How Come Dowsers are Millionaires?

[Treasure_Hunter]

It would not be difficult to "ground" a test cable, that can likewise be moved. To be passed underneath rods mounted above them on a platform. If I took the time to assemble such a test, would the rods move? Or would they need to be held in human hands, as Art now says ?

You want to see it work see it in real time not some little set up tabletop experiment........... I have used bent coat hangers and utility marker flags with flags removed, have also used Bic pens with insides removed to hold wires as well...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

TH'r (and Nitric), thanx for the posts.

TH'r, as regards to going and watching someone do it (ie.: "real time" as you say), for the proof I seek: Can't I study the "Betz report" (or any other report Art or Digger can suggest)? To see this level of viewing/testing being done already ?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Once you learn that the rods will work for you the trip begins. You will learn that it will work for many things. Everyone’s methods will all be a little different. I went to Toole Utah few years ago to see a well driller. We went to a farm and I got to locate my first well. The spot was drilled and now waters the whole farm. The one and only time that I have done this.
The divining rods are charged with static electricity from the dowser's own body. This static electricity can be seen quite adequately with a simple millivolt meter. This voltage is measured between the hands of the dowser, to measure this voltage accurately a diff amp should be used at the input to the voltmeter, "this eliminates stray signals which are common to both hands". The amount of voltage will vary depending on the person. A good dowser will have a high reading, "above 100 mv" while a poor dowser may read as low as,"0 mv.". For males the right hand is usually a negative polarity, and the left hand is positive in polarity. These polarities are usually reversed in females.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

TH'r (and Nitric), thanx for the posts.

TH'r, as regards to going and watching someone do it (ie.: "real time" as you say), for the proof I seek: Can't I study the "Betz report" (or any other report Art or Digger can suggest)? To see this level of viewing/testing being done already ?

Reading a report or test results is like looking at girls in a magazine, they are so much more real in person...[emoji12]

Reading about rockets or planes doesn't give you the real world experience of flying a plane or watching a rocket launch in person rather than on TV....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Once you learn that the rods will work for you the trip begins.....

Art, all the things you allude to in post #225, will be in the betz report ? If those dowsers, in that report, were successful, then the factors would-have-been at-play during those testings. Right ?

....Reading about rockets or planes doesn't give you the real world experience of flying a plane or watching a rocket launch in person rather than on TV....

Sure. To carry your example a bit further: You're saying that "reading about" rockets and planes in-no-way compares to actually FLYING in a rocket or plane. Right ? If so, I understand what you're saying. However, correct me if I'm wrong: But if I "read about people flying in rockets or planes", that would tell me that people CAN FLY in rockets and planes. Sure it may not be the same experience, but .... none-the-less, it would confirm to me that .... in fact, people can fly in those devices.

Same logic here: my notion is to first establish that it can be done (even if not currently by ME, yet done by others). And THEN I will go with step #2, which is to partake myself (and maybe find something good, eh ?)

So therefore: Any takers Art or digger, to my wager ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The problem with that in my opinion. That report could be sided. ... I can(did) read the report. and can pick it apart in two directions....

Precisely why the game-plan-terms are spelled out ahead of time. If it can be "picked apart" (as you say) by a skeptic, then we would have pre-arranged criteria. So that any ability to "pick it apart" (if in fact it can be), is spelled out ahead of time.

Each side agrees mutually , ahead of time, what constitutes "above reproach". If it passes that analysis, then I come on publically admitting as such. If it fails that analysis, then Art & Digger admit-as-such.

But be aware, if Art & Digger are the ones doing the "admitting" (that these tests/reports are not conclusive), then I will reserve the right to book-mark link that. So .... that in the future, if those links are offered as "proof" to someone, I will link readers to the afore-mentioned admission.

So, any takers ?

 

[aarthrj3811]

In my opinion no test is going to teach me anything. Myself and all the other Dowsers that come here know it works and has for 1000’s of years. Even Carl says he can dowse but doesn’t think it is useful.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Nitric if your using 2'bent coat hangers or wires they will pivot at the same time towards each other as you get close to lines. Hold them like 2 pistols very losely so they can pivot in your hands when they approach a line(s)..when your directly over the line the will point directly at each other like 2 magnets.

They work best at 90 degree intersection of line so once you locate line you may need to pivot until you get the best signal...

Best signal is when they pivot towards you as you pass over the line and pivot back forwards as you step backwards.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

There will never be proof either way.....It can't be proved or disproved.

Why not ? If someone says zebras can fly, or that coat-hanger can be used to find cables, gold, or water, why can't those notions be tested?

.... just worded and twisted into which ever side is better at wording or twisting? ....

Which is why the parties mutually agree ahead of time, as to what constitutes proof. So that after-ward, no one can claim the "twisting" that you speak.

.... test would have to be done under new controls, from both sides....

Why "new" ? If a certain test results/report was ALREADY put out there as proof, why can't that be looked at ? And remember even if it's found to be "lacking", that doesn't mean that OTHER tests might not exist, that over-come those hurdles and prove it.

....."prove or disprove god exists" or "prove there is a blackhole" in the center of the universe. No one can actually see or understand! It's just what or who we want to trust or believe. Who has the strongest influence on our beliefs. ....

Huh ? Comparing it to "God" and "ghosts" and such ? Sorry, but this is strictly scientific here (unless you are now shifting to the school of thought that attributes this to supernatural stuff??). Sure "God" can not be proven, because by definition, he's unseen, transcendent, etc... But in this case we're talking a claim akin to "zebras can fly". Ok, I say "show me a zebra flying" (or a report claiming to have witnessed it), so that we decide: "Can zebras fly or not ?" So I'm sorry but the comparison to God and ghosts just doesn't fit this concept/claim/action.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Myself and all the other Dowsers that come here know it works and has for 1000’s of years....

Art, again (for the 4th or 5th time?) : NO ONE IS QUESTIONING YOUR DOWSING ability. Why do you keep thinking that ? What is being questioned here are the reports you say offer proof of OTHER people's dowsing . Please: Read and re-read this: Your dowsing ability is NOT what's in question. I'm offering to look at the report(s) you say offer proof about it, to see if they are lacking, and could be attributable to other means.

So you game, or not ?

 

[aarthrj3811]

You have to keep using the rods until you know what they are telling you...And Tom. The skeptics have already told use what the reports tell them. You read it your way and feel like you proved some thing...Art

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Art, all the things you allude to in post #225, will be in the betz report ? If those dowsers, in that report, were successful, then the factors would-have-been at-play during those testings. Right ?



Sure. To carry your example a bit further: You're saying that "reading about" rockets and planes in-no-way compares to actually FLYING in a rocket or plane. Right ? If so, I understand what you're saying. However, correct me if I'm wrong: But if I "read about people flying in rockets or planes", that would tell me that people CAN FLY in rockets and planes. Sure it may not be the same experience, but .... none-the-less, it would confirm to me that .... in fact, people can fly in those devices.

Same logic here: my notion is to first establish that it can be done (even if not currently by ME, yet done by others). And THEN I will go with step #2, which is to partake myself (and maybe find something good, eh ?)

So therefore: Any takers Art or digger, to my wager ?

Tom, some people don't believe man has ever been to the moon nor that we have landed vehicles on Mars or asteroids.

Tom have you ever tried to douse cables yourself? If not why don't you try....?

 

[aarthrj3811]

When I was young Science told us that you could not hit a 90 mile per hour fast ball. Boy have they been proven wrong..Art

 

[Tom_in_CA]

. The skeptics have already told use what the reports tell them....

and the skeptics told us that the report shows dowsing worked. Right ? All-the-more-reason for you to agree to the wager. Y ? N ?

. ... You read it your way ...

No, we read it "our" way (since we'll mutually agree on the criteria), and see if it's conclusive as-to-the-point you're saying it makes. So do we have a deal, or no ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... it claims to have reviewed scientifically controlled tests; but gives no indication of what these tests were....

Thanx Nitric. That is exactly one of the criteria that I am going to apply, if/when Digger or Art agree to let their links be analyzed: What did the test involve? How was it safegaurded against subconscious clues, what precautions were taken ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom, some people don't believe man has ever been to the moon ....

Sure. Ok. So I'm trying to understand that point. Is that to put that dis-belief on the same par as those who would dis-believe dowsing ?

.... Tom have you ever tried to douse cables yourself? If not why don't you try....?

It wouldn't do any good for this discussion, that's why. You would just claim "I didn't try it long enough" "didn't have enough practice" or "don't have the gift". Hence my results would be summarily dismissed. Right ?

However, if you say my results WOULD be allowed to speak authoritativelly as to this question, then lets you and I make a friendly wager: I'll try it. If it doesn't work, you come on publically to say that dowsing doesn't work. Ok ? NOW OF COURSE you're not going to agree with that. So then let's be dreadfully honest then: The aspect of my trying it, or not, has utterly no impact on this discussion, right ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

When I was young Science told us that you could not hit a 90 mile per hour fast ball. Boy have they been proven wrong..Art

Yes, that's the oft-resorted-to "un-discovered science" line of reasoning. Man used to think that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. And that the earth was flat, etc.... But one day, science came along and disproved those notions. So too will someday, science come along and explain dowsing. Right ? Want to make sure I understand this correctly.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I'm sure you guys have seen this, but just incase....

Albert Einstein on Dowsing | Cary Weldy


I wish I could find all the letters on the topic though! Wonder what his thoughts on it were?

Come on Nitric, everyone knows Einstein was a charlatan and a hack fooling the rubes...

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Sure. Ok. So I'm trying to understand that point. Is that to put that dis-belief on the same par as those who would dis-believe dowsing ?



It wouldn't do any good for this discussion, that's why. You would just claim "I didn't try it long enough" "didn't have enough practice" or "don't have the gift". Hence my results would be summarily dismissed. Right ?

However, if you say my results WOULD be allowed to speak authoritativelly as to this question, then lets you and I make a friendly wager: I'll try it. If it doesn't work, you come on publically to say that dowsing doesn't work. Ok ? NOW OF COURSE you're not going to agree with that. So then let's be dreadfully honest then: The aspect of my trying it, or not, has utterly no impact on this discussion, right ?

I have shown people how to do it, some could and some couldn't, it didn't prove or disprove anything, not everyone can do it. It was a simple question, have you ever tried.? ....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... It was a simple question, have you ever tried.? ....

For purposes of this question ? No. Just as much as the lack of success wouldn't dis-prove dowsing to you (you would just dismiss the results), nor does the lack of me trying bolster the proponent's side of the equation either. It proves nothing either way, for me, or for you.

However, apparently, there HAS been skeptics who tried it, (or witnesses/tested the results of proponents), that IS being promoted here, on this thread, as evidence of the effectiveness of dowsing. Can we look at THOSE results ? You willing to go along with the gentleman's wager TH'r ? I've held it out for only Art and Digger so far (since they're the ones that posted the links). So now I'll extend that to you.

Agreed ?