Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
My appologies if you have already covered this, edge, but it is a very long thread. At the least, I don't recall hearing anything about this...
I wonder, is there any special requirement of a dowsing rod? Are some better than others? I'm just thinking that an easier way to frame a challenge might be to use a detectable difference in the dowsing results to identify some difference between two or more rods that would be undetectable otherwise.
For example, perhaps you could detect a difference between two rods of different material, or with different filled cores, or any other difference you're aware of that you can detect with dowsing but would not be otherwise detectable through the dowsing activity.
E.g. Perhaps you need not be in direct physical contact with a dowsing rod for it to work, and you could dowse with different rods (of similar weight) within the same obscuring case. If a rod made of oak in such a situation behaves differently than one made of plastic, detecting the difference could be good enough for the challenge.
I wonder, is there any special requirement of a dowsing rod? Are some better than others? I'm just thinking that an easier way to frame a challenge might be to use a detectable difference in the dowsing results to identify some difference between two or more rods that would be undetectable otherwise.
For example, perhaps you could detect a difference between two rods of different material, or with different filled cores, or any other difference you're aware of that you can detect with dowsing but would not be otherwise detectable through the dowsing activity.
E.g. Perhaps you need not be in direct physical contact with a dowsing rod for it to work, and you could dowse with different rods (of similar weight) within the same obscuring case. If a rod made of oak in such a situation behaves differently than one made of plastic, detecting the difference could be good enough for the challenge.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
There are indeed a lot of variables, so the purpose of a test is to eliminate or override many of the variables. The way the test does this is to make everything the same except for the target. The target must be identified as easily "dowsable". This it the purpose of the open test. In your case, Edge, you were allowed to dowse when you knew the location of the target. The same was true of the water dowsers. In each case, the target was so large that it should overwhelm any other factors. That is why you were allowed to bring your own target(s) and why the water dowsing was done with large volumes of water compared to the dry surroundings.
False readings (as an excuse) are eliminated by allowing the dowsers to scan the area when they know there is no water in the pipes.
Agreed, but the whole principle behind dowsing is that it is a way to tell the difference between high concentrations and low concentrations. If it can't do that, then dowsing doesn't work, wouldn't you say?
So why do you have a problem with a test that asks you to detect a high, but hidden, concentration of gold?
You mean where I said you were not a con man but a nice guy? That was true. I also said you were deluded. That is true too. I honestly wish you weren't. I feel you are wasting a very worthwhile life in pursuit of a chimera.
It is not James' money. Most of it was provided by philanthropists. It is in a fund that Randi can't touch. Ever.
But if you are serious about identifying variables, then you ought to be testing constantly with known targets. Unfortunately, this won't find you any new gold by doing this. Pure research is not profitable.
If you don't have a controlled setting, then there is no way to determine how well it works. Still, as I point out, do it in the field if you like, but where there is a test where there is one big difference: The absolute knowledge of the location of a target. Everything else can be "field".
The Nobel prize is worth much more than the Randi million. If you can show the ability to manipulate a gravity field without the use of large masses, then it's yours. You will be rich as well as famous.
Yes, and your explanations have been critiqued and found lacking.
Your beliefs have been ridiculed. Neither have you given anyone sufficient reason to accept that you have discovered the error in your earlier beliefs.
You want to know what went wrong? I'll tell you. Dowsing doesn't work. You have merely tweaked your beliefs to avoid this obvious conclusion. They are still not base on any kind of science.
There are many such places. a sheer rock outcrop on a mountain is one. There is no regolith, so you are right on top of the bedrock. Conversely, you could do it on top of a place where the regolith was thick and uniform. like on top of a sand dune.
But all of this is moot. You should be able to tell the difference between a place with a small concentration of gold versus a place with a large concentration of gold. If you can't then dowsing doesn't work, because that is exactly what gold dowsing is supposed to do. If not, please tell us what gold dowsing is supposed to do?
Actually, you have chosen a place which is the worst possible place to test dowsing. It is a place where false readings would be abundant because of the proximity of natural gold in various locations. What you want is a place where there is very little gold, so that when you place your target, then the target is the only thing your dowsing rod will find.
You have never explained why undiscovered gold gives a better signal than discovered gold.
Are you now telling us that your dowsing rod cannot distinguish between gold and other metals? Why then is it better than a metal detector? Those actually work, and we know why.
Of course. That is why it is better to do the test in a place where there is little if any native gold. Sure, you're not going to find any "new" gold this way, but it only takes a day and you could be a million dollars richer.
You don't know for sure that it works in the field. You believe it religiously but you don't know it because you can't test it. As I say, bury the targets in the sediment of your "field" location if you must, but you cannot have a test where the presence of a target is not known. Surely you understand why.
LOL. Publicized? Have you ever heard publicity about the other failed dowsing tests? Have you ever seen them on the news? Hell, you couldn't even pull them up when we gave you a link.
No, Edge, there is no money or glory in debunking. It is done for one reason and one reason only. Truth.
Let's see your application, Edge, then we can discuss how to do the details. As James has already commented, the proposals you made several months ago are badly flawed. They will not be accepted. I've made several suggestions, like burying the target in sediments that you have dowsed as "gold-poor". You have not ever said whether or not that is acceptable or why. You seem to be ignoring my suggestions.
You will have to explain your reasoning, Edge. "Because I say so," will not cut it.
A perfectly good test can be done in one day.
No, that is totally incorrect. The premise for dowsing is that it can detect gold. Knowledge of the location of the gold is totally irrelevant. As long as YOU don't know where the gold is, then YOU should be able to dowse for it, right? It doesn't matter if SOMEONE knows where it is. Unless you are claiming that knowledge of the location gold actually changes its properties. Is that what you are claiming?
You know, of course, that the purpose of the double-blind test is to assure that nobody present at the actual testing knows the location of the gold.
You cannot test yourself. If you know, the answers, then you can't pretend not to. If you don't know the answers, then you don't know if you are correct.
Instead of all this rambling about what you would do if you could do it your way (which you can't) why don't you explain what is wrong with a protocol that places a known target in a natural setting? Why are you avoiding this obvious solution? Is it because you know, deep in your heart, that dowsing doesn't work?
If you don't respond to this direct (bolded) question, then I must assume that you are afraid of the consequences of answering the question.
I doubt you can pay for a weeklong test, but as I have described, an easy test could be done in a day. Tell me what is wrong with my suggestion.
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
Edge, after April 1st you will no longer be eligible to apply for the prize. Randi has announced the changes to the challenge. You do not have a "media profile" and will be unable to produce "academic endorsement". But the old challenge rules will remain in effect until April 1st. Given this new information, do you plan to submit an application before April? Again, Edge, after March you are no longer eligible.
Kenny 10 Bellys
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2005
- Messages
- 290
Under the new Challenge rules we can dismiss Edge from being eligible and trying to thrash out a protocol with a guy who's head appears to be full of wasps. Sing Hosannahs!
Last edited:
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Actually, Edge and Randi were mentioned in Newsweek a couple of years ago. I don't know if that counts.
Having an academic vouch for him may be a bit more difficult.
Ah good. The Newsweek link is still active.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
One option is JREF can tell Edge when your income from finding gold is large we will take you seriously.
I am thinking he should be able to find $3,000 worth gold per week with no mine.
I am thinking he should be able to find $3,000 worth gold per week with no mine.
It might take one try or it might take a hundred but eventually I will find it and the validation for more than one try is that here in Trinity Co. I will pull up all other metals till I find it, which is what will happen. A process of elimination with proof of other hits being in the field. Something I couldn’t do in the office.
It has to be a natural setting that is void of metals so that I can get it the first time according to their test concept.
After carefully thinking of that problem I have figured that a lime stone quarry would be a perfect place possibly.
The only place that I can figure would do is in Lansing Illinois quite a distance from here.
I’ll have to do some research to see if there is a similar one near here.
We went over this but let me classify it.
Placer gold in the creek is found with other metals.
Something I was told by my teacher was wrong.
That is that dowsing for gold will only pick up the gold, my knowledge pre 1999.
What I have learned now is it picks up all metals and magnetic fields.
I have also figured out is it will pick up just the gold as the picture shows myself drift mining into the wall, this is what I learned in that location.
Post 1999.
Why it’s better than a metal detector is the detector is limited in depth again refer to the picture with the wheelbarrow next to me.
Look at the height of the hill,
It won’t give a reading there. It might were I was standing, but highly unlikely.
To be sure I asked a friend who sells them and I am absolutely right.
If it’s a 12-inch coil it will only penetrate the ground 12 inches.
It’s a toy.
They do work. Think for a minute, a coil of copper can tell you that metal is there and what it is, why not use a coil of gold?
It would be probably be a hundred times better but who could afford it?
They are one and the same if they are the same grade and size.
You want theory?
This is exactly what I told you I did and can do in the field.
I can’t help that most places are and have been mined to death.
Now privet property is a different story but not all privet property is untouched.
Out in the wilderness there is a high probability that there are still loads and undiscovered places. But even I can’t possibly walk all the ground in my lifetime. There is a chance if you’re in the right place at the right time, if you’re lucky to stumble upon that location, like the guy with the metal detector in the link provided
In the previous post, Australia was it?
All these above are Trickys quotes
By the way if I’m delusional it’s a damn good one and for a short while I entertained that I was wrong, till I had to dowse or go absolutely broke and lose it.
I learned the hard way that there’s something to dowsing that works at least in the field, now we’ll go from there.
petre asks,
You bring up a good point I haven’t discussed this but this last year I had a friend come down to my spot. We had discussed dowsing and he brought down two L-rods.
I use a Y shaped rod cut from willow with a piece of gold or silver inserted in the end.
He had got these from a friend of his in Wisconsin who claims to be an expert.
He went one step further in his theory.
He claims that he can make the Gold in the ground resonate on the atomic level with this little box.
It had quartz crystals in the box attached to a dial on front of the box that was mark in quantities of gold such as 1 once 2 once 3,5,….ect.
I think he was selling this in magazines or something.
I had seen the cable guys in Florida use simple L-rods to locate hidden cables when the markers for these cables were missing and lost, especially when their electronic devise couldn’t pin point the location of the cable. It worked for them.
They were simple coat hangers bent in that shape. With those there’s friction involved so you have to be able to hold them just right so that the movement can happen.
The idea is that they will cross themselves when you’re over the target.
I told him I didn’t buy into the theory but let me see the rods.
The rods were custom built and he did a very good job building these.
They were set in bearings the bearings were set in a plastic p.v.c. Pipe.
Into the bearings for the L-rod he used a single portable radio antenna for each side, you know the kind that allows you to rotate the antenna, you can bend it over and then rotate it in any direction.
In this way it had virtually no friction so the damn things were spinning Willie Nillie as I tried it while I walked.
It took a minute or two for me to steady them and the only way I could get them to do that was to point them down at about a 30 degree angle and let gravity hold them down in front of me.
I was walking the bank were I had about 6 or 8 hits but these were the ones that I had by passed for lack of gold.
The idea was to check them with the dredge to see if I was right about by passing them.
This is the thing, my way of dowsing can tell me, the difference between a looser spot and a winning spot.
Now for the L-rods to cross they would have to over come the gravity that held them down in front of me and what I found was that they did just that and confirmed the spots that I had chose to by pass.
Later I would dredge these spots to see if I was right, to by pass them, and that also proved to be the case.
I did these spots also because I didn’t have a place to go to next.
I would have to move my dredges for that and my camp.
So I killed time and tested myself.
Now here’s the thing they overcame gravity when they crossed, I made sure of that. They confirmed what I already knew dowsing the other way only better.
I’m going to try to do the test the same way, ”JREFs way” with a pair of L rods since they only move parallel to the ground. With the target hidden in one of ten containers to see if that method will give me a better score.
The L-rods gave me readings in the same exact places and my hands never touched the metal for a conductive in the normal sense of an electrical type of connection.
I also did this with the willow stick as I dowsed wearing rubber gloves and got a reaction to a certain area.
Which in my mind cancels out the Ideomotor effect.
The Ideomotor effect claims the reaction to be medical in explanation, such as, my sub-conscience is making my hands do the movement of the stick to occur and that the torque or the twisting of the stick is from muscles under my skin or my hands.
Even I was amazed at the reaction
curlyjoe. said,
I don’t think anyone gets rich mining anymore, but we have fun, hell just to be able to support a camp and sleep under the stars with a campfire is wealth that you can’t put a price on, + get some gold.
Ya can’t beat that as long as you enjoy it.
You are all also my friends per say!
George152
I decided to use that can because you can’t see through it.
GzuzKryzt
I rewrote it twice I will when I’m ready. Here’s the thing even if they test me my way on the creek they still have a way out because they leave it open ended by saying there is a formal test.
Now what does that exactly mean?
I would think we would do the same test on a different piece of property the way the first test was done but I kinda doubt it.
The way I thought it was in the dowsing test scenario was the open test was the pilimnary test and the closed was the formal test but by what they themselves write no one has passed the pilimnary test in any category.
Even if I could do it in one day, it will take more than one set of tests, according to their rules. So I really have to think about it, and hence I’m looking at the possibility of the L rods not to be as sensitive as the willow stick so maybe it will only pick out the target that’s the closest to the surface and not read so deep.
I guess I’ll be going to Radio Shack soon.
Cartoon man you know whom you is, Why aren’t you over on the Skepchick site shmusing the ladies?!
Sounds like some ones getting scared.....
In 1988 my partner and I were pulling about 10 ounces a week for 4 months.
Tim Pouge did the dowsing for us and was buying our gold. James knows Tim.
The price of gold was about $360.00 average. For fines not nuggets three quarters of what we pulled were nuggets.
He is the one that taught me how to dowse....
Now I have found that kind of ground again for next years test.
May even be better gold is $600.00 average
It's only going to take me 4 years verses the guy with the metal detector it took him 20 years, that's the differance.
Plus I work too so your point is moot.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
The open test, or base line test, is not the preliminary test. The open test ensures that your claimed ability works in the test surroundings, and nothing in the test setup hinders you or your rod - sort of like a calibration.
In short: The preliminary test makes sure that there is something to be observed. In the formal, or final test, a lot of people will be watching, meaning: it will have very stricts controls.
Both tests will use the very same protocol, obviously. Hence, the test surroundings will have to be very similar, if not the same.
I assume this isn't news to you, edge. Your experience with JREF should enable you to know how to meet the test requirements.
Quite frankly, you seem to be one "getting scared", because you keep stalling and dodging and making unreasonable demands (a test on the creek) or assumptions (JREF having an "out" by demanding a formal test).
Edge, please submit your claim and protocol proposal in this thread, as I previously suggested. We will help you to get tested to the best of our abilities. Your move.
Well, it seems to me the environment is crucial for edge. Can you paint mona lisa any time you like or must the conditions be just right for the creative juices to flow. If we can't accommodate edge, then we can't test him and that's the end of it.
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
Quite.
Edge, if I recall, you've been through this procedure before. When you were tested in Randi's office you first took the baseline test. I remember reading about it. You were allowed to test your sticks on items you could see, before they were covered up. It allowed you to state that the testing conditions were satisfactory. Remember? You scored 100% correct during this test. That was the baseline test.
Nothing has changed. For this new test, you will again be afforded the opportunity to test your equipment before any preliminary test begins. You should know all this stuff, Edge. You should know better than any of us. You've been through it. We haven't.
Spektator
Is that right?
Edge knows that the baseline run was NOT the preliminary test. This has been explained to him over and over: the preliminary test is two parts, an open test, with the targets in plain sight so he can say his mojo is working, and then a double-blind test so he can demonstrate to others that his mojo is working.
Months ago, he predicted he would produce pounds of gold within a few weeks of dowsing, and then he would be able to pay the JREF representatives' expenses for his retest.
I assume he did not find the pounds of gold.
Months ago, he predicted he would produce pounds of gold within a few weeks of dowsing, and then he would be able to pay the JREF representatives' expenses for his retest.
I assume he did not find the pounds of gold.
