I forgot to mention.

[rebel003]

Tinpan i hope that answers your questions as to why i'm on Treasurenet.
Now as far as adding wood to the fire I was attempting to ascertain why someone would travel from subject to subject “not just dowsing” demanding validation on a public forum. When I joined the treasurenet forum I read no rules that anyone HAD to validate their post to jim or anyone else. Or did I miss the rule that states jim is the alpha and omega, the messiah, the all knowing supreme being of all subjects, thus his demands must be fulfilled?

Evidently, you are not dowsing, nor are you a dowser.

Moreover, you point out how you do not practice what you preach. Hypocrites are so overrated when they rant about other folks

"If you make an extraordinary claim on a open forum, be prepared to be challenged." ~Me

Well if you would get your ass of your shoulders and could comprehend English then you would have known from the start I was not a Dowser. I never claimed to be a Dowser; in fact I stated that I was a prospector and outsider. My first post in any of the dowser threads was in “old farm need help” I stated I could not find a puddle of water in a rain storm dowsing. Thinking outside my sphincter unlike you I am open to others having an ability that I do not, thus I came and asked for some help on a claim we have.
While reading other post and looking for additional information on Dowsing, I started reading this post and others. So how does this make me a hypocrite asking why you of all people should stand in judgment of someone else’s ability. Then you copy and paste one of your two normal responses instead of expanding on your request.
By the way you stated that “I tucked tail and retreated” not likely from POS like you I stated that it “Makes no logic to continue trying to have an honest and intellectual conversation with you”
So take your pseudo-intelligence and go play in the kitty litter box with the rest of your intellectual equals!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[10claw]

that straight jacket ons shallow water recop is too tight once again.

 

[teleprospector]

lesjcbs,
In the top picture, dowsing revealed that in the area of the:
Green circle: Alluvial gold (placer)
Blue circle: Silver veins

Bottom picture:
White circles: Small coin caches of gold/silver. (also picking up on placer gold)
Blue circle: Silver veins, shallowest about 10 feet deep.
Blue square: Cave with silver veins.
Thanks for posting your pictures,
Jon

 

[lesjcbs]

teleprospector: Thanks for dowsing these photos. I'll be going there soon to do some close in dowsing.

BTW, here is what the skeptics can't grasp and don't understand: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Evidently you can't grasp or understand that if you make an extraordinary claim on an internet message board, be prepared to have that claim challenged and validate/support your claim. Simple.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/extraproof.html
Skeptics are typically unwilling to accept paranormal claims—such as claims of psychic powers, human energy fields involving energies unknown to science, detection methods involving unknown forces (like dowsing), and predicting the future with cards or dreams—unless the evidence in support of those claims is of very high quality. "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof," we say. Paranormal proponents might question the appropriateness of this logic. They observe skeptics accepting some claims, such as those made by orthodox medical research, on the basis of average, reasonably good evidence, while demanding flawless, near-perfect research before paranormal claims would be accepted. Intuitively, it seems as though evidence which is "good enough" for one claim should be acceptable for other claims as well. This article discusses the issue and provides a statistical basis for skeptics' favorite line, while also pointing out its limitations.
Basic Logic
First, it is important to understand that the strength of a conclusion is a function both of the quality of the evidence provided in its support and the a priori probability of the claim being supported. Thus there can never be a single standard of "acceptable evidence" that will suffice to render every claim equally plausible. Suppose, for example, that a reasonably reliable source tells me (a) that President Clinton has vetoed legislation that places restrictions on trade with China and (b) that Newt Gingrich has switched to the Democratic party. Most people would be much more confident of the truth of the first report than of the second, even though the source is identical. The difference lies in the a priori plausibility of the claims.
A more precise formulation requires us to cast the a priori probability of a claim into the form of "odds" in its favor. A proposition with 90% probability of being true has 90 chances of being true for every 10 of being false. Thus the odds are 90 to 10, which reduces to 9 to 1. A proposition with 20% probability of being true has 20 chances of being true for 80 of being false. The odds (in its favor) are 20 to 80 or 0.25 to 1. It is more natural to translate the latter case into odds of 4 to 1 against the proposition, but the calculations require us to work with odds "in favor of" a proposition, even if they are fractional.
Pieces of evidence alter the odds in favor of a proposition by a multiplicative factor in proportion to the quality of the evidence. A good source of evidence might multiply the odds by 200. A fair one, perhaps, by 10. A negative result might reduce the odds 10-fold. So, let's say that my reliable source is good enough that his or her support for a proposition increases its odds 100 fold. This would increase the odds that the veto took place from, say, 50-50 (1-1 odds) to 100-1 in favor.

Darn SWR..I don’t see any paranormal claims on this board..Just treasure hunters discussing their hobby..Please move what you want to discuss to Psychics/Mediums/Paranormal
A place to discuss psychic phenonena.... http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/board,285.0.html
...Art

A fallacy is an idea which many people believe to be true, but which is in fact false because it is based on incorrect information or reasoning.

 

[lesjcbs]

Art: Good post.

Einstein said that if the results don't match the facts, change the facts. That's what's going on with dowsing and I love every moment of it.

I have SWR and a few other skeptics on ignore so I don't see their posts and I don't care what they say either. I am sick and tired of their negative nay saying attitude.

I finally figured out what you posted on the other web site in answer to my question on where to go to learn map dowing. I haven't got into your lessons yet but I will very soon.

Les

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey lesjcbs..Ignoring him seems to work for you..I think it would be interesting to see his ignore list..It would be interesting to learn how many people have him on ignore and which topics they post in on t-net...Art

 

[lesjcbs]

ART: At first I thought maybe there was some value in seeing what the skeptics had to say. So I looked and got nothing out of it. Absolutely nothing.

It's just simple truth that if you want to learn something, go to the source that can teach or show you how to do it. Going to a source that is negative on it will get you nothing.

Les

 

[aarthrj3811]

~SWR~
Conclusion

The skeptics' line, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof," is justifiable on probabilistic grounds, but the difficulty of determining a priori probabilities is a serious drawback. This may prevent communication with non-skeptics unless they are willing to adopt our strict standards so as to achieve general acceptance. A strict but not "extraordinary" standard of ordinary good science and replicability is risky because most skeptics would not actually believe typical paranormal claims if evidence at that level were provided.

Problem being... is that Science has already discredited dowsing. You simply implying that dowsing works does not change the Scientific findings or conclusions. It seems you've tried to utilize Einstein's quote to advance your agenda... but, failed miserably.

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,19834.0.html
Here a small part of our Scientific Facts..Please post yours?

Good job on being your own worst enemy, too. Please post more supporting quotes.
Now you are just whining... stop

And then the typical skeptic insults

 

[lesjcbs]

Art: The thing I don't understand is what do the skeptics gain, get, or obtain by taking the approach they take. I was a skeptic until I tried it myself and all I got out of it was hearing myself sound off, and that was all. However, I never stooped to insulting someone on purpose about it. Not my style.

So what do they get out of it anyway? Any idea?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Art: The thing I don't understand is what do the skeptics gain, get, or obtain by taking the approach they take. I was a skeptic until I tried it myself and all I got out of it was hearing myself sound off, and that was all. However, I never stooped to insulting someone on purpose about it. Not my style.

So what do they get out of it anyway? Any idea?

I am a skeptical person also...but when I discuss what I am skeptical about I try to not insult people or bully them. The internet is the perfect place to bully people..There is not much chance that some one can find you and do more than bully you..Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Art: The thing I don't understand is what do the skeptics gain, get, or obtain by taking the approach they take. I was a skeptic until I tried it myself and all I got out of it was hearing myself sound off, and that was all. However, I never stooped to insulting someone on purpose about it. Not my style.

So what do they get out of it anyway? Any idea?

You've stooped to lying and fabricating scenarios on an internet message board. You are also guilty of insulting others on purpose.

One would have to guess your "style" is whining when you cannot support your claims.

~SWR~

Re: I forgot to mention.
Reply To This Topic #119 Posted Today at 10:36:41 AM
Problem being... is that Science has already discredited dowsing. You simply implying that dowsing works does not change the Scientific findings or conclusions. It seems you've tried to utilize Einstein's quote to advance your agenda... but, failed miserably.

~Art~
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,19834.0.html
Here a small part of our Scientific Facts..Please post yours?

As every one can see..You are good at saying stuuf about Scientfic Proof..But when you are asked where it is you start ducking and dodging and then insulting people..Art

 

[lesjcbs]

ART: Excellent reference at: "Dowsing, printed facts, studies, research info" post. However, if he even takes the time to read it, don't expect SWR to go along with it.

Another thing I have often wonderd about is how many dowsers who found things while dowsing, were later somehow convinced by some fast talking negative skeptic that they really didn't find what they found through dowsing, that it was all a mistake, an illusion etc, then put up their rods in hopeless frustration? If there are any, I really feel sorry for them.

BTW: I keep seeing on my screen large blank spaces where once there was a post but now it says: "{SHOW POST} This user is currently ignored." I guess it's SWR knocking. LOL.

Do you think SWR and other skeptics like him has ever tried to dowse?

 

[aarthrj3811]

BTW: I keep seeing on my screen large blank spaces where once there was a post but now it says: "{SHOW POST} This user is currently ignored." I guess it's SWR knocking. LOL.

Do you think SWR has ever tried to dowse?

Those are posts by the people who you have on ignore..SWR has claimed that he tried dowsing..He said that he step on a coin and the rods did not close..He may be one of the 3% of the people in the world that the rods will not respond to..Art

 

[lesjcbs]

ART: "...stepped on a coin and the rods did not close.." That's funny. LOL.

Say, I just looked at the Shallow Water Recovery (SWR) web site. If that's the same SWR that's posting here, you can bet all the pictures and things on that site trying to prove the claims are fake.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~SWR~

Negative skeptic, eh?

Next thing you know, these magic wand proponents will be claiming people like Einstein or Gen. Patton are pro-dowsing.

"Science has already discredited dowsing"

Negative would be those pretending that magic wands actually work

Leonardo De Vinci
-Don Nolan
http://www.tamar-dowsers.co.uk/articles/history.htm
Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry)
- Don Nolan
http://www.tamar-dowsers.co.uk/articles/history.htm
Charles Richet (Nobel prize winner)
- Don Nolan
http://www.tamar-dowsers.co.uk/articles/history.htm
Charles Richet (Nobel prize winner)
- Don Nolan
http://www.tamar-dowsers.co.uk/articles/history.htm
General Rommel of the German Army
- Don Nolan
http://www.tamar-dowsers.co.uk/articles/history.htm
General Patton "(U.S. Army). General Patton had a complete willow tree flown to Morocco so that a dowser could use branches from it to find water to replace the wells the German Army had blown up. The British army used dowsers on the Falkland Island to remove mines."
- Don Nolan
http://www.tamar-dowsers.co.uk/articles/history.htm

"General Patten had two young men from Tennessee transferred to his unit. It is said that an Army moves on it's belly, I suggest that it and it's machines need water as well. Without these water wells we would have lost our butts on that front."
http://www.geocities.com/dowser.geo/dowse.html
Hanna Kroeger - "...for years Cal-Tech was teaching the use of the pendulum to especially bright and interested graduate students. ...So let's join the smart and intelligent crowd and use the pendulum."
http://www.zhealthinfo.com/pendulum.html
Louis Matachia - "...in the late 1960's, a dowser named Louis Matachia did demonstrate dowsing at Quantico, on a mock-up of a Vietnamese village. However, I don't believe he ever "trained" the Marines in dowsing, or that dowsing was ever officially sanctioned by any service."
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-205.html

"The New York Times reported that the U.S. Marine Corps used dowsing in Vietnam (Baldwin, 1967)"
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Dowsing.htm

"During the Viet Nam conflict ( War for lack of a better term) We used dowsers to locate enemy tunnel systems and weapons cache's. Here our military brought in teams of dowsers, not to simply locate these materials, but to teach the skill to others. Then came the job nobody wanted, the "Tunnel Rat". The poor bastard that armed with a side arm and a satchel charge of c-4; would enter these underground labyrinths to seek and destroy. Not a bad job till you find out that most had to be done by complete darkness in the tunnel in case there was a guard on duty. If that weren't bad enough, our little buddies sometimes left behind a few small pit vipers. Yes no one except for the few volunteered for this job!"
http://www.geocities.com/dowser.geo/dowse.html
Evelyn Penrose - "Noted dowser Evelyn Penrose was retained by British Columbia to locate oil and water resources...during 1931-1932 she also located 392 water wells for homesteaders."
http://www.denverspiritualcommunity.org/Dowsing.htm
John Living - "who was educated at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, and the Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham. He was commissioned as an officer in the Corps of Royal Engineers, and was taught dowsing at the School of Military Engineering, Chatham - reported to have the world's largest collection of material on dowsing."
http://mypage.direct.ca/j/jliving/landmine.htm
~SWR~

Please validate your claim that SWR said he tried dowsing, and that he step on a coin and the rods did not close.

Good grief, why do you have to lie? Why do you have to stoop to such tactics? You make it impossible to have a civil discussion when you resort to fabricating BS and making such a liar out of yourself

Glad your having fun SWR

 

[aarthrj3811]

~SWR~

Glad you are still posing lies, propaganda and misnomers.

Typical Art

Please post where this can be found... Science has already discredited dowsing"?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~SWR~

Please validate your claim that SWR said he tried dowsing, and that he step on a coin and the rods did not close.
Good grief, why do you have to lie? Why do you have to stoop to such tactics? You make it impossible to have a civil discussion when you resort to fabricating BS and making such a liar out of yourself
(notice how Art fabricates a lie... and then refuses to validate his claim/lie)

I have put enough information on here so if someone should want to take you off their ignore list they have enough ammunition to discredit any claim that you make...I have shown that you have no credibility so you resort to insults...I will leave you here to talk to yourself..Art

 

[lesjcbs]

ART: If the SWR on this forum is the same person that owns the Shallow Water Recovery business advertised on the Internet, then perhaps his attitude towards dowsing is business based. Follow me here.

Could it be that he wanted to find a way to reduce his time hunting for a customers lost item? If you read some of the stories on the SWR web site, it says sometimes in using his conventional metal detector, which was a Fisher 1280-X model; it took them hours to find a target. That is understandable when trying to completely cover and scan a large area with an 8” search coil that comes on that model.

In that kind of service business, time is money and you need to find ways to speed up finding a target while charging the same price, be it hourly or one rate. Now suppose a person was to come along, set up and advertise the same kind of recovery service and that person used all means available (including dowsing) to find targets. You, other dowsers and I all know that dowsing reduces our times to targets by a factor of many times. When comparing conventional metal detectors to dowsing in terms of times to a target, dowsing beats the conventional metal detector right off the charts. In short, his find times (overhead) would go down dramatically, and profits would go up. If such a person did show up and started that type of business in the same areas, SWR would have a real good reason to worry.

So there he is, trying to dowse and doesn’t get the results he wants to cut down on his business overhead (time to target). So, instead of rolling up his sleeves and buckling down to learn how to dowse to use it in his business, he takes the easy way out, clams up, and takes the negative position.

Now if he never did try to dowse, you and I both know he might could learn and make more of a profit in that business. But, he probably won't.

 

[lesjcbs]

OKI: Since you quoted SWR, I can see those quotes but I am not going to address him directly. Looks like he and the SWR business on the net are one and the same. I'll bet his worst night mare would be for another business opening up in his area to provide the same service. If that new business used both dowsing and metal detectors to locate customers lost items, that business could do it for less cost and in a fraction of the time he does with only a metal detector, using either an 8" or 10" coil. This gives me an idea that I might explore further for my area.