These are the changes,
That would be too time consuming.
Or to hit 95% my way which I can't prove here at home.
It's to bad that the really good spot is 40 miles from here and at a place that's a resort.
Cuddles I have 1 year since my application was sent.
The worst case place, here my house, my numbers wind up being the oppisit because we tested that way here. 40%
So I will need the most neutral spot in any given location and then test it first, sounds simple but it is not.
This is the way we did it the other way, which matches what happens when mining.
First try out of ten and a coin is flipped heads is always, the target is there, and tails is, when it is not.
Although I didn't know any of that.
So the metal appeared like this.
for instance the metal in set three, of ten, appears 5 times in random order.
Set three 5 times.
Set four it appears 2 times.
Set five 6 times
Set six 6 times.
Set seven 4 times.
Set eight 7 times.
set nine 4 times.
There is no way of guessing when and where plus I have to know when it is not there to get the hit right.
What I have to do now is test their way on a better spot and repeat that twice, if I get it right twice then it's a matter of giving them a two-week notice.
So far it looks like I have one spot that's pretty good but I will look for another.
Now that I have a visual way of knowing that should be easy to find.
The other way they would want me to do 10,000 scans.
That would be too time consuming.
Or to hit 95% my way which I can't prove here at home.
It's to bad that the really good spot is 40 miles from here and at a place that's a resort.
Cuddles I have 1 year since my application was sent.
The worst case place, here my house, my numbers wind up being the oppisit because we tested that way here. 40%
So I will need the most neutral spot in any given location and then test it first, sounds simple but it is not.
This is the way we did it the other way, which matches what happens when mining.
First try out of ten and a coin is flipped heads is always, the target is there, and tails is, when it is not.
Although I didn't know any of that.
So the metal appeared like this.
for instance the metal in set three, of ten, appears 5 times in random order.
Set three 5 times.
Set four it appears 2 times.
Set five 6 times
Set six 6 times.
Set seven 4 times.
Set eight 7 times.
set nine 4 times.
There is no way of guessing when and where plus I have to know when it is not there to get the hit right.
What I have to do now is test their way on a better spot and repeat that twice, if I get it right twice then it's a matter of giving them a two-week notice.
So far it looks like I have one spot that's pretty good but I will look for another.
Now that I have a visual way of knowing that should be easy to find.
Which was when? I don't have time to reread this entire thread (and doing so would probably cause me to lose the will to live), but as I said in my last post, despite this thread now being over a year old there is no mention of an actual application as recently as the end of January this year. Did you apply more recently than this? Or longer ago and just didn't mention it? Have you actually applied at all?
A fish tale.
WELL I NEED ONE MORE SET OF STATISTICS FROM SezMe TO GET AND GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
BUT ONE OF YOUR OWN SEEMS TO HAVE GONE QUIET.
Lance Katcher
Student
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 26
James Randi Callange
Hi Edge it Lance Katcher goodluck
Hi Edge it Lance Katcher goodluck
Lance Katcher
Student
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 26
Good luck and hi cuddles
Lance Katcher
Lance Katcher
Yeah, he’s right. Where is the now ‘infamous’ report?
Did I touch a nerve, edge?
Yelling on your part will neither shut me up nor help your case.
Simply prove under controlled conditions what you have claimed numerous times: That you can find gold with your dowsing rod.
You have been claiming this for years.
There's a million dollars - and bragging rights - waiting for you.
[Jack Bauer]
Do it! Now!
[/Jack Bauer]
If you want to go Kobe Bryant on us several more times: Fine.
Just do not expect me to take you seriously any more and do expect to receive the appropriate treatment for someone who continues to make the same unsubstantiated claim over and over and over.
SezMe
post-pre-born
I FINALLY got some of the pictures so I'll start my write up of my get together with edge. However, the pictures are not of very good quality but I think they might be made much more useful with some color, etc adjustment. Are any of you good at graphics manipulation? If so, shoot me a PM if you'd like to see what can be done to improve them. Or if someone here at JREF is good at it but doesn't inhabit this thread, please have them get in touch with me.
Thanks.
Oh, and for all you doubters, ya know, sometimes things are just not under our control, eh?
Thanks.
Oh, and for all you doubters, ya know, sometimes things are just not under our control, eh?
Treble_head seems good at graphics manipulation.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I'm thinking maybe you should post them without any manipulation. You don't want anybody to claim that you tinkered with them to remove evidence. Anybody who wants to can download them from here and play with them.
Besides, one thing that is common to all "paranormal evidence" is bad photography.
Thanks Lance and welcome to my nightmare.
And for the rest I wasn't yelling just in a hurry.
Had to go to work they should put the cap locks somewhere else.
What you assume to be true isn’t.
You know I keep thinking that JREF is into knowing for sure, that means tests and experiments but they are not and I keep forgetting that.
It's just that their comfortable with the statuesque, they want to keep it that way.
I'm right and your wrong you want to bet I have a million bucks to prove that you’re wrong.
You are, Doubters of everything not known.
When I do take the challenge again I will want to pass that means knowing everything about what I'm doing.
My last piece of information that I'm looking for is the ghost reading and that's theory.
But low and behold with all the experiments that I'm doing I think I have the answer.
What causes the last problem with taking the test with a removable target on and off a spot, what makes dowsers fail?
Ghost readings?
Now I know how to make that stop now.....
The thing that is surprising is no other dowsers have posted on this thread.
Now if you don't like to read anything on this post you are welcome to leave.
No one is funding me there is no scholarship even if I was to prove that it doesn't work and put it to rest once and for all, it's all me, so it's taking some time as I have to live and pay the bills at the same time.
I came close a couple of times in the respects of saying no it doesn't work, in other words you almost had me convinced and I almost said screw it.
But then something I did as an experiment showed me something new.
That's what experiments do.
I come in here and document what I have found out about dowsing and to pass the time to keep me as nimble on the keyboard as I am able to be.
If we knew everything there is to know about science then we wouldn't still be burning fossil fuels and using rocketry for energy would we?
Dowsing interacts with the human and the gravity field I find this to be fascinating since we know very little about gravity.
But of course the JREF and you Put it to bed right?
1. Last years testing with a dredge proved that it works perfectly well in the field.
Why is that? Out of 21 picks I got 100% in good places and 80% in bad places.
Those targets are there and have been there and are only moved from the spot once!
Once cleaned out the readings in those spots change dramatically to nil or very close to that because of certain variations and flaws in the bottom of the creek.
Pieces of metals under the false bottom, or where even the dredge can't get to it to bring it up can bring doubt.
2. Several double blind test I have done here, above me and on the ground have proven that 10% correct hits of a target is a false statement.
I even had one friend place two targets with out me knowing during the double blind test we did, to see how good I am, and I was able to discern that he did.
My score in that test was higher than expected.
3. My numbers indicate that there is a better than 50% chance to show it really works, If I was not able to hit above 50% then the point would be moot.
4. Physics say there is no measurable force, wrong!
Calibrations indicate that it is different from place to place.
It indicates what is there naturally and that it changes when a target is placed on the exact same spot.
It also confirms my theory that, the more neutral the ground is the easier it is to pick out a movable target.
If it were all Idomotor effect then the calibrations of the scale wouldn’t change from place to place….
Very hard to achieve, neutrality, and I’m in the worst place to be able to find it.
But it can be done even here, so a place like Florida is good as long as I find the right spot and that is more likely now as the neutral spots are better there than here.
If you can’t see what I am doing and why just by these 4 statements then you are double blind.
Paula you are triple blind and brain washed so there!
SezMe I would like to see the before and after pictures.
EHocking said,
I can if you are interested.
I will when the time is right to do the double blind test for JREF but if you need to know right now that can be arranged.
nathan
Zygoticly Phased
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2004
- Messages
- 3,477
Well, beside the point that you've yet to prove dowsing actually works, I think we know quite a lot about gravity.
What is your evidence that there is such a force? You've yet to describe your experimental design in any understandable way. Why would the ideomotor effect produce a constant deflection? The whole point of the ideomotor effect is that it varies.
I'm not dodging anything they missed the window of opportunity remember March April?
But I'm glad they did.
When I do this I intended to pass.
In a short time I will have a conclusion to dowsing I may even take up your side but I doubt it according to the evidence I see through testing the dowsing effect.
I am very, very close to knowing all that I need to know to do this so I intend to find out everything I can while I can.
I think I explaned that in the above post, one more thing to know.
Then you have to wait so do I.
These are the things we are hammering out.
--- Alison Smith <alison@randi.org> wrote:
> Mike Guska,>
> Again, 60 out of 100 can be random chance. You will
> either have to increase
> your success rate, or the test would have to be
> repeated again and again to
> ensure your success rate never changed, which I
> believe would take too much
> time.>
> Can you increase your success rate or no?>
> Thank you for writing,>
> Alison
My ansewer,
Alison,
My success rate is higher.
I don't see how it can be random chance since the JREF
says I won't hit it right but 1 out of 10.
Which they bragged about for 7 years now.
They accepted 70 % the last time 7 out of 10 correct
for the target for a million.
I was planning on **% as a surprise.
One test, what's passable, you tell me.
I'm willing to do up to 300 passes on the targets, but
once I make a guess it will be faster because we can
go to the next set of ten tries.Weather you tell me or
not that I was right or wrong, do you follow?
I rather not know till 10 of 10 are done.
That also may be three different weekends to pull off
300 scans, I don't know what you are willing to do, I
would have to go to Fort Laderdale three times from
Brevard County which I could theoretically do.
Say you do three separate tests of 10, that's up to
300 scans by me if the target shows up randomly in
spot ten every time, but it won't.
That will make it quicker.
There's no sense if the metals in 4 and I pick 4 that
I should have scan 6 more empties for that round.
Or if I make a wrong choice.
That set of 10 is over and we can go to the next set
of 10 choices.
So now using 70% as the number, if I get 7 out of 10
right the first time and 6 out of 10 the second time
and 9 out of 10 the third time those numbers should be
combined to get an over all average for those tests
for the win agreed?
Now I have one more experiment to do to find out about
the ghost readings that I get from a movable target.
Briefly here's what I know, I have to wait a certain
amount of time after a target is in position that will
probably hold true through out our tests.
When it's removed, for a period of around 5 minutes
has to pass before the field is back to a reading by
the scale that there is no target.We could then
proceed to the next round of 10 tries.
Your number generator for this test could be a set of
ten cards.
If I can get the test right and this is what it
is{ghost readings} I should get at least 90% correct.
If that happens I should be able to walk away with a
90% and win instantly yes or no?
That will be the goal of the first test of 100 scans.
Other wise we would have to continue to the next set
of 10 and then the third.
As long as the numbers average 70% we are good to go.
We will know by the numbers if I can pull it off in
percentages the next set of ten or twenty to be able
to maintain 70% and continue.
There are two flaws the human element and the gravity
field.
Both are different every time you try for a target
that is moved on and off a spot.
But there are none when mining the gold and other
metals they are there then they are not.
These are things you need to know and thanks for
putting up with me.
If you need to know more read the last couple of pages
on the Edge and dowsing post, It's in the million
dollar challenge thread. it might help you to
understand better, maybe not let me know if you do
read it.
Mike
--- Alison Smith <alison@randi.org> wrote:
> Mike Guska,>
> Again, 60 out of 100 can be random chance. You will
> either have to increase
> your success rate, or the test would have to be
> repeated again and again to
> ensure your success rate never changed, which I
> believe would take too much
> time.>
> Can you increase your success rate or no?>
> Thank you for writing,>
> Alison
My ansewer,
Alison,
My success rate is higher.
I don't see how it can be random chance since the JREF
says I won't hit it right but 1 out of 10.
Which they bragged about for 7 years now.
They accepted 70 % the last time 7 out of 10 correct
for the target for a million.
I was planning on **% as a surprise.
One test, what's passable, you tell me.
I'm willing to do up to 300 passes on the targets, but
once I make a guess it will be faster because we can
go to the next set of ten tries.Weather you tell me or
not that I was right or wrong, do you follow?
I rather not know till 10 of 10 are done.
That also may be three different weekends to pull off
300 scans, I don't know what you are willing to do, I
would have to go to Fort Laderdale three times from
Brevard County which I could theoretically do.
Say you do three separate tests of 10, that's up to
300 scans by me if the target shows up randomly in
spot ten every time, but it won't.
That will make it quicker.
There's no sense if the metals in 4 and I pick 4 that
I should have scan 6 more empties for that round.
Or if I make a wrong choice.
That set of 10 is over and we can go to the next set
of 10 choices.
So now using 70% as the number, if I get 7 out of 10
right the first time and 6 out of 10 the second time
and 9 out of 10 the third time those numbers should be
combined to get an over all average for those tests
for the win agreed?
Now I have one more experiment to do to find out about
the ghost readings that I get from a movable target.
Briefly here's what I know, I have to wait a certain
amount of time after a target is in position that will
probably hold true through out our tests.
When it's removed, for a period of around 5 minutes
has to pass before the field is back to a reading by
the scale that there is no target.We could then
proceed to the next round of 10 tries.
Your number generator for this test could be a set of
ten cards.
If I can get the test right and this is what it
is{ghost readings} I should get at least 90% correct.
If that happens I should be able to walk away with a
90% and win instantly yes or no?
That will be the goal of the first test of 100 scans.
Other wise we would have to continue to the next set
of 10 and then the third.
As long as the numbers average 70% we are good to go.
We will know by the numbers if I can pull it off in
percentages the next set of ten or twenty to be able
to maintain 70% and continue.
There are two flaws the human element and the gravity
field.
Both are different every time you try for a target
that is moved on and off a spot.
But there are none when mining the gold and other
metals they are there then they are not.
These are things you need to know and thanks for
putting up with me.
If you need to know more read the last couple of pages
on the Edge and dowsing post, It's in the million
dollar challenge thread. it might help you to
understand better, maybe not let me know if you do
read it.
Mike
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
No the human body does not interact with gravity any differently then anything else does in known universe. And this BS about knowing very little about gravity, we seem too able to send probes to the other planets with no problem.
It is the same old BS, just because we don't know everything does not mean we don't know anything.
Paul
