Questions for the Experts

[Cannonman17]

you can find treasure a mile away and two feet deep.... LOL stop it.........LOL it hurts........LOL

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Sandsted]

I see why you would want the double blind test, but I thought they would be behind you where you can't see.

 

[Captain Trips]

How would I search a 1 square mile area? With a large coil metal detector, one which has good ground penetration (sufficient to whatever depth I wish to scan), I would lay out a grid pattern and scan each section of the grid thoroughly. Hey, I never said it would be done quickly. But I would be doing it in a manner that has been proven to have success.

Capt trip, I can see you don't have much experience in searching for deep buried Treasure Troves, and the manner you described has far less proven success than Dowsing, or LRL.

First of all, the type of Treasure's I use non-conventional search methods for, are usually buried 15 feet to 100 feet deep, and are located on properties that can span hundreds of acres, with varieties of terrain.

Okay, here's where we have a problem. You never asked how I would search for DEEPLY BURIED items -- only how I would search a square mile area. And THIS is why many people fail the Randi challenge -- they never clearly state the conditions before the challenge is taken, only after they fail. This is what you have done to me. You asked how I would search a certain area, I gave a valid answer, and only THEN did you say "I meant DEEP objects." Now, if you had specified that in your original post, I would have had to come up with a different search method.

And I will not be going away soon. I at least can stay on topic. This thread was titled "Questions for the Experts" and NOT "How can I trip up Trips?" I answered the question, then you had to "threadjack" and change it around once again to how you are better than anyone else, and therefore don't need to prove anything. You have shown your own lack of integrity with this action.

I will not address your other points here, because I have already done so in threads more appropriate to them. But I will repeat one thing: if you can successfully dowse, why don't you take an easy million from Randi, proving him wrong and you right?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Learn to Dowse....Hows the weather in Iowa

 

[aarthrj3811]

Right on Dell....Where's the proof? All they want to talk about is some test. They post no proof or facts of any kind. Learn to dowse so you will know the truth....Art

 

[Sandsted]

See that's what I was wondering, didn't these tests originally profess scientific tests to prove or disprove dowsing? SCIENTIFICALLY, now Af and others say it doesn't matter if it's scientific, they care only for monetary prizes.

If these skeptics want to disprove dowsing so bad why don't they do it right?

Someone made a refrerense to courts. They are trying to prove dowsers guilty by saying to the judge, "They can't prove that they are inocent." Well, if you don't prove us guilty then the jury is forced to vote not guilty.

In my position I don't have to prove to you that dowsing works, all these skeptics aren't very nice, now some behave respectively and professionally. But really this doesn't really concern me.

TO ALL SKEPTICS, why don't YOU prove to me dowsing doesn't work, not the other way around.

Your challenges prove nothing more than that dowser couldn't perform under the conditions or at that time.

Can you prove dowsing doesn't work? SCIENTIFICALLY!

 

[Captain Trips]

1. It is not possible to prove a negative.
2. They are NOT out to prove dowsing doesn't work. They are asking those willing to come forward to prove it DOES.


And, to Dell who says I am talking to people who aren't interested, to them I say this: if you aren't interested in what I have to write, DON'T READ IT. I am not interested in talking to you, either. I AM interested in talking to those who are willing to take a challenge. Dell, you obviously are not. So, go away already. If you don't want to prove that you can dowse, can you at least prove you are not interested in my postings by not reading them anymore?

 

[Captain Trips]

1. It is not possible to prove a negative.

I see what you mean. Randi, or Carl, cannot prove their challenge is Not a publicity Gimmick, so it is up to somebody else to prove that it is. Dell

Boy, you sure are good at twisting things around. You challenge us to prove dowsing doesn't work, I answer why that can't be done, you turn it around to a completely different object. It's just this type of word games and twisting of meanings that Randi intended to expose with his challenge, and here you have saved him the effort by doing so on your own!

How does it feel to have proved Randi right on something?

 

[ClonedSIM]

See that's what I was wondering, didn't these tests originally profess scientific tests to prove or disprove dowsing? SCIENTIFICALLY, now Af and others say it doesn't matter if it's scientific, they care only for monetary prizes.

If these skeptics want to disprove dowsing so bad why don't they do it right?

Someone made a refrerense to courts. They are trying to prove dowsers guilty by saying to the judge, "They can't prove that they are inocent." Well, if you don't prove us guilty then the jury is forced to vote not guilty.

In my position I don't have to prove to you that dowsing works, all these skeptics aren't very nice, now some behave respectively and professionally. But really this doesn't really concern me.

TO ALL SKEPTICS, why don't YOU prove to me dowsing doesn't work, not the other way around.

Your challenges prove nothing more than that dowser couldn't perform under the conditions or at that time.

Can you prove dowsing doesn't work? SCIENTIFICALLY!

Wow, referring to me even when I'm not posting in the thread, Sandsted? I'm flattered! Must have really gotten you goat, huh?

Who's talking about courts besides you? I've never said dowsing is on trial. And to talk about science again?!? I went on and on about the scientific aspects of the experiments, offering up different versions of the test, until Rick offered his version, which it was agreed was a great, scientific, double-blind experiment. Of course, you ran off from that thread when you got your feelings hurt, so maybe you missed those posts. It's called a challenge because you can't just waltz in and win the thing. If you could, it'd be called a giveaway. We know you aren't up for the challenge, Sand. However, I'd run my detector against your rods any day.
How about a half-acre field with 50 silver halves buried 5 inches under the surface? We'd each have an hour. I'd put my White's up against your car (probably worth about the same) that in that hour I'd dig five times the number of halves as you did.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Right on Dell...These guy's are not Dowsers...They have no Idea what can be done with a set of Rods.....They seem to think that every piece of equipment is limlted by what a Metal Detector will do...I have demonstrated the Tick-Tac experiment to about 300 school kids. Each tool has it's own purpose. You can't mix apples and oranges.....Art

 

[Rich NY]

What if you used a coin planter like they use to plant coins for a metal detector hunt? You could have 50 silver dollars planted plus 1000 jabs with no coins. That way it would be much harder to spot any visible clues.

 

[Captain Trips]

What if you used a coin planter like they use to plant coins for a metal detector hunt? You could have 50 silver dollars planted plus 1000 jabs with no coins. That way it would be much harder to spot any visible clues.

Nope, I bet they won't take this either. After all, this is a variation on a double-blind experiment, and they view "double-blind" as cuss words.

Dell does have an interesting point, though. Metal detectors only detect metal. He claims he can detect non-metallic items, also. Of course, this isn't a fair comparison, but it is an interesting point. (Now, why a treasure hunter would want to search for buried Tic-Tacs is beyond me, but so is his logic.)

 

[ClonedSIM]

Locating Lorcet? Why on Earth would you want to do this with a set of rods or a metal detector?
Well, I'll go ahead and tell you what you already know. Lorcet tabs would cause no reaction to a metal detector. If you can dowse them, great, but try to dowse them in 20 years, and see what you get. A smear of residue, if that? Metal detectors are built purpose-specific, unlike rods, which seem to react to anything and everything under the sun. I'd love to see a demonstration, though.
The silver halves test is just another version of either Carl or Randi's challenge. And I'd be more than happy to spread out the keg of nails if it would level the playing field in the halves test. I don't think this test has anything to do with the relative speed of either contestant. If that is the case, then say the test continues until each contestant finds all 50 halves. Last man standing wins?

Art,
What's the Tic-Tac experiment?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Since we have so many smart, and expert Treasure Hunters telling us how to Dowse I have a few Questions for the experts.

I guess the questions are to hard or is there some other reason why the Questions are not answered

 

[ClonedSIM]

There you go again, responding to your own posts. I know you started the thread, but let's try not to get the "I'm taking my ball and going home" mentality, mmmm-kay?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Could I please get a difinition for The Ideomotor Effects and where to find it. Could you experts please post photo's of what you have found at a depth of 2 foot or more. Could you please tell me how to search a 1 square mile area for targets over 2 foot deep. What equipment would you use? I also would like to hear about any large treasure finds and how it was located..

 

[ClonedSIM]

Captain Trips answered all these questions for you many, many posts ago. Did you miss it, Art? Or maybe forgot you read it? Try eating for fish; I heard that helps improve the memory. Or go dowsing for your memories.

 

[Captain Trips]

The Ideomotor Effect is this: all parts of your body are constantly in motion, even if it is so slight that you don't notice it. These motions can be and actually are effected by subconscious control from the brain. One is usually never aware of these control impulses, but they are there. Therefore, it is possible to control the actions of dowsing rods/sticks without being aware of doing so. (Same thing applies for hand-held pendulums, or the pointer on a Ouija board.)

There you go, a simple definition. Not taken from ANY web site, but from basic biology education, the kind I got in high school. And if you think it doesn't work that way, think of surgeons. Surgery is extremely tiring for a surgeon because (s)he is working very hard to restrain the ideomotor motions of his/her hands.

What have I found at 2 feet or more depths? Nothing -- I use an Ace 250 which doesn't have that kind of depth.

How would I search a 1 square mile area? With a large coil metal detector, one which has good ground penetration (sufficient to whatever depth I wish to scan), I would lay out a grid pattern and scan each section of the grid thoroughly. Hey, I never said it would be done quickly. But I would be doing it in a manner that has been proven to have success.

Since Art apparantly can't scroll up, I have quoted the answers I gave for him.

Note: The answer to question 3 (how would you scan for something more than two feet deep) isn't a full answer, as (I will admit) was pointed out previously, I believe by Dell. I was assuming the targets to be metallic, and not a mile deep into the ground.

 

[ClonedSIM]

They were good, honest, straight-forward answers, Captain. Art probably blocked them out because he can't process information with those attributes.

But I have to admit this forum wouldn't be nearly as entertaining without him and Dell.

 

[Captain Trips]

Yes, I've come to realize that the simple, straightforward style is something they aren't familiar with. They'd rather argue in circles, elipses, squares, triangles, and even sometimes in random patterns. But it comes down to this for them: they don't feel they are up to the challenge, for whatever reason. (I know that statement will produce some answer that amounts to, "I AM up to the challenge, I just won't take it." Which simply proves my point: they say, "I can't pass it. Yes, I can, but I won't take it because I know I won't pass.")