probability theory

[Carl-NC]

Studies of crash victims supported the empirical observation that those wearing seat belts were less likely to be killed or seriously injured than those not wearing them. Based on this type of study, predictions such as 45% reductions in fatal injury and 50% reductions in moderate-to-critical injury were made[

Predicted savings of lives in the thousands or (in the case of the USA) tens of thousands have been the standard currency of seat belt legislation proponents.

His study conclusion was that in the eighteen countries surveyed, accounting for approximately 80% of the world's motoring, those countries with seat belt laws had fared no better, and in some cases (e.g. Sweden, Ireland and New Zealand) significantly worse than those without. In order to explain this disparity, Adams advanced the hypothesis that Protecting car occupants from the consequences of bad driving encourages bad driving.

Gee Carl..When probability theories are used for Auto Saftey like Seat Belts, Air Bags, Reduced Speed Limits and other laws they don't seem to be correct. According to all the probabitity theories No one should have been killed in Auto Accidents sense around 1998. ...Art

Art, I strongly urge you to disable your airbags, don't use a seatbelt, and drive as fast as you possibly can.

- Carl

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Oroblanco]

Carl wrote:

Anyone who claims to be able to dowse, and claims that it is useful in locating something (e.g., buried gold) or determining something (e.g., dates on coins) MUST be able to exceed chance results, no matter what else they do. If they cannot exceed chance results with their dowsing, then the claim is bogus, no matter how well or poorly they guess.

Carl still you have not grasped the extreme problem with your approach to "prove" dowsing is equal to guessing. I have tried to point out to you that LUCK is a factor that CAN NOT be addressed as an absolute in any theoretical projected result, but perhaps I can make it more clear using some of the numbers our "friendly" skeptics think that they are the masters of.

Lets say we have a test where a dowser is supposed to find a coin under a cup; there are ten cups, one coin. The odds of hitting it correctly are 10%, however it is within the mathematical rules of chance that over say ten runs of the test, that the dowser might find NONE, or 1, or 2, or 3...for the problem with comparing any claimed skill against PURE ChANCE is that ALL POSSIBLE RESULTS ARE WITHIN THE RANGE OF WHAT CHANCE COVERS - and ANY result which seems to run near any extreme is LUCK. Chance results cover the entire possible range of results in any test, so...how is it possible to BEAT "chance" when ANY result is within chance results?

As for drilling my own well, that is precisely what I am doing, and remember Carl it is YOU that has been publicly offering to "give away" or "award" your own money to the tune of $25,000 for proof of dowsing, and I am offering you a chance to SEE dowsing work in a very real comparison of dowsing versus guessing.

In any type of "test" of unusual claims, it is always best to do the testing NOT in some kind of artificial, made-up regime but to do it IN THE FIELD and while actually performing the claim, in the case of dowsing as I understand it, this means searching over the land for underground water. How can this be "duplicated" via emails, or snail-mail, or in any fashion using buckets or cups or other props? So please quit claiming that you can prove that dowsing is no better than guessing, unless you want to SPECIFY which type of dowsing you are talking about, because you are not wiling to even try it IN THE FIELD and searching for WATER. I cannot address dowsing for buried treasures or map-dowsing etc as I have no expertise in these areas, but looking for underground water with rods, it works very well.

Good luck and good hunting to you, hope you find the treasures that you seek.

Oroblanco

 

[aarthrj3811]

Ah, now you understand why you cannot test a dowser's "guessing ability" with a single test, and maybe not even with several tests.

Yes Carl...We have understood this from the Start.

This is also why it's important to understand theoretical statistics, so you can calculate the expected outcome distribution without having to run tons of unnecessary tests.

We also understand this...But we think you theroretical statistics are not a way to prove anything. Why...Because they are wrong about 70% of the time.

No I will not quite wearing my seat belt....This one area that your statistics have been proven to be way off base....Art

 

[Bill]

How about I answer the well question? In 1973, I dowsed a water source for some businesses in Haiti. The well was located, and dug, and a pump was installed that fed two businesses. An interesting fact about this particular water source, was the well was dug down seven feet from the surface, and only about fifty feet from a seawall. That located the fresh water BELOW the seafloor. Another businessman who witnessed the dowsed well, ask if I would dowse his property for some expected water sources. I found eight aqueducts that came down out of the mountain, and brought water to Christine Bonaparte's palace. No one knew they were there.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Relax Bill. If Swr were even remotely interested, there are literally tons of recorded data out there, US Army included , but---.

Don Jose de La Mancha - Tropical Tramp

 

[Oroblanco]

Greetings,

SWR wrote:

(in response to this Quote from: Oroblanco on Yesterday at 08:35:01 PM
I cannot address dowsing for buried treasures or map-dowsing etc as I have no expertise in these areas, but looking for underground water with rods, it works very well.)

How many underground wells have you successfully dowsed? I'm not talking about dowsing existing water pipes, existing wells or assuming there is potable water under your feet. But, actually dowsed a location, paid to have the well drilled and then pumped enough GPM out of it be called a successful well?

I think I asked this question before and never got an straight answer

Hello SWR,
If you asked me, personally this question I must have missed it or overlooked it, I don't recall such a specific question as this. If I did answer this previously, it was not in a specific way so will answer it specifically:

Q: How many underground wells have you successfully dowsed?

A: Three. Two I drilled using our own portable drill rig, and one we had to pay to have drilled after foolishly selling our portable drill rig.

(If you or anyone here ever spends the bucks to own your own drill rig, DON'T EVER SELL IT or you WILL regret it, in the future.) All three produced well over 15 gpm. If you wanted to know about finding blind springs, that is flowing, underground, potable water that was dug to prove up, the number is quite a bit more - several dozen in fact. I have a problem in finding a large enough flow of water however, at least here in southern Arizona where there are a number of extremely small springs underground at fairly shallow depths, but are really "seeps" - producing only a drop or two per minute. These seeps are not numerous here either, nor close together enough to try to 'harvest' them by using French drain systems etc hence my only resort is to drill for a deep vein. (This is why I am so confident that if Carl or anyone else were to come here and try to GUESS a site anywhere on this 100 acres, they will not locate any water, it is truly a very dry region. Just a few miles away there is a fair body of underground aquifer, but unfortunately for me this does not extend into the hills.)

What you did not ask was how many sites had I dowsed for water, that when drilled proved NOT to have water or not any potable water? The answer is NONE. Like I said, I am very much a "newbie" at dowsing, not having dowsed hundreds of wells or springs, still in the low numbers. I have dowsed a few sites that turned out to be electric lines, but these were at such shallow depths that no drilling was necessary to learn the truth, I was able to see the conduits using only a shovel.

For the skeptics, just a point to consider here - if dowsing truly is no better than guessing, why would you suppose that some water well drilling companies, electric companies, phone companies and even oil corporations make use of them? Would you think that such companies and corporations, which are operating for a profit (at least in theory) would REALLY bother with such a practice if it did not work better than simply guessing?

Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

SWR wrote:

Did you drill these three wells on your property in Arizona, or another location? I was under the impression, from some of your posts, that your domain was primitive, without electricity and running water. Hitting three for three would be expected on the East Coast

These were in Wyoming (Thunder Basin, an area where you are more likely to hit OIL than water) and California's Mojave desert, not in the east and not in Arizona. (Beth and I have lived in other states over the years, only had to live in PA due to illness of relatives which required our presence.) I agree, in the wet East, it would be common to hit water virtually anywhere one cared to drill - hence little need for any type of water-locating other than simply drilling.

Your perception of my 'domain' as being 'primitive' appears to be somewhat skewed - we DO have electricity (we produce our own via the wind and occasionally by generator, and plan to add solar panels to take advantage of the frequent full sun) and have running water from a storage tank which we fill by hauling tanks of water. So if you were here and did not KNOW that we were "off the grid" you would not know the difference, since there IS electricity, phone (cell) TV, internet, and running water out of the faucet and ground hydrant - however the water is hauled in, the electricity is produced on-site, internet and TV are via satellite (and better than ANY such service we have ever had while living 'on the grid') so it is not exactly "primitive" at least not as I would define that term. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind "roughing it" while out prospecting or hunting or treasure hunting etc but as a permanent lifestyle I would rather not! BTW for anyone considering moving 'off the grid' it will cost you some bucks to get set up, and you do not have an un-limited supply of power, but I can tell you that we DON'T miss those monthly, ever-increasing utility bills, power outages in nearly every thunderstorm or when a raccoon gets into a transformer etc. It is well worth it in my honest opinion to set up your home to be 'off grid' - you will never regret it.

Oroblanco

 

[Peg Leg]

This is interesting I think most will agree.
I gentleman brought me a map of a certain area of a Florida beach and ask me to dowse it for him. The area was where he wanted to go and check out with his MD. He said he would split 50/50 with me. He returned this past Sunday and gave me 3 SILVER NAILS that he recovered from the area I said to check out. The Silver nails were no less than 34 grams each and were pretty rough but they were silver and they were nails and they were with 20 feet of where I have picked up silver.
So you guys can continue you so called DEBATE while I count my money.
Peg Leg

 

[ClonedSIM]

This is interesting I think most will agree.
I gentleman brought me a map of a certain area of a Florida beach and ask me to dowse it for him. The area was where he wanted to go and check out with his MD. He said he would split 50/50 with me. He returned this past Sunday and gave me 3 SILVER NAILS that he recovered from the area I said to check out. The Silver nails were no less than 34 grams each and were pretty rough but they were silver and they were nails and they were with 20 feet of where I have picked up silver.
So you guys can continue you so called DEBATE while I count my money.
Peg Leg

Silver nails, eh?

 

[ClonedSIM]

This is interesting I think most will agree.
I gentleman brought me a map of a certain area of a Florida beach and ask me to dowse it for him. The area was where he wanted to go and check out with his MD. He said he would split 50/50 with me. He returned this past Sunday and gave me 3 SILVER NAILS that he recovered from the area I said to check out. The Silver nails were no less than 34 grams each and were pretty rough but they were silver and they were nails and they were with 20 feet of where I have picked up silver.
So you guys can continue you so called DEBATE while I count my money.
Peg Leg

Silver nails, eh?

yeppers...silver bells...er, nails

Wonder if they were the press-on kind?

 

[Oroblanco]

Pegleg, silver nails - what an extraordinary find! I would sure appreciate if you could PM me a photo or two? I will explain by PM why I ask about a photo, so as not to get anyone over-excited here. If you would rather not send photo(s) I will understand. Thank you in advance,

Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI Pegger mi buddy: I am curious, where would / couild silver nails be used? I am not denying their existance, but am at a loss as to what they might have been used for?

Don Jose de La Mancha Tropical Tramp

 

[Carl-NC]

Lets say we have a test where a dowser is supposed to find a coin under a cup; there are ten cups, one coin. The odds of hitting it correctly are 10%, however it is within the mathematical rules of chance that over say ten runs of the test, that the dowser might find NONE, or 1, or 2, or 3...for the problem with comparing any claimed skill against PURE ChANCE is that ALL POSSIBLE RESULTS ARE WITHIN THE RANGE OF WHAT CHANCE COVERS - and ANY result which seems to run near any extreme is LUCK. Chance results cover the entire possible range of results in any test, so...how is it possible to BEAT "chance" when ANY result is within chance results?

You are correct that even extremely improbable results are possible. Lotteries prove that weekly. That's why, if you want proof of dowsing, one isolated extraordinary outcome isn't enough. You'll need repeatable results.

But my challenge isn't for proof. It's a challenge. A one-time event. Can dowsers achieve better-than-random results in a single test? If someone does succeed, they win my money, even if it turns out the success was only due to guessing.

It is up to me ensure the test is designed so that an outcome due to guessing is extremely unlikely, while still offering a protocol in which dowsing, if it works, would easily succeed. So while you are correct that "chance results cover the entire possible range of results in any test," the results that would show a real dowsing skill are unlikely from guessing, while results from guessing are very likely if dowsing does not work. Believe it or not, scientific tests in which false positives can occur are regularly designed in the same manner.

So you are correct that, for proof, you would need to run numerous tests which show an overwhelming dowsing ability. But even this doesn't require that guessing tests be run. We can still compare any dowser's results to mathematical odds, regardless of the number of tests. Doing the same test with guessing will only confirm that the math is correct (this is what I have been proposing we do on this forum, and is something you can easily do on your own, if you still believe that statistics is somehow flawed).

Although no one has yet followed through on my challenge, I have tested a number of so-called experienced dowsers. Interestingly, even though these tests have been pretty loose, with odds (of guessing) that are not nearly as difficult as I would require in my challenge, not a single dowser has ever done better than what very ordinary, mundane guessing would achieve. Nothing even approaching "a little lucky." In fact, I would consider all the outcomes to be downright dismal, from a dowsing perspective.

- Carl

 

[Oroblanco]

Carl wrote:

But my challenge isn't for proof. It's a challenge. A one-time event. Can dowsers achieve better-than-random results in a single test? If someone does succeed, they win my money, even if it turns out the success was only due to guessing.

So you are willing to put $25,000 at the risk of a lucky guess? What is the purpose of this, some kind of 'crusade' to prove dowsing doesn't work, gambling twenty-five thousand dollars in the process, but you are not willing to risk a fraction of this cost to do a real, in-the-field comparison, side-by-side comparing guessing a location to drill for water, versus dowsing a location for water? Carl, you surprise me. It rather appears that you are not concerned about really dis-proving all types of dowsing, but are aiming at those dowsers who seek treasures by this method; are these folks really causing you some kind of harm? There are folks who are selling long-distance-locators of very un-certain performance, at quite considerable prices - it would not bother me one whit to see our skeptics go after these purveyors of questionable devices, but going after the folks who are really having fun and hurting no one - that I just don't understand.

HOLA Real deTayopa! I can mention ONE instance on record of the use of silver nails - you already know it, but for the benefit of those who have not read it, in the glory days of the Spanish in Mexico (and in at least two places in S America) there are stories that silver became so common and iron so scarce that the silver was used to make nails, chains for harness, even shoes for the mules and horses! There is a more ancient record also, which I will not post publicly as it is unlikely to be related. I hope that Pegleg won't mind sharing a photo or two, even if he would not grant permission to make it public.

Oroblanco

 

[Peg Leg]

This is what SILVER NAILS were all about.
They were used to smuggle silver out of the county without paying the Kings taxes.
They would be driven into the soft wood section and then covered with pitch and tar.
They were not used to hold anything together. This was done in the storage section of the ship way below deck.
These silver nails were made similar to the iron nails except they were not as long. Most Spanish nails had a round head but the silver nails had no head at all. There were designed to be hidden from view so NO heads.
You must understand that these nails were also square like all the other nails used on the ship but since the silver is much softer they had to be shorter or they could not be hammered into the wood.
I tested the nails and have found that the silver content ranged from .800% to .900 % silver. Most silver coin during this period were .915 to .925.
The smugglers were pretty Sharpe in their smuggling and used this system for many many years.
Think of this way. The sailors were paid about 1 REALE 8 per MONTH. The weight of these silver nails is about 6 OUNCES which is equal to 6 months pay.
Here is something else THERE WERE PICTURES TAKEN of the recovery BUT I cannot show these photos until I check the area one more time and make sure there is nothing else in the area but I can tell you that they were recovered on the beach near Sabastain Inlet and I believe came from the 1715 fleet.
Later
Peg leg

 

[Oroblanco]

Pegleg that makes perfect sense - seems we have always been finding ways to avoid paying taxes, since taxes were invented! I was aware of the practice of men having pounds of jewelry to wear, because jewelry was exempt from the royal fifth, had not heard of the use of silver nails but it does make a lot of sense and seems unlikely to have had much risk of being caught. I suspect that you have hit upon a VERY interesting site to search, good luck and good hunting to you, hope you find the treasures that you seek!

Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Very interestig pegger logical also

ORO. The main reason they used silver horse and mule shoes was because iron was scarce and also silver gives superior traction on smooth rocks.

Don Jose de La Mancha Tropical Tramp

 

[Carl-NC]

So you are willing to put $25,000 at the risk of a lucky guess?

Yes, but it's a very, very, very low risk.

What is the purpose of this, some kind of 'crusade' to prove dowsing doesn't work, gambling twenty-five thousand dollars in the process, but you are not willing to risk a fraction of this cost to do a real, in-the-field comparison, side-by-side comparing guessing a location to drill for water, versus dowsing a location for water?

Your proposal wasn't a real, in-the-field comparison, side-by-side comparing guessing a location to drill for water, versus dowsing a location for water. It was an offer to have me pay for your well drilling.

Carl, you surprise me. It rather appears that you are not concerned about really dis-proving all types of dowsing, but are aiming at those dowsers who seek treasures by this method;

That's true... something I've actually stated in the past.

There are folks who are selling long-distance-locators of very un-certain performance, at quite considerable prices - it would not bother me one whit to see our skeptics go after these purveyors of questionable devices, but going after the folks who are really having fun and hurting no one - that I just don't understand.

Those purveyors are exactly the people my challenge is designed for. Originally, I limited the challenge only to them, but ordinary treasure dowsers kept asking, "Why can't I take your challenge? I know I can win." So I opened it to them, with the stipulation that they have to bear the burden of travel1. So far, no treasure dowser has had the confidence to follow through.

Although I prod and poke at the purveyors every chance I get (they won't go anywhere near an objective test, because they know their devices don't do anything), I generally don't "go after" ordinary treasure dowsers. However, when someone gets on TNet and makes claims that are just downright silly and trivial to debunk -- like Art's claim that he can step on a coin and his rods will cross -- I might say, "Hey, think you can do that while I'm watching?" Of course, they can't, and they know it, and they consistently refuse. This is the denial part of dowsing.

Sandsted was a unique case in that he made a dowsing claim that could be tested without anyone traveling. Plus, he made his claim in the midst of a discussion (initiated by "Judy"2 I believe) on the merits of dowsing tests, and how to properly design & evaluate one. So it was a perfect opportunity to go through an exercise for everyone to see. Amazingly, there were howls of protests from the dowsers at the mere thought of doing a test. It was as if they didn't believe for one second that Sandsted could really dowse, and didn't want that fact to be revealed.

In any case, the coins were mailed to Sandsted and that's the last I've heard. It's likely that's the last I will ever hear, because I suspect that Sandsted also doesn't believe for one second that he can really dowse.

It's all just self-deception.

- Carl

1. If you bothered to read my Challenge FAQ you would know this already.
2. I see that "Judy" has packed up, deleted all "her" posts, and gone home.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=Carl-NC link=
2. I see that "Judy" has packed up, deleted all "her" posts, and gone home.
*************

Can you blame her? Nothing constructive pro or con has evolved in any of these rooms or posts, plus she is a Professional and needs to earn a living.

It rather reminds me of Columbus trying to prove that the world was perhaps round while the scientific cumunity was trying to burn him at the stake for heresy.

Don Jose de La Mancha Tropical Tramp

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Realde....I saw a map that had the land mass of Antarctica on it that was older than this one...Where and how were these maps made? Just more mysteries that Science do not want to look into...Art