test of a dog responding to a dog whistle, you say when you blow the dog whistle the dog will come to the sound, but since we can't hear it, what would the dog do if 7 dog whistles were blown at that same time from different directions?

I know the general conditions that a test would need to contain, so I will give it some more thought, and If I can come up with something that I think I can control , I will contact you. Now you know that I am not saying that you would cheat, but I do know that If it were me giving the test, and after you found the 1st 3 targets, or passed the 1st of several sessions, I would have a way to turn on my transmitters and foil the remainder of your test.

From what I have taken the time to read on Randi's site, I find no reference to any dowser ever taking the test, several have applied, but never finished the application requirements.
But I would like to know, of the dowsers that you informally tested... What was the nature of the failure, no target signals, too many signals, or what? I do not see any results on your web site, so I was just wondering.

 

[Jeffro]

I have heard that hats made from tin foil will block out radio frequencies, maybe you should give that a try and really foil the tests. Of course lead shielding on your L-rods will do just as good a job. Of course we'll still have to wait 11 years for the solar flares to start their flux again, so we have plenty of time for practice. And when Jupiter aligns with Mars we'll be all set.

Tune in, Turn on, Dowse out, dudes-

 

[musstag]

Carl, I read on some forum, I thought it was here and I thought it was you, that an informal test was made with a fellow, at a Park using that Oz. of Gold under 2x4s. But I can No longer find that post. Any how, I know why that test failed. I also read a post made by that fellow I think, about how he drug his brother or bother-in-law all over the woods in NC digging empty treasure signal holes. I know why, that happens, I know what causes it. Two thing really, one is Colliod conditions, the reflection example on your web site. The other is the footprints LTB gold leaves after it is removed from where it was buried. Do you recall any of this?

 

[Carl-NC]

Now you know that I am not saying that you would cheat...

You should assume I would cheat, and design the test to ensure I don't. I would never agree to a formal test protocol which requires me to trust the claimant, and I do not ask the claimant to trust me. That's why everything is spelled out in a legally binding contract. This is for $25,000, and should be treated as an adversarial contest.

From what I have taken the time to read on Randi's site, I find no reference to any dowser ever taking the test...

Randi has a forum, where some actual tests are described. I recall one where the claimant actually visited JREF for the test... he claimed he could dowse gold, and brought several Sacagawea dollars to use as targets. Of course, Randi pointed out that they were only gold-colored, and didn't contain any real gold. When the claimant utterly failed, he complained that the gold-lettering on some of Randi's books interfered. Randi pointed out that the gold-lettering was done with powdered bronze, not gold.

But I would like to know, of the dowsers that you informally tested... What was the nature of the failure, no target signals, too many signals, or what? I do not see any results on your web site, so I was just wondering.

When I do informal testing, it is as a service to the dowser, so I leave it to them as to whether they want to publicize the results. Usually, they don't, and I respect that. Except for LLAD manufacturers, I am not looking to humiliate anyone. For the formal challenge, I reserve the right to publicize the results, but even then, I would do so in a respectful manner*.

In most cases, but not all, I start out with a couple of full-view trials, which most dowsers ace, no problem. Then I do blind or double-blind testing, which has varied quite a bit, from the standard protocol on my web site, to an ultra-simple area search, to packets that were mailed across the country, dowsed, and returned.

In every single case, dowsers have hit within about a half-sigma of the statistical mean. In other words, none have done better than guessing.

- Carl

* Unless it's an LLAD manufacturer, who would deserve criticism if their devices didn't work in their own hands.

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl, I read on some forum, I thought it was here and I thought it was you, that an informal test was made with a fellow, at a Park using that Oz. of Gold under 2x4s.

Yup, that was one case where the fellow chose to publicize his findings. I used my 10-ounce gold bar, his silver coin, and (6) square-foot boards.

Any how, I know why that test failed.

So do I...

I also read a post made by that fellow I think, about how he drug his brother or bother-in-law all over the woods in NC digging empty treasure signal holes. I know why, that happens, I know what causes it. Two thing really, one is Colliod conditions, the reflection example on your web site. The other is the footprints LTB gold leaves after it is removed from where it was buried.

This is all speculation. So far, I've never seen anyone who can successfully dowse gold that is definitely sitting right in front of them. Until someone can do that, there is no reason to believe that they can dowse unknown buried treasures in the field, and therefore no reason to formulate theories as to why they consistently fail. The most likely reason they fail, is because they cannot dowse.

- Carl

 

[Freque_T]

Way behind the post I'm sorry but I will answer the question.

How did I prove it was 457Hz that nulled the LRL? I used two signal generators and found the frequency at which the LRL would not indicate a gold mine on a distant hill. It was 457Hz, the LRL working perfectly when the generators were randomly set.

Interference was not noted during any random frequency with the LRL set to gold. Only in the 30 seconds or so the generators were both on 457Hz did the LRL remain still, pointing dead ahead, at mind the very point at which the generators were tuned on to the aforesaid 457Hz. Once over the 457 the LRL indicated gold once more without doubt or exception of error.

Let me say in passing, because this is what I am doing (not posting), that one of the reasons no-one has taken up Carl's challenge is that should the test fail for some reason then Carl would use it in forums etc to bolster his cause until the next extinction episode. If he agreed to a contract that withheld the results he would be in a much better posiiton. Unfortunately he doesn't believe in it from what I've read and policing the forums to reply to his "evidence" against LRLs would constitute a full-time job.

Also I don't understand Carl at all. On his site he gives plans to make an MFD and claims the problem is that micro gold will be found at great depths.

So he tacitly admits it works but then in reports etc , that it is... dowsing?


Freque

 

[musstag]

Well, if I was betting $25K of my money against $25K of your money, Then we could call some actions cheating. But Since its your $25k only, we could call it 'outsmarting' the other.

My daughter just bought a older home, I was showing her dowsing today at her place, so she tried it. She walked around and found 5 spots that the rods crossed. We marked each one as she walked with sticks of tree limbs, and then I ran the MD over them, all five gave a beep or chirp, 3 indicated pulltabs on my CX one was quarter size and one was nickel size. We dug the nickle and found it, dug the quarter size and it was a part of a fishing lure like a teardrop about the size of a qtr. didn't dig the pull tabs.
Now my son, nothing, It Does not work for him.

 

[xupz]

I just read that test description on Randi's site that was mentioned:

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

That guy is a typical "dowser". The experiment was simple and to the point. The dowser even had 100% success rate when he KNEW where the items were.

For the "open" phase of the preliminary test procedure, the target package was placed in the designated cup, which was then openly placed in the spot Mike had chosen for it, mouth-down. He then scanned all ten cups, and declared — both by pointing and verbally — where he believed that his stick had detected the target. Another number was then selected, and the procedure was repeated, twenty times in all. His score was 100% in these "open" tests.

They randomized the next set of tests and he performed no better than random, i.e. FAILED to show a significant difference. After he was told he failed, he pulled the typical dowser excuses out:

Now, following the tests, Mike said that he'd found, all through the trials, that his stick was being "distracted" by the "gold" lettering on a double set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the shelves located near cups #1 and #2. Remember, he'd "tuned" his forked stick specifically to react to gold. We told him later that there was no gold in that location, either, since the book lettering is done with a bronze-powder ink.

Surprise! He managed to dowse 100% when he knew where the items were in the open trials with the books there, then failed when everything was randomized. Look at the time difference:

On the "open" tests, Mr. G. took an average of 2 1/2 minutes for each determination; on the "blind" tests, he spent an average of 8 1/2 minutes on each one.

Surprise! That's a significant difference by any stretch. Wonder why that is when the only thing that changed was he simply no longer knew where the item was? It was the only variable changed from the open to the blind test. Clearly his ideomotor response is well trained when he knows where the item is

My daughter just bought a older home, I was showing her dowsing today at her place, so she tried it. She walked around and found 5 spots that the rods crossed.

Yea, not like an older house would have TRASH buried all over right? This is how dowsers convince people. Take them to high trash areas where there's a very high probability of just digging anything anywhere, let them get their little ideomotor response, mark the trash spot, and po0f, you have just converted another delusional dowser. It's like a plague they spread to others.

Oh yea, why bother with a metal detector anyway? It's not like a dowser needs one, or am I mistaken?

 

[xupz]

haha I guess education can turn the tide:

An interesting communication from a reader who signs herself as, Jennifer....

I always believed that dowsing was real, after all, I tried it at my old house, at my old job and at the college where I work. After I read your article, I decided to try a blind test at the new building where I live. It didn't work. I know the building has underground water and gas pipes and electrical and phone service, but I couldn't find them. You're absolutely right when you say that it's all in the mind. Ten years ago, I would have called you a crank, but now...

You may feel free to use my information however you wish. I'm currently just a disabled person, working (volunteering) in a local community college. Back in the late 80's I was working as a blacksmith at a local theme park where the electrician held total faith in dowsing. He would use it to "find" underground electrical lines. Thinking back, he was the one who installed them in the first place.... In the early 90's I got caught up in the New Age movement and learned what they called Aura Dowsing. Again, what we did was basically what was expected. I also used dowsing to "find" the water and sewer pipes that ran from my family home to the street, never thinking that I already knew where they were. When I came to this college, I magically "found" the pipes and wires that I clearly watched them bury over the summer. Then I found your web page and tried the test on my apartment building — and failed miserably! I wasn't able to find any of the services that I know have to be there.

Right now, I'm planning to do another "test" using dowsing rods and a metal detector at a local mall. Since the mall was built long before I came to this area, I can't possibly know where the services are and expect that I will fail there, too. You know, I spent over $500.00 to learn how to do this. Your web pages may be able to save someone else the expense. By the way, I have a BA in education and a Masters degree in computer engineering. Yes, even people with college degrees can be fooled. Keep up the good work. You RULE!

 

[musstag]

Well that does it ... we can't dowse because some person with more degrees than paying Jobs has a brain fart, The Alphabet Men Rule!!! Oh, to both of you Alphes, LrL's , I have 5, and less than 80 bucks in all 5, total!. I built 3 of them from a set of $10.00 Plans, and the material cost less than 10 bucks each, And I Bought 2 of them at Wal-Marts. I have only 2 types, so I have a backup of each type, and one more thats set for a shorter range. Oh, the ones from Wal-Mart, they didn't come with L-rods, I had to make those also.

 

[Carl-NC]

Let me say in passing, because this is what I am doing (not posting), that one of the reasons no-one has taken up Carl's challenge is that should the test fail for some reason then Carl would use it in forums etc to bolster his cause until the next extinction episode. If he agreed to a contract that withheld the results he would be in a much better posiiton.

I might be willing to keep the claimant's identification confidential, but not the results. And definitely not for a manufacturer. Remember, my prize was established to challenge manufacturers to prove the worth of their products, which they have refused to do. I opened it up to individuals because of repeated assertions that I was afraid of testing "successful" dowsers. Now, all I hear are alibis, and attempts to blame me for their inability to demonstrate dowsing.

Also I don't understand Carl at all. On his site he gives plans to make an MFD and claims the problem is that micro gold will be found at great depths.

The article was written tongue-in-cheek:

"The MFD can detect targets as deep as 100-200 feet, so locating the target is only half the battle. If a metal detector does not verify the existance of a metal target at the identified location then you should bring in excavation equipment. If no obvious target is found when you reach 200 feet, then the target was most likely subatomic gold particles..."

However, several people have assumed I was serious, so I s'poze I should re-write this, to make it clear that you probably shouldn't dig a 200-foot-deep hole.

- Carl

 

[musstag]

About My daughter's results, If you were looking to find a needle, would you look in a Haystack? She located 5 objects, the MD confirmed than no others existed on her path. Sure, I'm sure there are more objects, pull tabs or coins in her yard. And if you were to just randomly pick a spot you might find something, but you would pass several others getting to it, and I doubt that you could randomly pick 5 spots without being wrong several times. Yep xupz, as you stated you have discovered the Dowsers cult trick to introduce new dowser into dowsing, take them to an yard of an older house, This is the main tatic that dowsers use ...

And your staement of "It was the only variable changed from the open to the blind test " You'd better be able to Prove that!!! Since you must have been there, you Know that nothing else took place, right. (nevermind, I was just using some of your type of reasoning.) The only proof to be determine is THAT SOMETHING else did change, evidenced by the results.