• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Dowsing By Edge

edge said:
My job here is to pick 7 of 10 correct hits if I hit 9 out of 10 correct hits I win if I get 7 the first time they have the right to do 2 more sets of tests and if the average is still 7 out of 10 or higher I still win.

Everything else is their job.
Click to expand...
Your first job is to agree with the testers on a protocol. Without that, you have no other "jobs".

edge said:
The only change is the containers are to pass on one spot that I pick and I pick the target.
Click to expand...
Could you please rephrase that in English?

edge said:
We used one box.
You know about the scales over that one spot.
It is connected to the dowsing stick.
When they agree to this I’ll say where and when.
Click to expand...
Since you have said nothing about how the experiment is going to be randomized or double-blinded, I wouldn't expect that anyone is going to agree to this.

And what use is the scale? Isn't the movement of your dowsing rod enough to indicate the force? Since you don't use a scale when you are dowsing in the field, you must know when you have a "hit" or not without using a scale. But if you use a scale, exactly how much of a force are you going to call a "hit"? How long does this force have to be exerted? You see, adding a scale just increases the number of things you can use as excuses. If you can't tell when you have a response, then you can't dowse.

By the way, what are you using for a target?

edge said:
I can't make it any easier to explain unless I show you a video, or SezMe posts his pictures.
Click to expand...
You could make it easier to understand if you would simply and directly answer the questions that people have asked you. Also, write up a step-by-step protocol. There are many here who would be glad to help you with this.
 
SezMe said:
Yeah, by now my credibility about a report on our meeting has sunk to a level below that of your levitating "spanner". Honestly, I am really embarrassed. I heard from treble_head on Friday that he would be sending the pictures to me but as of now (late Sunday evening, local time) I've not gotten anything. One lives in hope.
Click to expand...

Sez, I'm confident that you could write an adequate description of the trial even without the pictures. Just leave blank spots to insert the pictures later.
 
Since you have said nothing about how the experiment is going to be randomized or double-blinded, I wouldn't expect that anyone is going to agree to this.

I have you just don't remember.
And like I said they will do that just like they did before.

Some else made a claim to me and I am going to investigate it.

What are you embarrassed about Sezme?

Ten Tricky says,
And what use is the scale? Isn't the movement of your dowsing rod enough to indicate the force? Since you don't use a scale when you are dowsing in the field, you must know when you have a "hit" or not without using a scale. But if you use a scale, exactly how much of a force are you going to call a "hit"? How long does this force have to be exerted? You see, adding a scale just increases the number of things you can use as excuses. If you can't tell when you have a response, then you can't dowse.
Click to expand...

That's my business, I thought I explained this.
Dowsing in the field is one thing and to test a moving target is another, back up and read what I say.
Each spot has a different calibration in numbers.

Don't let peer pressure bother you SezMe.
 
edge said:
My job here is to pick 7 of 10 correct hits if I hit 9 out of 10 correct hits I win if I get 7 the first time they have the right to do 2 more sets of tests and if the average is still 7 out of 10 or higher I still win.

Everything else is their job.

The only change is the containers are to pass on one spot that I pick and I pick the target.
We used one box.
You know about the scales over that one spot.
It is connected to the dowsing stick.
When they agree to this I’ll say where and when.

I can't make it any easier to explain unless I show you a video, or SezMe posts his pictures.

We'll see if Alison can understand this as I e-mailed her the same message.
She's working with Jeff.
Click to expand...

Those three points are just off the top of my head:

What is the purpose of this one box?
How and why exactly do the scales come into play? (Even with what you call a "moving target" it should suffice to notice the movement of your dowsing stick towards determining a "hit", since the scales cause more variables as Tricky already explained.)
What specific target do you pick?



The more important issues, given the assumption the JREF agrees to this, which I doubt very much:

1. Have you set a location where you can perform - and succeed - by hitting at least seven times in ten tries with your above, um, protocol?

2. How many trial runs have you performed at said specific location, and how many successful hits did you register?

And the most important point: 3a. Were those trial runs double-blinded? 3b. How did you do that?

Forgive me if I ask you to repeat what you might have already stated. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you are saying, because your grammar is a bit unconventional - which I do not hold against you.
I'm trying to help by providing an answer sheet for my above inquiries. I noted some hints in brackets:

1. (Please answer "Yes" or "No".) ___

2. I did ___ trial runs. I achieved ___ hits. (We'll calculate the percentage for you if you provide the data.)

3a. (Please answer "Yes" or "No".) ___
3b. (Please describe shortly how you ensured proper double-blinding.)
 
Last edited:
edge said:
Ten Tricky says,

That's my business, I thought I explained this.
Click to expand...
No, you never explained it fully. You rambled on about something involving the ideomotor effect, talking about it as if it were a force. In any case, involving a scale will require you to indicate exactly what reading on the scale will signify a positive response. That's just asking for trouble, in my opinion, because it requires constant attention to the scale and a lot of interpretation as to whether a spike were due to the dowsing or just you moving around. It sounds like you are preparing a ready-made excuse for when you fail.

Why is it that you, the person who claims to have this talent, cannot simply tell us if you sense a hit or a miss? That is, after all, what we are trying to test. Now are you telling us that you can't do this, and must use a scale to know whether or not you're getting a positive response?

As Randi indicated in the challenge rules, we don't care about your explanations or if there is a force or not. All we care about is whether or not can you find gold. Everything else is misdirection and BS.

edge said:
Dowsing in the field is one thing and to test a moving target is another, back up and read what I say.
Click to expand...
While you are dowsing, the target is not moving, so this makes no difference. And please don't start up on "ghost readings". That is just another excuse. If you want to claim gold leaves "ghost readings", that can be tested for too.

edge said:
Each spot has a different calibration in numbers.
Click to expand...
So what? Whatever the "calibration", you are bound to get a stronger response with a gold target than without it, right? To calibrate, simply dowse the area before the test starts to establish your baseline. When you put a gold target down, your dowsing response should be higher than that baseline. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
 
If I am understanding this correctly, Edge is still claiming to be able to detect gold inside a container. So what is the problem? One container, one spot, a person Edge doesn't see places a lump of gold, or a rock, inside. No need for Edge to know how many times gold will be inside, any correct answer will count.As many tries as are required. I fail to see how such a test could take more than a week or 2 to set up. Edge can pick any spot he wants, I'm sure JREF can find someone in the area to administer the test.
 
Marcus said:
If I am understanding this correctly, Edge is still claiming to be able to detect gold inside a container. So what is the problem? One container, one spot, a person Edge doesn't see places a lump of gold, or a rock, inside. No need for Edge to know how many times gold will be inside, any correct answer will count.As many tries as are required. I fail to see how such a test could take more than a week or 2 to set up. Edge can pick any spot he wants, I'm sure JREF can find someone in the area to administer the test.
Click to expand...

(Bolding by me.) And yet this thread is going on for more than a year - and counting.



Marcus, please do yourself the favour and read all of edge's posts in this thread. Go on, I dare you.
After you finished and have successfully resisted to ram a fork in your hand, you will start to understand why the JREF changed the qualifications for applicants.
 
Marcus said:
If I am understanding this correctly, Edge is still claiming to be able to detect gold inside a container. So what is the problem? One container, one spot, a person Edge doesn't see places a lump of gold, or a rock, inside. No need for Edge to know how many times gold will be inside, any correct answer will count.As many tries as are required. I fail to see how such a test could take more than a week or 2 to set up. Edge can pick any spot he wants, I'm sure JREF can find someone in the area to administer the test.
Click to expand...
And does anyone know what the percentage for random guessing would be in the above scenario? I’m assuming 50/50
 
colin said:
And does anyone know what the percentage for random guessing would be in the above scenario? I’m assuming 50/50
Click to expand...

It also doesn't matter how many times gold is placed in the container, as long as Edge has no knowledge of it. My question is, if 100 tries are taken, how many correct answers are needed to achieve the 1 in 10,000 standard?
 
edge said:
My job here is to pick 7 of 10 correct hits if I hit 9 out of 10 correct hits I win if I get 7 the first time they have the right to do 2 more sets of tests and if the average is still 7 out of 10 or higher I still win....
Click to expand...
Wrong, wrong, wrongity, wrong.

I'll say this again for you.

To meet the preliminary test conditions you need to achieve a result that is better than random chance of 1:10,000.

If you pass the preliminary, the FINAL test must show results better than random chance at 1:1,000,000

So.

Preliminary: 7 correct out of 10 trials required.
One trial = 10 boxes with 1 target randomly placed.

Final: 8 correct out of 10 trials required.
One trial = 10 boxes with 1 target randomly placed.

All your blather of optional tests and averaging the results is just that - blather.

If you sincerely want to be tested, read the bolded text. Commit it to memory. Read it again.
 
Tricky said:
Sez, I'm confident that you could write an adequate description of the trial even without the pictures. Just leave blank spots to insert the pictures later.
Click to expand...

GzuzKryzt said:
Second.
Click to expand...

OK, I've done what I can to make the photos useful, inserted them in my write-up and now have an 8-page pdf file for your amusement and edification. How do I make it available to you?
 
SezMe said:
OK, I've done what I can to make the photos useful, inserted them in my write-up and now have an 8-page pdf file for your amusement and edification. How do I make it available to you?
Click to expand...
If I PM my email address - could I get a copy? If you want, I could host it somewhere for www download.
 
SezMe said:
OK, I've done what I can to make the photos useful, inserted them in my write-up and now have an 8-page pdf file for your amusement and edification. How do I make it available to you?
Click to expand...
I'd say that if you don't have your own web space available, put the pictures on one of those free hosting servers. Then make a post with text only and link the pictures to that site.

Or go to the JREF "computer help" subforum and let the whiz kids tell you how to do it.
 
EHocking said:
Wrong, wrong, wrongity, wrong.

I'll say this again for you.

To meet the preliminary test conditions you need to achieve a result that is better than random chance of 1:10,000.

If you pass the preliminary, the FINAL test must show results better than random chance at 1:1,000,000

So.

Preliminary: 7 correct out of 10 trials required.
One trial = 10 boxes with 1 target randomly placed.

Final: 8 correct out of 10 trials required.
One trial = 10 boxes with 1 target randomly placed.

All your blather of optional tests and averaging the results is just that - blather.

If you sincerely want to be tested, read the bolded text. Commit it to memory. Read it again.
Click to expand...

Well that's even easier.
Now I need them to say it!
 
edge said:
My job here is to pick 7 of 10 correct hits if I hit 9 out of 10 correct hits I win if I get 7 the first time they have the right to do 2 more sets of tests and if the average is still 7 out of 10 or higher I still win.

Everything else is their job.

The only change is the containers are to pass on one spot that I pick and I pick the target.
We used one box.
You know about the scales over that one spot.
It is connected to the dowsing stick.
When they agree to this I’ll say where and when.

I can't make it any easier to explain unless I show you a video, or SezMe posts his pictures.

We'll see if Alison can understand this as I e-mailed her the same message.
She's working with Jeff.
Click to expand...

GzuzKryzt said:
Those three points are just off the top of my head:

What is the purpose of this one box?
How and why exactly do the scales come into play? (Even with what you call a "moving target" it should suffice to notice the movement of your dowsing stick towards determining a "hit", since the scales cause more variables as Tricky already explained.)
What specific target do you pick?



The more important issues, given the assumption the JREF agrees to this, which I doubt very much:

1. Have you set a location where you can perform - and succeed - by hitting at least seven times in ten tries with your above, um, protocol?

2. How many trial runs have you performed at said specific location, and how many successful hits did you register?

And the most important point: 3a. Were those trial runs double-blinded? 3b. How did you do that?

Forgive me if I ask you to repeat what you might have already stated. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you are saying, because your grammar is a bit unconventional - which I do not hold against you.
I'm trying to help by providing an answer sheet for my above inquiries. I noted some hints in brackets:

1. (Please answer "Yes" or "No".) ___

2. I did ___ trial runs. I achieved ___ hits. (We'll calculate the percentage for you if you provide the data.)

3a. (Please answer "Yes" or "No".) ___
3b. (Please describe shortly how you ensured proper double-blinding.)
Click to expand...

I sent edge a PM quoting these two posts, making sure they do not get overlooked. I asked him to respond in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom