Dowsing,Wrong Name

[aarthrj3811]

Hey David Ritchie...I call my self a physical dowser for lack of another term. I have found that objects produce a signal that can be read by a set of rods at the 4 cardinal directions. I do have a method to track the signal 360 degrees but why mess with the another method when mine is so simple to use.

Hey SWR...you seem to repeat everything that Randi says. If his web site is true, honest and all that why should I not repeat what this other web site says?
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/nicholls.html

A Self-Confessed Liar
To be fair, he has never claimed to be anything other than a showman, best expressed by his own remark,
'I am a charlatan, a liar, a thief and a fake altogether.'
FROM THE MOUTH OF RANDI......WITH LOVE....ART
Don't get excited ..I will put this on here everytime you you guys get to excited about Randi's Scam Challenge....Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

Hey SWR...Until someone proves he didn't make that statement it is correct. Seems thats this is equal to what you say about Dowsing.....Art

 

[dowser 501]

P.S. I have the secrets of How Dowsing Works but I'm not GIVING them away, I've spent too much work and time FINDING THEM.
......................................................................................................
David, I have been giving away the secrets of dowsing for 15 years and rarely have had acknowledgement. You would be wasting your time especially if you are seeking self gratification. It takes a special type of person in the right envioronment at the right time to dowse and I will never know how much success I have had, and most certainly will never get a medal for my efforts.

Max

 

[xupz]

P.S. I have the secrets of How Dowsing Works but I'm not GIVING them away, I've spent too much work and time FINDING THEM.
......................................................................................................
David, I have been giving away the secrets of dowsing for 15 years and rarely have had acknowledgement. You would be wasting your time especially if you are seeking self gratification. It takes a special type of person in the right envioronment at the right time to dowse and I will never know how much success I have had, and most certainly will never get a medal for my efforts.

Max

Finding/Making them up, same diff. Clearly you're jealous that he's better than you. He's the best dowser in the world according to him, but if you want a medal for your efforts, you can have the 1st place loser medal .

Personally, I think if he's making an attempt to at least take the tests or try to actually prove dowsing isn't a joke for us skeptics at our level, should he actually prove there's something to it then that's great for him. I'll give him credit for manning up to his claims at least, even if they are delusional IMO, he'd still get my respect for having the balls to take it to where it's going to have to go anyway. I mean *if* he actually succeeded, he'd be one famous dowser world wide wouldn't he? Every dowser on earth would use him as an example that dowsing works. People would pay him for lessons and finance all kinds of treasure hunting trips. Seems like it would be the sweet life traveling everywhere and hunting treasure. No rewards without risk.

“We will receive not what we idly wish for but what we justly earn. Our rewards will always be in exact proportion to our service.”

 

[xupz]

I have the secrets of How Dowsing Works but I'm not GIVING them away

David, I have been giving away the secrets of dowsing for 15 years

-X-

 

[Peg Leg]

Since I am fired up let me say a few things.
I did not get past the 10th grade. I went into the military in 1953.
I have always been a loner so when the chance to became a SNIPER I became one and a very very good one.
When I was just a small child I spent my time in the woods listening and feeling things around me. I became part of my surroundings.
I have no idea what some will call this-good or bad but I can tell you that in Korea before I was sent out on a mission I would dowse the area I was going to but only with my hands, nothing else. As you can see I lived through it.
I agree with Dell W. Anything will work if you have the feeling.
My present occupation it TREASURE HUNTER and has been since I lift to Military.
This is what I do for a living and if you take the time to read some of my posting you will see that I am serious about what I do.
I do not mind getting PM but you will be surprised as my response if you want to be NEG.
Peg Leg

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=Peg Leg

Hi peg, David Aa etc..relax these peeps demand proof and answers of a presently undefined occurrence but when they are asked to answer simple questions or post their claimed proofs they suddenly become quiet, or clam" Ignore". That should tell you something. So they fall back on semantics which have absoloutey no true bearing.

Most major advances in Science have been flooded with contradicting theories until the the occurance is finally understood.

Whether your theories are correct or not should have no bearing on the subject "does dowsing work"? just do it.

Resurrected Tropical Tramp

 

[Jean310]

Oh dear.... now two of the world's best dowsers are at odds. Tsk....tsk.....

I know what the real problem is. One of them claims the dowsing season isn't open yet, and the other one didn't even know there WAS a season. One Of Them Is Not The World's Best Dowser! Can you tell which one it is?

heh heh heh heh ........... resembles one of those questions from an on-line IQ test, doesn't it?

Jean

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI see what I mean? All talk and "no answers from them". So just discuss downing not theories.

sceptic's bible "keep your opponent on the defensive with silly or even stupid questions if you have nothing else."

Resurrected Tropical Tamp

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee Realde....The new tactic isn't working. The Dowsers are not fighting each other. Whats next from the clones?....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Hi, I don't know how to use this forum but I'll try.
I'm not only the best dowser in the world I have discovered the secrets of How Dowsing Works if anyone is interested in helping me get a dvd video put together I will prove to the world that dowsing has got nothing to do with Brain Power or anything that looks like it.
I have discovered Why it works,What Makes it Work and can give you a demonstration of that that will put the hardest nose skeptic in the closet for good.
I'm talking about using metal dowsing rods or rod, and by the way, dowsing is not the right name for this phenomenon, it has nothing to do with divination,witchcraft,paranormal,musicians or fairies.
I live in Malden,Mo. and am looking for a partner in my quest to not only prove this phenomenon does work but HOW it WORKS, this can be done using water lines,power lines,telephone lines,sewer lines etc, in such a way anyone can check it out for themselves, it time to put an end to the quacks out there saying this phenomenon is paranormal.
Best Regards
David Ritchie
cdrringo@sbcglobal.net

This guy's the best dowser in the world, but he can't even dowse up enough scratch to put a DVD together?

This is what's called "rational thinking", David.

Another "rational thought" is that you don't understand Randi's challenge, because you say that he sets it up, protocol-wise, so a dowser will fail.
Now, to say this, wouldn't Randi have to have an intimate knowledge of how dowsing works, perhaps as much as you claim to?
Also, you get to define the test boundaries, limitations and protocols, i.e.: You create the test, not him.

But I do agree with you when you say dowsing doesn't require brain power. That much is readily apparent.

Now.....do you have any 500-mpg carburetors or bridges you want to sell along with your dowsing superiority?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Another "rational thought" is that you don't understand Randi's challenge, because you say that he sets it up, protocol-wise, so a dowser will fail.
Now, to say this, wouldn't Randi have to have an intimate knowledge of how dowsing works, perhaps as much as you claim to?
Also, you get to define the test boundaries, limitations and protocols, i.e.: You create the test, not him.

Randi stated to me that a preliminary test would have to yield a probability of one in a thousand that the results were due to chance. After passing the preliminary, the investigator could commence with the formal test, which would have to yield a probability against chance of one in a million.

Hey af1733.......I have to take Randi's word on this one...After all he is the boss...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Another "rational thought" is that you don't understand Randi's challenge, because you say that he sets it up, protocol-wise, so a dowser will fail.
Now, to say this, wouldn't Randi have to have an intimate knowledge of how dowsing works, perhaps as much as you claim to?
Also, you get to define the test boundaries, limitations and protocols, i.e.: You create the test, not him.

Randi stated to me that a preliminary test would have to yield a probability of one in a thousand that the results were due to chance. After passing the preliminary, the investigator could commence with the formal test, which would have to yield a probability against chance of one in a million.

Hey af1733.......I have to take Randi's word on this one...After all he is the boss...Art

Art, you spit out numbers like you have some idea of what they mean, and everyone here knows this is not true. You just like this quote because the numbers look big to you...

 

[aarthrj3811]

Another "rational thought" is that you don't understand Randi's challenge, because you say that he sets it up, protocol-wise, so a dowser will fail.

Randi stated to me that a preliminary test would have to yield a probability of one in a thousand that the results were due to chance.

And you say Randi doesn't set up the Protocol.

Also, you get to define the test boundaries, limitations and protocols, i.e.: You create the test, not him.

the investigator could commence with the formal test, which would have to yield a probability against chance of one in a million.

and then the protocols are not chanced again.....You need to read something besides Randi's site to learn the truth...Remember....Those are your statements..not mine...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Randi stated to me that a preliminary test would have to yield a probability of one in a thousand that the results were due to chance.

And you say Randi doesn't set up the Protocol.

Okay, Art, let's go over this again. 1 in 1000. These are not very good odds. But odds for what? 1 in 1000 that the results were due to chance. Unless you did not complete your thought or deliberately mis-quoted him, Randi is saying that the chance of someone passing the preliminary test by chance are 1 in 1000. That means out of 1,000 successful pre-tests, only one of the successes would be due to chance.

I stand by my statements, and you have just proven yourself wrong.

When I told you you didn't understand the numbers, and that you only liked them because they were really big, I was correct.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Thanks for explaining that for me. Now when he says this..the investigator could commence with the formal test, which would have to yield a probability against chance of one in a million. ..Could you explain this to me...Thank you..Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Thanks for explaining that for me. Now when he says this..the investigator could commence with the formal test, which would have to yield a probability against chance of one in a million. ..Could you explain this to me...Thank you..Art

It's the same thing, Art. It's 1 in 1000 that someone could guess their way through the preliminary test, but if it actually did happen, the odds are 1 in 1,000,000 that they would actually be able to guess their way through the final challenge to win the million bucks.

Now, these are probably just numbers that Randi threw out there, but I would hope you can see what he was actually saying and stop repeating this as if it helps your case in some way.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Another "rational thought" is that you don't understand Randi's challenge, because you say that he sets it up, protocol-wise, so a dowser will fail.
Also, you get to define the test boundaries, limitations and protocols, i.e.: You create the test, not him.

Thank you again....Randi has nothing to do with the challenge protocol. You get to define the test boundaries, limitations and the test protocols.

Randi stated to me that a preliminary test would have to yield a probability of one in a thousand that the results were due to chance. After passing the preliminary, the investigator could commence with the formal test, which would have to yield a probability against chance of one in a million.

Reads like Randi has control by his statements...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Another "rational thought" is that you don't understand Randi's challenge, because you say that he sets it up, protocol-wise, so a dowser will fail.
Also, you get to define the test boundaries, limitations and protocols, i.e.: You create the test, not him.

Thank you again....Randi has nothing to do with the challenge protocol. You get to define the test boundaries, limitations and the test protocols.

Randi stated to me that a preliminary test would have to yield a probability of one in a thousand that the results were due to chance. After passing the preliminary, the investigator could commence with the formal test, which would have to yield a probability against chance of one in a million.

Reads like Randi has control by his statements...Art

And still you floor me with your ignorance.

Randi told everyone that the odds were slim that someone could guess their way through his challenge. Why would he say this, I wonder?

Because you can't! If you don't have the "ability" you claim to have, then you won't pass the test!

Why would anyone set up a challenge that was easy to guess your way through to reward? Think about your posts before you make them, Art.

Thank you again....Randi has nothing to do with the challenge protocol. You get to define the test boundaries, limitations and the test protocols.

As for this, Randi has nothing to do with it, you're beginning to understand. If you came to Randi and said you could guess which hand was holding a coin 50% of the time, he would reject your claim, since this is the outcome you could expect by simply guessing. If, however, you came to him and said you could dowse a coin under one of 20 plates, and you could get it right 85% of the time, I guarantee you he would accept your challenge.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Possibly, that is all Randi said

Excuses...Excuses.. Randi said it all ..
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/nicholls.html

A Self-Confessed Liar
To be fair, he has never claimed to be anything other than a showman, best expressed by his own remark,
'I am a charlatan, a liar, a thief and a fake altogether.'

I guess old PT was right...There is a sucker born every minute..Art