How Come Dowsers are Millionaires?

[aarthrj3811]

Well Tom. You can see that we have done our home work. We know that Dowsing works because we all use it. If dowsing did not work how come it has been around for 8000 years? Please explain that? You have saw test after test and you still want more. Sorry Charlie.Make yourself a set of Rods. Find some of those overhead power lines that are on towers. Long before your under the lines your hair many start to stand up. When the rods start to close note the pull on the rods. Then come back and tell us it does not work.
..Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

You fail to see that the way your addressing this is accomplishing nothing for your case,.....

What "way of addressing" would offer proof to the merits of those reports then ?

....almost everything you say can be flipped around and pertain to each side of the debate.....

Not when the criteria is mutually agreed upon ahead of time by both parties.

... us performing tests and you being bias of our results....

They're tests that were already performed, past tense. And no bias of mine would enter into it, since the criteria would be mutually agreed upon ahead of time.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Well Tom. You can see that we have done our home work. We know that Dowsing works because we all use it....

Correct. And that's what those reports are going to show, right ? Successful dowsing that can be attributed to no other explanation, right ?

... If dowsing did not work how come it has been around for 8000 years? Please explain that? ...

Never said it didn't work. You and TH'r are ones that I've not doubted (and have in fact encouraged you to go claim the $1,000,000, because I am actually intrigued by the success of your stated results). So the thing I want settled though, is this: "can those apparently successful reports, have other explanations?"

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Here's an example of a "successful practice", yet with "another potential explanation". Please don't get "lost in the example". See it as only an example:

You've approached a traffic light that is red, so you stop. While waiting there for the light to turn green, you grow impatient. You wish the light would turn green faster. So you flash your head-lights on & off repeatedly. Then lo & behold, the light turned green! Thus you were "successful", right ? No one can dispute that a) the light had previously been red. b) the motorist flashed his headlights (or quaked like a duck, or whatever technique you choose), c) and the light changed to green! That chain of events is not in question. The question then is: Can the lights turning-to-green have another explanation ?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Never said it didn't work. You and TH'r are ones that I've not doubted (and have in fact encouraged you to go claim the $1,000,000, because I am actually intrigued by the success of your stated results). So the thing I want settled though, is this: "can those apparently successful reports, have other explanations?"

What part of our posts that you don’t understand. It would not be good for the people making the infomercials if a real Dowser was to be allowed to take the test?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Correct. And that's what those reports are going to show, right ? Successful dowsing that can be attributed to no other explanation, right ?



Never said it didn't work. You and TH'r are ones that I've not doubted (and have in fact encouraged you to go claim the $1,000,000, because I am actually intrigued by the success of your stated results). So the thing I want settled though, is this: "can those apparently successful reports, have other explanations?"

Why don't you go prove or disprove them to yourself, you don't need out help or permissions?.....We already know it works and we already know your going to mostly likely claim they are false so no need for anyone of us to be involved....

You refused to even attempt to douse even the cables in your own neighborhood and now refuse to research said reports yourself....... Running out of time too, only 25 mins left...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

What part of our posts that you don’t understand....

The part where you put forth a report said to contain the evidence of successful dowsers, and the part where ... when someone offers to scrutinize that report, you have no interest in seeing if they "hold water". Even when you are asked to even help set the criteria of standards. So a part of me wonders "gee, does he believe the report , or doesn't he ?"

... It would not be good for the people making the infomercials if a real Dowser was to be allowed to take the test?

I am totally open to the possibility that successful dowsers were not allowed to partake. Do you have any proof of this ? I suspect any name you can render, is going to be someone who was turned down for legitimate reasons . The reason being that the test he was "going to agree to take", was susceptible to other factors that could skew the outcome. Do you blame the testers for refusing such a "test" ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Yes! I'm police or emergency and the light has a sensor for the flashing lights! Either way, how ever it worked, caused the light to change. So, did I cause the light to change, my lights, the sensor. Where would the proof be?

Haha, you got me there. Yes: some people believe that by "flashing one's headlights", you can fool the sensor into thinking it's an emergency vehicle, hence causing the light to change faster. Ok, for sake of discussion then, let's substitute "quacking like a duck"

 

[Asmbandits]

What "way of addressing" would offer proof to the merits of those reports then ?

I havent looked at any of the posted reports nor do I need to, I have first hand experience with the matter which supersedes any report posted. For example, can I drive a car? YES, I can as I have so I know I can.. Did I need to read a report on if its possible or not, no I drove the car, the reports are now not necessary proof of if its possible.

Not when the criteria is mutually agreed upon ahead of time by both parties.

Its funny you say this, as we are all in agreement and you are not. We all agree that it works, we do not agree with having to agree to your views of what is needed to prove legitimacy. This is where the run around back and for of this debate lies, you fail to merit first hand experiences from every person that has responded which is bias at its best.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... and we already know your going to mostly likely claim they are false so no need for anyone of us to be involved.....

It won't be up to me to "claim" anything. The pre-requisites of what will be deemed a fair test, successes not-attributable to other means, will be pre-set by both parties.

.. You refused to even attempt to douse even the cables in your own neighborhood and now refuse to research said reports yourself........

The "attempt to dowse" had already been done. No need for me to repeat it. The reports ALREADY show successful dowsing. What more could you ask for TH'r ? And no, I don't "refuse to research" the reports. I am totally open to reading and analyzing them, provided there's tit-for-tat. That I know my time will be worth-while.

If I read them, and found a glitch of potential skewing of results, you KNOW FULL WELL that if I came on this thread and pointed out that short-coming, it would be dismissed. Right ? So by asking for agreement ahead of time that we both agree to be bound by an admission, that seemed only fair.

Remember:

a) this is a pro-dowsing result report

b) it was rendered by the pro-dowsing folks, not me, not any skeptics.

c) this is totally time on my end, not yours. Ie.; the burden of proof is on me, not you.

d) if the report does as you say, I publically announce that there is un-deniable proof that dowsing works.

e) if the report turns out to have a glitch of susceptible error, then you are not admitting "dowsing doesn't work". You are only admitting that THAT REPORT doesn't *necessarily* prove that it does. There could be other reports that DO show undeniable proof. So really then, sheesk, you can't lose either way. I'm taking the very unfair side of this bargain, if you ask me.

7 minutes left. Any takers Art or Digger ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I havent looked at any of the posted reports nor do I need to,....

Correct. Which is why the offer went out to only those who *did* post the links, as proof of dowsing.

... I have first hand experience with the matter which supersedes any report posted. ....

And, just like the others, I don't doubt the apparent results you cite.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

It won't be up to me to "claim" anything. The pre-requisites of what will be deemed a fair test, successes not-attributable to other means, will be pre-set by both parties.




The "attempt to dowse" had already been done. No need for me to repeat it. The reports ALREADY show successful dowsing. What more could you ask for TH'r ? And no, I don't "refuse to research" the reports. I am totally open to reading and analyzing them, provided there's tit-for-tat. That I know my time will be worth-while.

If I read them, and found a glitch of potential skewing of results, you KNOW FULL WELL that if I came on this thread and pointed out that short-coming, it would be dismissed. Right ? So by asking for agreement ahead of time that we both agree to be bound by an admission, that seemed only fair.

Remember:

a) this is a pro-dowsing result report

b) it was rendered by the pro-dowsing folks, not me, not any skeptics.

c) this is totally time on my end, not yours. Ie.; the burden of proof is on me, not you.

d) if the report does as you say, I publically announce that there is un-deniable proof that dowsing works.

e) if the report turns out to have a glitch of susceptible error, then you are not admitting "dowsing doesn't work". You are only admitting that THAT REPORT doesn't *necessarily* prove that it does. There could be other reports that DO show undeniable proof. So really then, sheesk, you can't lose either way. I'm taking the very unfair side of this bargain, if you ask me.

7 minutes left. Any takers Art or Digger ?

Its your time... You refuse to even attempt to douse the cables on your own property, yet want our help understanding and proving or disproving a report....

This game is old and your out of time....

 

[Asmbandits]

d) if the report does as you say, I publically announce that there is un-deniable proof that dowsing works.

Who cares what you announce or denounce, who are you to make this call? Everyone is telling you it works already, what gives you the merit to proclaim such a thing?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You guys have all been good sports. Thanx for letting me discuss dowsing with you. The fact that you would care to answer challenges, on it's own, speaks loudly to your integrity. We may disagree, but ... you have done a great job at the dowsers answers to challenges. Thanx and .... well .... it's 5pm now, so I guess there were no takers

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

It won't be up to me to "claim" anything. The pre-requisites of what will be deemed a fair test, successes not-attributable to other means, will be pre-set by both parties.




The "attempt to dowse" had already been done. No need for me to repeat it. The reports ALREADY show successful dowsing. What more could you ask for TH'r ? And no, I don't "refuse to research" the reports. I am totally open to reading and analyzing them, provided there's tit-for-tat. That I know my time will be worth-while.

If I read them, and found a glitch of potential skewing of results, you KNOW FULL WELL that if I came on this thread and pointed out that short-coming, it would be dismissed. Right ? So by asking for agreement ahead of time that we both agree to be bound by an admission, that seemed only fair.

Remember:

a) this is a pro-dowsing result report

b) it was rendered by the pro-dowsing folks, not me, not any skeptics.

c) this is totally time on my end, not yours. Ie.; the burden of proof is on me, not you.

d) if the report does as you say, I publically announce that there is un-deniable proof that dowsing works.

e) if the report turns out to have a glitch of susceptible error, then you are not admitting "dowsing doesn't work". You are only admitting that THAT REPORT doesn't *necessarily* prove that it does. There could be other reports that DO show undeniable proof. So really then, sheesk, you can't lose either way. I'm taking the very unfair side of this bargain, if you ask me.

7 minutes left. Any takers Art or Digger ?

Its your time... You refuse to even attempt to douse the cables on your own property, yet want our help understanding and proving or disproving a report....

This game is old and your out of time....

 

[Nitric]

Hey Nitric....I am using this thread to teach...I think the guy in the test you was following the rays that are omitted by objects. There are also rings omitted by objects. I have taught my sub conscious mind to only respond to signals that are in a north-south or east- west direction. That was the easiest way for me.
Taught Ideomotor Responce
Texas Department of Public Safety
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
•The Driver License Division is responsible for all aspects of driver ... Association) and In-Service programs offered by the Texas DPS Training Academy. ..... Techniques for Eliciting Information,” one hour of “Ideomotor Responses,” ...
[url]https://www.excelsior.edu/...[/URL]Training.../Texas%20Department%20of%20Public%20Safety.pdf - Similar
WordPress ? Error
Psycho-Semantics Institute
Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior Audiobook | Dr. David R. Hawkins | Audible.com
Intuitive Therapy Solutions - Ideo motor response
Some of these web sites may not be there but were when I saved them. As you can see there is lot to learn about Dowsing other than taking rods and yelling ya-hoo...Art

That's interesting!!! There are a few topics in there that I have already spent a lot of time reading and studying for other things. I don't remember terminology most times, just the ideas, or structures...

What's interesting to me, is those subjects link to everything else in everyday life, we just don't realize it. That's another area of interest to me...A lot of interest! I spent years watching and learning everything around me. Cool links!

 

[aarthrj3811]

The skeptics like to yell I saw your hands move because in 1852 they definition of Ideomotor response was involuntary subconscious response. After reading those you realize how much it is used...Art

 

[JrMack]

Lets all who dowse say we are gifted, the other people who don't try- or believe after trying- or seeing with their own eyes and still need proof aren't gifted! I do think though you have to be open to the possibility of the craft working for you! In my case I was tought by my grandfather as a kid and now that I'm 53 it still works all the time. No amount of studies or blind tests will sway what I know will work. If someone wants to find fact or fiction they can do as they please. This is America! most people who posted here on this thread have been honest, helpful, and shown integrity as to what they do and to be somewhat prickley about it because of some basis in fact is disturbing. A person can do it or not, but if you can-all the studies in the world wont mean a thing! JR

 

[aarthrj3811]

I think my gift has been T-net. I came here with a silly question about Electronic prospecting and got hooked...Art

 

[Red_desert]

I got some feedback tonight, just goes to show that map dowsing does work. The treasure hunter seemed to be almost speechless. Whole email went like this.

"May I express my gratitude for this forum?"

Another made more sense.

"Hello Randy,
I want to inform you that the place mentioned by you,were found ancient Roman mines.They are very complex closed and filled with water .
Currently there is impossible to work.I want to thank you for the help!
Best regards"

I'm only posting the dowsed GE map here, not the site photos. To show the target was specified here, my general definitions kept in a file. It was needed to have these specific color coded markings, otherwise would only be my word about what the dowsed signals were supposed to identified as, proof of results (if you want to call it that).

"White in general is a color indicator, I use for natural caves or man made tunnel entrances and mine shafts, other similar type excavations (including old wells, tombs, etc.).

Red line box (or solid filled circles) for very deep coins/treasure or artifacts of value."