How Come Dowsers are Millionaires?

[aarthrj3811]

Dowsing is used by many people and for many things. Treasure hunting is just a small part of the hobby.
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/dowsing/10838-want-try-dowsing.html

 

[aarthrj3811]

I am happy that so many people are viewing our board. Many have Dowsed before. Many have used them for locating water, sewer and electrical lines. No big deal, Just a way to find stuff that never fell out of someone pocket..Art

 

[lesjcbs]

Not to knock anything about dowsing...? But it would be nice to see any finds from dowsing!!...

OK Jr Mack. Here you are. Here are some pictures of some metallic items I found while dowsing today on the beach of Lake Powell Arizona. I posted other pictures like these several years ago.

First of all, it must be understood that just because one knows how to dowse, that does not mean one has to find Gold or precious things only all the time to prove it works. If dowsing does not work, then I should not have even found these things while dowsing, but the fact is, I did.

When I dowse, I use all available tools at my disposal. Relaxed and with my rods in hand and in front of me, I walk a comfortable pace forward. A couple of pictures here shows my rods. When they cross, that is ground zero. I then bring out my metal detector and scan the area around ground zero in a circle the diameter of how far I can reach without moving off of ground zero. Any hit in that area is a dowsing find. In other words, I use my dowsing rods to get me into the immediate area of an unknown target, then pin-point it's exact location with my metal detector. Most targets are directly under my rods cross (Ground zero).

It must also be understood and accepted by anyone looking for treasure, that to find treasure, or for that matter, anything, one must go where it is at. Just because one has dowsing tools in their hand does not mean an automatic find.

There are many theories as to how dowsing works, and everyone has their own idea and method. I suggest you read the posts here by dowsers who have been at it for years. Their inputs will prove to be very valuable to you and will put you way ahead of the game. Take the ideas that makes the most sense to you and apply them to your dowsing.

No one in their right mind is going to broadcast wide, far, and loudly that they found millions of dollars worth of some buried treasure somewhere while dowsing or doing what ever. To do so is to invite trouble from all kinds of sources. It's just part of the territory is all.

 

[kingskid1611]

I am wanting to try this so I will play around with it and let you know how it works for me. I am fascinated by this concept.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

How Come Dowsers ARENT Millionaires?



First off, Im not knocking anyone that does this.

But I gotta wonder how successful dowsing really is?

I see Posts all the time talking about "Gold right here buried in a box"...Really??

Are there any posts that actually can back up these Claims? I would think if it were that practical or useful, people doing this would have a fortune the first few times they go out.

Where are the Success Stories for all these Claims?

I confess to not-having-read all the replies thus far, but will chime in with what I anticipate to being one of the come-back-line answers that dowsers could give:

"Why aren't there md'rs making themselves millionaires by md'ing?"

Does the fact that md'rs rarely ever "become millionaires" (or for that matter, few will ever even find their first gold coin): Mean that metal detectors therefore are a scam that doesn't work ?

Sorry. Just had to be the devil's advocate here

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Anyone can find metal objects by dowsing. It's easy. Here's how:

a) You do your research at likely spots poised to have potential for goodies. Ie.: ruins of old homes. Or where you have a lead that "so & so was supposed to have buried a jar somewhere in this area", or an old picnic site, etc... etc.... So far so good, right ? Afterall, that's what md'rs do too afterall, is research likely areas to ply their luck, right ?

b) Next you go to the location, and whip out your rods. Swing them around to point at various likely looking spots in the terrain in question.

c) Pull out the detector to "pinpoint" (yeah, that's the ticket). And I gaurantee you: It will beep on metal that is likely to be there.

Do you see the silly-ness of this? It fails to take into account that there is bound to be metal ANYWHERE that man-kind has dilly-dallied around at for long enough. Heck, maybe even a goodie! But alas, this will never convince the faithful

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hi Nitric. I'm sure you would be the first to agree, that the rods are very hard to hold steady. Right? Ie.: they will tilt and swing at the slightest movement of the wrist, right ? So the answer to your question is that it's merely subconscious tilting. Ie.: the ideomotor effect. Plain and simple. And I suppose that subconsciously the user is tending to point them at "likely looking spots". Ie.: the most likely places someone would likely hide or loose a goodie.

Example: I know a guy who is SO proficient at nuggets (been at it for 35 yrs.) that he can look at any given landscape in the gold rush country of CA. And he can pick the most likely spots that nuggets are bound to have settled. And he walks to *just* that spot, to either pan, sluice, detect, or whatever. So too do I, as a coin/relic hunter of nearly 40 yrs, I too can walk to any given landscape where my research has shown that "there used to be a picnic spot somewhere in this valley", or "emigrants were known to have camped here at the cross-roads/river crossing", etc... And just based on my 6th sense of experience, I can walk to the "most likely spots". Notice that no rods are needed. The rods are doing absolutely nothing. There is nothing "pulling" them anywhere. It's just the ideomotor effect of where you are most inclined to put-your-bets.

 

[Slingshot]

Dowsing was used by the US Marines during the siege of Khesanh in 1969 to locate tunnels beneath our defensive positions. I understand the British Navy used dowsers to locate submerged German submarines and Wolfpacks in WWII. I have used it to successfully locate underground pipes with L rods. There is more to it than meets the eye, and it's more than just chance.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And don't forget: There's also the pyschological effect of "selective memory" and "memory bias". That's where each time you head out to dowse, you're subconsciously thinking "the rods point here" or "the rods point there", "I bet there's a goodie here!" right?

And when you don't end up finding anything, you will say to yourself "ya know, come to think of , it wasn't a clear signal, or durned those sun spots anyways" etc... Right ? But lo & behold when you finally DO find a goodie, only THEN to you remember your premonitions and think: "Aha! I *knew* it!" And you promptly forget the 10 dry holes where you found nothing.

 

[MD'erStEvO]

10claw,

Valid point...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Dowsing was used by the US Marines during the siege of Khesanh in 1969 to locate tunnels beneath our defensive positions. I understand the British Navy used dowsers to locate submerged German submarines and Wolfpacks in WWII.....

And why not add to the "success stories of dowsing" the various solved crimes (missing abducted children, etc...) ? All such stuff has been debunked many times. For starters, the vietnam/enemy tunnels success claims are just claims. Do you have an links or actual citations? Or are you too merely "parrotting something you heard" ? And to the extent you have an actual story to cite, there are equal amounts of stories that chalk it up to random chance, subconscious land-scape clues, and failures for it to work in the first place.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... You can actually hold them in your fingers and feel them pull!...

Yup, gravity is a powerful thing!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Have you actually tried it? ....

Nitric, just curious: Is the criteria of "having tried it" essential for the ability to have room-to-comment on it ? Or put another way, if it became known that a "critic has never personally tried it", would that in any way cause his input to be false? Lacking merit ? etc....

If your answer is that I *do* need to try it first, before having an ability to critique it, then how about this: I am going to suggest this treasure hunting device: Smear peanut butter and birdseed on a frisbee. Toss the frisbee. Wherever it lands (repeat as necessary) is treasure! To which you would probably say "that silly nonsense", right ? To which I merely reply "have you tried it?"

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Nitric, glad you saw the logical point of my challenge. You're saying that "trying it" is essential for someone's ability to "critique something". And to be consistent with your claim, you are acknowledging that you can not dispute or dismiss my "peanut butter frisbee" idea, till you personally try it.

I find this odd. The average person would have said that a "peanut butter covered frisbee" was/is utter nonsense. Hmmm...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... and you don't have to admit it, if you have tried or do try locating pipes in your yard! it will be a secret! With coat hangers or metal rods. ...

Ok, agreed. And it will be a "secret" if you haven't tried my peanut butter covered frisbee treasure locator device either. Afterall, we wouldn't want someone to consider you "close-minded"

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee...After 20 years that you skeptics have been bring this one...I have one question for you..How come no Dowser has been allowed to take the million dollar challenge??

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Nitric, oh-but-I-wish it were this simple. On the surface, since no one has ever claimed this $1,000,000 prize to demonstrate dowsing ability (and/or psychic or supernatural ability), then .......... You would THINK that would be an end of the matter. Right ? That would *seem* to answer the question that if no one can demonstrate this in a double-blind scientific test, then obviously, the skill or trick or whatever DOESN'T WORK. Right ?

Because based on the # of people who ROUTINELY claim that they can do it with great accuracy, all-the-time, then why oh why doesn't someone just take the challenge, and merely go submit to the test ?

Oh but I wish it were this simple to draw that conclusion. Doh! But the dowsing proponents already have all their rehearsed lines, a to why no one's ever taken the challenge , and passed the test. I've had long conversations with the faithful (because I was truly curious as to why this doesn't settle the matter once-for-all). If you me to list their great reasons as to why this is not-conclusive, let me know. I'll be happy to type them out.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... How come no Dowser has been allowed to take the million dollar challenge??

Haha, there you go Nitric. No sooner could I hit the "reply" button, when ... sure enough ...... someone beat me to the draw in one of the pet comeback lines. It was predictable. Yup, that's one of the ones on the "ticket" list, that .... I'll be durned, no one's "been allowed" to participate in this test, TO BEGIN WITH. Durned that Randi anyways, eh ?

Art, can I come to your defense and list the rest of the great reasons why it's never been passed? I think I know the defense lines better than dowsers afterall!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I'm curious to why someone hasn't claimed it.

Well there's several good attempts by the dowsers as to why no one's claimed this prize money.

1) Art has listed the first oft-cited one: That no dowsers HAVE BEEN ALLOWED to partake in the test. Here's what he's getting at:

2) That the Randi organization has set up certain criteria for what the test involves. Ie.: standards to make sure it's double blind, not susceptible to subliminal clues, etc... So therefore, if a dowser comes to the organization and says that the test should involve finding the dowsers OWN pipes (the ones he's found in his front yard, or whatever) as the "proof", then the Randi org. might reject that as not "blind". Hence the dowser then does as Art has done: Claimed that the Randi people have "dis-allowed" dowsers from demonstrating their skill. When in fact it's not that at all. It's a dispute on the PARAMETERS OF THE TEST. Hence the test "doesn't occur", Hence leading Art and his type to claim that they will not test dowsers. Amazing isn't it ?

3) The rules of the test state that the test terms must be "mutually agreed upon". That's straight-forward enough, right ? Because obviously, if the skeptics proposed to give an impossible-to-do-test, then of course the dowsers can reject that as "unfair" or whatever. Right ? Likewise if the dowsers suggest a test that the Randi people forsee as being manipulated, or not truly "double blind", then THEY TOO can reject such a test. So in other words, this is so BOTH SIDE can be certain that they've agreed ahead of time as to what the test will be . It's to protect BOTH sides, so that neither side can say later "the test wasn't fair", blah blah blah. It's not at all a "one-sided" decision of what constitutes the test. It has to be MUTUALLY AGREED UPON.

4) And art is just plain wrong that no one's been allowed to try and be tested. There's been tests and failures by dowsers. One in fact is even on Youtube. It's quite comical in that it shows their success to be no better than random chance. But I'll beat the dowser to the punch and give you their rehearsed lines:

5) The tests (that get failed, or that the dowsers refuse to partake of) are "rigged". I mean, doh, Randi is a professional magician afterall. Hence it's only obvious that he's using his "slight of hand" to somehow manipulate the results. Right? The amazing thing about this accusation is that it requires absolutely no proof! You merely claim it was rigged, and presto, it must be true. I have tried and tried and tried to ask the dowsers to please suggest a possible way that Randi rigged it. Eg.: magnets? Strings ? I don't get it. I'm totally open to suggestions as to how it's manipulated. But as of yet, no one's ever been able to suggest HOW this "rigging" is done.

I'll post some more classic come-back lines later. They're great, I gotta admit.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I did notice, if I read it right the pipes were smaller than what I've ever seen any one dowse. Usually with what I've seen it was 4inch or bigger. They used 3cm in the test.

Then if this is true, then the dowsers had EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK UP at the beginning of the test, to say: "the pipe must be 4" or bigger". If someone here can provide proof that a) the dowsers did make this request, and b) the Randi people said "no, the pipes have to be 3" ", then I would LOVE TO SEE THE PROOF.