Electronic receiver proves MFDs are not dowsing

werleibr · Apr 16, 2012

Well said adrian ss

aarthrj3811 · Apr 16, 2012

~Adrian SS~

If your LRL of the type that requires user compatability, works and can locate gold, silver or whatevere you are thinking that you want to find then put up or shut up!
Put on a public demonstration of your device that will prove repeatably that it does what it is claimed to be able to do.
Once you have done that you will be in the money and be able to solve the worlds mineral and energy needs.

Please tell us when you have found the $350,000 needed to do this experiment properly.

Just think; No more need to launch satelites into orbit fitted with bazillions of dollars worth of mineral locating X-Ray, Infra Red and thermal Imaging devices to locate our minerals! No more need to bombard the earth and its inhabitants with Radar beams and laser beams, No more need to send exploration teams out into the field equiped with a vast array of electronic locator and mineral analysing devices, No more need for the use of explosive sonar (Fish, Dolphin and Whale destroying) devices in the ocean to locate oil. Just think of all of the benefits your Psychic LRL will have in the developing world.

I don’t think that is what the hobby of Treasure Hunting should be used for.

I feel it is the best interests of the world and civilisation that the manufacturers of these tiny inexspensive LRLs to prove their worth to the scientific community so that these gadgets can be refined and used for the benefit of all mankind.

If the scientific community had an interest in the hobby of treasure hunting it would have been done already...Art

Jason in Enid · Apr 16, 2012

No art, just like every post you make, your logic is backwards. The scientific community doesn't have interest in DOWSING and LRLs because they have been proven to be complete scams.

aarthrj3811 · Apr 16, 2012

~Jason in Enid~

No art, just like every post you make, your logic is backwards. The scientific community doesn't have interest in DOWSING and LRLs because they have been proven to be complete scams.

Yes I have been told that...No one has presented us with a report that has been excepted by the scientific community..
Nice finds..It is good to see someone enjoying their hobby...Art

woof! · Apr 17, 2012

Jason, Art's logic isn't backwards, it's just that there is no logic there at all.

And, to side with Art just a little bit and to encourage you to think about this matter a bit more scientifically........

1. Without question, there have been a lot of frauds in dowsing. However it's not like LRL's where fraud is what literally defines the genus.

2. Scientific investigation has generally supported the thesis that dowsing under controlled and witnessed double-blind conditions produces results no better than chance.

3. The pseudoscience that often revolves around dowsing (for example that the rods are moved by magnetic fields) is easily disposed of by anyone with some education in such matters. Even without much education in physics, ordinary psychological-linguistic analysis of pseudoscience claims reveals that the content of the writing is of the logic-free word-salad sort, intended to confuse rather than to educate. .....In all fairness to dowsers, when it comes to pseudoscience malarkey, they are not in the same league as the LRL manufacturers who have even gone to the extreme of getting patents awarded on their frauds.

4. "Dowsing response" is ideomotor response. This is completely obvious from the design of swivelly dowsing rods, which everyone agrees will not work if they're designed like a compass to eliminate ideomotor response or if they're simply clamped to a fixture and begged to follow a target around. Thomas nails it on the head-- it's a "Gravitator". You tilt it and gravity, not the target, does the rest. ......Furthermore dowsing response has been the subject of numerous scientific investigations and the outcome is what anyone who has applied scientific thinking to the matter already figured out: dowsing response is ideomotor response.

5. Most people lack the ability to reason about things in a systematic manner. In the case of rod dowsing, the physical sensation of rod movement is that the rods are being moved by an unseen force since the user is not consciously causing the rod to move (other than in fraudulent demos). The unseen force really does exist: it's subconsciously controlled motor activity. So the reports of dowsers who have no scientific understanding of what's happening when they're dowsing, when they report that the rods move on their own, are entirely understandable. .......I have experienced it myself, and the sensation that the rods move themselves can be utterly compelling.

6. We all know lots of stuff that has accumulated in our subconscious that isn't conveniently accessible to our conscious mind. Put that together with the principle of ideomotor response, and without the need to invoke anything mysterious, the idea that non-blinded dowsing can be effective poses no particular problem for scientific thinking. For example, water dowsers may or may not have formal education in how groundwater works, but they may have a lot of accumulated insight into the matter. So they go out there and dowse a well with skill comparable to what a groundwater geologist might achieve, or even better. Scientific reasoning about dowsing leads not to the conclusion that it can't work, but that it can be expected to work.

* * * * * * * * *

So the controversy over dowsing can be narrowed down to the issue of blinded dowsing, the only kind that I find interesting since the other kind poses no challenge to scientific reasoning. Double-blinded with cameras rolling, and suddenly dowsing's got a really bad track record.

This doesn't prove that blinded dowsing is all malarkey, but it's powerful evidence that the power needed to do it is not under the control of the dowser. The moment you see a dowser bragging that they can do this or that, you've what I derisively call "a claimant". Someone who is scared schittless of any proposition that would put it to the test, because in plain English they're all hot air and they know they ain't got squat.

So now we've narrowed it down even further. People who claim they can do this or that when it comes to dowsing, when it comes down to put up or shut up, it's all a bluff. They don't put up, but amazingly they don't shut up either. They paint the whole thing with a picture of fakery and fraud. So they have no excuse when scientifically thinking people call it fakery and fraud: the fakers and fraudsters are the very people who provided the evidence.

* * * * * *

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I suppose everyone has had personal experiences which defy any rational explanation. Things that are mysterious anomalies. Maybe seeing in detail an event before it actually happened. Maybe suddenly running for your life and not even knowing why, and 8 seconds later the spot where you standing gets hit by an artillery shell. You come out of surgery, the anesthetic wears off, and you tell the surgeon everything that happened from where the eyes of the surgeon saw it. People who've messed with Ouija boards usually have some truly bizarre stories to tell, and I mean credible stories. .......In real human life, stuff like this happens. In all cultures, all religions. Information somehow got into a human brain that shouldn't have been there, and there's no good explanation how it happened, only speculative theories which nobody's found a way to prove.

The moment you can admit to how it really is, that this kind of stuff happens, then admitting that even blinded dowsing may be effective beyond mere chance should pose no particular difficulty from a scientific perspective.

I would argue that the fact that braggarts cain't do squat when their bluff is called reveals something of the nature of how such stuff happens. Something about the Universe evidently doesn't like false claimants and liars? That's not exactly a novel idea, it's been a common theme among religious prophets for thousands of years.

* * * * * * * *

So, is there any empirical evidence in favor of blinded dowsing? Without reciting my own personal experience, I'd say yes. It's not "proof", but I'd argue favorable evidence. And that's the use of dowsing for locating underground utilities. I happen to have worked in the underground detection industry for over 30 years, so I get to hear about a few things that you don't usually read about in forums.

1. Dowsing for underground utilities used to be common practice. It's less common now because of improvements in technological underground locating apparatus and greater concern for the liability issues that can happen with a bad locate. Nobody wants to defend themselves by saying, "Well, I dowsed it."

2. I've never heard of a utility dowser using an LRL. In nearly every case, it's a couple of simple L-rods, often just bent coat-hangers or welding rods without so much as a handle bearing.

3. I've never heard of a utility dowser bragging that they could dowse this or that. Evidently, the moment you claim that the power is yours, it disappears.

4. They're in almost every case rational thinkers who dowse for no reason other than they get useful results from it. Not into UFO's or "zero point energy" and to the extent they've got any theory at all as to how it works, it's usually a pretty simple theory (although often dead wrong). No word-salad pseudoscience.

5. The "Blue Book" is the water works "bible", nowadays available online, a search engine will get you there in a hurry. You can find my company's products there, and those of our competitors, too--- and lo and behold, a dowsing rod as well! (They're not about to shame themselves by listing an LRL, even though they could make thousands of profit on every sale thereof.) Looks like a decent dowsing rod for a reasonable price, and their description of the thing has an air of sobriety that one would expect for a useful working tool.

6. In the underground locating industry, there are locating competitions. Do any of the contestants ever use a dowsing rod? Sorry, haven't heard one way or the other, but I strongly suspect not. When put to the test, dowsing has a long track record of failing miserably. The problem is not "skeptic waves" as some can't-do-it whiners insist, the problem is that under test conditions the ideomotor misfires. In a contest, you darn well better be bringing your subconscious knowledge into your conscious mind as fast as you can and reasoning about it consciously as fast as you can. And if that's a skill you ain't got, better not to pay the registration fee, you're gonna get pulverized by people who know what the heck they're doing.

7. Dowsing rods are merely a tool for routing subconscious knowledge, and they are certainly not the only such tool. In principle, a real whiz could just walk out there and do the locate by pointing at it with his index finger. But I ain't heard of it happening and don't expect it to happen.

**********************

This might have been a better essay for the dowsing forum, but the issue was raised here so that's where I responded to it.

--Toto

aarthrj3811 · Apr 17, 2012

~woof~

This might have been a better essay for the dowsing forum, but the issue was raised here so that's where I responded to it.

Yes I am sure that every one of your points have been discussed on the Dowsing Board. Sorry that you are in fear of losing your job. We are here to discuss the use of LRL’s and MFD’s used for Treasure Hunting...Art

EE THr · Apr 18, 2012

aarthrj3811 said:
~woof~

Yes I am sure that every one of your points have been discussed on the Dowsing Board. Sorry that you are in fear of losing your job. We are here to discuss the use of LRL’s and MFD’s used for Treasure Hunting...Art

Okay, here is all anyone needs to know about LRLs (and MFDs): You can use then to hunt for treasure, but you will never actually find anything unless you accidently trip over it. Because they can't locate anything at all. It's all talk, and nobody has ever proven to the World that they work. That's why the LRL promoters avoid properly witnessed and documented Scientific testing, and offer all those silly excuses for why they won't do it.

aarthrj3811 · Apr 18, 2012

~EE~

Okay, here is all anyone needs to know about LRLs (and MFDs):

We are waiting

You can use then to hunt for treasure

That is why we are here.

but you will never actually find anything unless you accidently trip over it

What’s the odds of that happening?

. Because they can't locate anything at all. It's all talk, and nobody has ever proven to the World that they work.

We have been hearing that rumor for over 2 years.

That's why the LRL promoters avoid properly witnessed and documented Scientific testing, and offer all those silly excuses for why they won't do it.

How many of the 100 plus manufacturers have you ask about the Scientific testing they have done? As for the owner/operators of treasure hunting devices we have put testimonials, photo’s of finds and movies of finds on this board...Art
The red is questions EE

EddieR · Apr 19, 2012

woof! said:
Jason, Art's logic isn't backwards, it's just that there is no logic there at all.

And, to side with Art just a little bit and to encourage you to think about this matter a bit more scientifically........

1. Without question, there have been a lot of frauds in dowsing. However it's not like LRL's where fraud is what literally defines the genus.

2. Scientific investigation has generally supported the thesis that dowsing under controlled and witnessed double-blind conditions produces results no better than chance.

3. The pseudoscience that often revolves around dowsing (for example that the rods are moved by magnetic fields) is easily disposed of by anyone with some education in such matters. Even without much education in physics, ordinary psychological-linguistic analysis of pseudoscience claims reveals that the content of the writing is of the logic-free word-salad sort, intended to confuse rather than to educate. .....In all fairness to dowsers, when it comes to pseudoscience malarkey, they are not in the same league as the LRL manufacturers who have even gone to the extreme of getting patents awarded on their frauds.

4. "Dowsing response" is ideomotor response. This is completely obvious from the design of swivelly dowsing rods, which everyone agrees will not work if they're designed like a compass to eliminate ideomotor response or if they're simply clamped to a fixture and begged to follow a target around. Thomas nails it on the head-- it's a "Gravitator". You tilt it and gravity, not the target, does the rest. ......Furthermore dowsing response has been the subject of numerous scientific investigations and the outcome is what anyone who has applied scientific thinking to the matter already figured out: dowsing response is ideomotor response.

5. Most people lack the ability to reason about things in a systematic manner. In the case of rod dowsing, the physical sensation of rod movement is that the rods are being moved by an unseen force since the user is not consciously causing the rod to move (other than in fraudulent demos). The unseen force really does exist: it's subconsciously controlled motor activity. So the reports of dowsers who have no scientific understanding of what's happening when they're dowsing, when they report that the rods move on their own, are entirely understandable. .......I have experienced it myself, and the sensation that the rods move themselves can be utterly compelling.

6. We all know lots of stuff that has accumulated in our subconscious that isn't conveniently accessible to our conscious mind. Put that together with the principle of ideomotor response, and without the need to invoke anything mysterious, the idea that non-blinded dowsing can be effective poses no particular problem for scientific thinking. For example, water dowsers may or may not have formal education in how groundwater works, but they may have a lot of accumulated insight into the matter. So they go out there and dowse a well with skill comparable to what a groundwater geologist might achieve, or even better. Scientific reasoning about dowsing leads not to the conclusion that it can't work, but that it can be expected to work.

* * * * * * * * *

So the controversy over dowsing can be narrowed down to the issue of blinded dowsing, the only kind that I find interesting since the other kind poses no challenge to scientific reasoning. Double-blinded with cameras rolling, and suddenly dowsing's got a really bad track record.

This doesn't prove that blinded dowsing is all malarkey, but it's powerful evidence that the power needed to do it is not under the control of the dowser. The moment you see a dowser bragging that they can do this or that, you've what I derisively call "a claimant". Someone who is scared schittless of any proposition that would put it to the test, because in plain English they're all hot air and they know they ain't got squat.

So now we've narrowed it down even further. People who claim they can do this or that when it comes to dowsing, when it comes down to put up or shut up, it's all a bluff. They don't put up, but amazingly they don't shut up either. They paint the whole thing with a picture of fakery and fraud. So they have no excuse when scientifically thinking people call it fakery and fraud: the fakers and fraudsters are the very people who provided the evidence.

* * * * * *

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I suppose everyone has had personal experiences which defy any rational explanation. Things that are mysterious anomalies. Maybe seeing in detail an event before it actually happened. Maybe suddenly running for your life and not even knowing why, and 8 seconds later the spot where you standing gets hit by an artillery shell. You come out of surgery, the anesthetic wears off, and you tell the surgeon everything that happened from where the eyes of the surgeon saw it. People who've messed with Ouija boards usually have some truly bizarre stories to tell, and I mean credible stories. .......In real human life, stuff like this happens. In all cultures, all religions. Information somehow got into a human brain that shouldn't have been there, and there's no good explanation how it happened, only speculative theories which nobody's found a way to prove.

The moment you can admit to how it really is, that this kind of stuff happens, then admitting that even blinded dowsing may be effective beyond mere chance should pose no particular difficulty from a scientific perspective.

I would argue that the fact that braggarts cain't do squat when their bluff is called reveals something of the nature of how such stuff happens. Something about the Universe evidently doesn't like false claimants and liars? That's not exactly a novel idea, it's been a common theme among religious prophets for thousands of years.

* * * * * * * *

So, is there any empirical evidence in favor of blinded dowsing? Without reciting my own personal experience, I'd say yes. It's not "proof", but I'd argue favorable evidence. And that's the use of dowsing for locating underground utilities. I happen to have worked in the underground detection industry for over 30 years, so I get to hear about a few things that you don't usually read about in forums.

1. Dowsing for underground utilities used to be common practice. It's less common now because of improvements in technological underground locating apparatus and greater concern for the liability issues that can happen with a bad locate. Nobody wants to defend themselves by saying, "Well, I dowsed it."

2. I've never heard of a utility dowser using an LRL. In nearly every case, it's a couple of simple L-rods, often just bent coat-hangers or welding rods without so much as a handle bearing.

3. I've never heard of a utility dowser bragging that they could dowse this or that. Evidently, the moment you claim that the power is yours, it disappears.

4. They're in almost every case rational thinkers who dowse for no reason other than they get useful results from it. Not into UFO's or "zero point energy" and to the extent they've got any theory at all as to how it works, it's usually a pretty simple theory (although often dead wrong). No word-salad pseudoscience.

5. The "Blue Book" is the water works "bible", nowadays available online, a search engine will get you there in a hurry. You can find my company's products there, and those of our competitors, too--- and lo and behold, a dowsing rod as well! (They're not about to shame themselves by listing an LRL, even though they could make thousands of profit on every sale thereof.) Looks like a decent dowsing rod for a reasonable price, and their description of the thing has an air of sobriety that one would expect for a useful working tool.

6. In the underground locating industry, there are locating competitions. Do any of the contestants ever use a dowsing rod? Sorry, haven't heard one way or the other, but I strongly suspect not. When put to the test, dowsing has a long track record of failing miserably. The problem is not "skeptic waves" as some can't-do-it whiners insist, the problem is that under test conditions the ideomotor misfires. In a contest, you darn well better be bringing your subconscious knowledge into your conscious mind as fast as you can and reasoning about it consciously as fast as you can. And if that's a skill you ain't got, better not to pay the registration fee, you're gonna get pulverized by people who know what the heck they're doing.

7. Dowsing rods are merely a tool for routing subconscious knowledge, and they are certainly not the only such tool. In principle, a real whiz could just walk out there and do the locate by pointing at it with his index finger. But I ain't heard of it happening and don't expect it to happen.

**********************

This might have been a better essay for the dowsing forum, but the issue was raised here so that's where I responded to it.

--Toto

Good post. :icon_thumright:

signal_line · Apr 19, 2012

I am very sorry to disagree here, but if I was to make a post full of as many inaccuracies and outright falsehoods, I could not have done a better job. Almost every word of that post is so wrong, it is almost as if it was intentionally misleading. But that's what happens when people who cannot use an LRL try to dictate to the forum their BELIEF SYSTEM.

aarthrj3811 · Apr 19, 2012

~Signal Line~

I am very sorry to disagree here, but if I was to make a post full of as many inaccuracies and outright falsehoods, I could not have done a better job. Almost every word of that post is so wrong, it is almost as if it was intentionally misleading. But that's what happens when people who cannot use an LRL try to dictate to the forum their BELIEF SYSTEM.

Gee Mike..I am not sorry that I disagree with them...The title of this thread “
Electronic receiver proves MFD's are not dowsing” gives them no choice..for years they have claimed that our devices do not make a signal at all. The fact that Electronic receivers can find and follow the signal Proves all our points. The fact that a very wise person tried a set of rods and was able to follow the signal line thus making the expensive electronic receivers obsolete is the only reason they now claim our devices are Dowsing.
The prove that Dowsing works can be found here. http://twm.co.nz/dowsing_jse_com.html
Water Diviner - Article 3
How does a water dowser work
Sorry Skeptics...Please wipe your feet before leave your computer...Art
It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you

signal_line · Apr 19, 2012

I don't need to add those false assumptions about LRL's were just copied and parroted from another infamous skeptic. Nothing original there, just the same old garbage just slightly reworded. You could call it plagerized.

signal_line · Apr 19, 2012

And if it not plagerized then it is JASA -- Just Another Skeptic Alias. Pick your poison.

woof! · Apr 19, 2012

Well, lessee, Mike: First you say plagiarized, but knowing you were going to be called out on this bluff (as always) you then revert to pretend that someone whom you know full well is, is pretending to be someone else whom you don't want to name.

Mike, I gave you real good advice several weeks ago: don't use public forums to argue with people who know your game. You lose every time. And I reminded you who is the well-advertised winner at the LRL game-- Thomas, who does not come here to argue with people who know what he's up to.

Even Hung (the de facto Mineoro rep) has gotten a lot more circumspect in recent times, having been reminded that Mineoro's own website makes him look pretty bad.

Mike, you continue to refuse good advice.

Anyone who disagrees with that statement should immediately buy a Mike LRL, and in all fairness the last I heard the thingy ain't even all that expensive compared to most. As Mike himself just said, "Pick your poison". Go cheapo. And Hung, eat your heart out, petition the President of Brazil to rename one of the states of Brazil "Montana" after Mike.

--Toto

Jason in Enid · Apr 19, 2012

signal_line said:
I am very sorry to disagree here, but if I was to make a post full of as many inaccuracies and outright falsehoods, I could not have done a better job. Almost every word of that post is so wrong, it is almost as if it was intentionally misleading. But that's what happens when people who cannot use an LRL try to dictate to the forum their BELIEF SYSTEM.

LOL! That's some funny **** right there! The only thing that requires a belief system is LRLs and dowsing. Metal detectors use the demon "technology" that seems to work every single time, regardless of whos using it.

Keep up with the jokes!

aarthrj3811 · Apr 20, 2012

~Jason in Enid~

LOL! That's some funny **** right there! The only thing that requires a belief system is LRLs and dowsing. Metal detectors use the demon "technology" that seems to work every single time, regardless of whos using it.

Keep up with the jokes!

No...It is clear that the Skeptics refuse to discuss this subject.. Electronic receiver proves MFD's are not dowsing..Art

EE THr · Apr 20, 2012

aarthrj3811 said:
~Jason in Enid~

No...It is clear that the Skeptics refuse to discuss this subject.. Electronic receiver proves MFD's are not dowsing..Art

A toaster isn't a dowser either, but that doesn't mean it can find treasure.

When anyone tries to use a toaster or an MFD to try and prove that LRLs work, it only shows that you are continuing to try to substitute talk for proof.

Since it is impossible for anyone to prove to the World that LRLs actually work, all you can do, instead, is talk about irrelevant nonsense. Talk, talk, talk. It's all just mumbo-jumbo snake oil rambling.

aarthrj3811 · Apr 20, 2012

A toaster isn't a dowser either, but that doesn't mean it can find treasure.

Chopsticks, Dowsing and now toasters...What has that to do with the subject?
Electronic receiver proves MFD's are not dowsing

When anyone tries to use a toaster or an MFD to try and prove that LRLs work, it only shows that you are continuing to try to substitute talk for proof.

Unlike you they have tried to locate treasure.

Since it is impossible for anyone to prove to the World that LRLs actually work, all you can do, instead, is talk about irrelevant nonsense. Talk, talk, talk. It's all just mumbo-jumbo snake oil rambling.

It must be nice to know what scientific tests the manufactures and the 1000’s of owner/operators have preformed...Could you please list all the scientific test that LRL’s and MFD’s made for treasure hunting have failed?...Art

EE THr · Apr 21, 2012

aarthrj3811 said:
Chopsticks, Dowsing and now toasters...What has that to do with the subject?
Electronic receiver proves MFD's are not dowsing

Unlike you they have tried to locate treasure.

It must be nice to know what scientific tests the manufactures and the 1000’s of owner/operators have preformed...Could you please list all the scientific test that LRL’s and MFD’s made for treasure hunting have failed?...Art

Will you please list all the properly witnessed and documented Scientific tests made by anyone, which show that LRLs do work?

Clue: There aren't any!

aarthrj3811 · Apr 21, 2012

~EE~

Since it is impossible for anyone to prove to the World that LRLs actually work, all you can do, instead, is talk about irrelevant nonsense. Talk, talk, talk. It's all just mumbo-jumbo snake oil rambling.

~Art~

It must be nice to know what scientific tests the manufactures and the 1000’s of owner/operators have preformed...Could you please list all the scientific test that LRL’s and MFD’s made for treasure hunting have failed?...

~EE~

Will you please list all the properly witnessed and documented Scientific tests made by anyone, which show that LRLs do work?

Clue: There aren't any!

Duck and Dodge EE.....Thank you for addmitting that no LRL or MFD has ever failed a Sceintfic Test...Art