General Comments

[aarthrj3811]

Lets put this Random Chance stuff behind us…You all claim to be experts with Metal Detectors…If you go out detecting for Gold Nuggets on 10 trips to a known gold producing area. On each trip you dig 10 targets. According to random chance you should have 60 gold nuggets in you hands. The other holes would have had nails, pull tabs or junk in them.

Now tell me this…Would this be a fair test for metal detector operators If not …Why

Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[ClonedSIM]

Lets put this Random Chance stuff behind us…You all claim to be experts with Metal Detectors…If you go out detecting for Gold Nuggets on 10 trips to a known gold producing area. On each trip you dig 10 targets. According to random chance you should have 60 gold nuggets in you hands. The other holes would have had nails, pull tabs or junk in them.

Now tell me this…Would this be a fair test for metal detector operators If not …Why

Art

Well, you stuck this post in the entirely wrong thread, (scroll up) but okay. I know what you're responding to.

Let me make sure, because you're a bit unclear on a couple of things.

Are you assuming that I will find 6 nuggets for every 10 holes I dig? If this is the case, then digging 100 holes would produce approximately 60 nuggets, and approximately 40 pieces of trash. I say approximately becasue only a fool would say "I dig exactly six pieces of gold, no more and no less, every time I hunt here."

Of course, I would have to hunt this area on a regular basis to come up with an average of 6 nuggets for every 10 holes.

If, for example, I do hunt this area regularly, but only find 2 nuggets per 10 holes, then your test wouldn't be fair.

If, though, I hunted this area regularly and find 9 nuggets for every 10 holes, then your test would be more than fair.

So, as you can see you really didn't provide enough information for me to say for certain that your test is fair or not.

I'll be more than happy to answer if you'll only tell me how many pieces of gold I normally find at this spot.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Is this reply an excuse?....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Is this reply an excuse?....Art

I knew you were going to say that.

Again, it's called projection, Art. You make excuses for every failed dowsing attempt, so you assume everyone else will, too.

You didn't give me enough information, by a long shot, in your previous post.

You want me to decide if something is fair or not, but I have no idea what the circumstances are.

I asked you several distinct questions in my response. Since you obviously didn't read it at all, I recommend you do that before making an asanine comment.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Skeptics aren't the ones posting incorrect information and/or completely making things up using false logic! Dowsers are the ones doing that!

Aft, if your information is correct, you sure have me fooled.

I have gained my knowledge about Dowsing by learning to do it, and confirmed by proven results in field experience. Where does your negative knowledge come from So far, you are all talk, talk, talk, and no substance. Are you saying I am not doing as I claim I am doing? Dell

Negative knowledge? Try actual knowledge, not made-up wishful thinking.

Where does it come from? Pick up a book Dell, preferably a college-level physics book, and read.

I say you are finding things by research, context clues, and guessing. It's up to you what you want to call it.

 

[aarthrj3811]

I asked you several distinct questions in my response. Since you obviously didn't read it at all, I recommend you do that before making an asanine comment.

Why...So you can do so more spin and twist...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

I asked you several distinct questions in my response. Since you obviously didn't read it at all, I recommend you do that before making an asanine comment.

Why...So you can do so more spin and twist...Art

You don't care to learn anything.

You asked me a question and I answered it to the best of my ability given the information you provided. I did provide answers, which you apparently missed.

Let's try it on you.

John is 5'10" tall. Jane is shorter than John but taller than Jeff, who is 5'8" tall. Knowing this, which one is smarter?

See, if you don't provide the necessary information you're only causing problems.

I can understand that you aren't sharp enough to see that the hypothetical test you posted makes no sense.

Let's review. This is what you wrote:
Lets put this Random Chance stuff behind us…You all claim to be experts with Metal Detectors…If you go out detecting for Gold Nuggets on 10 trips to a known gold producing area. On each trip you dig 10 targets. According to random chance you should have 60 gold nuggets in you hands. The other holes would have had nails, pull tabs or junk in them.

If I posted this mess I wouldn't expect a straight answer because there is not enough information. Let me show you what you how to correctly state your question.

You normally metal detect in a gold-bearing area. On each metal detecting trip you find, on average, 6 pieces of gold for every 10 holes you dig.Let's say you go out detecting for Gold Nuggets on 10 trips to this known gold producing area. On each trip you dig 10 targets. According to random chance you should have 60 gold nuggets in your hands for the 100 holes you dug. Would it be fair to say that you dig gold 60% of the time in this area?

If so, would it be a fair test to put you into the area with a metal detector and expect you to find gold in 60% of the holes you dig?

Do you see the difference? I've provided enough information to honestly answer this question.

Newsflash, Art: I'm not trying to avoid your question, I'm trying to answer it honestly given the information provided. No one's out to get you and there are no boogeymen under your bed. Stop thinking everyone is lying to you and get over yourself.

 

[aarthrj3811]

You normally metal detect in a gold-bearing area. On each metal detecting trip you find, on average, 6 pieces of gold for every 10 holes you dig.Let's say you go out detecting for Gold Nuggets on 10 trips to this known gold producing area. On each trip you dig 10 targets.

According to random chance you should have 60 gold nuggets in your hands for the 100 holes you dug. Would it be fair to say that you dig gold 60% of the time in this area?

If so, would it be a fair test to put you into the area with a metal detector and expect you to find gold in 60% of the holes you dig?

You see AF….twist it some more …I tell you what I think….If a Metal Detector can find gold in 6 out of every 10 holes they dig I would be very surprised. I would like to hear from people who in fact do use metal detectors….You keep comparing our rods with metal detectors when I think that you nothing about either one.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Negative knowledge? Try actual knowledge, not made-up wishful thinking.

Where does it come from? Pick up a book Dell, preferably a college-level physics book, and read.

I say you are finding things by research, context clues, and guessing. It's up to you what you want to call it.

Sorry aft, I should have included as knowledge posted in a negative context.

It's nice of you to conceed that I am finding things with my methods. which demonstrates that you agree my locating methods do work, regardless of what I call them.

Actually most of my knowledge comes from trial & error experience. For me, book learning is too time consuming. Like you, I could spend a lifetime reading what others have learned about physics and still never cover every detail. I would again be like you, posting opinion based on assumption on something I had read that someone else had wrote.

What I post here is based on personal experience and realized fact. No I am not guessing, Aft. When I need information on Physics, I contact a Physicist, and get the information I need in order to know if I am proceeding the right direction with my own experiments, tests, and field studies.

Learning through the reality of personal experience may be a different approach than text book learning but knowledge, is still the end goal and it has permitted me to learn things in the field that may take years to find written in a text book.

That certainly doesn't make me any smarter than those with a formal education, but it does make more knowledgeable in the subjects I am well experienced in.

I post on here to share that field knowledge and experience with those who are interested. I don't say anything about my personal experience that can not be proven to be true.

The bottom line is, it's the positive results from the methods I use that count, and the reason that I use the methods. I'm happy to see you conceed that these methods do have the positive results that I claim.

If you have references from your physics books that have evidence that shows I am not doing what I claim to be doing, or that what I am doing is impossible, then I would be most interested in seeing those direct references that scientifically support the skeptic argument. Thanks! Dell

Certainly if you have such a strong background in physics and are in such close relations with physicists, then you can provide more concrete evidence of your "signal lines" than one or two pictures with colored lines on them?

And not once have I ever claimed that you don't find things, but I have always doubted the methods you claim to use. Dowsing is guessing, with research and context clues thrown in. If you don't admit what you are doing is guessing, then you are certainly free to claim any number of wonderful things about your search methods. This, however, doesn't make them true.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Man, you guys are RELENTLESS! Sheesk, what kind of vitamins do you take Af & Art?? Where do you get the energy to keep abreast of all that is said, think through to a reply, type it out, etc.... Man I love it (but be nice Af ). Good points that I eagerly scroll forward to ready the replies.

Art you quote Einstein: "I am convinced that God does not play dice " That statement enters out-side forces into the workings of this physical world. Would you not agree? But by entering that statement into the conversation, would seem to be detrimental to keep dowsing out of the realm of things that get altered by outside spiritual forces (in this example: God). If you want to keep dowsing in the realm of things that have repeatable natural or scientific laws that govern them (whether currently understood or not), then you would want to keep things of a spiritual nature, as far from the topic as possible. Perhaps I am reading too much into your quotation, or your reason for putting it there? It just popped up in my mind. Oh well

The whole conversation of odds, random chance, etc.... regressing into the debate involving the nugget hunting example (dig 10 or 100 holes, XX have nuggets, XX have junk, etc...) overlooks the fact that every time the detector beeped (assuming the machine was operating correctly), there was a target there. Doesn't matter if it was junk or a nugget. The point is, the detector was working, doing what it was supposed to, AND does it for no matter who swings it over the target. The same can not be said for dowsing. It does not swing for whomever does it (some have the "gift", and others don't).

 

[ClonedSIM]

Art you quote Einstein: "I am convinced that God does not play dice " That statement enters out-side forces into the workings of this physical world. Would you not agree? But by entering that statement into the conversation, would seem to be detrimental to keep dowsing out of the realm of things that get altered by outside spiritual forces (in this example: God). If you want to keep dowsing in the realm of things that have repeatable natural or scientific laws that govern them (whether currently understood or not), then you would want to keep things of a spiritual nature, as far from the topic as possible. Perhaps I am reading too much into your quotation, or your reason for putting it there? It just popped up in my mind. Oh well

Trust me, I guarantee you Art didn't put this much thought into the quote he posted.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Doesn't matter if it was junk or a nugget. The point is, the detector was working, doing what it was supposed to, AND does it for no matter who swings it over the target. The same can not be said for dowsing. It does not swing for whomever does it (some have the "gift", and others don't).

Good point Tom….The reason I put it in there is that I keep hearing that dowsing is just a guessing game. Just showing that using a metal detector is just the same thing. When I am looking for gold and the rods cross it is not a guess. There is gold there. No junk or what ever you want to call it. Each tool has its own use and works fine. I have been out with guys that use metal detectors and have had days when I located more gold than they did and have also had days when I didn’t.
If digging a lot of holes is bad for dowsers why is it not for guys who dig junk all day long to make a few good finds ?...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Doesn't matter if it was junk or a nugget. The point is, the detector was working, doing what it was supposed to, AND does it for no matter who swings it over the target. The same can not be said for dowsing. It does not swing for whomever does it (some have the "gift", and others don't).

Good point Tom….The reason I put it in there is that I keep hearing that dowsing is just a guessing game. Just showing that using a metal detector is just the same thing. When I am looking for gold and the rods cross it is not a guess. There is gold there. No junk or what ever you want to call it. Each tool has its own use and works fine. I have been out with guys that use metal detectors and have had days when I located more gold than they did and have also had days when I didn’t.
If digging a lot of holes is bad for dowsers why is it not for guys who dig junk all day long to make a few good finds ?...Art

That's really funny. Metal detecting is the same as guessing.....

Exactly what is it that you are using to show that detecting is guessing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Exactly what is it that you are using to show that detecting is guessing?

What would you call it if a guy dug 100 pull tabs for each coin he found. This has been reported here on t-net....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Exactly what is it that you are using to show that detecting is guessing?

What would you call it if a guy dug 100 pull tabs for each coin he found. This has been reported here on t-net....Art

Did that guy guess, even once, at where his next target would be? Nope, detector told him each time, without fail.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Did that guy guess, even once, at where his next target would be? Nope, detector told him each time, without fail.

He was looking for something of value and he found what...pull tabs...To you my rods are useless....But guess what ....I have never dug a pull tab.....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Did that guy guess, even once, at where his next target would be? Nope, detector told him each time, without fail.

He was looking for something of value and he found what...pull tabs...To you my rods are useless....But guess what ....I have never dug a pull tab.....Art

I'm fairly certain you've told me you have dug trash in the past.

If the rods work the way you say they do, you should be able to find the exact location of any item, never dig trash, never dig a dry hole, and be able to dig a relatively small hole during the recovery since the rods cross directly over a coin, right?

If I had something that could accomplish that I could retire tomorrow....

 

[aarthrj3811]

If I had something that could accomplish that I could retire tomorrow....

Oh…If it was that easy……Have you ever located something 40 feet deep? Have your ever located something that is near a freeway off ramp? Have you ever located anything? By the way....I retired at age 41....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

If I had something that could accomplish that I could retire tomorrow....

Oh…If it was that easy……Have you ever located something 40 feet deep? Have your ever located something that is near a freeway off ramp? Have you ever located anything? By the way....I retired at age 41....Art

I also have some questions!

Have you ever recovered something 40 feet deep?

Have you ever recovered anything near a freeway offramp?

And...IF it was that easy?!? I made those statements based on what you've said here in the past.

So, you really do dig trash, and you really do dig dry holes, and your rods don't cross when you step on a coin, and you can't decide what you're searching for?

Are you telling us you were lying?

 

[aarthrj3811]

I also have some questions!

Have you ever recovered something 40 feet deep?

Have you ever recovered anything near a freeway offramp?

And...IF it was that easy?!? I made those statements based on what you've said here in the past.

So, you really do dig trash, and you really do dig dry holes, and your rods don't cross when you step on a coin, and you can't decide what you're searching for?

Are you telling us you were lying?

That the best you can do? You know what I should tell you...Art