How Come Dowsers are Millionaires?

[Doubter in MD]

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.

The pipes were 3 CM which is 1.18", not that it should matter.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Doubter in MD]

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.

But again if both sides agreed to it, then I'm not sure what to think about it. I only know what I read on wiki so far. I'm not familiar with any of the other tests or details. I've been trying to find articles that were from both sides.

If you're finding 4" pipes on your property by dowsing then they are more than likely waste/drain pipes. Of course they only have water flowing through them if someone is flushing/washing hands/showering. Supply lines to a typical home are 1 1/4" or less.

I'm not here to argue about dowsing. I'm just making observations.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... Also just read since 2007 the rules changed on the challenge. Not just anyone can try it. Which doesn't make much sense to me. Why the restrictions?

Nitric, do you have a link to this "rule" ? If there is a "restriction", then who is "restricted" ? Perhaps there is a legitimate reason. I'll wait to reserve comment till I see the actual stipulation .

In the meantime, I have a *possible* explanation: If you've ever watched any academic level theological debates, the theologins/apologists who agree to participate is such good-natured organized events, have sometimes made a requirement that they will "only debate a top level representative" of a viewpoint in question. And so they reject the notion that they should "run all over the country answering and debating every arm-chair quarterback". And the reason is quite simple and logical: Because if someone who is NOT a qualified expert on the topic (Let's say dowsing in this case), is to try the challenge, and falls flat on their face, then guess what all the rest of the dowsers will immediately do ? They'll simply say that "that dowser was un-qualifed, and hence does not represent dowsing ability".

So it ONLY MAKES SENSE that the skeptics want a bonafide qualified respected acknowledged "expert" and "representative" to take the challenge. Otherwise the Randi people would find themselves forever being bogged down spending all their time with tons of individual red-necks from all over the country. And it wouldn't do any good when the results are summarily rejected by the rest of the community as "not being qualified/skilled candidates".

 

[Doubter in MD]

Nitric, do you have a link to this "rule" ? If there is a "restriction", then who is "restricted" ? Perhaps there is a legitimate reason. I'll wait to reserve comment till I see the actual stipulation .

In the meantime, I have a *possible* explanation: If you've ever watched any academic level theological debates, the theologins/apologists who agree to participate is such good-natured organized events, have sometimes made a requirement that they will "only debate a top level representative" of a viewpoint in question. And so they reject the notion that they should "run all over the country answering and debating every arm-chair quarterback". And the reason is quite simple and logical: Because if someone who is NOT a qualified expert on the topic (Let's say dowsing in this case), is to try the challenge, and falls flat on their face, then guess what all the rest of the dowsers will immediately do ? They'll simply say that "that dowser was un-qualifed, and hence does not represent dowsing ability".

So it ONLY MAKES SENSE that the skeptics want a bonafide qualified respected acknowledged "expert" and "representative" to take the challenge. Otherwise the Randi people would find themselves forever being bogged down spending all their time with tons of individual red-necks from all over the country. And it wouldn't do any good when the results are summarily rejected by the rest of the community as "not being qualified/skilled candidates".

And testing people costs money. So testing any Tom, Dick, or Mary that comes along would not make sense.

Also, from Wikipedia,

On March 8, 2011, the JREF announced that qualifications were being altered to open the Challenge to more applicants. Whereas applicants were previously required to submit press clippings and a letter from an academic institution to qualify, the new rules now require applicants to present either press clippings, a letter from an academic institution, or a public video demonstrating their ability. The JREF explained that these new rules would give people without media or academic documentation a way to be considered for testing, and would allow the JREF to use online video and social media to reach a wider audience.[7]

Not necessarily the best source, but it seems they made it a bit easier to qualify in 2011.

Again, not, judging dowsing. Just adding information as I find it.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Believe what you want. If no one has been qualified in 20 years then it is all a scam..Art

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And testing people costs money. So testing any Tom, Dick, or Mary that comes along would not make sense.

Also, from Wikipedia,

On March 8, 2011, the JREF announced that qualifications were being altered to open the Challenge to more applicants. Whereas applicants were previously required to submit press clippings and a letter from an academic institution to qualify, the new rules now require applicants to present either press clippings, a letter from an academic institution, or a public video demonstrating their ability. The JREF explained that these new rules would give people without media or academic documentation a way to be considered for testing, and would allow the JREF to use online video and social media to reach a wider audience.[7]

Not necessarily the best source, but it seems they made it a bit easier to qualify in 2011.

Again, not, judging dowsing. Just adding information as I find it.

Doubter: thanx for taking the time to chime in. This is confirming what I suspected: That there simply HAS to be some note-worthy "representative" qualifications on the part of those who want to try. Otherwise, as your post confirms: Otherwise they'd spend all their time and effort setting up tests for persons who could simply .... later on .... be dismissed by other dowsers as being "un-qualified".

But sure as heck: This becomes the "red-herring" for the dowsers who fail to be allowed to be tested. They now say "aha! He won't test me or my cousin Billy-Bob to allow us to claim the prize! Therefore it's unfair, and a conspiracy to forbid those who-might-otherwise claim the $$!"

 

[Doubter in MD]

Believe what you want. If no one has been qualified in 20 years then it is all a scam..Art

I think a better observation, based on what I've read, is that no one who was deemed qualified has accepted the double blind scientific challenge.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Believe what you want. If no one has been qualified in 20 years then it is all a scam..Art

Art, You're saying here that no one has qualified, in 20 yrs, to be tested, right ? How about before 20 yrs. ago ? Weren't people tested then by this Randi organization ? You can find on Youtube where reknowned dowsers, were in fact tested by Randi. It's there to see on youtube!

So you're saying that no dowsers since then have been tested ? Perhaps so. Can you please give us any information about the occurrences where someone did in fact TRY to get tested please? Because most certainly you know of individuals who applied to be tested. Right ? Please do tell .

I'm very curious to know of these individuals, and the circumstances regarding their either a) being rejected from being tested or b) withdrawing and declining themselves from the test.

Please do tell. I'm all ears.

 

[Doubter in MD]

I'm out. I don't belong here and I'm getting dangerously close to crossing my own line regarding the topic. Have fun dowsing. It's your hobby. You should be allowed to discuss and enjoy it. Goodnight.

 

[Red_desert]

I'm going to chime in here......thanks everyone! Since this thread was started, an old time shipwreck treasure hunter has contacted me, we exchanged a lot of emails. He and his partner over the years, dove on more than 100 shipwrecks. Like Mel Fisher eventually did, they believe in all methods of treasure hunting.

It also to me was so, very interesting to hear about all the gold finds. Once they began to try dowsing, gold finds were common and the process obviously is very awkward (holding the rods level while over the dive hatch). To dowse Au hits, it started near shore then going out, away from a known shipwreck. I've now looked over a few of these dowsed charts, lines with arrows fanning out from shore.

On one stretch of a wreck alone, they picked up nearly 50 gold coins from a gold rush era site, all in nearly or maybe all were in perfect uncirculated condition. The miners would have raw gold minted into gold coins, very common back then. Sometimes a gold hit turned out to be only a 14K gold scribe pen, another time a gold/emerald ring.

Anyway, these guys are funded (I believe) by the gold finds rather than investor money. Shipwreck salvage is so expensive, either you get investor money poured in or you make enough good Au dowsing finds, otherwise your treasure hunting business is going to sink. Soon one of these gold finds (being held) will have to be sold, to pay for a new boat motor. Being funded by gold finds, you have no big investor payout to soak up the money.

So, how did they learn? Answer is from another old time shipwreck treasure hunter no longer around (has long since passed away). No, gold finds won't make you a billionaire, even in shipwreck salvage.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

Red-desert: Yours is not an un-common story. "Testimony" given as evidence to the effectiveness of dowsing. Ie.: Hard to argue with the picture of a guy posing next to a jar of gold coins, that he claims were found with a dowsing rod. Right ? What further evidence can a person ask for ?, eh?

But it fails to account for the fact that there can be other reasons for your friends success. I mean, doh, they researched where a wreck site was to begin with , right ? So how do you know that they weren't simply picking up on subconscious clues? And selective memory to dismiss and forget all the places they dove (where their rods pointed) and found nothing ? (durned those sun-spots anyhow, eh ?).

Let me give you an example: If I researched that a treasure was said-to-be-hidden in a certain historic cabin ruin in the forest. Eg.: a great great grandson, now in his 90's, tells me on his deathbed that his great great grandfather buried the familyfortune, but that the kids never found it. Well that's a slam dunk, right ? So I hike out into the mountains, and find the ruins of the cabin. I take out my wand and wave it around. Then I pull out my detector to "pinpoint" ..... and let's say I find a treasure! Then I whip out my camera and take a pix of me posed next to my jar of gold coins, attributing it to the dowsing rod. Don't you see the fallacies of this ? How is it any different than your friend's researched wreck site then ?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Red-desert: Yours is not an un-common story. "Testimony" given as evidence to the effectiveness of dowsing. Ie.: Hard to argue with the picture of a guy posing next to a jar of gold coins, that he claims were found with a dowsing rod. Right ? What further evidence can a person ask for ?, eh?

But it fails to account for the fact that there can be other reasons for your friends success. I mean, doh, they researched where a wreck site was to begin with , right ? So how do you know that they weren't simply picking up on subconscious clues? And selective memory to dismiss and forget all the places they dove (where their rods pointed) and found nothing ? (durned those sun-spots anyhow, eh ?).

Sorry that you have a very low opinion of treasure hunters and their finds. We have heard all the excuses made by skeptics about how we don’t find treasures. If you watch Randi’s films they are not of any double blind test. They are just his way of making money. So according to you we should not believe any of today’s finds...Art

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I'm only half skeptic. I do believe In pipe dowsing with metal rods, Because so far that's the only thing I have experience with and have seen it done so many times. I haven't personally witnessed any other types of dowsing. Since I found that article, I'm curious to why someone hasn't claimed it.

Now, I'm really getting curious on the subject. Either to prove or disprove.

I am going to play around with the bent coat hangers again this weekend and try to look at it from both sides and see if there is a way to come up with some sort of test. to see how accurate it actually is. Years ago it seemed very accurate to me.

Nitric, I have doused hundreds and hundreds of telecom cables, electrical cables and water lines, have known how to do so for over 25 years.... Your ever in Florida let me know....

 

[Red_desert]

So many posted maps on the forum here, they don't know how to dowse and the metal detector is a recovery tool. Of course, a person without dowsing rods or anything map dowsed, can go out and do the same thing.....perhaps they did research, at the same time were having a good day with treasure hunting success.

I haven't used a metal detector myself for at least 2-3 years, only dowsing rods, but most of the time only on the 3 acre lot here where I live. After moving here, I checked around the property metal detecting and metallic targets are far and few between. Even with coat hanger rods (which aren't the best) checking out signals, I've found things which a metal detector can miss.

Last summer for example, I dowsed a stalagmite a find so rare in my area, it probably was left by a Native American or early settler. There are no natural caves in the area within a 2 hour drive by car. I've dowsed a number of Indian flint scrapers and a gun flint also. These all are non-metallic targets with no metal detector involved. The dowsed large stalamite piece seems to match a smaller piece found after moving to the property.

 

[Red_desert]

A few nice flint finds made, a scraper, a very sharp serated flint knife, gun flint, hoe, etc.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Sorry that you have a very low opinion of treasure hunters and their finds...

On the contrary: A very high opinion of treasure hunters and their finds.

..... We have heard all the excuses made by skeptics about how we don’t find treasures.....

I don't doubt you "find treasures". That's not the issue. The issue is the operative factors that allowed/caused you to "find the treasures".

..... They are just his way of making money....

So let me see if I understand you correctly: If someone makes money at a given skill or expertise, then their conclusions are automatically suspect. Just want to make sure I understand this correctly. So for example, since Bill Gates is rich, then his company's products are no good?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... If you watch Randi’s films they are not of any double blind test. ....

There it is again. The claim that the test is unfair, rigged, manipulated, not double-blind, etc... And I will repeat again: If this is so, please tell us forumites how this is so ? What is not "double blind" in his procedure ? What's not fair ? For purposes of this question, take your pick of either of these 2 videos. We would all like to know what was wrong in the procedure, or how it was rigged, or whatever:

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Nitric, I have doused hundreds and hundreds of telecom cables, electrical cables and water lines, have known how to do so for over 25 years.... .

You can really do that for unknown lines ? How about I grub-stake you then TH'r. I'll pay all your costs to take off work, your airline ticket and hotel stays, etc.... if you will go to get your ability tested. Once you earn the $1,000,000, we split it. Utterly no risk to you Agreed ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Red_desert, I'm looking at the picture of the items you found by dowsing. Are you aware that people find such items all-the-time, by simply eyeballing?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

You can really do that for unknown lines ? How about I grub-stake you then TH'r. I'll pay all your costs to take off work, your airline ticket and hotel stays, etc.... if you will go to get your ability tested. Once you earn the $1,000,000, we split it. Utterly no risk to you Agreed ?

Tom, I was talking to Nitric... I don't need my ability tested, it works just fine...