How many coins will I find?

[ClonedSIM]

Hey af1733....Don't worry...it's not you..you are easier to figure out...Art

Oh, I'm not asking if it was me, Art. You stated:

Jean and af both adding something to my Quotes. One of the favorite tricks is to ask a question and then when you answer it they go back and modify their post.

You said it was me, so prove it.

Or, is this another one of those statements you make that has no truth behind it??

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Carl-NC]

That is, if you do the entire test, say 3 or 4 times (10 trials each), you could certainly boast some real talent if all those tests exhibited a score of 6 or more. (That's just my opinion, Carl or others might have a different mark that you should shoot for.)

Yeah, 6 or more in each of 4 tests would be considered "Way Impressive." Even 3 or more in each of 4 tests would be Really Good.

Look around the room you're in. Nothing you see could have existed without some involvement with rational science and mathematics, with the exception of the dog sleeping in the chair.

The dog sleeping in the chair is a result of thousands of years of selective breeding. And even though, through all those years, the people that did the breeding didn't have a clue about genetics, they nevertheless used observation and prediction -- hallmarks of rational science -- to produce the kinds of dogs they wanted. So even the dog is not an exception.

- Carl

 

[Carl-NC]

I read about a Scientific Study from the University of Texas which may have used these Scientific Methods. The reason we have Tornados in the USA? It is because our Automobiles travel in the wrong lane. When they pass each other it makes the air spin in the wrong direction. They do not have Tornados in England so this makes this study correct. Is this one of those formula that was written when Scientist swore the world was flat? ....Art

Art, when you post pure nonsense like this, my respect for you just plummets. Maybe you should tell those poor sods in London that it wasn't a tornado that hit them last month. They seemed to be convinced otherwise. Of course, maybe it was caused by the fact that when Londoners sneeze, they all turn their heads to the left.

- Carl

 

[aarthrj3811]

Yeah, 6 or more in each of 4 tests would be considered "Way Impressive." Even 3 or more in each of 4 tests would be Really Good.

Gee Carl....How do you know this....NO ONE HAS EVERY BEEN TESTED USING YOUR CHALLENGE.

Art, when you post pure nonsense like this, my respect for you just plummets. Maybe you should tell those poor sods in London that it wasn't a tornado that hit them last month. They seemed to be convinced otherwise. Of course, maybe it was caused by the fact that when Londoners sneeze, they all turn their heads to the left.

Are you saying that this study was never conducted at the Univ of Texas?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

H mi buddy ART: Relax,you don't have to explain anything to them, least of all how dowsing works since they have no idea either, only repeating over and over ad naus. the same series of extremely flawed useless tests and statistics.

Since they cannot seem to understand or recognize the flaws, even less how assimilate the posts #6 & #88 data into their statistics to get a truer base to understand this type of para-normal behavior they will never understand the possibility of dowsing. all we have here is an exaggerated case of

" Gee, how brilliant I am, I am so superior to these uneducated peasants that I wonder why I even condescend/lower myself to talk to them and their ridiculous childish ideas, they can't even spell correctly",

yet, they refuse to answer 3 basic questions that were asked of them, one even resorting to profanity rather than show his ignorance outside of statistics. so ignore them Art, they aren't worth it, just discus your experiences with the normal humans in here.

So don't try to explain or justify ART, just relax and go happily on your way dowsing..let them wallow in their self proclaimed superior academic bastion, it is such an extremely limited field that they attempt to smother developments of other ideas of which they apparently have no ability to conceive or imagine.

True scientists do not smother ideas no matter how radical..

Keep em comming ART.
o

Tropical Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

H af, you next? I did take spelling, in fact I am writing a commissioned book on Tayopa and the Jesuit activities in North America..

Tropical Tramp

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Realde and JudyH...I am not here to fight with the skeptic. I am here for the guys like lucky1777 who have no agend but are searching for knowledge. I don't know if he will follow through with his test but if he does I will have done my job. I have made a lot of contacts with my posts on T-Net. A few of them I am happy to call friends. Right, wrong or other wise I will continue to give my opinions. I am a Dowser and proud of that fact. I have learned a lot from the forums and some of it from the skeptic. I experiment a lot and when an idea pops into my head no matter who gave it to me I have to try it. Thanks ..Art

 

[Carl-NC]

Gee Carl....How do you know this....NO ONE HAS EVERY BEEN TESTED USING YOUR CHALLENGE.

But I have tested dowsers using the same protocol. And regardless of this, I understand statistics, so I understand what to expect if dowsing does not work.

Are you saying that this study was never conducted at the Univ of Texas?

I'm skeptical. Show me.

- Carl

 

[Siegfried Schlagrule]

I just read this scintillating exercise in parsing and prestidigitation. As expected you lambasted Art for not posting his results then when he posted the results you didn't believe them and belittled them. I predict that no sceptic will ever believe any reported results of a dowsing experimenter. You will first call him a liar. You will then demand that he get the exact same results while under observation (read influence) of the sceptics. When confronted with a person who follows that reported test with an equal observed result you will wail that he can't do it again. This process will be continued until the dowser has an off day or grows so disgusted with the treatment that he refuses to continue. At that point the headlines will read another dowser fails. Explain to me this ..... why has dowsing been barred from competitive treasure hunts but metal detecting has never been barred from dowsing exhibitions? Who is afraid of whom? exanimo, siegfried schlagrule

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

author=Carl-]But I have tested dowsers using the same protocol. And regardless of this, I understand statistics, so I understand what to expect if dowsing does not work.
*************
Or when using very flawed tests which are easily interpreted to your wants.

Tropical Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Excellemt post Siegfried *****

Tropical Tramp

 

[Jean310]

Hum…in all the piffle, alibis and excuses, I must have missed where Art posted his results from when HE took the double-blind test (10 cups, one coin, 10 tries in a scientific atmosphere)

Wow! I guess I missed where he posted his results too. I just asked him about it yesterday, after I politely answered his original question, and he didn't mention anything about his results. He came back at me with some other mumbo jumbo antagonistic reply, but nothing about how he scored.

Jean

 

[Jean310]

I predict that no sceptic will ever believe any reported results of a dowsing experimenter. exanimo, siegfried schlagrule

I'd say you might very well be correct in your prediction. Now, stop and think a minute of why you could be correct.

Because, most dowsing experimenters and aficionados (at least that I've come in contact with) have clearly demonstrated they do not have the slightest clue about conducting a proper experiment. Their kitchen-chemistry and grossly flawed unmonitored processes, having little or anything to do with proper analysis techniques (and tools) leave almost zero chance for ever producing a meaningful result (or conclusion). That's not a conclusion I've arrived at with only a small amount of input data. One only needs to read but just a few threads in this particular forum, and it becomes intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

Jean

 

[Carl-NC]

As expected you lambasted Art for not posting his results then when he posted the results you didn't believe them and belittled them.

The only results Art has posted is where he apparently tested a bunch of non-dowsers, and 8 out of 100 hit the target. Those results are absolutely believable, as they equate to guessing.

..... why has dowsing been barred from competitive treasure hunts but metal detecting has never been barred from dowsing exhibitions? Who is afraid of whom?

Which competitive treasure hunts have banned dowsing? And where are the dowsing exhibitions?

- Carl

 

[Carl-NC]

Addendum to prior post:

Art's lead post stated, "I am going to take one of those Scentific Double-Blind Test.... The only question here is HOW MANY COINS WILL I FIND?"

Several people responded, ranging from specific (and rather optimistic) numbers, to fairly detailed statistical analyses. These were honest and sincere attempts to answer Art's question. Yet Art continues to ask the same question, as if no one has responded at all, the same exact way Art has done many times in the past with other questions. If Art was subsequently "lambasted and belittled," then perhaps it was earned.

And, as far as we know, Art has not done what he said he would do. But I never thought he would, so the total lack of results from his test is not the least bit surprising.

- Carl

 

[Siegfried Schlagrule]

Hello Carl, dowsing exhibitions have been all over the country and world sponsored by the american society of dowsers, the Canadian Questers and the British Society of dowsers. This has happened since at least the sixties at least annually. None have barred metal detectors. Everyone uses whatever they want. Everyone searches for whatever they want. I have attended competition treasure hunts in California, Arizona and Illinois where dowsers and dowsing devices were barred. It was mentioned in Karl von Mueller books that a particular dowser was the first one barred in the California hunts and that in later years so many were successful that all dowsers were barred. The dowsers at that point waited until the day after the competition and recovered many of the coins that were missed by the competitors. Perhaps they recovered all of the missed coins. That would be an unprovable statement so I won't make that assertion. I suppose if I had a tendency to let other people manipulate me I would now spend several months checking my back issues of treasure literature. If I were stupid enough to do that I predict that the response would be "Ho hum, that is not scientific." You personally have nearly as many treasure magazines as I do. Do a quick flip through them and read the printed brochures for the larger competition hunts of the sixities and seventies. Why not later hunts? I didn't participate in later hunts and have no idea what was or wasn't going on. My statements apply to the period that I know about.
Here is what I thought Art was doing. He would have to speak for himself. I thought when he asked how many coins he should find he was attempting to pre-define the parameters of success or failure. He wanted to know going in what the sceptics and others thought was good. I've heard from some people that anything less than 100% is fraud. I've heard others say that you must consistently beat the probable results of guessing. As a layman I would think that if there were ten possibilities and you tried ten times that a sceptic could be expected to guess right once. Maybe twice tops. By running his test on non-dowsers he thus established an actual baseline versus the stated baselines. When he attempts the test himself he would need to beat the 8 per 100 number that he established. When he does that I predict that he will be hit with either the "It's not scientific" response or the "He's lying" response. Both seem to be applied equally often by sceptics.
Here is another item that sceptics like to trot out which is pure bull. They insist that every dowsing response should lead to a viable recovery of a valuable target because that's what their metal detector does. Even with target ID you will dig trash that reads good sometimes. There are other times you will attermpt to dig a target that seems to disappear as soon as you cut a plug. Either cut some slack on both devices or neither otherwise you come across as hypocrites. have fun, exanimo, siegfried schlagrule

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey SS.....I did the test on the non-dowsers. I have also done many blind tests. I have also tested myself ignoring my physical dowsing and just guessing where the target is. I know what my numbers are. My Dowsing test is at http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,28701.0.html....Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=aarthrj3811
Hey Realde.....When people respond with the kinds of answers I have gotten in the past few weeks it makes me wonder...Where do these people live? Maybe in never never land.
***********
To a point you are correct Art, they live in a world created by others, they have no personal experiences to fall back upon.

Tests are not personal experiences. If they can't find fault with you for one thing or another, they will show their superiority by complaining about your language consruction etc, whatever, something which has absolutely no place in a discussion such as this. It only serves to bolster their personal opinion of themselves as being very clever, but one that is not shared by most of the others. In fact it is rather sad that they have so little respect for themselves that they need this type of ego bolstering.

As to whether your explanations are correct or not has no bearing, they cannot explain it either.

Art, an extremely homely, but simple, question to ask them, particularly Jean, is if there are no subtle forces at play constantly on the human Psyche, why is the human female's monthly cycle tied to the Lunar phases, each according to her own receptive patten?

As for testing, I presume that they are at peak abilities for testing even while undergoing this peculiar function of the human female??

Incidentally ,why do many hospitals avoid surgery unless necessary, during a full moon? is it simply that they have found hemorrhaging much more frequent during this period? - associated with the female problem?

why do we call a full moon a lover's moon. or why is the increased incidences of irrational behavior during this period rate calling them m "LOONIES"?

I could go on for a booklengh post on just the "known" reactions, but how can we imagine/measure them except for the physical manifestations mentioned.

ii has been acknowledged that we are merely a mass of energies and fields, is it unimaginable to realize that an external field can have an effect, perhaps so subtle that it can only be imagined?

With this in mind it is -pardon the phrase - lunacy to imagine that a test designed for mechanical responses could ever be imagined as acceptable for testing dowsing.

Tropical Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

author=JudyH ]Thanks, Swr....you just demonstrated my point exactly. judy

**************
Just as I have always said Judy hheheh

Tropical Tramp

]

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=SWR linkAhhhh, Dowser's Code: Found it, didn't dig it up eh?
*************
swr's code "if i can't answer a question, ask a silly irratonal one in return or ridicule"

p.s. quote swr, "I never ridicule or insult etc etc'


Tropical Tramp