Moderated Dowsing By Edge

You haven't dismissed dowsing then?

He has not yet failed.
Dismissed it, there is no evidence for it.

He failed tests already, and he will continue to fail tests, there is no dowsing.

There is no signal from anything that he is testing. There is no input so there is no output, it is all that simple.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Four sentences, four responses:

Possibly I got you confused with someone else but I can't go back and see.

Can't? It seems a fairly simple matter to do so. Perhaps the word you were looking for was "won't".

You haven't dismissed dowsing then?

No. Based on the absolutely overwhelming evidence for the existing laws of physics and the fact that every single test of dowsing I have seen, including at least one of Edge, has failed I say that dowsing does not work. That is not dismissal, it is reason. If someone provides evidence that dowsing does actually work I will be happy to accept it, but as matters stand it is as certain as it is possible to be that dowsing does not work and therefore anyone who does not assume that any new tests will also fail has some serious issues with reality.

This thread is about edge's retest and we have not yet seen that evidence.
He has not yet failed.

He has been tested before. He failed. If he wants to provide some new evidence, great, but that does not change the evidence we already have.
 
Dismissed it, there is no evidence for it.


This thread is about whether or not edge has evidence for it.
You have dismissed it before waiting to see whether he has the evidence.

He failed tests already, and he will continue to fail tests, there is no dowsing.


So why are you still hanging about, if you've already decided the outcome?

There is no signal from anything that he is testing. There is no input so there is no output, it is all that simple.


You can say this and yet you have not even laid eyes on his device, let alone tested it to arrive at your conclusion. Therefore it is a foregone, unsubstantiated conclusion on your part. Therefore, if you turn out to be right, it will be no credit to you.
One day you will miss something important with this attitude.
 
Last edited:
This thread is about whether or not edge has evidence for it.
You have dismissed it before waiting to see whether he has the evidence.
How many pages do you need before you see that he has no evidence, 50, 100, never.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Can't? It seems a fairly simple matter to do so. Perhaps the word you were looking for was "won't".


Can't. Don't have the time.

He has been tested before. He failed. If he wants to provide some new evidence, great, but that does not change the evidence we already have


This is the retest thread. He is trying to provide new evidence. What is gained by pre-empting the outcome. All it requires is a little patience.

If someone provides evidence that dowsing does actually work I will be happy to accept it...


Except that you will dismiss it before they have a chance to even present it.

...anyone who does not assume that any new tests will also fail has some serious issues with reality


On the other hand, you have some serious issues with how science should be done. Assume the outcome before you do your test?

as matters stand it is as certain as it is possible to be that dowsing does not work


A little chink in your armour? :)
 
I see you are still having rather serious issues with your reading comprehension. There are two rather major problems with your statment. Firstly, I have not dismissed anything. Secondly, we have already seen Edge's evidence. He failed.

That's old news.
I have never failed in the creek.
James can dowse therefore not to lose the million he has tested in a negative way.
He knows what I know of the negativity but that's going to change have you all not read my previous statements?

I wrote this to Sherry in Japan rather that rewrite here it is.
Just the other day something that a physicist had told
me got me thinking, he said there was no measurable
force and I decided to check that and found that there
was.
Not in a way that would instantly allow me to pass the
challenge but in the way that would give me a visual
cue on a scale that is repeatable as far as I know
anywhere.
In this way all ten or hidden containers must pass and
be placed one at a time in only one spot that I have
calibrated.
What I have discovered in recent days is that I can
measures the force with a hanging scale with out the
target and then with a target and get a calibration of
sorts and this seems to work excellently.
Where I'm at at home is the worst case scenario
because there is much gold and metals under my house.
So If I can do it here I can do it anywhere.

Here's how it works here.
I dowsed the spot I'm testing in and I get a reading
of 2 and a half to three ounces on the scale.
The scale is attached to a string attached to the end
of the dowsing stick.
I then placed a large target under the scale and dowse
it,I then get a reading of 4 ounces and this is
repeatable over and over.
With this method I will attempt the double blind test
here today to see if I can get the correct hits.
Dowsing this way for the test is very draining as I
must drain my energies with many attempts.
So I intend to do 4 out of ten today and stop and
three tomorrow and three the next day.

I may have to pick up the dowsing stick up to 40 times
today and start the reaction for the first days
testing.

When mining,I might dowse at the most 20 minutes to
learn what I need to know.
I verified that with a friend of mine that I taught
how to dowse from Hayfork that visited me yesterday.
We went to a spot on a Small creek yesterday with me
and he pick out a stick to check what I told him about
it as I dowsed it last winter.
He verified what I already knew that it was a very
Good place but the key here is that he did it in under
20 minute and was done.
I figure splitting the test into three days will allow
me to recover and be fresh.
It most definitely drains the forces from your body.

The bottom line is that I can and should be able to
calibrate the test any where I am.
This is a 100% improvement and allows also a visual
cue.
The place I'm at In Wearverville is the hardest and
just about any where Else should be better.
For instance In Tokyo I might get a reading of one
ounce without the target and two when the target is
there that would mean less drain on my energies and
then a shorter amount of time to do the test.

On the 26th or 28th I'm going to try to film that
other natural phenomenon that I told you about
in the wilderness as an example of levitation.
This is an addition to claims that I make. If true I
will send you a copy.

Patejdl, Tell your dad to get a willow stick and he'll be able to dowse even better than before, in the end put a silver based coin.
The L rods work but not as nearly as well as a Y shaped willow stick.
I have round sholders things like what you say roll off. :)
BillyJoe right on!
Pauloff be careful while on your scamp.
You may forget that brake and crash in your bathroom and make a mess!
 
Last edited:
I have never failed in the creek.

Then do your test in the creek. You should stick with the container protocol for now. The problem with the scale protocol is that you will have to build in all kinds of controls to prevent things like accelleration and momentum from affecting the scale (i.e., if you bobble your hand, and the scale bobbles even more, and looks like it has an increased reading). Forget that stuff. It's much easier to simply demonstrate that you can find hidden targets. You can worry about trying to measure force later -- first, establish that there is an effect. THEN measure it.

Run your container test in the creek area. If it works, run it in your backyard, or a local park, or a park in a city nearby. If it works, call your local skeptic society and invite them over. This should not take much time.
 
That's old news.
I have never failed in the creek.
...

Great, edge.

Now simply do what you claim to be able to do in a test under controlled conditions.

If you have allegedly never failed, it seems fair to suggest you shouldn't fail now. And you would receive One Million Dollars. (Everyone: Please pronounce the last three words in your head with the voice of Dr. Evil.)
 
Edge : Scientist told you there was a force??? How did he measure the force?? What kind of equipment did he use?? How strong was the force?? Did he meassured the hand rotation with enough sensitivity???

To look for a force you have to separate the hand movement/rotation from the predicted or ongoing rotation of the rod. If you are able to separate it you can look for anomalies that could be your "force".

But because I've seen how hard it is to devise a plan to meassure such a slight hand rotation precisely, I don't beleive such a random phoney scientist could come up with a good solution and clearly state that he found something. There are quite alot of variables. But the cool thing is.. based on the hand rotation you can predict very very easily or simulate very very correctly how the rod should be moving. If it moves differently than predicted or simulated.. well BINGO.. you got your force!!

We've came with the solution how to test it but never tested it. Such results would be irrelevant to you dowsers. Seconds after the result you would have 1000 of possible explanations. You see my brother is a programmer and by this time quite a pro in biomechanics. He worked with a company to produce a quite sophisticated image-processing motion capture system for helping understanding the leg/sking/muscle movement for building a more sophisticated biomechanic simulations. Not just "simple" motion capture but also simulation of bone/skin/muscle forces.

Your way of meassuring any anomalies is dead wrong and unscientific. If you weren't that simple minded you would understand that how such a test (hanging scale?? wtf) is biased and innacurate to show any force actually. How can you pass the test when you don't understand the simple analogies??? You're doomed and you will fail.....

btw my father's colleague is a dowser with 20 year experience.. they tried everything... it was maybe actually him who put the idea of him loosing the "capabilities" that caused him to be more aware of the hand motion and caused to loose his "powers"...

give it a spark, let it catch a flame, let it burn, and let it cool.. great way to treat and cure dowsing :D

Billy Joe : Relax ;)
 
Edge, another note on the scale side:

Do not pay attention to the scale if the reading is momentary. You can test this right now: get out your dowsing rod, tied up the scale to the end as you mentioned before, and then deliberately bobble your hand. You'll notice the scale measurement change. It'll probably be a lot larger of an effect than what you've noticed in the field because your deliberate bobble is a conscious action, whereas what is probably happening in the field is unconscious.

If the pull in the field is sustained -- i.e., the measurement of pull increases and stays there for as long as you're holding the scale over the spot, then that's something you can set up as a test and should work just fine without you holding the rod.

But again, I would not even pursue that test yet, at least not in regards to the Challenge. Like I said before: establish that something is happening FIRST (i.e., that you can determine where a hidden target is located), then figure out how to try measuring it.
 
Except that you will dismiss it before they have a chance to even present it.

Please either provide some evidence or withdraw your unsubstanciated accusations.

On the other hand, you have some serious issues with how science should be done. Assume the outcome before you do your test?

In what way does that affect the science? Is my scepticism going to magically cause him to fail? Do you think scientists go into research with absolutely no thoughts on what the results will be? No. They do research with the assumption that they will get a certain result. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. What exactly is your problem with this?

A little chink in your armour? :)

No. Perhaps if you understood what science actually is you would understand this.
 
I think after years of tests and not a shred of evidence and not an iota of science behind it we can safely presume Edge is going to fail once again. For the hard of thinking out there let's recap...

Edge claims he can detect precious metals with a willow stick, all reputable science says it's impossible.
Edge claims he can detect gold, yet fails completely under test conditions.
Edge claims he detects gold for a living, yet is relatively poor. What's he doing with the gold he claims he finds?
Edge still finds it impossible to set up a basic test of his claimed paranormal abilities, despite numerous offers of assistance over the past years. There's always one more obstacle or permit or piece of equipment he needs, yet claims it always works perfectly when no one is looking.

I think with that track record we're safe in presuming that, in the unlikely event a test ever occurs, Edge will fail as surely as he did the last time. As surely as absolutely ever other dowser across the planet has failed when actually put to the test. Dont you think?
 
Cuddles: If someone provides evidence that dowsing does actually work I will be happy to accept it...


BillyJoe: Except that you will dismiss it before they have a chance to even present it.


Cuddles: Please either provide some evidence or withdraw your unsubstanciated accusations.


This from post #855:

Cuddles: I assume that any dowser who actually is tested will fail.


Even though you say that "if someone provides evidence that dowsing does actually work I will be happy to accept", you also say that you "assume that any dowser who actually is tested will fail". How is this not "dismissing it before they have a chance to even present it"?



Do you think scientists go into research with absolutely no thoughts on what the results will be? No. They do research with the assumption that they will get a certain result. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. What exactly is your problem with this?


The problem is that if you expect to find something, you very likely will find it. What happened to "falsification", the idea that you should try to falsify what you believe to be true? Isn't the idea to be a devil's advocate for your position, to try to prove it wrong?
 
This from post #855:

Even though you say that "if someone provides evidence that dowsing does actually work I will be happy to accept", you also say that you "assume that any dowser who actually is tested will fail". How is this not "dismissing it before they have a chance to even present it"?

The problem is that if you expect to find something, you very likely will find it. What happened to "falsification", the idea that you should try to falsify what you believe to be true? Isn't the idea to be a devil's advocate for your position, to try to prove it wrong?

The idea is to devise a test such that the expectations of the participants has no bearing on the outcome. That's the whole point of double-blinding in the first place. That way, an applicant can believe with all his heart that the abilities work, all the skeptics are free to doubt as much as they feel like it, but in the end it's the TEST that makes the truth clear.
 
The idea is to devise a test such that the expectations of the participants has no bearing on the outcome. That's the whole point of double-blinding in the first place. That way, an applicant can believe with all his heart that the abilities work, all the skeptics are free to doubt as much as they feel like it, but in the end it's the TEST that makes the truth clear.


That sounds fair enough. But what I'm saying is that the process of setting up a test without any methodological flaws that, at the same time, tests what the claimant says he can do, would be enhanced if everyone came to the table prepared to listen to the other person's position and prepared to have their own position proved wrong. Statements such as "Hey, edge, dowsing doesn't work" are unlikely to help in this process.
 
Dudes & Dudettes,

all that matters is edge taking a test which he and the JREF mutually designed and agreed to.

The results will say it all.



Edge dancing around like he does also says quite a bit. Nothing definitive, but enough to come to a reasonable conclusion using common sense.
 
This from post #855:
<snippage by TjW>

The problem is that if you expect to find something, you very likely will find it. What happened to "falsification", the idea that you should try to falsify what you believe to be true? Isn't the idea to be a devil's advocate for your position, to try to prove it wrong?

Falsification of the hypothesis is part of the experiment design, not the experimenter.
 
I met SezMe this afternoon up in Coffee Creek at a resort that he and his wife, I take it are staying at.
I agreed for him to do the test on me.
I went there to see if I could recalibrate the scales and get different readings.
What I expected was either a lighter reading or a heavier reading and I got the better of the two, a lighter reading which allowed me not to have to dowse as long, and with a little more accuracy.

I’ll let SezMe tell you the details and the score.

I went to a spot, Jackalgirl, and mined, I snipped and panned for about two hours maybe longer just using geology and instinct I got three specks and three smaller pieces.
I didn’t do well at all.
It is an immense task, way more labor to find it that way.

There’s a lot of gold in Coffee Creek, that creek is loaded.

Edge dancing around like he does also says quite a bit. Nothing definitive, but enough to come to a reasonable conclusion using common sense.

I’m a good dancer.

Some one got this wrong, “the physicist”
Said, “no measurable force”.
 
This is with a scale (a spring scale, I assume) tied to the end of a string, the other end of which is tied to your dowsing rod?

Was the "reading" a steady reading -- i.e., a steady pull on the spring? Or was it a momentary reading?
 

Back
Top Bottom