Here’s something of interest and we checked this.
The larger silver tray reads 3 ounces in one spot, add three silver dollars and it then reads 4 ounces.
Take that away and one real nugget of gold that weighs 2 and a half penny weight reads one ounce add a fake nugget that is copper and 18 karat plating the scales reads 1 and a half ounces.
Different readings on different targets.
There's a couple of other tests I should do because I'm using silver in the end of the stick, I am wondering if the reaction would be higher with gold in the end of the stick against the same targets.
Shouldn’t the idomotor effect be the same?
Patejdl yes and we are waiting for his report also his wife girl friend Ellen was doing a report or write up on what took place to be reported someplace?
Maybe for class I don’t know.
I would like to see that too.
It's interesting to note that lightning mostly comes from the ground and travels upward.
I think some of it is cloud to cloud, but it probably originates from the Earth first.
I think that dowsing is a key to alternate energy source more force out for less energy in.
This is one of the reasons it's so tiring when done for long periods of time.
It points the way, so to say.
The larger silver tray reads 3 ounces in one spot, add three silver dollars and it then reads 4 ounces.
Take that away and one real nugget of gold that weighs 2 and a half penny weight reads one ounce add a fake nugget that is copper and 18 karat plating the scales reads 1 and a half ounces.
Different readings on different targets.
There's a couple of other tests I should do because I'm using silver in the end of the stick, I am wondering if the reaction would be higher with gold in the end of the stick against the same targets.
Shouldn’t the idomotor effect be the same?
Patejdl yes and we are waiting for his report also his wife girl friend Ellen was doing a report or write up on what took place to be reported someplace?
Maybe for class I don’t know.
I would like to see that too.
It's interesting to note that lightning mostly comes from the ground and travels upward.
I think some of it is cloud to cloud, but it probably originates from the Earth first.
I think that dowsing is a key to alternate energy source more force out for less energy in.
This is one of the reasons it's so tiring when done for long periods of time.
It points the way, so to say.
Patejdl
Scholar
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 66
Edge, please for the sake of all humankind. Type "ideomotor" in your popular search engine and for atleast 1 minute start reading what you will see after clicking the links. Then you will UNDERSTAND why can ideomotor VARY and that it cannot be CONSTANT... well CAN but not if you.... nooooo I'm just too tired.. this is so freaking bad... and stop with your theories please!!! 
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I'm just going by what was said in the write-up. They actually made a written record. You didn't. Some times your memory does funny things, like making something you imagined into the truth.
Edge, if metal or fluorescent lights are a problem for you, then you should have never agreed to take the test inside a building. But you said everything was acceptable, didn't you? The excuses started coming after you failed.
Actually, no. Some people might make the excuse that they were "distracted by the conversation" so they couldn't dowse correctly. Failed dowsers will use almost anything for an excuse, so Randi was trying to keep your excuses to a minimum.
Since your memory seems to be failing again, you might consider reading the application again.
Now do you understand?Challenge Application said:
Great! And does Edge know if he was successful or not?? What if he was successful and the guys testing him will lie on purpose.. to not let the world know of this wonderfull dowsing gift which Edge understands so good
Damn you skeptics!!!!!
I think SezMe is an honorable man.
He hasn't given me the details.
I walked away knowing the %.
Originally Posted by Challenge Application
PLEASE: Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, anecdotal evidence or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration.
Yes in the written contract.
Talking is talking give it a break.
I can only change the present and the future that was then this is now.
You need to care about now.
PLEASE: Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, anecdotal evidence or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration.
Yes in the written contract.
Talking is talking give it a break.
I can only change the present and the future that was then this is now.
You need to care about now.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I do care about now. I would like you to stop making excuses and take the challenge now. There have been a number of excellent protocols suggested for you.
Right this minute?
What's the big hurry?
If I had a mill in my pocket right now I would say get your ass up here right now but I don't so in time I will take it.
You have only heard part of the results of testing and what I know, I can't reveal all of what I know.
What's so hard about the protocal?
The only differance is the containers must pass under one spot or only one container in one spot.
The percentage is the same 70%.
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 2,608
Not necessarily. If you are aware the target has changed, you may be subconsciously altering the ideomotor effect. Now, if all this happened double-blinded, it might me significant.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
LOL what was it you said? Oh yeah.
You really need to try to stay focused edge. You can't seem to remember what you said ten minutes ago.edge said:
If you had a mill in your pocket, you probably wouldn't care about the challenge.
Why not? Will our tiny little brains explode?
It isn't. So why don't you tell us what your protocol is exactly, including the parts where you double blind the test. As far as I can tell, you've never submitted a clear protocol.
70% of what, exactly? Please try to be clear.
It has in three different locations however I would like to try several more places to verifiy.
Two more different locations with different readings as the base line reading are in order, at least.
It all takes time and money.
I want to make sure I have all the facts that I can get.
Tricky says,
70% of what, exactly? Please try to be clear.
7 of ten or 70 out of 100 or 70% correct hits on the metal.
Damn my brain just exploded.
Last edited:
Tricky
Briefly immortal
How many targets? Ten? Just one? How is the metal placed so as to ensure no sensory leakage (i.e. "hints" of whether or not it is there.) What are you using for a target? What are you using to enclose the target? How are you double-blinding the tests (ensuring that you have no contact whatsoever with the person who knows whether the target contains metal)? Who is recording the responses? How are you randomizing the process for determining when/where to place the target? How are you making sure that you don't know the results of any attempts until all the attempts are complete?
These are some of the parts of your protocol that you haven't told us. If you like, some of us here will help you set up this protocol.
You'd better get a move on - if you're not tested before the heat death of the universe there will not be a $million to win.
Tick tock. (Though the sound of the pages of a calendar turning would be more appropriate).
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Frankly - I don't know. I certainly can't work it out from the correspondence I've read.
Remarkably, it's nowhere near.
*If* we're talking about 10 trials, with 10 boxes each trial and 1 target hidden in 1 of those boxes, there's a 9 in 10 chance of *not* hitting the target. From the table, to achieve a score more significant that random chance at odds of 1:10,000, you'd have to do a minimum of 15 trials and get 149 of 150 correct.
My Occam's Razor on dowsing is just that.
Billions spent annually on seismic and geophysicts - not one dowser hired.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
As far as I can see, and edge's posts seem to back this, what he wants is that the targets in the trials are placed in exactly the same spot each time he does a pass with his willow wand.
It's not actually an unreasonable demand.
He claims that it is difficult to find an area not "contaminated" by material that confuses his dowsing, so wants the test to be on ground that does not throw up confusing signals to him.
Process he has suggested is that once this virgin ground is found that the test is done with the targets placed on the same spot.
He's proposed two ways to do it.
1. One box on one spot - never moved.
3rd party/testers place (or do not place) the target in the box.
He dowses and states whether the target is in place or not.
2. TEN boxes, one with the target inside, are placed one by one on the
spot edge has determined to be the test area.
He dowses and states whether the target is in place or not.
One trial consists of 10 boxes being dowsed.
One trial consists of the target ONLY being placed in one of the boxes.
If only 5 trials are conducted, he'll have to get it right 5 out of 5 to be significantly greater than random chance at 1:10,000
http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html (Table II)
To achieve his 70% he would have to perform 10 trials and get it right 7 times. This also satisfies the required result to show significance greater than random chance at 1:10,000.
Option 1 would be the least time consuming. It's a more physically demanding (moving boxes etc) process, but it could be done, and rules out edge complaining that, when he loses, the site had "contaminants" giving out interfering signals.
But the MOST time consuming part of it so far (1 year) has been edge (not) finding a suitable test site.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Sorry to be negative here edge, but I doubt that you walked away knowing the % since you have demonstrated a distinct lack of knowledge of how to calculate percentages. I suggest that you stick to numbers of hits vs numbers of tries. THis way much fewer errors are made in assumptions.
SezMe - has your write up been completed yet? People seem to be referring to it, but I can't see it?
Anticipation is killing me!
Last edited:
The problem is that his claim of needing "neutral" ground is not consistent with his claim that he regularly finds significant amounts of gold.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Exactly.
Edge, are you reading this?
If you need "neutral ground" in order for your dowsing to work, then it would be impossible for you to find gold by dowsing because you could hardly find any ground less neutral than one that has gold occurring naturally. If you say you can isolate the gold in such areas, well, that's exactly what the test is trying to get you to show.
So if you say you can find gold in certain places then do the test in those places. Go to a place where you have found gold before because you know dowsing works to isolate areas with gold there, right?
But of course if your dowsing can't tell the difference between gold and bronze paint on book pages or between gold and fluorescent lighting, well then your dowsing is just crap. There will never be any place that you will not have something you can use for an excuse.
Oh, and what happened with the techniques of putting a piece of gold on the tip of the dowsing rod to "tune" it to gold? Doesn't that work anymore? How do you keep the dowsing rod from detecting the gold on the tip?
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
They always say before the dowsing test that it is always to easy, they say there is nothing to it, they just have to whip out the stick and wham-o, there it is, the gold, yea it is real easy.
After another failed test. Gee, that tree is too close, the ground is too wet, to dry, to anything. The moon is out, the sun is out, the universe is out etc, just think of anything for an excuse.
Paul
After another failed test. Gee, that tree is too close, the ground is too wet, to dry, to anything. The moon is out, the sun is out, the universe is out etc, just think of anything for an excuse.
Paul
I need it to run the test successfully.
There is probably no such thing as totally neutral.
But the closer the better the results for the test, this I know.
I have found ground less neutral than other spots.
It's easy to find one spot anywhere I go verses ten spots in any one area.
You,
If you need "neutral ground" in order for you’re dowsing to work.
Me,
Neutral ground when mining is ground I pass by so in a sense yes.
I also need to find the ground that is holding where the readings get heavy, the more reaction the better the less the better for a target that is on and off the same spot.
You,
. If you say you can isolate the gold in such areas, well, that's exactly what the test is trying to get you to show.
Me,
I need isolation of the target to test but not to mine.
Think of it as a clean room.
No interferences no excuses.
All provable with a scale and numbers.
I have to go do a side job be back later on.