Every Day

....

Fact
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the Wikipedia Template, see Template:Fact.
For the trade organisation, see Federation Against Copyright Theft.

Look up fact in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Generally, a fact is something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.[1][2] There is a range of other uses, depending on the context. People are interested in facts because of their relation to truth. Often a fact will be claimed in arguement under the implied authority of a specific pedagogy, such as scientific facts or historical facts. Dispute may arise in defining the standard upon which the authority of the fact rest. Confounding this, Rhetorical use of the term often does not disclose from where the authority originates.

I challenge you to find a single fact, presented by a dowser, that somehow proves the existance of dowsing....

Are you saying that you have made 2000 post about something that does not exist.?

Please keep in mind that any fact needs to be verifiable by an unbiased third party, so don't post a link to a dowsing newsletter and call it a fact.

Where did you come up with that one ?

Perhaps this will help you see the difference between a fact, and dowser's fiction
Is there an answer to this stuff ?
 

aarthrj3811 said:
I challenge you to find a single fact, presented by a dowser, that somehow proves the existence of dowsing....

Are you saying that you have made 2000 post about something that does not exist.?
You assume I spend time posting only here? My my, how very presumptuous of you....

aarthrj3811 said:
Please keep in mind that any fact needs to be verifiable by an unbiased third party, so don't post a link to a dowsing newsletter and call it a fact.

Where did you come up with that one ?
Your history, Art. You've posted links to dowsing, paranormal and other biased sources numerous times to back up your claims or to try and prove something. Unfortunately, there were no other sources that could verify this information so it was dismissed.

Here, try this. If you choose to state that "Art is Great!" fine, but don't link to an article you wrote about how great you are because this isn't an unbiased source. See how you quoted Wikipedia above? That's more like it.

aarthrj3811 said:
Perhaps this will help you see the difference between a fact, and dowser's fiction
Is there an answer to this stuff ?
???
 

More stories about something that doesn't exist....

Victorian scientific interest, aided by a softening of the Church?s attitude, brought dowsing out into the open. In 1874, Thomas Welton translated and published Jean Nicholas? book in English. During the following decades a number of respected men, including the physicist, Albert Einstein, performed impressive feats with a variety of dowsing devices. Most of these feats were only of academic value but by the middle of the 20th century dowsing was regularly being put to a great variety of profitable uses.

*

Farmer J W Young convinced wild-catter, Ace Gutowski, that oil lay beneath West Edmond, Oklahoma by demonstration with a goatskin-covered bottle hung from a watch chain which invariably swung from north to south when over oil.?
As a result, in 1943, Gutowski drilled a hole and discovered the largest oil deposit in Oklahoma for 20 years. And that is just one of very many examples of oil strikes by dowsers.


Colonel Harry Grattan, CBE, Royal Engineers was given the task of building a new Headquarters for the British Rhine Army at M?nchen Gladbach, Germany in 1952. Planning for at least 9000 people who would need 750,000 gallons of water per day was a major project.?

Water supply was a big problem. Notwithstanding that the British Army preferred the security of it?s own water supply, the three local waterworks would have had to upgrade their equipment and pass the costs on in the form of water rates at ?20,000 a year. A considerable sum in 1952.

Colonel Grattan knew of a nearby family with a private well, which produced better quality water than any of the waterworks. He employed a geologist with the intention of tapping this source but a trial bore produced very little water. The Colonel was a proficient dowser, however, and decided to use his skills to solve the problem. Using the traditional forked twig the colonel began dowsing and getting reactions everywhere to the west of the test bore. On the strength of this two further trial bores were executed with spectacular results.

The trials showed that the ground was mainly solid clay, but between 73 and 96 feet down there was an aquifer, which produced a copious supply of excellent quality water. The German government, responsible for site construction, were less than convinced by such surveying techniques and were adamant that the water supply would soon dry up.?

Gaining the support of his superior, General Sugden, Colonel Grattan was able to continue his exploration. Dowsing from horseback, the colonel plotted out the full extent of the aquifer, which extended to within a few hundred yards of two of the waterworks. The British Rhine Army?s private waterworks were constructed providing the Army with all the water it needed and savings running into millions of pounds over the years.

Somewhat closer to our quest for buried objects was the work of Major General Scott Elliot, a former president of the British Society of Dowsers who spent many years finding previously unknown archaeological sites by dowsing.

His initial plan was that he would find the sites and then hand them over for professional excavation. On discovering that the professionals were not interested, partly through scepticism and partly because they had more than enough sites of their own, the major learned to do his own excavations.

He also discovered he could save enormous amounts of time and effort by mapping out the site features by dowsing before he removed the first sod. Nothing spectacular in terms of finds of great intrinsic value were ever reported but nevertheless, over a period of some 20 years the major discovered and excavated an impressive list of sites.

The fairly recent development of treasure hunting as a popular hobby has drawn one or two dowsers to the challenge of using their skills to find buried metal artifacts.?

In the USA, Louis J Matacia is a surveyor who has studied dowsing for years.? During the Vietnam War he was commissioned to teach dowsing skills to US Marines so that they could avoid booby traps, navigate safely through jungles and learn the whereabouts of the enemy. Soldiers reported that using the L-rod in this way saved many lives. Louis is particularly interested in the challenge of the search. Using his dowsing together with a range of scientific devices he has located lost pipes, oil, wells, caves and buried treasures.

*The most successful treasure dowser in Britain is Jim Longton from Lancashire. Jim took up dowsing when he retired from the wrestling ring and first hit the headlines in 1990 after finding a spectacular hoard of Viking silver brooches valued at over ?40,000. ($60,000)?

His latest find is potentially Britain?s Tutankhamen: a seventeenth century shipwreck, believed to contain untold treasures, including a 230 piece gilt-silver dinner service once owned by Charles I. While divers work on the recovery, Jim is being kept busy locating more treasure wrecks for a marine salvage company. I am certain we will soon be hearing of Jim making more magnificent dowsing finds.*

David Villanueva has been involved in the hobby of Treasure Hunting for more than a quarter of a century and has had many articles published in hobby magazines.?
 

Here, try this. If you choose to state that "Art is Great!" fine, but don't link to an article you wrote about how great you are because this isn't an unbiased source. See how you quoted Wikipedia above? That's more like it.

To find out something on the internet…First you have to know what you are looking for. If you don’t ask the right question you will get the wrong answer. It is like map dowsing…..When you type in certain words you will get my post from T-Net…I told you what search engine I use. I don’t use goggle that much because it is to commercial…Blame me if you want ..We all know the truth about dowsing….An example of the things I post is in the previous post…Art
 

Your history, Art. You've posted links to dowsing, paranormal and other biased sources numerous times to back up your claims or to try and prove something. Unfortunately, there were no other sources that could verify this information so it was dismissed.

Your history AF….You have posted links to exactly nothing so your proof is nothing….Darn…I wonder what the people on the internet will think. I have proved that objects emit a signal….Not one of you people have even commented about this except for one who was wrong. I have proved that the Ideomotor Response can not work like you people say it does. Not one of you people have even commented about this. I get comments saying that I have only a 4th grade education. I get comments that I have the understanding of a 6th grader. Pretty sorry group of people who will not provide or add any thing of value to a forum…
 

aarthrj3811 said:
During the Vietnam War [Matacia] was commissioned to teach dowsing skills to US Marines...

This isn't true.
 

Quote from: aarthrj3811 on Today at 02:28:38 PM
During the Vietnam War [Matacia] was commissioned to teach dowsing skills to US Marines...

This isn't true.
Hey Carl…..I have heard this quite often….Could you please tell us where to find this information. We want our information to be correct….Art
 

Matacia was never "commissioned" to teach dowsing to the Marines. He personally lobbied the military to allow him to voluntarily demonstrate his skills. They allowed him to do his requested demos, but ended up rejecting dowsing as unreliable.

- Carl
 

Dell Winders said:
Carl, you may, or may not be correct, but it's difficult to believe you when you have a history of telling untruths about people in the past when it serves your purpose. Dell

Example?
 

Although Carl is one Member who never complaines about posts ;

Using the words "untruth" & "deception" are NOT allowed to be used against Anyone
on TreasureNet anywhere. Dowsers & Skeptics do not get special treatmemt.

They are Synonyms:for Lying & Scamming .

Please Edit your Posts, so I don't have to.

There is a TERMS OF USE Page

Scroll Down at any point.


OR http://www.treasurenet.com/terms/

This is Not a Dowsing Topic Rule this is a Forum Wide Rule.
 

Dell Winders said:
This is not the place to aire the list of untruths you have made with deception and malice over the past 8 years. Dell

Then do it on Geotech.

Jeff, I agree that Dell should not be calling people liars, but if those people really are liars, then surely Dell would not be violating forum rules if he accurately addresses specific instances of "untruths" and does so in a civil manner.

Dell, you've made this claim many times before, and have never once been able to back it up with a single example. If you cain't do it, just say, "I cain't do it."

- Carl
 

Carl-NC said:
Dell Winders said:
This is not the place to aire the list of untruths you have made with deception and malice over the past 8 years. Dell

Then do it on Geotech.

Jeff, I agree that Dell should not be calling people liars, but if those people really are liars, then surely Dell would not be violating forum rules if he accurately addresses specific instances of "untruths" and does so in a civil manner.

Dell, you've made this claim many times before, and have never once been able to back it up with a single example. If you cain't do it, just say, "I cain't do it."

- Carl

Carl,
It's a Matter of Respect for Both sides of the Fence.
Both sides have somone who is offended by being called untruthfull
So to prevent Escalation to attacks on everyone uncluding
Reports to Moderator every 2 Minutes, Comments about a Persons
Truthfullness Must be done Via PM

if he or anyone else accurately addresses specific instances of "untruths" and does so in a civil manner, It must still be irrefutable Proof so overwhelming, Everyone
Including the Person being Accused says, "Your Absolutely Correct"
(Like if someone says the earth is Square, & They Know
because they were on the Shuttle & Saw it)
IF the Person Accused Still Denies, all posts connected are Out of Line.
unless done in the Comedy Forum. and I get No Complaints.
 

aarthrj3811 said:
So if you have anything that says he was not involved with the Marines please post it…Art

I never said he was "not involved with the Marines." I happen to know he was, so I would never make that claim.

The claim that he was "commissioned to teach dowsing skills to US Marines" is false. However, it is a claim often repeated by dowsing proponents who are too lazy to research the story. Chris Byrd has a good account in his book.

- Carl
 

jeff of pa said:
So to prevent Escalation to attacks on everyone uncluding
Reports to Moderator every 2 Minutes, Comments about a Persons
Truthfullness Must be done Via PM

OK Dell, Jeff gets the final word... send me a PM detailing ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of "untruths about people" I've told. Just one. Can you do it?

- Carl
 

The claim that he was "commissioned to teach dowsing skills to US Marines" is false. However, it is a claim often repeated by dowsing proponents who are too lazy to research the story. Chris Byrd has a good account in his book.

Carl…I have spoken to a few veterans who have reported that they were taught to Dowse by the Military….Art
 

No Dell....They think that this a Debate Forum...They think that they have a set of rules to follow....I have news for them....This forum is to Disccuss Dowsing....Art

Rule-based competitive debate is often encouraged in high schools and colleges. Often, it takes the form of a contest with explicit rules. It may be presided over by one or more judges. Each side seeks to win, by following the rules, and even by using some rules to break other rules, within limits. Each side is either in favor ("for, 'Affirmative' "), or opposed to ("against, 'Negative' "), a statement (proposition or Resolution) which if adopted would change something with the exception of some high school and college debate where moots may hold no outcome ie. the moot "ignorance is bliss". Some of the rules are broad and must be followed in a general way. For example, those in favor of the proposition are
· required to show the need for it to be adopted as it is written, and yet are
· allowed to define the scope of the proposition; i.e. they choose what it will mean if adopted.
To further illustrate the importance of rules, those opposed must destroy these arguments, sufficiently to warrant not adopting the proposition, and are not required to propose any alternative solutions.

The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop one's ability to play from either position with equal ease. To inexperienced debaters, some propositions appear easier to defend or to destroy; to experienced debaters, any proposition can be defended or destroyed after the same amount of preparation time, usually quite short. Lawyers argue forcefully on behalf of their client, even if the facts appear against them. However one large misconception about debate is that it is all about argument, it is not.
Competitive Debate is an organized activity with teams competing at the local, national, and international level. It is popular in English-speaking universities and high schools around the world, most notably in South Africa, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. Many different styles of debate occur under a variety of organizations and rules.
 

I know of one double blind test, that couldn't be disputed. Go to Arkinsas Crater of Diamonds State park, and dowse and dig 5 consecutive diamonds over 5 carots. I suppose you would dispute the results anyways Af, even if the test was successful..Don't bet your house that no Dowsers can pass a double blind test..
 

aarthrj3811 said:
Your history, Art. You've posted links to dowsing, paranormal and other biased sources numerous times to back up your claims or to try and prove something. Unfortunately, there were no other sources that could verify this information so it was dismissed.

Your history AF….You have posted links to exactly nothing so your proof is nothing….Darn…I wonder what the people on the internet will think. I have proved that objects emit a signal….Not one of you people have even commented about this except for one who was wrong. I have proved that the Ideomotor Response can not work like you people say it does. Not one of you people have even commented about this. I get comments saying that I have only a 4th grade education. I get comments that I have the understanding of a 6th grader. Pretty sorry group of people who will not provide or add any thing of value to a forum…
Once again, Art, you are failing to understand me.

Pick a skeptic's quote. Do a search for anything in that post you consider to be incorrect. You will find that this information is verifiable by multiple sources. But you continue to state that all this information is incorrect without having any proof of your statement.
 

Dell, you say: "In light of the fact that, "What has already been done, can be done", the critics have nothing to debate (argue) about Dowsing " Yes, the critics do too have something to debate:

1) They question whether the things "done" can be attributed to another factor, besides the success of dowsing. That would be the debate of random chance, digging around enough likely spots, using a detector to pinpoint, and whether these things "done" pass scientific double-blind tests. Yes, I know this is a whole can of worms you have answers/opinions on, but just pointing out, that there is still conversation and debate over the things "done".

2) They also debate the "how" of the workings/source/power of dowsing (ie.: is it scientific? is it mental? are there different types, etc...). So in that sense, yes the critics do indeed have something to ask.

All you have done is appeal to results. That leaves vast areas of discussion. To say this closes the case, it does not. That is like me saying if I tap on my steering wheel, I can make the light turn green. If it turns green, I can say "critics have nothing to debate (argue) about tapping. Afterall, the light turned green DIDN'T IT?" You can see that .... yes indeed the critics would have an issue to persue. They would ask "how did the tapping change the light?" "Is it random?" "Was the light eventually going to turn anyways?" "Does it speed up the turning of the light?" etc.... So you see, your results defense is admirable, but it does not absolve dowsing of scrutiny, any more so than a light turning green, clears my tapping technique of scrutiny.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom