How Come Dowsers are Millionaires?

[Treasure_Hunter]

Be sure our rules are followed, last time I deleted thread because OP was mocking members, next time it happens it will be a timeout...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Red_desert]

I don't watch any of his films, programs, videos, etc. I watched one TV episode of his back when he offered only $25,000. Dowsing, other things called supernatural were mentioned. I heard the part where he explained away someone finding lost objects at home using dowsing rods. After that, I never watched another of his shows, I since refused to watch any of the YouTube either. Going to a dowsing denier for money, to me it makes as much sense as the Pope going to Antichrist for help.

Anyway, I can't remember me saying anywhere on this forum that dowsing getting compensated is wrong. If I helped someone frame in their new home, wouldn't feel guilty for being compensated for time.

 

[Red_desert]

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?

Yes, but this is not open farm field anymore, there is lawn, trees, and garden.....these were found later after everything was well established, direct dowsing hits. I do have a few things found eye balling when raking out the garden and yard area.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I heard the part where he explained away someone finding lost objects at home using dowsing rods. After that, I never watched another of his shows,.....

Red-desert: I am curious what the short-coming was, in the his "explaining away" of that dowsing results. What was "lacking" in his explanation ?

Because if he gave a lame explanation that had no merit, I would totally agree with you. So please-do-tell how his alternative explanation for the results lacked merit. I'm being totally sincere here: It's possible that a legitimate un-deniable demonstration was-in-fact-done for Randi, that he "explained away" in a non-meritorious way. So please do tell. Thanx.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Red..I also owned a Metal Detector at one time. I found that it was almost useless for finding gold. They think that it is odd that someone would use one after finding the gold with Dowsing Rod. After following a signal for miles what are the odds that they would have found it without the rods? My thinking is that I will use any and all methods to find gold. Whatever works for you. ...Art

 

[Nitric]

Whatever works is a good thing! Whether it's found with a metal detector, dowsing, observation of the land and surroundings, or just walking around kicking dirt with your shoe! It's all good!

I just want to find stuff!

 

[aarthrj3811]

I was up checking on a creek one winter. There was a few inches of snow on the ground. My dog was running around. Right in his tracks was a gold nugget. Yes I picked it up and took it home. This is what I made with this nugget...

 

[etex]

Was it a golden retriever?

 

[aarthrj3811]

No..He was a big black dog that I adopted

 

[Digger]

You can only lead a horse to water. I posted a link to the tests done by the Journal Scientific Explorations that tested and provided proof dowsing was real but they chose to ONLY believe the ones that deny it because that fits their needs. It is a lost cause.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Thanks Digger. There are pages of Scientific proof on this board. I guess that they are too lazy to read them or will not read anything that does not match their believes...Art

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Art & Digger, I would very much like to see this scientific proof from: "Journal Scientific Explorations". Do you have a link(s) please ?

And can we make a friendly gentleman's wager ahead of time: If I am able to show you a flaw or shortcoming in the test, that shows the results could be attributed to some other factor, will you agree ahead of time to acknowledge-as-such ?

 

[Red_desert]

Hey Red..I also owned a Metal Detector at one time. I found that it was almost useless for finding gold. They think that it is odd that someone would use one after finding the gold with Dowsing Rod. After following a signal for miles what are the odds that they would have found it without the rods? My thinking is that I will use any and all methods to find gold. Whatever works for you. ...Art

Well, yes I agree dowsing is better for gold prospecting. I've also found that in a busy public place, metel detectors are a good choice. Every time a nice looking lady wearing plenty of gold jewelry, sneaks up behind me, the rods always spin around every time. As I turn around to follow the rods, there she is and my dowsing rods were dead center on target. I laugh about it now, but seriously can be a real problem.

I did leave the metal detector at home, my last trip to Arkansas. That happened a couple times at the Crater of Diamonds State Park, they were only about 20-30 feet behind me. There was one lady, you could tell she was really noticing how both rods swiveled around before turning my head to follow them. Her eyes got wide (as they say) like saucers.

 

[Digger]

You are quite aware of it Tom, it's the same link from the other discussions people are ignoring, but for the rest here it is. http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_2_betz.pdf

Some of the more conclusive results for those who don't want to read it all.

Results of the Swedish Study Altogether, the results obtained from the dowsing experiments are comparable with the Munich tests carried out in the open field. The majority of the test persons produced dowsing reactions along the entire course (i.e. not justat the places where they actually crossed the channels), but about a third ofthe dowsers had reliable and statistically significant reactions. A total analysis of this data led the authors to the conclusion that dowsers are able to sense karst water channels with such a high accuracy that the hypothesis based onpure chance success could not be maintained.

Among the 6 location experiments of channels along test courses, 5 cases turned out to be significant, whereby 2 cases were highly significant. Along the course with 22 m length, 1 1 of the 20 participating dowsers produced hits; 11of the total of 33 reactions occurred within the 2 m wide target interval at the mark of 13 * 1 m (see sketch). The probability that this result can be attained by accident is less than 1 : 40

2.4 Water Detection by Three Successful Dowsers Critical observers repeatedly assert that dowsers generally perform so badly in practical field work that they do not deserve serious attention; moreover, a careful analysis of the activity of "famous" dowsers is claimed to reveal mainly failures, except for a few successes obtained by accident. This assessment,in fact, is probably correct as regards the majority of dowsers; nevertheless, it can be shown that an absolute generalization of these statements is completely erroneous. At all times, there have been dowsers who produced continuous and unusual successes with respect to water detection - and, nevertheless,have been commonly ignored. This fact may be demonstrated by means of three examples related to active water prospectors in Germany whose dowsing~ activities have been the object of a more thorough analysis. The abundance of available information and results allows description of some of the spectacular and well-documented cases.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You are quite aware of it Tom, it's the same link from the other discussions people are ignoring, but for the rest here it is. http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_2_betz.pdf

Some of the more conclusive results for those who don't want to read it all.

Digger thanx for taking the time to find and post that info. Ok, so do I take it from this, that you agree with our gentlemen's wager that I posted in #105 ? Before I get to work studying this, I would want to know that first. So that if I find it to be "lacking" (and show you evidence of that), that my time won't have been wasted. So do we have an agreement ?

I am even will to mutually define what constitutes "lacking", so that ... later on, there is no dispute at to whether it "lacked" or not.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Digger, still waiting for your answer. Do you agree to the gentlemen's wager ? If I take the time to study and digest the material, do you agree to follow through with an admission, if it is found to have alternate explanations ?

 

[woof!]

Nothing makes dowsing ability disappear so fast, as an offer of cash to demonstrate successful fully blinded dowsing.

[Edit] even if LRL "enhancement" or similar "non-dowsing dowsing" is permitted.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

woof

Nothing makes dowsing ability disappear so fast, as an offer of cash to demonstrate successful fully blinded dowsing.

[Edit] even if LRL "enhancement" or similar "non-dowsing dowsing" is permitted.

Woof, to be the devil's advocate here: What do you say this this defense line, to what you're saying:

"The reason why dowsers either fail tests, or refuse to partake of them in the first place, is : That it can only be done when in subconscious mode. The minute the dowser is being "tested", then he becomes "conscious". Therefore the art no longer works, at that time. Sort of like "stage fright" I guess? Or a world-reknowned artist who paints quite well when not under pressure. But the moment you put a crowd around him, and put him on a timer, put demands on him, etc... then his painting skills wain .

How do you respond to this rationale, when they give this as their reason ?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Why should someone who can douse have to prove anything to you or anyone..... I personally know it works, I spent 15 years doing it when I worked for telecom company, I had to locate waterlines and other underground utilities that were close to our cable lines, I had no drawings of their utilities no way of knowing where they were, where they turned, no signs nothing.........

Any utility that has been in the ground for 5 years and longer has lost all visible surface signs yet I was able to find it with no problems at all, not once but hundreds upon hundreds of times...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

TH'r, I don't mean this an attack. I hope I'm just answering your question(s) and partaking in a legit. discussion. Ok :

Why should someone who can douse have to prove anything to you or anyone.......

So that nay-sayers in discussions/debates such as this cease their skepticism, and the matter can be put-to-rest.

.... yet I was able to find it with no problems at all ...

Sure. No doubt. But the key question is: Was there other reasons this feat could have been done? Ie.: other reasons (subtle subconscious visual clues, etc...)

... not once but hundreds upon hundreds of times...

Which is all-the-more reason why I am perpetually befuddled, if it's that accurate and repeatable.... then .... certainly someone could stop the discussion once for all ?