It's okay, edge, he lost me somewhere along the lines as well.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
Simple math lost you, mmmmmmmIt's okay, edge, he lost me somewhere along the lines as well.
Paul
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
Hey edge --
I've been following this thread for a while and it certainly has been interesting. But I think it's getting away from the original point, which is devising a protocol for testing, and then getting tested -- it has strayed into the realm of the description of how this works, what you've gotten to work for you, math that proves/disproves various aspects of your hypotheses, and so forth.
Since this is in the Challenge forum, we really need to focus on getting you ready and set up for your test.
That's not to say that that discussion has been unfruitful; in fact, for example, you came up with a point that perhaps the target object has to be completely buried in the ground in order for you to be able to sucessfully find it (that is, objects sitting on the ground or separated from the ground by a container are harder for you to find). Part of the process of any experiment is to brainstorm what could go wrong and control for that, so this is an excellent thing for you to be exploring.
But I think we're now at the point where you should be able to describe a working protocol.
So, given everything you've discovered and explained so far, and as a dowsing expert, could you give me a step-by-step description of a revised test that you think would demonstrate dowsing? Just a list of needed materials and a list of steps and some kind of numerical expectation (i.e., "the test will be successful if I am able to locate the target substance 8 out of 10 times").
I'm really looking forward to your reply (and I mean that; to me, coming up with a test protocol is easily the most fun part of any test)!
I've been following this thread for a while and it certainly has been interesting. But I think it's getting away from the original point, which is devising a protocol for testing, and then getting tested -- it has strayed into the realm of the description of how this works, what you've gotten to work for you, math that proves/disproves various aspects of your hypotheses, and so forth.
Since this is in the Challenge forum, we really need to focus on getting you ready and set up for your test.
That's not to say that that discussion has been unfruitful; in fact, for example, you came up with a point that perhaps the target object has to be completely buried in the ground in order for you to be able to sucessfully find it (that is, objects sitting on the ground or separated from the ground by a container are harder for you to find). Part of the process of any experiment is to brainstorm what could go wrong and control for that, so this is an excellent thing for you to be exploring.
But I think we're now at the point where you should be able to describe a working protocol.
So, given everything you've discovered and explained so far, and as a dowsing expert, could you give me a step-by-step description of a revised test that you think would demonstrate dowsing? Just a list of needed materials and a list of steps and some kind of numerical expectation (i.e., "the test will be successful if I am able to locate the target substance 8 out of 10 times").
I'm really looking forward to your reply (and I mean that; to me, coming up with a test protocol is easily the most fun part of any test)!
Paul,
Your entire math is wrong everyone knows that pies are not square pie r round!
So your whole equation is wrong..
Besides we are on Earth not Jupiter or the moon.
Seriously this occurs in the field of Earth.
I did what Billy Joe did and skimmed over it.
The math will come later and who knows we may need to give calculations to magnify the powers.
First lets see if there is something to it.
One set of protocols goes like this.
Two of Jrefs people come to a certain spot where I’m dredging.
The duration of the test will be two weeks.
For two weeks, my self and what the operation produces supply all that is needed to support the camp and pay for rooms if needed.
I will for the proof pick ten spots to unearth that contain more than a quarter ounce.
I will pick another ten spots that have virtually nothing or no more than a pennyweight of gold.
Each one I will say six out of ten correct, that’s 12 out of twenty for both, but from what I have seen from last year it’s more like 90%.
Then I will do that test again with 20 spots.
But from what I hear they “ jref “ won’t go for it.
This would be the best way and is my first choice.
So I will do a hidden container test like at the office except on the bank on the creek.
The difference is the target will be on the ground hidden by the container but most likely the lids of the containers that I already have.
The target will be a 1885 silver dollar you know the large ones.
The dowsing rods or the attractors are radio antennas that are L rods.
Totally insulated from my body.
I will dowse ten containers ten times in each category open and close and I will say that I will get 60% correct.
Then the next test that will be the formal I will repeat the process.
I will be allowed two days for those test so that I may be able to stop and rest when I feel the need to or continue the next day for the formal test..
This test will occur when I think it is reasonably warm enough to stay on the bank of the creek long enough to get one set of testing done. That could be as soon as Feb. or March.
It also depends on the volunteers’ scheduling.
Before it is sent, the “protocols”, I need to go 56 miles and see if it can be done there.
If my memory serves me correct, when I dowsed there in a certain spot of the bank there was no reaction what so ever in a section that would be large enough to set ten spots up with enough spaces between each one so their is no mistaking of the target.
I should be able to go there this week, also green eyes has a doctor’s appointment in that town.
I would consider doing the test here but there is more interference here in this area versus there.
I’m sure that the roads won’t be a factor this week.
If I’m wrong about that spot then I still have time.
I hope that answers your question, Jackalgirl.
Edge
Your entire math is wrong everyone knows that pies are not square pie r round!
So your whole equation is wrong..
Besides we are on Earth not Jupiter or the moon.
Seriously this occurs in the field of Earth.
I did what Billy Joe did and skimmed over it.
The math will come later and who knows we may need to give calculations to magnify the powers.
First lets see if there is something to it.
One set of protocols goes like this.
Two of Jrefs people come to a certain spot where I’m dredging.
The duration of the test will be two weeks.
For two weeks, my self and what the operation produces supply all that is needed to support the camp and pay for rooms if needed.
I will for the proof pick ten spots to unearth that contain more than a quarter ounce.
I will pick another ten spots that have virtually nothing or no more than a pennyweight of gold.
Each one I will say six out of ten correct, that’s 12 out of twenty for both, but from what I have seen from last year it’s more like 90%.
Then I will do that test again with 20 spots.
But from what I hear they “ jref “ won’t go for it.
This would be the best way and is my first choice.
So I will do a hidden container test like at the office except on the bank on the creek.
The difference is the target will be on the ground hidden by the container but most likely the lids of the containers that I already have.
The target will be a 1885 silver dollar you know the large ones.
The dowsing rods or the attractors are radio antennas that are L rods.
Totally insulated from my body.
I will dowse ten containers ten times in each category open and close and I will say that I will get 60% correct.
Then the next test that will be the formal I will repeat the process.
I will be allowed two days for those test so that I may be able to stop and rest when I feel the need to or continue the next day for the formal test..
This test will occur when I think it is reasonably warm enough to stay on the bank of the creek long enough to get one set of testing done. That could be as soon as Feb. or March.
It also depends on the volunteers’ scheduling.
Before it is sent, the “protocols”, I need to go 56 miles and see if it can be done there.
If my memory serves me correct, when I dowsed there in a certain spot of the bank there was no reaction what so ever in a section that would be large enough to set ten spots up with enough spaces between each one so their is no mistaking of the target.
I should be able to go there this week, also green eyes has a doctor’s appointment in that town.
I would consider doing the test here but there is more interference here in this area versus there.
I’m sure that the roads won’t be a factor this week.
If I’m wrong about that spot then I still have time.
I hope that answers your question, Jackalgirl.
Edge
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
It does, and I'm glad to hear you have something specific in mind. I agree with you regarding your first plan; I imagine (but don't know) that any local skeptical organization would be willing or able to hang out with you for two weeks. It's too long, and sounds like it would be completely uncontrolled. For example, there would be no way to prevent someone from coming in, say, at night and intentionally adding or removing material, without the help of a lot of very expensive multi-function camera equipment (i.e., IR, night-vision, etc). I think your second test is a better idea -- simpler, easier to do, easier to control.
Can this test be done anywhere, or just in this location? Or is it the fact that it's outdoors and away from, say, power lines, etc, that is the important factor (for example, would your test work on /any/ creekside)? Will the fact that the silver coin won't be completely buried within the creekside affect the test negatively?
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
No problem -- take your time. : )
teck49
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 83
Now that may, or may not be a correct statement. Do you have any statistical results from a double-blind experiment or two, to back up your statement?
Just saying, "It doesn't work." is just as ignorant as professing your "belief" that it does.
The only proof is in the stat-pudding.
Jackelgirl
Salting of the test area could be done but hardly likely that anyone could get to the bottom with out air and that would be noticeable.
Several reasons, the gold in quantities like what I described lets say a quarter once pocket or crack would be under hundreds of pounds of rocks.
A geologist could verify when it was uncovered because it would have a layer that is similar to soft concrete over the top of it.
Also we could use a guard dog like the ones in my pictures back on the link that I posted and I guarantee that if a sparrow were to show up, the dark colored one would go off.
There is no way that any body that is sane will throw any amount of gold back into the creek on such a risk.
Plus all involved on my side could take a lie detector test at the end to prove no one cheated.
Lets say right now the creeks and rivers are calm which they are, so to salt it and put targets in the creek I would have to dredge down about let say three feet by three feet put the gold there and then cover it.
That would be too much work.
Then lets say that the creek rises with floodwaters this winter, there is no way that you could guarantee that it would stay there because the waters could hydraulic it out and it would be lost.
It can move even when the ground hasn’t been loosened.
I would need several ounces to take a chance with even I wouldn't risk it.
A geologist would know.
The waters are so cold I'm not even getting in.
If I put a dredge in before July 1st. fish and game would confiscate my dredges that would be a $10,000.00 dollar loss and the test would be cancelled.
Basically a guy like Tricky a resident geologist would have to dive when and only when the spot is finally uncovered or as we approach it.
He would have to check us before and be there till it's done, in some cases that could take ten minutes in some who knows but the spots I could say are ten feet by ten feet. Or could be one foot by one foot.
The spot that I think I can prove dowsing is very neutral there is hardly anything there, I mined it and the area around it.
This is very hard to find, “Neutral ground” and it is a convenient area.
There are several choices in that area but one good flood could ruin that.
You would not believe the power under those conditions.
As long as the dollar touches the ground it's grounded and that maybe all the difference that it takes.
When I hung targets in the air I thought I had it, what I learned is that There is an attraction going up in a column and one that gravity is working on going down.
Yes the second one will be quicker.
The first is why dowsing for gold takes place.
Salting of the test area could be done but hardly likely that anyone could get to the bottom with out air and that would be noticeable.
Several reasons, the gold in quantities like what I described lets say a quarter once pocket or crack would be under hundreds of pounds of rocks.
A geologist could verify when it was uncovered because it would have a layer that is similar to soft concrete over the top of it.
Also we could use a guard dog like the ones in my pictures back on the link that I posted and I guarantee that if a sparrow were to show up, the dark colored one would go off.
There is no way that any body that is sane will throw any amount of gold back into the creek on such a risk.
Plus all involved on my side could take a lie detector test at the end to prove no one cheated.
Lets say right now the creeks and rivers are calm which they are, so to salt it and put targets in the creek I would have to dredge down about let say three feet by three feet put the gold there and then cover it.
That would be too much work.
Then lets say that the creek rises with floodwaters this winter, there is no way that you could guarantee that it would stay there because the waters could hydraulic it out and it would be lost.
It can move even when the ground hasn’t been loosened.
I would need several ounces to take a chance with even I wouldn't risk it.
A geologist would know.
The waters are so cold I'm not even getting in.
If I put a dredge in before July 1st. fish and game would confiscate my dredges that would be a $10,000.00 dollar loss and the test would be cancelled.
Basically a guy like Tricky a resident geologist would have to dive when and only when the spot is finally uncovered or as we approach it.
He would have to check us before and be there till it's done, in some cases that could take ten minutes in some who knows but the spots I could say are ten feet by ten feet. Or could be one foot by one foot.
The spot that I think I can prove dowsing is very neutral there is hardly anything there, I mined it and the area around it.
This is very hard to find, “Neutral ground” and it is a convenient area.
There are several choices in that area but one good flood could ruin that.
You would not believe the power under those conditions.
As long as the dollar touches the ground it's grounded and that maybe all the difference that it takes.
When I hung targets in the air I thought I had it, what I learned is that There is an attraction going up in a column and one that gravity is working on going down.
Yes the second one will be quicker.
The first is why dowsing for gold takes place.
SezMe
post-pre-born
edge, taking a lie detector test doesn't prove anything except that you took a lie detector test.
You're making this WAY too complicated. Uncontrollable field tests like you are describing will never be accepted as a test protocol. You'd be better off spending your time, er, dowsing for a test protocol in the nearest library.
Did you read the second one?
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
My friend Paul need not come to my defense. I'm quite capable of doing that myself. But, thanks Paul.
No, there's probably not a definitive double-blind experiment that demonstrates dowsing doesn't work, just as there is not one that demonstrates God doesn't exist. But there is plenty of evidence within this forum and within the pages of Swift and many other sources that clearly demonstrate an inability to show dowsing does work. In every case, in every properly designed test, it has never been shown to work, ever. Not to mention the entire body of physical science which says it doesn't work as dowsers claim it does.
I do understand the difference between trying to prove a negative versus testing a dowsing claim. Maybe there are two types of skeptics, good ones and bad ones. The good ones, such as yourself teck49, realize that until something is scientifically disproved, the possibility remains that it might be true. That's OK, I don't have any problems with that. I can understand the sensibility behind that approach. Maybe one day I won't be so dumb and will be able to say that things flying in the face of reason which haven't been disproved still have a chance of being true. (Actually, I say that a lot. Many new scientific discoveries mesmerize me; discoveries that, at face value, might seem unreasonable but have been shown to be true.) Today is not that day. I'm a bad skeptic because I say it doesn't work.
teck49, do you have any statistical data showing it does work? I'm all ears.
This is for edge and edge only-
edge, dowsing doesn't work.
Last edited:
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
You put your finger right on it! The first test is just going to require way too much work, both to accomplish and to control, and two weeks is going to be too long. It might be worth pursuing, /later/, once the first, basic tests are complete. If you are able to regularly pass such basic tests, I imagine mining companies will be falling all over themselves to pay you to teach them how to work out a long-term resource-finding technique. So let's not worry about that right now.
I asked:
You replied:
Sounds good. So now we need a little more detail on the protocol. How does this sound?
Requirements: 1 (one) silver half-dollar (target).
10 opaque containers (preferably round), numbered 1-10.
One ten-sided die.
You & your dowsing equipment
At least four (4) observers, two provided by you and two provided by a skeptical association. Labeled 1e, 2e (your folks) and 1s, 2s (the skeptical folks).
Two walkie-talkies with some kind of CW function (that is, they can transmit a beep).
At least two (2) video cameras, positioned to easily observe the scene from two different angles.
Two "holding areas" both out of sight and of sound of the actual test area and of each other.
Protocol:
The cameras are set to roll. 1e and 1s set up the scene thusly: they roll a die to determine under which container to place the target. 1s places the target under the container. 1s then places the other containers at other spots on the ground and is observed by 1e. 1s takes note of the number of the container that has the target.
1e and 1s leave the area and go into their holding area. They "beep" you, 2e & 2s (aka "your team) with one beep via the walkie-talkie to let you know they're done. For the first actual run of the test, the die will have been left on top of the container that contains the target. This allows you to confirm that the scene is free of interference and that your equipment is working correctly. Once you have determined under which container the target is located, your team will note which container you chose, you will all go into your own holding area, and then you will beep the other team.
At the beep, the other team returns to the test area and retrieves all of the containers and the coin. It's very important that they clear up all of the containers and start over from scratch. They then repeat the process of rolling the die, placing the containers, etc. This time, however, they take the die with them. This is the first of your actual test runs. Once they have set up the test area, they return to your holding area and beep you & your team. You go to the test area, determine which container holds the target, mark it down, return to your holding area, and beep the other team. This is repeated nine more times for a total of 10 tries (not including the "calibration test").
When you're done with all 10 tries, the two teams get together and compare their lists. If you correctly identify the container holding the silver coin in 6 out of 10 tries, you pass the test.
Does this sound like an acceptable protocol to you? How about to anyone else -- do you have any specific suggestions or know of any trickery for which this protocol does /not/ control?
A philosophical conundrum:
Do we accept everything as true untill it has been disproven, or do we accept everthing as false until it has been proven? In the former, we need evidence to stop accepting something as true. In the latter, we need evidence to start accepting something as true.
Now....how do we prove which one of these alternative positions is correct?
Do we accept everything as true untill it has been disproven, or do we accept everthing as false until it has been proven? In the former, we need evidence to stop accepting something as true. In the latter, we need evidence to start accepting something as true.
Now....how do we prove which one of these alternative positions is correct?
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
A philosophical conundrum:
Do we accept everything as true untill it has been disproven, or do we accept everthing as false until it has been proven? In the former, we need evidence to stop accepting something as true. In the latter, we need evidence to start accepting something as true.
Now....how do we prove which one of these alternative positions is correct?
I think that might be a false dichotomy, though I am no expert at logical debate. I don't think that you have to live in either of the alternative positions.
Personally, I try not to accept something as fact until I have some kind of believable evidence for it. But I'm willing to say "maybe" for the time being. I /won't/ be willing to bet my life on it (or someone else's life on it), though, without some kind of evidence.
And I try to keep an open mind, even about stuff I think is total nonsense, so that I don't dismiss any so-called evidence out of hand (though I find this extremely difficult). In other words, I will try to believe that things are wildly improbable, but not impossible. If Sylvia Browne were to undergo a proper double-blinded test and actually pass, I might actually begin to give her some credit -- after I've examined the test (and, more importantly, smarter people than I have looked at it) and determined that it properly controlled for trickery. In other words, I wouldn't dismiss the test results out of hand, even though I think it is wildly improbable that Sylvia Browne could accurately determine /anything/ she hasn't fished for with those claws of hers.
So, in other words, I think of things as possible until I have evidence for them, and am likely to think of certain long-untested things (like mediums) as improbable (only because they've had so long to pony up some evidence, and haven't).
Jackagirl,
Very good.
We have edge in an environment where he knows there will be no interference form any source artificial or natural. Ostensibly no there will be no EM/other artificial devices. And no interfering natural metal in the ground, verified by edge himself. Good clean start.
And the protocol sounds foolproof to me.
However, edge may wish to try the open test several times to be absolutely sure. That should be no problem. 6 out of ten seems fair. The odds are 1 in a million.
edge?
Very good.
We have edge in an environment where he knows there will be no interference form any source artificial or natural. Ostensibly no there will be no EM/other artificial devices. And no interfering natural metal in the ground, verified by edge himself. Good clean start.
And the protocol sounds foolproof to me.
However, edge may wish to try the open test several times to be absolutely sure. That should be no problem. 6 out of ten seems fair. The odds are 1 in a million.
edge?
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
I agree with you -- doing the open test 10 times is a really good idea. It would prove, beyond a doubt, that the initial calibration run worked and that everything is functional the way it should be.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Seems like an excellent protocol. edge?
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
Why do we have to start at the extremes, all or nothing? When I walk outside on a clear sunlit day and see a blue sky, I don’t question the color, but I will in time ask the questions and find the answers to why it is blue and these answers have been found. Dosing has been around more than long enough for the questions to be asked, so it does make one wonder why the proof has not been found, until one sees that all the testing does lead to a proof, that it does not exist.A philosophical conundrum:
Do we accept everything as true untill it has been disproven, or do we accept everthing as false until it has been proven? In the former, we need evidence to stop accepting something as true. In the latter, we need evidence to start accepting something as true.
Now....how do we prove which one of these alternative positions is correct?
Paul