aarthrj3811 said:
I did not tell you Bob was perfect in his test.
Yes, I know. You said you witnessed failures. Bob said he was perfect every single time. One of you is not telling the truth.
Please respond as to whether you understand what I am saying.
I can see no reason to have a signed contract to attend a demonstration that is for fun.
Were it just "for fun," I would agree. But it was not "for fun," it was a $25,000 challenge that Bob accepted.
Please respond as to whether you understand what I am saying.
Under First Look you say that it comes with a set of Dowsing Rods...They are just plain Brass Rods.
OK... are you saying that is a false statement?
The second thing is that you claim the range to be under 100 feet as test ...Since you claim that these signals can not be measured how was this done.
I haven't claimed that a signal cannot propagate through the ground, since I know that it can, and I know that it can be detected with proper equipment. I've done this out to about 60 feet or so, with more powerful signal generators, and have even posted that experiment on these forums. So the 100-foot number is being very, very, very generous. It's probably more like a foot or two for this particular product. What does NOT happen is a so-called "signal line," and I will pay dearly for someone to prove me wrong on this.
You claim that in a basic test it could not detect 1 0z of gold. If you don't turn the unit on or you do not use the rods to check the signal you are right. If you turn the unit on, and set it up to locate gold and check the signal with the brass rods it will find gold.
I set the unit up and used it as instructed. It does not detect gold. I will pay dearly for someone to prove me wrong on this.
As can be clearly noted, The whole report is based on your thories of Dowsing. Not on any real testing results.
Yes, I do actually test the devices. My report is based on results and reality. I will pay dearly for someone to prove me wrong on this.
Please tell us where and how these demonstrations were repeatedly done that proved Dowsing was self-delusion
We've been discussing this very topic for quite some time right here on these forums. Would you like to deny that these discussions have taken place?
You admit that you can not Dowse....So how can you know that the RODS behave the same
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. The rods behave exactly the same whether or not the generator is turned on. This might not be true if someone has the mindset that there should be a difference, and therefore they produce that difference subconsciously. But in randomized blind testing (yes, I have done this) dowsers cannot tell whether the device is powered on, or not. I will pay dearly for someone to prove me wrong on this.
If you don't know how to use the RODS or set the unit up correctly how can you made this statement....
But I do. I will pay dearly for someone to prove me wrong on this.
Thanks for at least giving it a try, Art. That's certainly more than Dell did. But all your complaints are based on your
opinion that I'm wrong. You failed to present any facts.
As I said several times, I am open to being proved wrong on any part of the report, and Bob certainly has the opportunity to do just that by following through with the challenge. But he refuses to do so.
- Carl