I tried it..

[Miner49er]

Mr. J_L,
What in hell are you talking about

"Pin-pointing method? If your pin-pointing method was useful at short distances, it should have worked at greater distances, using the same concept. Thus, you should not have needed to know the mile-marker."

You have just proven that you know absolutely nothing about dowsing practices. I did not map dowse for the area, and I never said that I did. How am I to find the area of test quickly?
________________________MM5_________________________
This distance is one mile in length, the coins could be anywhere within this distance, and on either side of the highway. NO INFORMATION LEAKAGE

"There would have been no reason to contact, and talk to the person who buried the coins. "

How am I to know what freaking state the coins are in? How am I to know if the coins were even buried? And the conversation went something like this: “Hi, I’m back. Great!! Did you bury the coins yet? Yes, they are near MM 5. Thanks.” NO INFORMATION LEAKAGE.

"One of the biggest flaws I see is with the coins having been buried for only a week. Burying targets for tests of this nature has been discussed at some length, and a time period of one week is way too short, due to the disturbances to the area."

Again, here is proof that you know nothing about the art of dowsing. The coins could have been buried for ten minuets. Makes no difference. In south Florida, ground conditions can change from hour to hour. Remember the storm from the previous day? NO INFORMATION LEAKAGE. Oh, BTW, in the article, the reporter stated that she had spread flotsam and jetsam from the beach around the whole area.

"Finally, your test needs to have some statistical weighting before accurate conclusions can be drawn. That is, the test must be designed in such a way so that by simple math, the odds of obtaining a specific result by Chance alone, can be compared to the result obtained by dowsing. That is the only way an accurate conclusion can be drawn from any test. In general, tests of this nature will by default require more than one trial. In your case, you only had the one trial, and thus no statistical inferences could be drawn."

As I stated in an earlier post, I have done many, many of these type tests, and still do. I also invited Carl to come here to witness some tests. I even asked him to design a test for me to present to a science lab in Cal. that was interested in my work.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

I'll go one fruther Dell.

When I'm Metal Detecting, I am not always
finding "things" 10 out of 10 holes.
sometimes I come up empty.

Metal detectors are probably 99% correct when they say
something (Anything) is under the coil, but I wouldn't say 100%

I said it in the Thread I was Requested to Move,
& I'll say it again.
I can Understand Disbelief that Dowsing works,
But I can't understand why if someone believes it does
others appoint themselves to try and discredit them or what they say.

I could see it, if somone said "I found a treasure with these
bent Hangers & for $19.95 I'll sell them to you".

But to just flat out insist dowsing dosn't work for anyone is
rather close minded in my opinion.
and Arguing that point is even more Confusing to me.
Could it be Fear of the Unknown ? or trying to convince themselves
it dosn't work because They can't do it.

I still Think, When I park my vehicle & walk directly to
the right spot to find my best find of the day.
Or get nothing but Trash & Clad all day & Find my Best find
on the way out at My Vehicle, this is the same process as Dowsing.

When I first came to TreasureNet I thought Dowsing was Impossable
but a few members here have Convinced me to open my mind.
and the more Denile thrown at them, the more it makes me wonder
why. and if it has to do with trying to Hide the truth.

Sorry So long, But, I just don't understand
why people insist they need to tell somone
they didn't do what they just got done saying they did :P
and that they shouldn't even try it.

Here's the facts, Jeff. When I came into this forum, I was skeptical but open-minded. Please note that this does not translate to "gullible." I came here looking for an explanation as to why this seemingly goofy hobby of walking around with two sticks could possibly work.

So, I read threads and asked questions and waited for answers, and shortly began to realize that no one had any idea why dowsing worked and every one had a different method they employed while dowsing. The more I read, the more this was apparent, with dowsers actually tripping over each other in their contradictions while explaining dowsing. So, I left the forum and went to the web and found more of the same there.

Say what you like, but everything I do each day in my life has a reason and a process, and a reason for that process.

As soon as I realized that dowsers have no clue what they are doing or even why they're doing it, I stopped being open-minded about dowsing. It was then I found out about the challenges from Carl and Randi, and dowsers inexplicable fear and hatred of these tests.

So, I started to talk to the dowsers about taking this test. I was very aware of dowsing detractors on the forum, and I tried to ride the fence as much as I could when trying to convince the dowsers to just try one of these challenges. But you know what, Jeff?

It doesn't work.

Dowsers want everyone to be in awe of them and their "supernatural" ability to find objects with coathangers and loudly protest those that don't bow before them. You want proof?

There is a forum on this site where dowsers could post their finds and chat away and never once be bothered by a skeptic. Do they post there? Sometimes, but not often. There are ten times as many posts in this forum, where anyone can post, as there are in the dowsers-only forum. Interesting, but what does it mean?

Dowsers love to defend themselves and their hobby, because if they didn't then sooner or later people would forget about them. This is contrary to everything a dowser says, because they "only care about what I find and have nothing to prove to anyone."

But here they are, arguing away with people they consider to be below them, throwing out baseless "facts" in an attempt to retain credibility. The fact is that what dowsers know about science could fit on the head of a pin, with room to spare.

Jeff,
Dowsers want to argue with skeptics. They could avoid it entirely, and sooner or later the skeptics would go away, but they have no desire to stop. They feel that if they continue to argue for dowsing, that keeps dowsing somehow important and alive. No matter how many posts you delete or threads you move, this will continue on here because that's the way dowsers want it.

 

[aarthrj3811]

If the person that did the hiding is in the area with you, you will probably find it, but it's not a sure thing. (It's called Information Leakage)

However, if the person that did the hiding leaves the area completely and then you enter the area, without ever seeing that person (and they stay away) --then you are back to chance results.

Where can I find the results of a Double Blind Test proving this statement?

I respectfully disagree the results could be anything but "chance"; unless of course your test was not done strictly to a double-blind protocol, or there was information leakage, or very likely both.

It was not a test as I was Treasure Hunting using the same protocols that most Treasure Hunters use

Pin-pointing method? If your pin-pointing method was useful at short distances, it should have worked at greater distances, using the same concept. Thus, you should not have needed to know the mile-marker.

Knowing the mile-marker is information leakage.

There would have been no reason to contact, and talk to the person who buried the coins. Talking with them is information leakage.
Could you tell me where to find this information Leakage so I will understand how to read peoples minds.
Finally, your test needs to have some statistical weighting before accurate conclusions can be drawn. That is, the test must be designed in such a way so that by simple math, the odds of obtaining a specific result by Chance alone, can be compared to the result obtained by dowsing. That is the only way an accurate conclusion can be drawn from any test. In general, tests of this nature will by default require more than one trial. In your case, you only had the one trial, and thus no statistical inferences could be drawn.
We need to know what someones guess as to what the odds are??
Dowsing, whether done with a needle and thread or some expensive commercial made dowsing gadget, just doesn't work any better than pure Chance. And, the Challenges are constructed in such a way so that Chance results cannot win.

Where can I find this information and the proof of this statement??

 

[Miner49er]

Mr. J-L,
I don't think you and I need any more interaction, you have lost all credibility with me.

 

[ClonedSIM]

You appear to desiginate yourself as an authority on Dowsing, so come on Jerry & Boo and establish your creditability and show some photos of your own Dowsing finds, before you continue making yourself appear as an authority on Dowsing and inferring that Dowsers posting on this forum are untruthful and are not finding targets the way we say we are finding them with Dowsing, either mental, or physical and Not by Random chance. Dell

Show photos of our own dowsing finds, Dell?

Now it should be extremely apparent to all that Dell has no idea of what's been discussed here.

Do you know what day of the week it is, Dell? Have you taken any falls lately? Any bumps to the head?

 

[ClonedSIM]

O.k. Since your name is new to this forum, and from your comments you appear to be pretending to be an authority on Dowsing.

Since you, or Boo, don't seem to trust our word and want to argue (debate) nit pic, or question what successful Dowsers post on this forum, it's only fair and appropriate that we know some background of this new person who has designated himself as an authorative critic of the Dowsers present.

Please, at least post some photo's of what You have found by Mental Dowsing to establish your credibility. Thanks! Dell

By the way, you already posted wrong information about me, so your knowledge about me isn't that great. Stick to fact, not to the fantasy of your apparent assumptions of others.

Trust me, Dell. Any "fantasy" you claim has been spoken here cannot compare to the fantasy you have running around in your own head. Anything we came up with would seem tame compared to what you imagine yourself to be.

Why do we claim to be experts on dowsing? Hmmm....

Well, I never have, but I do claim to be an authority of common sense, as in.......
"Anyone with a lick of common sense can see what dowsing actually is."

Care to discuss common sense with me, Dell? It'd really be a stretch for you, I know.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Mr. J-L,
I don't think you and I need any more interaction, you have lost all credibility with me.

Uh-oh! Someone didn't fall to their knees praising your dowsing skills, so now you're going to take your rods and go home!

 

[ClonedSIM]

If the person that did the hiding is in the area with you, you will probably find it, but it's not a sure thing. (It's called Information Leakage)

However, if the person that did the hiding leaves the area completely and then you enter the area, without ever seeing that person (and they stay away) --then you are back to chance results.

Where can I find the results of a Double Blind Test proving this statement?

Perhaps you should avoid asking questions and start reading, Art. The work "If" is clearly used here to denote a hypothetical statement since solid evidence is not available.

I respectfully disagree the results could be anything but "chance"; unless of course your test was not done strictly to a double-blind protocol, or there was information leakage, or very likely both.

It was not a test as I was Treasure Hunting using the same protocols that most Treasure Hunters use

Care to list those protocols here for us, Art? I'm quite certain dowsers have their own list that the rest of the world is unfamiliar with.

Pin-pointing method? If your pin-pointing method was useful at short distances, it should have worked at greater distances, using the same concept. Thus, you should not have needed to know the mile-marker.

Knowing the mile-marker is information leakage.

There would have been no reason to contact, and talk to the person who buried the coins. Talking with them is information leakage.
Could you tell me where to find this information Leakage so I will understand how to read peoples minds.
Finally, your test needs to have some statistical weighting before accurate conclusions can be drawn. That is, the test must be designed in such a way so that by simple math, the odds of obtaining a specific result by Chance alone, can be compared to the result obtained by dowsing. That is the only way an accurate conclusion can be drawn from any test. In general, tests of this nature will by default require more than one trial. In your case, you only had the one trial, and thus no statistical inferences could be drawn.
We need to know what someones guess as to what the odds are??
Dowsing, whether done with a needle and thread or some expensive commercial made dowsing gadget, just doesn't work any better than pure Chance. And, the Challenges are constructed in such a way so that Chance results cannot win.

Where can I find this information and the proof of this statement??

What part of "information leakage" do you not understand, Art? Could you not find a listing in your Wikipedia?

And proof of which statement?

 

[aarthrj3811]

All dowsing is mental. What is physical dowsing?

Darn Jerry.....Different ways of Dowsing have been written about in the 7138 posts in this section. Do your home work and you will learn something. ..Art

 

[Miner49er]

Bozo posted:



Mr. J-L,
I don't think you and I need any more interaction, you have lost all credibility with me.

Uh-oh! Someone didn't fall to their knees praising your dowsing skills, so now you're going to take your rods and go home!

Bozo didn't have any credibility to begin with.

 

[aarthrj3811]

For those people who want to learn a little about Dowsing I will give a quick explaination of Physical Dowsing. I have found that objects emit a stronger signal line in the four cardinal direction. I also have found that using two rods will pick these signals up. When looking for these lines I find that thinking about something I did yesterday or keeping my mind from thinking about what I am doing works the best for me. I find that the mental dowsers that I have worked with are able to locate the objects also....So it comes down to.....What works for you....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Bozo posted:



Mr. J-L,
I don't think you and I need any more interaction, you have lost all credibility with me.

Uh-oh! Someone didn't fall to their knees praising your dowsing skills, so now you're going to take your rods and go home!

Bozo didn't have any credibility to begin with.

Oh noooooo! Mr. 31 posts doesn't think I have crediblity! My life is over, I might as well give up. Some guy that's been posting here for 2 weeks and walks around with coat-hangers thinks I just don't get it....

Oh, wait! I forgot that I don't care. Funny how life works, isn't it 49er?

 

[ClonedSIM]

Here's the facts, Jeff. When I came into this forum, I was skeptical but open-minded. Please note that this does not translate to "gullible." I came here looking for an explanation as to why this seemingly goofy hobby of walking around with two sticks could possibly work.

So, I read threads and asked questions and waited for answers, and shortly began to realize that no one had any idea why dowsing worked and every one had a different method they employed while dowsing. The more I read, the more this was apparent, with dowsers actually tripping over each other in their contradictions while explaining dowsing. So, I left the forum and went to the web and found more of the same there.

Say what you like, but everything I do each day in my life has a reason and a process, and a reason for that process.

As soon as I realized that dowsers have no clue what they are doing or even why they're doing it, I stopped being open-minded about dowsing. It was then I found out about the challenges from Carl and Randi, and dowsers inexplicable fear and hatred of these tests.

So, I started to talk to the dowsers about taking this test. I was very aware of dowsing detractors on the forum, and I tried to ride the fence as much as I could when trying to convince the dowsers to just try one of these challenges. But you know what, Jeff?

It doesn't work.

Dowsers want everyone to be in awe of them and their "supernatural" ability to find objects with coathangers and loudly protest those that don't bow before them. You want proof?

There is a forum on this site where dowsers could post their finds and chat away and never once be bothered by a skeptic. Do they post there? Sometimes, but not often. There are ten times as many posts in this forum, where anyone can post, as there are in the dowsers-only forum. Interesting, but what does it mean?

Dowsers love to defend themselves and their hobby, because if they didn't then sooner or later people would forget about them. This is contrary to everything a dowser says, because they "only care about what I find and have nothing to prove to anyone."

But here they are, arguing away with people they consider to be below them, throwing out baseless "facts" in an attempt to retain credibility. The fact is that what dowsers know about science could fit on the head of a pin, with room to spare.

Jeff,
Dowsers want to argue with skeptics. They could avoid it entirely, and sooner or later the skeptics would go away, but they have no desire to stop. They feel that if they continue to argue for dowsing, that keeps dowsing somehow important and alive. No matter how many posts you delete or threads you move, this will continue on here because that's the way dowsers want it.

IMAGINE! A self appointed critic coming to a Dowsing forum and posting complaints to the Moderator, and the viewers, about what he doesn't like about people who Dowse. Boo Who?

And again Dell misses a perfectly simple point.

I came here to get an idea about dowsing with an open mind, and it was the dowsers themselves who turned me off of it with all of their nonsensical banter and pseudo-scientific rantings. I could have saved time and just jumped right in with the skeptics, but I chose to give you guys a chance.

It's not that I don't like dowsers, but the fact that you expect everyone to accept dowsing without question, and if someone does question you about it, you immediately label them skeptics and mock them for not "understanding" you.

Not only that, but dowsers also have an amazingly large sense of paranoia about anyone who doesn't accept dowsing as perfectly reasonable and logical.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Show photos of our own dowsing finds, Dell?

Now it should be extremely apparent to all that Dell has no idea of what's been discussed here.

Do you know what day of the week it is, Dell? Have you taken any falls lately? Any bumps to the head?

Here is a start. All with eye witnesses to the events. Dell

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,24475.0.html

Ummmm........ some darn nice rocks, Dell. I'm impressed.

Agreed, some great rocks, Dell. I have a pile of them at the back of my property. Some are red, some are round, some have cracks in them (those remind me of you, Dell.) Would you like a picture of them?

Granted, I didn't have to using dowsing to find them, but I'm sure your rocks are much more important because you did. Oh, by the way, what did these rocks lead you to, Dell? Surely you weren't dowsing for rock drawings?

 

[ClonedSIM]

Jerry, I'll be very intereseted to see the Photo's of what you have found as a result of Dowsing?

Wow, you really don't understand, do you?

With all of the powers you possess, comprehension certainly isn't one of them, is it?

How about this? I have a pile of dirty coins I dug up using my metal detector. I dowsed the coins, actually, because my rods led me to an old park and then the rods told me there were coins in the ground, between .5 and 8 inches deep. I just used the detector to pinpoint their locations. Do you want a picture of these? What would that prove to you?

Dell,
Skeptics don't have pictures of dowsing finds because dowsing does not work! What point are you trying to make by constantly asking for something you know doesn't exist?

 

[Miner49er]

Hey Bozo, you might look up my OTHER posts under Goldminer, or Bill going back about 5 or 6 years on this forum. BTW, I noticed that wreckdiver1715 is one of the moderators. I was just over on the Shipwreck forum, and I noticed a few people mentioned Burt Webber. Bozo and Buddy, do you know who Burt Webber is? Burt got me into exploring dowsing for treasure, along with Henry Taylor, who was with Burt when they salvaged the conception. I have sat for many hours with Burt, Henry, Mel Fisher(you know who Mel was, right), Harry Shaffer(who was with Tracy Bowden when they salvaged the Tolosa & Guadalupe in the DR), and Silent Cal Johnson who was my shipmate when we salvaged the Lucayan Silver wreck in the Bahamas in 1964. We all discussed how dowsing might be used to find treasure. So, my credentials are out there, where are yours?

 

[ClonedSIM]

Or are these signal lines only measurable with dowsing rods? In that case, you are still dealing with mental dowsing.

Sorry, try again.

How would you know? Dell

Common sense and only the slightest grasp of scientific knowledge is needed, Dell, no doubt why you do not understand.

 

[aarthrj3811]

The word physical infers tangible "real" types of stuff. You know, the kind of stuff that is talked about in high school physics books.

With that in mind, I guess you are telling me these signal lines you witnessed are measurable by physical conventional measuring instruments like voltmeters or ammeters or gaussmeters?

Or are these signal lines only measurable with dowsing rods? In that case, you are still dealing with mental dowsing.

Sorry Jerry...You will have to read a high school Physics book to answer that. I don't even know if you can measure them with a set of dowsing rods. The only thing I know is that these lines can be found and followed. So I will continue to look for them, follow them, dig where my rods tell me to and take the objects home. It makes no difference to me if Science say's this can not be done for I know it can....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Hey Bozo, you might look up my OTHER posts under Goldminer, or Bill going back about 5 or 6 years on this forum. BTW, I noticed that wreckdiver1715 is one of the moderators. I was just over on the Shipwreck forum, and I noticed a few people mentioned Burt Webber. Bozo and Buddy, do you know who Burt Webber is? Burt got me into exploring dowsing for treasure, along with Henry Taylor, who was with Burt when they salvaged the conception. I have sat for many hours with Burt, Henry, Mel Fisher(you know who Mel was, right), Harry Shaffer(who was with Tracy Bowden when they salvaged the Tolosa & Guadalupe in the DR), and Silent Cal Johnson who was my shipmate when we salvaged the Lucayan Silver wreck in the Bahamas in 1964. We all discussed how dowsing might be used to find treasure. So, my credentials are out there, where are yours?

Oh, I'm sorry, 49er, Goldminer, Bill, whatever. Since you like to change you name so often, I have no idea who you really are.

People can be whomever they want online, so crediblity is based on what you know and how you present it and yourself, not on who you claim to be.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Wow, you really don't understand, do you?

With all of the powers you possess, comprehension certainly isn't one of them, is it?

How about this? I have a pile of dirty coins I dug up using my metal detector. I dowsed the coins, actually, because my rods led me to an old park and then the rods told me there were coins in the ground, between .5 and 8 inches deep. I just used the detector to pinpoint their locations. Do you want a picture of these? What would that prove to you?

Dell,
Skeptics don't have pictures of dowsing finds because dowsing does not work! What point are you trying to make by constantly asking for something you know doesn't exist?

All he's got are pictures of rocks, so I guess he'd like to see some pictures of actual dowsed treasure. Tell you what, Dell, next time I got some time to waste, I'll dowse up some rocks to show you. In the meantime, will this do?

Woohoo! Those are beautiful, Jerry! What dowsing method did you use to find them?