Spektator
Is that right?
Well, edge, I'd think "Hmm. This one test is evidence for dowsing. Now all the other double-blind tests ever done have failed to support dowsing. I wonder if the test is replicable."
Tricky
Briefly immortal
LOL. I suppose it is inevitable when the words come already pre-twisted.
But seriously, if I have misinterpreted you, please clarify if you can. I will retract them if you can show me where I've twisted your words.
I would think that it would be. I would have to take a break in-between the 100 scans, it wears you out that's for sure.
The results are even more astounding when you are mining.
The pictures are from the spot that I tested in last year.
I got one more to work and I think I know what I did when I copied to my computer.
How do you pre-twist truth?
Here's an example,
First off no one said there were videos not me not JREF.
No , Me, I showed a response over the target and several empty containers also James witnessed that, more than one response in the open test.
I also showed him how it can over come gravity too and that was with the heavy copper stick.
During the testing after I got sensitive, it also, as I walked the room pointed up at the ballasts of the florescent lights.
That threw me for a loop, but I already knew it was possible when they came on.
Along with all the other things that run in that office.
We could do this forever but this is one example.
Last edited:
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Please stop confusing edge with percentages.
If the tests are set up correctly he should NOT be able to score 89%.
If there are 10 targets (as per his set up) and the requirement was 90%, then he would be required to get 9 correct out of 10 passes.
18 out of 20 passes
27 from 30 etc.
8 out of 10 passes would be a fail.
He CANNOT get 8.9 passes correct out of 10. It is physically impossible.
Anything else is pissing about with maths.
Sorry to piss about with maths, but -
Keep going, keep going.
90 out of 100 passes.
89 out of 100 passes would be a fail, and 89%.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
OK, OK. I'm not going to nitpick your maths, but, in my defence, I was only limiting my maths to the limits of edge's proposal, which was 3 x 10 trials (of choosing from 10 targets a trial).
In that instance, 89% is not only *physically* possible, but even his suggestion of averaging the results make it *mathematically* impossible.
(unless I've screwed the maths again
)edge has stated that 3 sets of trials would take 3 weekends. Can you really see JREF entertaining his delusion for 10 weekends?
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
In the past when discussing tests designed to demonstrate better than 1:10,000 probability outside of chance, I've used the following table.
http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html
According to Table II on this page, edge only needs to perform 10 passes.
If he achieves his stated 70%, or 7 correct from 10 trials, this meets the requirements of the preliminary test - 1:10,000.
This could be performed, as edge has previously stated, in one weekend and no need for further trials to pass the preliminary stage.
To pass the final test - 1:1,000,000 he would only need 8 correct from 10 trials.
http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html
According to Table II on this page, edge only needs to perform 10 passes.
If he achieves his stated 70%, or 7 correct from 10 trials, this meets the requirements of the preliminary test - 1:10,000.
This could be performed, as edge has previously stated, in one weekend and no need for further trials to pass the preliminary stage.
To pass the final test - 1:1,000,000 he would only need 8 correct from 10 trials.
I doubt they'd agree to three weekends!
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
See previous post
.Could it be edge is making things harder for himself than is necessary?
Thanks for the link, EHocking.
On that note, how do you guys interpret Alison Smith's statement "Again, 60 out of 100 can be random chance." Could it be that she responded to edge's proposal of dowsing the "misses", i.e. containers which do not hold any gold?
60 hits for the gold out of 100 tries - while hardly testable - seems good enough for me.
Edge would be hired instantly, with an annual seven digit salary, IFhe could do that.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I said the words came "pre-twisted". It was a joke about your inability to form coherent sentences.
Neither did I. I said I wished I could see them. I didn't know whether they existed or not. Randi usually tapes his tests, so I was hoping that this was no exception.
Really? It must have happened awfully quick, because Randi says:
Sounds like you zipped right through the open test, Edge, without being distracted by false readings.Swift_Mar29_2002 said:
I sincerely doubt you showed him anything about gravity, though it appears you did have a lot of theories.
Gosh. You were babbling. Who would have expected that.Swift_Mar29_2002 said:
But since you can overcome gravity, why can't you make a simple gold pendelum swing without touching it? That's a lot easier than heavy copper sticks. As I recall, that excuse came several weeks after the test. At the time, you had different excuses.
Now perhaps you merely failed to mention any of this business about fluorescent lights to Randi. (My, your dowsing rod certainly does seem to point to a lot of things that aren't gold.) I sincerely doubt this was mere oversight. I think you came up with the excuses later, just as you have come up with excuse after excuse on why you cannot take a simple test.Swift_Mar29_2002 said:
Well this example turned out to be a big bust for you. Maybe you have some better ones.
Still, it is possible you might find me confusing what you say now with what you said before. You change your story more often than a presidential candidate during primary season. You'll have to forgive me if I don't always stay current on your delusion-du-jour. (What happened with the levitation place, by the way?)
But I believe you are basicly honest, Edge. I think you do not truly mean to contradict yourself, you just simply cannot help it and cannot remember what you said or did in the past. As Mr. Randi said:
I think you are the shining example of this.Swift_Mar29_2002 said:
SezMe
post-pre-born
It's done in draft form. I'll let it sit for a day or two then read it again to make sure it is complete. When I get the pics back from trable-head, I'll make it available.
Yeah, I know it's taken a long time. Sorry for that but Real-Life sometimes calls.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
I don't know. edge, can you supply the email/proposal that evoked this response from Alison?
As far as I can tell, 10 passes over 10 targets would require edge to correctly identify the target 7 times in order that that his results beat random chance at a probability of 1:10,000.
70% which is his claim.
With only 5 passes - he needs to be correct 5 times (100%) which is not his claim.
In this scenario (if it is 100 trials using 10 targets each trial) he only needs to get 24 correct to satisfy the preliminary pass requirements (regardless of his 70% claim in my opinion). But not a reasonable test, as you suggest.
I can only think that edge and Alison have crossed wires, or, as you say, NOT discussing a test where selecting the correct target from a choice of 10 each time is the protocol.
edge, can you clarify with the post/email that prompted Alison's reply?
That's *my* Occam's Razor for dowsing. Billions spent annually on seismic and geophysics, but not one dowser hired...
Spektator
Is that right?
If it's a run of ten, and each time the target randomly may or may not be in the container (coin flip), then the likelihood is that a dowser could call it correctly roughly 40-60% of the time--like calling "heads" or "tails."
I'm not so sure that dowsing, or divining, is that great an idea, anyway.....
I'm not so sure that dowsing, or divining, is that great an idea, anyway.....
Last edited:
Bronze powder, Actual metal in the ink?
How do you know what I showed him Tricky were you there?
I'm standing with James Randi while the partners are hiding a target and i guess i'm not suppose to talk to him.
His job was to be sure I didn't cheat, I guess there were too many things going on for him to talk with me?
Chewing bubble gum and walking comes to mind.
I sent this after they wouldn't accept the negative positive test for correct hits,
What I found with this is still a 60% correct hit ratio anyway even though there were misses of the metal.
The {ghost readings.}
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
This is what she was responding to ,
On 5/30/07, mike guska <dowsing4gold@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Alison,
So we will leave it the way it was sent in by me.
100 passes each set is split into 10 boxes and ten
sets.
I must pick out the target 6 out of 10 times and only
the target.
I will try to get enough gold for a target so I can
shrink the target and the containers to make the test
less bulky.
Just like I did it in the office only in one spot not
ten containers in ten spots.
The only difference is the box is on the same spot or
ten boxes will pass and sit in the same spot one at a
time as I scan each spot.
I will split the test up or not depends on the feel of
the spot.
If It's reading, when empty, is low I might do the
whole test in one day.
The scales sit in one spot and can be hung off a
tripod.
Now I have to find the place to do the test in.
I may go to Florida to do the test.
I will know in a month or two and I will be testing
one spot here at Coffee Creek.
The JREF team my come here if I can set it up or I
might go to them since I can now calibrate the scales
anywhere.
The exact date will be determined by me.
I will try to give you an advance notice of 2 weeks.
Mike Guska
As you see I went to 70% after this letter.
I'm hoping to get 90 or a 100 the first time so that I can walk away from the negativity.
Paul why would I want to mine where some one else has mined, in an obvious place for nothing.
Of course there’s mountains here and a river or creek?
The gold isn’t always where you think.
How do you know what I showed him Tricky were you there?
I'm standing with James Randi while the partners are hiding a target and i guess i'm not suppose to talk to him.
His job was to be sure I didn't cheat, I guess there were too many things going on for him to talk with me?
Chewing bubble gum and walking comes to mind.
I sent this after they wouldn't accept the negative positive test for correct hits,
What I found with this is still a 60% correct hit ratio anyway even though there were misses of the metal.
The {ghost readings.}
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
This is what she was responding to ,
On 5/30/07, mike guska <dowsing4gold@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Alison,
So we will leave it the way it was sent in by me.
100 passes each set is split into 10 boxes and ten
sets.
I must pick out the target 6 out of 10 times and only
the target.
I will try to get enough gold for a target so I can
shrink the target and the containers to make the test
less bulky.
Just like I did it in the office only in one spot not
ten containers in ten spots.
The only difference is the box is on the same spot or
ten boxes will pass and sit in the same spot one at a
time as I scan each spot.
I will split the test up or not depends on the feel of
the spot.
If It's reading, when empty, is low I might do the
whole test in one day.
The scales sit in one spot and can be hung off a
tripod.
Now I have to find the place to do the test in.
I may go to Florida to do the test.
I will know in a month or two and I will be testing
one spot here at Coffee Creek.
The JREF team my come here if I can set it up or I
might go to them since I can now calibrate the scales
anywhere.
The exact date will be determined by me.
I will try to give you an advance notice of 2 weeks.
Mike Guska
As you see I went to 70% after this letter.
I'm hoping to get 90 or a 100 the first time so that I can walk away from the negativity.
Paul why would I want to mine where some one else has mined, in an obvious place for nothing.
Of course there’s mountains here and a river or creek?
The gold isn’t always where you think.
I would like one test and that's it for the money.
I assumed they already accepted the first proposal at 60% hits on the metal, as they asked me to go to Japan.
But when I made the statement that even there we need to go to a limestone quarry they said I wasn't ready?
I don't get that?
And now that 6 out of 10 wasn't enough?
I assumed they already accepted the first proposal at 60% hits on the metal, as they asked me to go to Japan.
But when I made the statement that even there we need to go to a limestone quarry they said I wasn't ready?
I don't get that?
And now that 6 out of 10 wasn't enough?
A diviner is some one who contacts spirits, fortuneteller, or to foretell the future not a dowser.
There is nothing supernatural about dowsing.
This is what has kept this mystical.
Old definitions.
Are metals spirits and what about water?
Is a willow stick a supernatural agent?
Although this brings up a lot of questions about the forms of physics that are demonstrated by UFOs and they can be explained as spirits.
The fallen ones or angels.
This is one of the explanations of UFOs. They also can defeat gravity.
The dowsing stick as I said can demonstrate this.
We may not be allowed to know this information.
If so the keeper of the suppression of this knowledge is who?
Interesting!
I haven't tried a test where I flip a coin to see if what you are saying is true, I am going mostly by what the scales are showing and by feel too.
Maybe one of you guys could run a test to see what the numbers are?
In the old days I would have been burned at the stake according to you.
You bring up some good questions,
Honey don't light that matc l;ero9=3yo,\\%$%^(_
............................................................................................
Spektator
Is that right?
A diviner, according to the Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary, is