Moderated Dowsing By Edge

Yep. Is that some kind of problem? Every dowser that has ever been tested has failed.


We are not here dealing with every dowser that has ever been tested.
We are dealing with one specific dowser and his specific way of dowsing.
He doesn't have to carry everyone else's failure on his shoulders.

Edge himself has been tested and failed.


If you had spent the last 30 years convinced that something works because you have seen it work, and then someone sets up a test and that thing fails, would you immediately give up 30 years believing that that thing works as a result of this one test? Of course not. You would be an autumn leaf blowing in the wind. You would look for reasons why it failed. You would demand a restest that accounts for what you regard as methodological flaws in the testing procedure. Edge demands no less than you would.

Although he has applied again, he still does not appear to have any idea what he can actually do or how he could test it.


He has found a different type of dowsing rod that works better.
He has continued his search for "neutral ground" were his success rate might exceed that required to pass the test.
He has had about zero help from the JREF - how long is it now that he has submitted his protocol without any useful response?

Assuming anything other than that dowsing does not work would really just be silly. If someone can come up with some evidence that this conclusion is wrong, great. I'm not holding my breath.

You are assuming that edge will fail before he has had a chance to test his procedure. You don't have to hold your breath, just mark time and let this thing play out. What is your rush? There are plenty other things to amuse you on the forum in the mean time. There is no need to rush this project into a forgone conclusion.
 
We are not here dealing with every dowser that has ever been tested.
We are dealing with one specific dowser and his specific way of dowsing.
He doesn't have to carry everyone else's failure on his shoulders.

Actually yes he does. He claims exactly the same as may other dowsers. All those who have been tested have failed. Therefore I assume he will fail.

If you had spent the last 30 years convinced that something works because you have seen it work, and then someone sets up a test and that thing fails, would you immediately give up 30 years believing that that thing works as a result of this one test? Of course not. You would be an autumn leaf blowing in the wind. You would look for reasons why it failed. You would demand a restest that accounts for what you regard as methodological flaws in the testing procedure. Edge demands no less than you would.

Irrelevant. We were not talking about Edge's beliefs, we were talking about mine. You said I was assuming the conclusion before the test. Yes I am, because the conclusion has happened many times before and I have no reason to believe this time will be any different. Edge's personal beliefs have nothing to do with this.

He has found a different type of dowsing rod that works better.
He has continued his search for "neutral ground" were his success rate might exceed that required to pass the test.
He has had about zero help from the JREF - how long is it now that he has submitted his protocol without any useful response?

He has been doing this for 30 years. He claims to know exactly what he can do and how it works. Yet he keeps having to change what he claims.

You are assuming that edge will fail before he has had a chance to test his procedure. You don't have to hold your breath, just mark time and let this thing play out. What is your rush? There are plenty other things to amuse you on the forum in the mean time. There is no need to rush this project into a forgone conclusion.

Rush? It's been nearly a year. It's been much longer since his first faliure. He has been doing this for 30 years. This must be some strange meaning of "rush" that I wasn't previously aware of.
 
You mean to tell me that you don't know what conglomerate is?
Every one here knows what that is.
Everyone but you, apparently.

It is over burden that the water action has moved onto a bench or usually creek bottom it has sat there with gold and natural lead along with iron and platinum and hasn't move for thousands of years usually it's creation started in pre-diluvium (sp.) times.
That is so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin. Conglomerate refers to a type of sedimentary rock with coarse, poorly sorted pebbles. It can be formed in any number of environments, but they are almost always high-energy environments with rapid deposition, like channel deposits or submarine fans, since large particles settle out of suspension if energy is reduced.

The presence of conglomerate says little about it's age, as it could be recent or very ancient burial.

The term "pre-diluvian" (usually antediluvian) means "before the flood" and usually refers to the mythical flood mentioned in the bible. It has no significance as a geological term. I'm guessing you meant "alluvial", but it's hard to tell with you.

The mud that is stuck holding the rock together has turned to a black cement and it's sat there so long that the rock has turned black if you crack one open you can then see it's original color.
I assume you are talking about the discoloration that occurs in rock due to weathering. Geologists always break a rock open to get a "fresh" sample of the rock, because weathering changes the characteristics of the rock. Cementation materials may be mud (clay) of various compositions, calcium carbonate, quartz or any number of other things. In areas where minerals are found, often the cement has been replaced diagenetically, mostly by the actions of subsurface fluids with great heat and/or pressure. This often results in concentration of minerals.

Some of it will retain its original color because of the sand blasting action but mostly it’s black, kind of like concert with aggregate in it.
The color depends on where you are and what minerals are available, but often weathered rock is darker than the unweathered rock. This may often be the result of biologic action, such as algae growing within the pores. And yes, conglomerate does resemble concrete (not concert) though much more poorly sorted and less uniform.

The rock that's cemented together varies in size from pea gravel to boulders 8" or more and then there's the type that can have various sizes in it.
It is a hard bottom.
Bedrock can be any type, solid.
Bedrock means the solid rock layer below which there is complete consolidation. It can be conglomerate or anything else. All the unconsolidated stuff above the bedrock is called "regolith".

On all those bottoms sits the stuff that has washed down and is still lose.
Along with the newest placer gold that's broke free from one of the veins or those bottoms.
I now understand what you mean, although it is a struggle. You really ought to take a course in basic geology, Edge. It could come in handy in your line of work. Misusing terms like "conglomerate" and "petrification" will only confuse people.
 
As far as retesting a failed dowser is concerned, this thread has been useless for a long, long time. (I don’t think Edge will do another controlled test… ever!)

Fortunately, the geology lessons are interesting. Thanks, Tricky!
 
As far as retesting a failed dowser is concerned, this thread has been useless for a long, long time. (I don’t think Edge will do another controlled test… ever!)
It depends. He has previously stated that he will only do a test under "natural" conditions, but has waffled from that stance a lot. One thing keeps it possible though: Edge would really like a million dollars.

Fortunately, the geology lessons are interesting. Thanks, Tricky!
You're very welcome, but it is I who should thank you for reading them. I will ramble on about this stuff all day if you let me. You want to see my cross-bedding pictures?
 
Fortunately, the geology lessons are interesting. Thanks, Tricky!
Seconded!

One of the great things about these forums is that I often find something interesting and/or edumacashunal in just about any old thread.

Come on edge, just re-take the test and prove all us skeptics wrong ... while winning the $million and becoming famous beyond your wildest dreams!
 
Here in this picture is a clay bottom, it brown in this section but if you penetrate it, it’s blue. Notice how some of it is above the water line.
 

Attachments

  • six inch.jpg
    six inch.jpg
    3.9 KB · Views: 94
Here in this picture is a clay bottom, it brown in this section but if you penetrate it, it’s blue. Notice how some of it is above the water line.


Terrific. What's holding you up from conducting a test, edge? You say that this works reliably, yet somehow the conditions haven't been right for an actual test. If it works reliably, it should work, yes? So what's holding you up, and how long will it be before you can conduct a test?
 
Here in this picture is a clay bottom, it brown in this section but if you penetrate it, it’s blue. Notice how some of it is above the water line.
Gosh, that picture really tells a lot.

By the way, here's a picture of God. Really, it is.
 

Attachments

  • god.jpg
    god.jpg
    717 bytes · Views: 92
Come on edge, just re-take the test and prove all us skeptics wrong ... while winning the $million and becoming famous beyond your wildest dreams!


Edge is doing the only sensible thing which is prove to himself that he can do it with sufficient success to suceed in a re-test before he actually re-takes the test. To do otherwise would be foolish and a waste of everyone's time.
 
As far as retesting a failed dowser is concerned, this thread has been useless for a long, long time. (I don’t think Edge will do another controlled test… ever!)


Oh, I don't know, we've had quite a bit of fun here.
Also, it might not be all edge's fault. The jref has not responded to his protocol for some three months now, other than to acknowledge receipt.
 
Edge is doing the only sensible thing which is prove to himself that he can do it with sufficient success to suceed in a re-test before he actually re-takes the test. To do otherwise would be foolish and a waste of everyone's time.

So he knows exactly what he can do and how he does it, but in 30 years he hasn't managed to prove this even to himself? Can I have some of what you're smoking?
 
Actually yes he does. He claims exactly the same as may other dowsers. All those who have been tested have failed. Therefore I assume he will fail.


As I said we cannot expect edge to carry the weight of all the dowsers in the world on his shoulders. The other dowsers may be as useless in using the dowsing rod as you are using an electron microscope.

Irrelevant. We were not talking about Edge's beliefs, we were talking about mine. You said I was assuming the conclusion before the test. Yes I am, because the conclusion has happened many times before and I have no reason to believe this time will be any different. Edge's personal beliefs have nothing to do with this.


You misunderstood but I am happy to take the blame of a badly worded reply. I meant we must test edge as a completely new contestant. In the broard you can say that dowsing doesn't work, but that conclusion must be provisional and you must be prepared to change your conclusion if evidence supportive of dowsing is found. You should not be completely open-minded, but you must be prepared to consider the possibility that you may be wrong. If a particular individual - in this case, edge - says he can make dowsing work, you must be open-minded enough to consider his case. Sometimes that requires patience.

He has been doing this for 30 years. He claims to know exactly what he can do and how it works. Yet he keeps having to change what he claims.


Not really. He knows (or "knows" if you object) how to do it in the field. But he is looking to test it in a way suitable for winning the million dollar prize. This will necessarily be different from what he does in the field. Also, he has never before tried to quantitate his success. He needs to prove to himself that he can do it with a sufficient level of success to win the prize.

Rush? It's been nearly a year. It's been much longer since his first faliure. He has been doing this for 30 years. This must be some strange meaning of "rush" that I wasn't previously aware of.


He is not exactly receiving any help from the JREF, who have provided him with absolutely zero useful feedback. Maybe you could complain to them.
 
I’m not sure what kind of feedback the JREF could give Edge. Edge doesn’t seem to have a setup or a place for his test. Although after a year, 22 pages, and much side tracking, I may have missed it.
Let me see if I have this. In the past, Edge was looking for an area of bedrock with a regolith layer of non-alluvial conglomerate of sedimentary rock with coarse, poorly sorted pebbles, but is now focusing on a cementation of blue clay with a weathered brown exterior? Wasn’t limestone on the list once too?

Until Edge knows exactly what he needs for the test, I don’t see what the JREF would have to say to him. Was there a specific question that he asked and didn’t get a reply to?

(See Tricky’s posts above to see how badly I butchered the geology.);)
 
As I said we cannot expect edge to carry the weight of all the dowsers in the world on his shoulders. The other dowsers may be as useless in using the dowsing rod as you are using an electron microscope.
The thing is, we don't need to be proficient with and electron microscope to be able to observe the results of one who is. Similarly, we do not need to be proficient in dowsing to observe that proponents, to date, have NOT shown any reasonable results to show that it works.
You misunderstood but I am happy to take the blame of a badly worded reply. I meant we must test edge as a completely new contestant. In the broard you can say that dowsing doesn't work, but that conclusion must be provisional and you must be prepared to change your conclusion if evidence supportive of dowsing is found. You should not be completely open-minded, but you must be prepared to consider the possibility that you may be wrong. If a particular individual - in this case, edge - says he can make dowsing work, you must be open-minded enough to consider his case. Sometimes that requires patience.
While it is admirable that you are playing Devils Advocate here, there does come a point where the evidence is so overwhelming that you can take a position with a high degree of confidence that something is or is not feasible. For instance, my personal experience in exploration drilling in the oil and gas industry makes me wonder why companies (remember, they're ruthless, money grubbing b*stards) "waste" literally billions of dollars on seismic gathering and interpretation when they could hire a dowser for a couple of hundred. Further, over 22 years on all continents except Antarctica, I have yet to meet anyone in the industry who has come across ANYONE using dowsing to site a well - even a water supply well. And considering I'm an UL fan, I *have* asked the question during numerous bull sessions over a beer or two, and not found any shaggy dog stories on dowsing (although heard many others much more weird)
Not really. He knows (or "knows" if you object) how to do it in the field. But he is looking to test it in a way suitable for winning the million dollar prize. This will necessarily be different from what he does in the field. Also, he has never before tried to quantitate his success. He needs to prove to himself that he can do it with a sufficient level of success to win the prize.
This is the problem with most dowsers, though. They don't quantitate, every "hit" reinforces their belief and every miss they dismiss as being from some other cause...
He is not exactly receiving any help from the JREF, who have provided him with absolutely zero useful feedback. Maybe you could complain to them.
You don't know this. In fact, if you go back to the start of this thread you will find a great number of posters attempting to help edge sort out a successful protocol - he keeps chooting off on tangents. The levitating key and anti-gravity copper seam just being the latest.
 
Wow! Short-term memory Problems seem to abide in here.

First off I am not in charge of the challenge, JREF is, they say when and where.
I started this thread when I did tests in that very spot in the picture.

I learn from dowsing, more facts every time I mine or test.

I am trying to figure out what type of bottom or bedrock contains the least amount of metals which maybe limestone. This is to do the double blind test JREFs way, this is for time constraints not mine but their limits.


Then the target should be the only noticeable hit therefore logic would state that I should get at least nine out of ten correct hits in a double blind test.
If it doesn't then even I will not pass that kind of test.

I may then state that I can't do it and I won't take up any more of your time because you all are set in your ways and happy with that kind of test.

Myself I see that when I tested last year without seeing the gold at the bottom of the creek buried under overburden I got ten out of ten correct hits to the positive result and 7 out of ten correct hits to the negative hits meaning not worth mining there and one correct hit or positive in a completely different location. Which means I am at 180% correct in the field.

Which means there's a flaw in placing targets in random locations to do a double blind test.
I know what the flaw is and why there's a flaw.

I need more time to find the best location.
I know where that is in the world but I need support to get to them or funding which the Japanese may offer me.
They must have a limestone quarry there.
The other best place is in Lansing Illinois.
To get there I need more money.
One more set of test by me to see if I can pass it JREFs way.
I can't mine on a large scale right now because of the laws that fish and game have imposed on miners.
 
...I need more time to find the best location.
I know where that is in the world but I need support to get to them or funding which the Japanese may offer me.
They must have a limestone quarry there.
The other best place is in Lansing Illinois.
To get there I need more money.
One more set of test by me to see if I can pass it JREFs way.
I can't mine on a large scale right now because of the laws that fish and game have imposed on miners.

edge, you've stated many times before that this is a perfectly reliable technique and you use it all the time. How come it's reliable and works just fine when you just use it (i.e., without controls), but you have such difficulty in finding the perfect place for a test? If it works, then a controlled test should also work just fine in the regular places where you use this technique. Don't you see the conflict?
 
I'd think that if edge could demonstrate that his divining rod could exert a measurable pull on a scale--without anything touching it--that would be a perfectly good test. I may have misread or misremembered, but I think he said that he has done that.
 
Ah. Post 529: From what I can see for 12 watts going in,"as I believe is powering the dowsing rod" I get at least a quarter pound of force.
That's with a counter weight on a hanging scale.


So here he claims to have measured the force using a set of balances but is unable to reproduce this claim.

have I got this right, edge?

Wrong.
I think it would have gone farther but scale was at it's limit.
It is reproducible any time.

I'd think that if edge could demonstrate that his divining rod could exert a measurable pull on a scale--without anything touching it--that would be a perfectly good test. I may have misread or misremembered, but I think he said that he has done that.

(Bolding by me.)

@Everyone: Would edge presenting his set-up to this forum benefit his chances for a suitable Challenge protocol?
 

Back
Top Bottom