The MapDowsing Debate.

[Holyfield]

How many metal detectorist's believe in MapDowsing? Is there enough scientific evidence to back the MapDowsing theory? Is it FACT or FICTION? I just want to know what the rest of the populace believes in. So you (DETECTORIST'S) are the sound jury, and judge alike. Is it even possible??

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Holyfield]

------------------------

 

[Dave (Pa)]

My Grandfather use to dose for water with a cherry branch. Everybody neads a hobby and a lot of people I know tell me theres no more old coins to be found!

 

[Doug-Iowa]

I believe there is no wrong answer to this poll. If you belive map dowesing works, it will. If you don't beive in dowesing you are right, becuse it will not work for you. I can't explain how it works, but I do know one induvidule that a pendulum will swing fast enough with out him moving it will hit his hand in the process. To each there own. There are people using dogs in the recovery of caches now too. But many believe that is a waste of time. What ever works for you do it.

Doug-Iowa

 

[Thonolan]

If I had to guess, I would say that dowsing is a total waste of time- but then again, I've never tried it. Also, a lot of people don't believe in aliens, but I do. So really, who am I to judge?

 

[Chiz]

I put it in the same catagory as the headlines "Psychic Wins the Lottery"... Think about it.......

Chiz
8)

 

[Holyfield]

It is a known fact that Uri Geller that was supposedly able to use his mind to bend spoons. In a test givin by the U.S.Government Uri could not produce positive results. In the test Uri was placed in a room with only a chair, table and spoon. The 'RULE' was he could not touch the spoon with any part of his body (including hand's). After a couple of long hours of mental anguish, he finally gave up, saying he just could'nt concentrate. I'm sure Psychic ability may be possible, but so far I have seen no proof. CHIZ I think we're in the right State Of Mind. If MapDowsing was real, there would'nt be any treasure on land or in the seas. MapDowsers would of found the Arc of the Covenant, and Noah's Ark. By now they would have found all of the buried pirate treasure's. If I were a MapDowser I really don't know if i'd avertise my MapDowsing abilities, I'd probably turn into a ole' wretched treasure hunter without a moral compass and find all the treasure in the world. BIG LOL. HappyHunt'in-Holyfield

 

[Carl-NC]

How many metal detectorist's believe in MapDowsing?

I "believe" in map dowsing, just as surely as I believe in trees. People do it all the time! Do I believe that map dowsing "works"? Of course! But no better than intuition, which is what map dowsing is, a method of indicating one's own intuition.

That's all dowsing really is, using a gadget to reveal what your intuition is suggesting. There is no real physical reaction with the desired target -- that much can be proven -- nor is there a psychical reaction, either... that can also be proven. What tests show, for any kind of dowsing (including the expensive treasure LRLs), is that it is all psychological. When the dowser doesn't have enough information to intuit correctly (as in a double-blind test), his dowses become as accurate as pure guessing.

- Carl

 

[Carl-NC]

He saw the better than chance results...

How many of those "successes" came from the full-view portion of the test (that provides a performance baseline), and how many came from the actual double-blind portion of the test?

Also, I thought your MFD was completely unrelated to dowsing, despite its use of dowsing rods.

- Carl

 

[Thonolan]

"Dowsing is an established Scientific fact"- you're joking , right?

 

[Chiz]

I think the word you are looking for is "LOGICAL THINKING" not Scientific fact

 

[Thonolan]

"Logical Thinking" isn't quite right, either.

 

[Carl-NC]

Dowsing is an established Scientific fact, I don't know how it works, but we should not waste our time debating how, or why it works, but learn to use it for the benefit of mankind. Dell

Isn't this the same quote you used to attribute to Einstein?

So in your Randi test, what did you score in the full-view prelim, and what did you score in the double-blind portion? I assume there was no final full-view baseline, if you didn't complete the DB portion.

- Carl

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl, as usual you are full of erronous assumptions, presumptions and mind game playing. You already have my answers to your same repeated asinine questions. My answers are still truthfully the same, and always will be.

As I recall, you scored 6-out-of-8 (correct me if I'm wrong) in the entire test. I don't recall that you've ever differentiated the results between the full-view part of the test, and the double-blind part. So I'm curious, as to what you scored in each portion. It's not a trick question.

Weren't you the one that just chastcized me for detracting from the subject of this thread, Map Dowsing?

Nope, don't think I did. Not at all.

So, how about you showing some of your photos of the things you have found using your Mental capacity for Map & Photo Dowsing?

Actually, I do use mental dowsing, every time I go metal detecting. 'Cept I don't call it that, I call it intuition. I take what I know about a site, and what I see when I get there, and I choose to hunt particular areas that I feel will be the most productive. Does it work? Well, I suppose I'd have to hunt the areas I "dowsed" as being productive, and then hunt the areas I didn't choose, and compare the results. I haven't done that, so I make no claims about my abilities to "dowse".

- Carl

 

[Chiz]

That was kinda my point on the "logical Thinking" part. I'll go to an abandoned town or places like that. Knowing the layout of the town or reading the history of it, you can figure out where a lot of things happened, where things were stored, bought, sold, etc. as well as locations of dumps and such. Old maps help a whole lot, especially topo maps, but as far as finding "treasure" using the map, you can deduct where things would have been located according to the layout. Then knowing how a typical town operated, and knowing the "rules" people used, you can logically pin point some locations. Like my pics in the bottle hunting section, they were from a town dump that I found, no map needed, just logical deduction of the location.

Chiz
8)

 

[Carl-NC]

How much of the silver, and gold, was recovered? If you say, "all that was there," I'd probably believe you!

- Carl

P.S. -- can you share the specific results of the Randi test, i.e., how you did in the open phase, and how you did in the DB phase?

 

[lab rat]

Two observations:

1) When I pull out a map, put it on my table, and move a pendulum across it, and watch for it to swing, I can absolutely and irrefutably confirm that I have a map on my table.

2) Dowsers seem to stress how important the attitude is, yet so many of these posts indicate that the attitude of the average dowser is very negative towards those who question the reliability of dowsing. It also seems to be true that some who are convinced that dowsing is not a legitimate passtime also reveal a negative attitude towards dowsers.

Is it possible to generate positive discussion about a questionable subject without incurring jabs? If the science is not rational, it does no good to become irrational ourselves.

 

[Chiz]

Sorry... but I still have to go back to the fact that there would be tons of billionaires and no treasure left if this is true.

 

[Fred]

Dell; Isn't it up to the reader to decide if their time has been wasted? For the most part I enjoy reading what you have to say. The rest of the time I am just too tired to read it all. Fred

 

[lab rat]

Dell Winders, hello! I hope you understand that my comment was not directed at any individual in particular, and as long as you have positive input I hope you will continue to contribute.

Honestly, I am quite interested in the subject. However it seems that learning this from someone with experience is difficult at best, from what I read on these forums. I understand the skeptisism that Chiz and others have also offered, and am admittedly skeptical myself. It does seem to contradict most of what I know about science: that is, most scientific endeavors are advanced by observing repeatable results; which results can be obtained by different people using the same tools and the same body of knowledge.

If one could specifically outline the procedure, basic principles, and allow an inexperienced individual such as myself some basic direction to create repeatable data, this would do a lot to remediate the skepticism.