Dowsing test

[Carl-NC]

Dell complains that using a double-blind protocol to test dowsing is unfair. He calls my challenge (and Randi's) a fraud.

Dell also says that dowsing should not be held to a higher standard than ordinary guessing.

OK... I invite Dell to describe a test protocol that fairly evaluates dowsing (or even the unmentionable Looks-Like-A-Duck devices).

All dLer's are welcomed to pitch in with their own suggestions.

Dell, kick it off...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Carl-NC]

Already done... click here.

Spanish Dip Needle is fine.

 

[musstag]

Don't know what happened to my last post. BUT ... anyhow a way to Join in on this tetsing.

The link above where is sez Already Done Click here will take you to Instructions to build L-rods and ? what I will say is a LRL. Build you one and join in this.

You see, using just the rods, (L-Rods) I can only get a cross when directly over the target. They will not sway or tell a direction to go, that I can determine. But my "black box" LongRangeLocator, LRL to me, MFD to others, will cross when ever I AM in between the target and the LDL/MFD.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Just step up and be men, here. Carl is offering you a chance to set your own testing parameters for dowsing after you have spent so much time attemptng to discredit his testing procedures. He's doing this, and still offering his prize money, and you still refuse to believe his offer. Who's the skeptic now?

 

[Carl-NC]

C'mon Dell, let's hear your test protocol. You've mentioned before, right here on this forum, that you've performed many, many double-blind tests with people. Let's start with the protocol you used for those tests.

 

[Captain Trips]

C'mon Dell, let's hear your test protocol. You've mentioned before, right here on this forum, that you've performed many, many double-blind tests with people. Let's start with the protocol you used for those tests.

Here, here! All I've ever seen from Dell is why he WON'T provide proof. If he thinks all other testing protocols are bogus, why won't he propose one himself?

 

[Sandsted]

I've tested my self hundreds of times...but I suppose that's not worth a million.

 

[ClonedSIM]

I've tested my self hundreds of times...but I suppose that's not worth a million.

LOL! If that was what it took, then we'd all be milionaires and Carl and Randi would be broke.

 

[aarthrj3811]

What's wrong guys. Carls or Randi's test mean nothing....They are not Scientific tests. Now that everyone knows that the tests would not be excepted by anyone as proof it's end of story....

 

[ClonedSIM]

It doesn't have to be accepted by everyone, Dell, just by those offering the prize. Scientific or not in your eyes, if you pass the test as they offer it, you win.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Dell

Whoops! My mistake, Dell. I directed that post at Art.

 

[ClonedSIM]

By the way, Carl! Go take another look at page three in the $1,000,000 dowsing thread. I think I came up with a test that Dell thinks is fair. I'd be curious of your input.

 

[Captain Trips]

I've tested my self hundreds of times...but I suppose that's not worth a million.

That's great -- you've proven it to yourself. But, no, that doesn't meet the criteria of the challenge. The challenge is to be able to show it works beyond a shadow of a doubt, and saying "Hey, it works when I'm alone" leaves much room for doubt.

I can say that I've been able to bench press a car when alone, but if I can't do it while being watched then what did I really say?

 

[aarthrj3811]

That's great -- you've proven it to yourself. But, no, that doesn't meet the criteria of the challenge. The challenge is to be able to show it works beyond a shadow of a doubt, and saying "Hey, it works when I'm alone" leaves much room for doubt

.

Now your being rude. You are implying that we don't tell the truth about our dowsing even to our self's.. How many Dowsing events have you atttended? I have been to about 15 events. Do you even know anybody that is a dowser? If you would bother to inform yourself you would know that we test our skills often. Never alone as it takes at least two people to do an unknown target test. I have done a Blind test with 25 observers. ....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

I have done a Blind test with 25 observers. ....Art

All dowsers, no doubt.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with Captain Trips statement that anything that you claim you can do alone should be able to be duplicated in public. Especially in front of skeptical observers. I work out quite a bit and I always run into a guy while I'm doing bench presses that claims he can press so-and-so pounds. I ask him to go ahead and do it, but not once has he said "Okay!" It's always, "I just finished working out", or "I'm working on cardio today", or something similar.

 

[Captain Trips]

That's great -- you've proven it to yourself. But, no, that doesn't meet the criteria of the challenge. The challenge is to be able to show it works beyond a shadow of a doubt, and saying "Hey, it works when I'm alone" leaves much room for doubt

.

Now your being rude. You are implying that we don't tell the truth about our dowsing even to our self's.. How many Dowsing events have you attended? I have been to about 15 events. Do you even know anybody that is a dowser? If you would bother to inform yourself you would know that we test our skills often. Never alone as it takes at least two people to do an unknown target test. I have done a Blind test with 25 observers. ....Art

If you felt I was being rude, then I apologize -- rudeness was not my intent. Please, reread my post -- I didn't call anyone a liar and that was not my intent. What I did say was that "proving it to yourself does not meet the criteria of the challenge." And, no, I haven't been to any dowsing events, but I don't think I need to in order to say that self-proof doesn't meet the JREF criteria. My statement and your question are mutually exclusive.

Note: Sandsted did NOT say "I've tested my self hundreds of times IN A DOUBLE BLIND TEST..." -- all he said was "I've tested my self hundreds of times" which leaves room for doubt. What I'm saying is that a test that leaves room for doubt is not a conclusive test. To be conclusive, it must be tested beyond any doubt -- just like in a court of law. If you were a witness in a court case, and one of the attorneys asked, "Are you sure of what you say," would you accuse him of calling you a liar? No, you would understand that it is his job to ensure that your testimony is beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, that's what I'm doing here. I'm trying to be sure there is no reasonable doubt to a test of dowsing, and saying "I've tested myself" leaves that doubt. "I've tested myself in a double blind study" leaves far less doubt.

I do not impugn your honesty, I just want to eliminate doubt.

 

[Carl-NC]

Back on topic...

Dell, you stated that you've conducted tests with over 5,000 people... you've even referred to the tests as double-blind... please share with us your testing methods.

 

[musstag]

Dell, funny that you metion that

""" But, if anybody is feeling lucky, try the Casino. The calculated theoretical odds of winning are better. ""

Took the ole Lady to the Casino tonite, just got back, she hit the "Makin'Bacon" slot for $7,257.77
I'll post-ya'll in a few days

 

[Carl-NC]

I've been there, and done that a few hundred times on the internet already during the past 15 years.

Don't recall that you've ever mentioned the protocol you use in DB testing.

The Skeptics repeat over and over that the only way any one can prove what we (not them) say on the internet is to take their test.

Sorry, I'm not asking for proof. Just a successful demonstration.

Carl & Randi's DB protocol looks fine to me... I see nothing wrong with the way Carl & Randi's, tests are conducted.

That seems to be directly opposite of what you've said in the past about our tests.

There is no sense wasting my time again explaining my DB test methods.

But I'm interested!

Skeptics base their test results on theoretical calculated odds to pass their test. That is the sneaky little trick that has prevented any one from passing their test and winning the prize for over 20 years.

The only way your statement can be true, is if dowsing does not work better than guessing. If dowsing did work better than guessing, then passing our tests would be a piece of cake.

The odds of any one having para normal ability to beat the theoretical odds is astronomical, as Randi, has well demonstrated to us for over 20 years, with no winners of his test. It's an odds against chance of anyone winning this type of Challenge on ability alone, but, nobody knows when they might get lucky and hit the jackpot so folkstry.

ONLY if you're guessing.

I don't know who to heck these people believe they are to think Treasure Hunters who use dowsing , or any method, has to prove anything to them?

As I've said before, my focus is on people who make LooksLikeADuck devices, who DO NEED TO PROVE that their devices work. Bob Yocum is about to find that out in a very disturbing way.

Perhaps first, they should consider having themselves tested to prove they can random guess the location of a target as well as they seem to think their calucated theoretical odds suggest.

I'm willing to do that.

- Carl

 

[aarthrj3811]

A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls.

Carl…You can call your test anything you want…You have no base line for your results. The only one that I know of that has taken your test was 0-60. So 1-60 would be a winner. So give 300 or 400 people the test and get some kind of base line .....I ask this question and you said your results are here on T-net.......The only one I can find is Jeff's