How Come Dowsers are Millionaires?

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom I did get mixed up earlier.....You were looking to discredit one report? I thought you wanted people to admit or say it didn't work on a forum. That's why none of my post made sense to you. lol

yes. Wanting to look at any report (like the Betz report , for instance) that is currently being upheld by proponents, as proof of the effectiveness of dowsing. Not "dowsing in general", but .... just one report of the proponent's choosing.

Naturally though Nitric, you can see where this is going: If the top-most report that is said to bolster dowsing, fails to show that it *necessarily* points that way ...... then ..... well what does that tell you ?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[etex]

Tom have you tried rain making?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

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 ?

I have told you repeatedly I don't need to prove anything.....

I asked if you have tried dousing for yourself, not to prove or disprove it to anyone else. I find it funny you mock and laugh at something you have never even tried. It is like someone saying they don't like a certain food that they have never tasted, like people saying they don't like soy milk with out ever tasting it...

 

[Doubter in MD]

Unsubscribing from thread. Have fun.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I have told you repeatedly I don't need to prove anything........

Correct. And I have replied, repeatedly, that I'm not asking you to prove anything. Asking if the reports that are put out there "prove anything".

.... I asked if you have tried dousing for yourself, not to prove or disprove it to anyone else.....

that sounds like a "red herring". Since we both agreed that it will not prove, or dis-prove dowsing either way, then...... you're trying a red-herring on me. And to answer your question: No, I have not tried it. But since you'll now acknowledge it has no bearing on my ability to input into the discussion, we can put that matter to rest. Right ?

.... I find it funny you mock and laugh at something you have never even tried. It is like someone saying they don't like a certain food that they have never tasted, like people saying they don't like soy milk with out ever tasting it...

Have you heard of the term "taking the roof" off a point of debate ? Ok, I'm going to "take the roof" off the above statement: If "having tried something" is necessary to say whether it works (or tastes good, or whatever), then: Is my peanut-butter covered frisbee treasure finder "a legitimate treasure finding device", unless you have tried it ? I mean, isn't it within your rights to say "that's silly and won't work" , WITHOUT having to "try it" ? Or to eat eat rocks or try heroin, before being able to adequately say "it tastes bad" or "shouldn't be practiced", etc.... ?

Therefore, can we please stick to topic: Is Art, digger or TH'r willing to take me up on my wager ? Y or N ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I too am going to un-subscribe to thread, if I don't get a commitment soon. But rest assured though: I will point this out as a curious notation in future discussions of the subject. That not only do dowsers refuse to be tested, but they also refuse to let their data (ie.: other people's tests purporting to show it works) to be analyzed. Well, not that you'd stop me from "analyzing it", but that you won't acknowledge ahead of time, that if it can be shown to be lacking, that you'd admit as such.

So really then, to me, the "close-minded" one here is not me. I am the one offering to study it, and have it proven to him, letting the evidence speak for itself.

I tried Nitric

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And if the answer to that is "because dowsing doesn't work" , then the question really boils down to: "DOES dowsing work or not?". Hence I thought this was still the topic, in a round-about way.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I too am going to un-subscribe to thread, if I don't get a commitment soon. But rest assured though: I will point this out as a curious notation in future discussions of the subject. That not only do dowsers refuse to be tested, but they also refuse to let their data (ie.: other people's tests purporting to show it works) to be analyzed. Well, not that you'd stop me from "analyzing it", but that you won't acknowledge ahead of time, that if it can be shown to be lacking, that you'd admit as such.

So really then, to me, the "close-minded" one here is not me. I am the one offering to study it, and have it proven to him, letting the evidence speak for itself.

I tried Nitric

Point out what ever you want as long as it does not involve mocking, insulting or attacking other members...

Since I have been successfully dousing public utilities with 100% sucess since 1990 I am 100% sure it works..

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Maybe he's afraid dowsing is a gateway activity....and he'll l-i-k-e it....start meeting strangers in back alleys to purchase coat hangers.....

I have a lot of hangers, maybe I should bend them, paint them gold and sell them at $99.99 plus shipping...[emoji3]

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....
Since I have been successfully dousing public utilities with 100% sucess since 1990 I am 100% sure it works..

I don't doubt that. And if you (or anyone with such success) ever put out a study, link, video or report detailing such success, then any scrutiny to show they might have other explanations, is not invited.

 

[aarthrj3811]

No answers needed now. Hi Judy

 

[Asmbandits]

Have you heard of the term "taking the roof" off a point of debate ? Ok, I'm going to "take the roof" off the above statement: If "having tried something" is necessary to say whether it works (or tastes good, or whatever), then: Is my peanut-butter covered frisbee treasure finder "a legitimate treasure finding device", unless you have tried it ? I mean, isn't it within your rights to say "that's silly and won't work" , WITHOUT having to "try it" ? Or to eat eat rocks or try heroin, before being able to adequately say "it tastes bad" or "shouldn't be practiced", etc.... ?

Therefore, can we please stick to topic: Is Art, digger or TH'r willing to take me up on my wager ? Y or N ?

One of the first things you learn in science class is "The Scientific Method" which goes:


Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Also, just wanted to throw it out there, whose to say that peanut butter on a frisbee wouldn't amount to something if experimented with? Man was not born with absolute knowledge and does not hold it to this day. We do however have an understanding of what works based on trails and tribulations..

 

[aarthrj3811]

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Thank You..We have done all that

 

[Asmbandits]

Art, not sure if im reading your response wrong or if you read mine wrong. Ive been in agreement with the majority the whole time, I was pointing out to Tom that his statement conflicts with the scientific method, not about anything you as a dowser have or have not done.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

"Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment"

Correct. The experiments have already been done. Now let's test the experiment protocol & methods . To see whether it WAS an adequate experiment that truly points to the conclusion

Any takers ?

 

[JrMack]

Hi yall! I posted on here on the first page and want to say thank you for the people who gave advice. wow it took a lot of reading to get to the end! Finally got here and did some learning along the way. I am a "water witcher" who uses a willow to dowse and everyone talks about rods here. Ha Ha= don't know about the science but like my grandfather told me our blood is mostly water and that's why we are attracted to water by dowsing. I believe that! but there is also something about the kinds of material we dowsers use for attracting different things. in my case willow works the best because it needs lots of water to grow. thus it makes sense that using a material attached to a rod similar to what you are looking for would heighten the response to it. I will be trying a few things this spring and get back with conclusions. never knew a millionaire dowser or even herd of one yet, ya don't get rich dowsing water, I usually do it for free! thanks JR.

 

[10claw]

"If you wish to understand the Universe, think of energy, frequency, and vibration." - Nikola Tesla



I don't want to understand the universe, I'll just start with trying to understand dowsing for now!

Hey Nitric, Glad you posted what Nicola Tesla said-- NOW-- if Tom in Ca. would just take that information and use it for a few weeks he could have an answer for all his questions w/out trying to start a war. I can't see exactly what he wants out of all this.
LOOKS to me like it is too simple-- either believe it and use it or disbelieve and go plat marbles.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey 10claw. All these test were done years ago. All the skeptics replies have been put on here many times. In the Betz report there are too many words ending in ers because they think there was only one guy doing the dowsing

 

[Tom_in_CA]

"If you wish to understand the Universe, think of energy, frequency, and vibration." - Nikola Tesla .....

Hey Nitric, Glad you posted what Nicola Tesla said-- NOW-- if Tom in Ca. would just take that information and use it....

Nitric, I love your posts. Seems like you're open to each side's points, persuasion, etc.... To comment on this post's pithy saying: This is what's known as "blinded by science". It's not purposeful, mind you (so I'm not singling you out, or attacking, etc...). But here's how "blinded by science" works: When you put forth enough high-sounding $20 words, and ... on top of that, ... attribute the saying to a genius (Tesla), then the hearer is bound to think "gee, he must know what he's talking about". Sort of the same thing as late night TV info-mercials pitching the latest diet pill: They put enough doctor jargon in there, that .... "well gee, it must be legit".

So for example, in this case, while it sounds so genius, yet nothing in that saying goes on to explain how "frequencies" and "vibrations" have anything to do with dowsing.

For that matter, I could attribute the same saying to bolster my frisbee treasure finder as well. Which would do nothing more than leave the skeptics scratching their heads saying: "how does that support the notion that his frisbee can find treasure?" It can't. But on the other hand, it appears to put the listener on the rabbit-chase of having to disprove such a pithy saying's connection to the notion. Which is what "blinded by science" is.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I noticed in some of the reports they take an average too. Some guys do really well! 80 to 90% then others don't do so well. SO, to take them in an average isn't fair either.....

I agree. If one person (any of the test subjects) could do better than average on a double-blind test, then HIS TALLIES ALONE should be counted. I would not "average" it with the dowser flops, because, perhaps, maybe those other individuals don't have the "gift".

So as you can see, I'm being more than fair. Any takers yet at my offer to study a given report ?