Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[EHocking]

It doesn't matter who knows as long as I don't.

The weight of the target will be a give away.
The placebo target will not be dense enough to simulate gold or silver.

Well this would not have been a problem if you'd stuck to your first statement that 1/4 oz of gold would be sufficient.
Based on a 1/4oz gold target (7g), a canister filled (31cc) with BlueTack(TM) would weigh 27.59g.
The target, with 23cc of BlueTack to hold it in place would weigh 27.47g.

So your statement that the weight of the target would give it away is incorrect.
It can be managed if only you would decide how much your target needs to weigh.

BTW. A 4oz target held in place with 0.5cc BlueTack(TM) would weigh 28.45g.
A difference of only 1 gram would probably not give the game away. The *balance* of the canister might - but I have a solution to that as well.

I won't know as long as they are on the ground when I get to scan.

The problem is that everything is affected by gravity so if placebos are used then they all need to weigh the same except the target.

Previously you said that the dummies must be of the same MASS as the target. Are you now saying they only need to be the same VOLUME?

Make up your mind, it makes a difference in the protocol.

Which is it?
Weight or volume of dummies must be the same as the target?

Just the one with the target.

Several ounces of silver or gold, 2 to 4 I would think that should do it.
be back later.

Now it's 2-4 oz, it WAS 1/4 of an ounce.

What form will the gold be?
Flake? Nugget? Ingot? Jewellry? If jewellry - 9ct, 18ct, 24ct?

What form will the silver be?
Ore? Nugget? Ingot? Jewellry? If jewellry - sterling? 999?

You really need to think the above questions through.
In summary.

What weight must the target be?
How much is gold?
How much is silver?
What form is the gold and/or silver going to be in?

Is the dummy to be the same WEIGHT or the same VOLUME as the target?


=======
Footnote for calculations:
Density of gold = 19.3 g / cc
Density of BlueTack(TM) = 0.89 g / cc
Density of Silver ore = 10.5 g / cc
Volume of 35mm film canister = 31.8 cc

 

[Paulhoff]

It doesn't matter who knows as long as I don't.
It does matter, the person with you should not know too.
The weight of the target will be a give away.
The placebo target will not be dense enough to simulate gold or silver.
Nothing there makes enough gravity to be felt by anything and/or anyone, the ground has a hell of a lot more mass then any test target.

I won't know as long as they are on the ground when I get to scan.

The problem is that everything is affected by gravity so if placebos are used then they all need to weigh the same except the target.
Again nothing there makes enought gravity to mean anything in the test.

Just the one with the target.

Several ounces of silver or gold, 2 to 4 I would think that should do it.
be back later.

Paul

 

[EHocking]

Cuervo Gold!

No, I know it's mercury.

Edge, what if the placebo targets were lead? Could you distinguish between lead and silver/gold?

He initially said the targets were to be non-magnetic, i.e., rubber or something like that. That's why I chose BlueTack(TM) 'cos it's commonly available.

But he flips between the target and dummy having to be the same volume or the same weight.

Which is it edge?

Dummy same weight as target?

Dummy same volume as target?

 

[RemieV]

It doesn't matter who knows as long as I don't.

The weight of the target will be a give away.
The placebo target will not be dense enough to simulate gold or silver.

I won't know as long as they are on the ground when I get to scan.

The problem is that everything is affected by gravity so if placebos are used then they all need to weigh the same except the target.


Just the one with the target.

Several ounces of silver or gold, 2 to 4 I would think that should do it.
be back later.

Can you bring your own target metal? Will it matter that we switch what cannister the target metal is in? As in the cannister positions might be absolute and unchanging, and we would physically take out the target metal and put it in another cannister. Would it leave behind any kind of residue that might throw everything off?

If we are doing this outside, we would need to fill the cannisters partially with sand to ensure the empty ones didn't blow away. They would all have the same amount of sand, making them equal weight, but if the target metal was inside a cannister (with the sand) that one would indeed weigh more.

Still workable?

 

[colin]

Quote:
2. edge wants the test site to be clear of ANY canister for 3 mins while the next one is being prepared/selected

Just the one with the target.

Will treating this one canister differently effect the double blinding?

 

[colin]

BTW. A 4oz target held in place with 0.5cc BlueTack(TM) would weigh 28.45g.

Aren’t there 28g in one ounce?

 

[EHocking]

Aren’t there 28g in one ounce?

Correct, yer 'onour. Me 'rithmatic went sideways there a bit. I'd worked it out for 1 oz while writing about 4.

 

[colin]

Correct, yer 'onour. Me 'rithmatic went sideways there a bit. I'd worked it out for 1 oz while writing about 4.

Ya, that’s cool. I’m just dotting ‘I’s and minding ‘P’s and ‘Q’s.

And with Edge’s observer, in addition to ‘scuffing’ the ground, I’d be concerned with leaving other signals as well. Such as: leaving the container or box in a certain orientation, or leaving behind things like cigarette ashes or butts, toothpicks, gum, pistachio shells, farts… well, maybe not smells ;-), but etc, etc… You get the idea. To be honest, the JREF volunteers don’t need something else to keep an eye on during a test.

 

[SezMe]

What target material in what amount could be used that would give an unequivical response in 2-3 seconds like happened next to Coffee Creek.

Several ounces of silver or gold, 2 to 4 I would think that should do it.

This is really important and can potentially make the protocol simpler. edge is saying that 4 ounces of silver will make his dowsing rod drop to vertical in 2-3 seconds. Since silver is less than $13/ounce, I'm prepared to buy 5 ounces for this test.

Then, when edge is dowsing, there will be NO doubt when there is a "hit" because his rod will drop to vertical in 2-3 seconds. No need for scales. This is advantageous to be the JREF and to edge because it totally eliminates the fatigue issue.

edge, would 5 ounces of lead as a dummy be acceptable to you?

 

[Jackalgirl]

I disagree. If someone knows which is which - it is no longer double-blind. By definition. But this can be simply solved by randomly numbering 10 canisters at the outset. It's not a biggie.

Okay, help me out here, because I'm definitely feeling pretty stupid (getting only 2.5 hours of sleep last night probably is not helping things): if NO one knows where the material is...how did it get there?

And how can you compare results in the end?

Classic tests include things like wine-tasting things (for, say, the "Wine Clip"): one person prepares the samples, and writes down which wine goes into which cup. Another person serves the samples and records the responses of the people being tested. Neither the person preparing the samples nor the person serving the sample are allowed to come into contact with one another until the very end of the test, when the preparer's list of what wine was where is compared with the server's list of results. This isn't double-blind?

Again, I think I'm probably just being dumb in this case.

SezMe, I think that your suggestion, in combination with the suggestion than all ten canisters be present, would speed things up immesurably. Hopefully lead won't give off a false "silver-like" vibe. If it has to be gold, though...edge, do you have four ounces of gold? You need to be the one to provide all of the required materials -- although SezMe is being very generous by offering to purchase the silver.

 

[edge]

Remie says,

Can you bring your own target metal? Will it matter that we switch what canister the target metal is in? As in the canister positions might be absolute and unchanging, and we would physically take out the target metal and put it in another canister. Would it leave behind any kind of residue that might throw everything off?

If we are doing this outside, we would need to fill the canisters partially with sand to ensure the empty ones didn't blow away. They would all have the same amount of sand, making them equal weight, but if the target metal was inside a canister (with the sand) that one would indeed weigh more.

Still workable?

Yes the target will be mine.

No you can switch, you’ll have to.

The only thing that will be affected will be the spot were I dowse for the reaction.
When I think the target metal appears on the one spot where I dowse, and after you remove it, I will say wait, before you place the next one then you wait, the spot will be empty of any thing. Then I will say after I scan it to start again and then go and hide again, and then we will finish the rest of that set of ten, you will then continue with the next canisters, till the end of that round of ten is complete.

Let me clarify this,
When I say wait,
You take it away, when I’m not looking, then there will be no canister there, if I tell you to do that.
I will tell you when to continue and I will leave again, then you can continue with the rest of what should be empties.
The rest, if all are empty which they will be, will then go really quick, I’ll make up the time at that point. This is where I will use my rest time. You can go right into the next set of ten till the target shows up again.
The empties are way easier to dowse.

I need whatever gravity does to that spot to go back to the original calibration, what I read with no target on the spot or empty, about 2 minutes maybe up to ten.


The original test when I did the test with James, one had the target and the rest of the canisters were empty.

In this test I only scan one at a time and I never see any of the nine that are with the A team.

[me}Sand?[/me}
So do this instead, place each of the containers one at a time as they pass the one spot, inside a larger plastic bucket with a lid, the bucket is always where the scale is placed, where I scan, this way I never see the containers and the wind can’t affect it.
If the wind can move the bucket we better take cover.
I need the same base line for every container the only difference is when the target is there.
If you put

sand

in them they won’t have the same base line, none of them will


Look I have to get by the preliminary test first.
You guys are making it too complicated.
Randi knows what he is doing give him the basics Remie and see what he’s got to say.
He will know if I cheat.
I want the Pulitzer that’s way more money.

Let me simplify what I need.
One target 10 containers, one bucket.
9 will be empty and one will have the target I will scan all 10, and then repeat that 10 times and then again for the final later.
One spot where I will dowse all the containers.
One person on my side to witness for me, at a distance.
When the metal shows up we will stop and the A team clears the field of what I believe to be the target, I will then come back to a empty field and say when to start again.
That’s my rest time up to 10 minutes.
I won’t see any of the movement of the containers at any time.
The test will take, However long the test takes, after all it’s for a million.
There’s a chance that I can do this in one day.
Randi will make sure that I DO NOT CHEAT.
If it takes longer, then tough titty.
Your either scared or you are not.
Up until the test, I am the only one spending money.
If I win, then we party because everything will change.
Get over this part and lets move on.
It’s pretty simple.

Get Gary Schwartz to be the witness I really don’t care.
Maybe my gold ingots will have a receiver in one of them, then get the gold ingots yourselves for a target, verified by who ever.
Geez you people are weak if you can’t endure the hours that it takes.
If I listen to you again I will fail again.



SezMe what I felt on that creek was gold or platinum. And a large amount.
Lead pulls more that iron, silver more than lead, gold more than silver, platinum more that gold, then there's mercury and the radio active stuff.
I can combine mercury and gold.
I’m about to go to work for a giant mining corporation up here, hard rock with a tunneling machine.
I will get the proper target and plenty of it.
I still need to figure out what quantities.
I’ll let you know if I get the job and at what capacity.
But it will, if I can get it, fund what ever I need to do this stupid test.

SezMe says,

Then, when edge is dowsing, there will be NO doubt when there is a "hit" because his rod will drop to vertical in 2-3 seconds. No need for scales. This is advantageous to be the JREF and to edge because it totally eliminates the fatigue issue.

This is probably true. Target could mean everything.
If I could get that reaction again in a controlled test I could walk through it in about 1 hour.
Just the way they did the test before, but still it would have to be an outside test.
More experiments are in order.
I won't get a chance to find out what that target was till September.
If I can get it, it is in the bank. However I can buy it with the wages they are talking about and still be in the same time line and I would need a new vehicle and plenty of money all through this job.
But the stuff in the creek right around there would tell me bunches.
It depends on how cool the owner is though you never know. What sucks is I’ll probably not get to mine till September. Except for the job, which is cool because I’ll get to dowse underground in a tunnel.
I’m about to prove something else.
Secret agent stuff.

From what I can tell there is a crack there that is holding from that tree out into the creek at that resort for about twenty or more feet into the water, I could get it all.
We'll see i sure would like to know.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
I’m about to prove something else.
Secret agent stuff.
...

That is a red flag if I ever saw one.



But let us reverse-jinx this one: Edge, you never would have guessed the JREF was to accept this "one canister at a time" protocol, would you?
Because even though you can't seem to utter one coherent sentence, you know exactly what it takes to uphold you delusion of dowsing. Well, the wrecking ball is here - and you know it.

And now you will have to resort to a standard tactic from the playbook of the woo: Dodge, evade, obfuscate.

Because you know your time is up and there is only one thing left to do.

You will neither outlast the forum members (EHocking, Jackalgirl, Tricky, SezMe & others) nor the JREF with your shenanigans. Their patience and thoroughness is fueled by a renewable resource: Thirst for knowledge.



There is nowhere else to go, edge. The stage is set for the drama. It is on the audience to deem it a tragedy or a comedy.



As a reminder: Edge is someone who simply has to do under controlled conditions what he claims to be able to do and win One Million US Dollars. This person chooses to post something like this:

...
I’m about to prove something else.
Secret agent stuff.
...

 

[Jackalgirl]

When I think the target metal appears on the one spot where I dowse, and after you remove it, I will say wait, before you place the next one then you wait, the spot will be empty of any thing. Then I will say after I scan it to start again and then go and hide again, and then we will finish the rest of that set of ten, you will then continue with the next canisters, till the end of that round of ten is complete.

Let me clarify this,
When I say wait,
You take it away, when I’m not looking, then there will be no canister there, if I tell you to do that.
I will tell you when to continue and I will leave again, then you can continue with the rest of what should be empties.

Whoa. Wait a minute. Are you saying that:

1) After every dowsing attempt, you will dowse the (now empty) area after the canister is taken away? What, to determine that the area is still clear of interference? Or that
2) After any dowsing attempt in which you think the metal target is present, you will dowse the (now empty) area after the canister is taken away...and not do the post-removal dowsing "scan" for any attempt at which you think there is no metal target present? In other words, let's say an attempt set goes like this: first container, miss. It's simply replaced (with no re-dowse of the empty area). Second container, a hit. After it's removed, edge dowses the empty area. Third container through 10th container, misses, and there is no redowse of the empty area after the containers are removed for each try.

First off, if you're talking about 1, I strongly suggest that you do not do this. For one thing, it's going to double the time it takes you to get this done. If, as EHocking conservatively estimated, it'll take you 11.1 hours to simply get through the protocol as previously stated, you redowsing the area each time a container is removed will stretch the time out to at least 22.2 hours. That's really undoable.

If you're talking about 2, again, I suggest you not do this. This is functionally no different than you simply not dowsing any of the follow-on containers after you find what you think is the target. And it's why we suggest (over and over) that all ten containers be present for each attempt. For one, it's going to speed things up. For two, it lets you compare "readings" between individual containers before you make your final determination. For three, it'll cut down on your fatigue. And for four, if you want to scan the area after your attempt (to make sure that there is still no interference), you can do that without doubling the time required for the overall test.

If I misunderstand you, I apologise, but what you're writing is unclear and it could possibly represent (yet another) major change to the protocol.

 

[SezMe]

edge, regarding post #1632, you're going backwards. That post is nearly incoherent. Please focus on one issue at a time. And forget about Coffee Creek - it has nothing to do with the protocol we're trying to get to.

No, we're not making it too complicated. We're trying to simplify. Complications are arising because you keep bringing in extraneous matters. Focus, edge, focus.

 

[Cuddles]

Okay, help me out here, because I'm definitely feeling pretty stupid (getting only 2.5 hours of sleep last night probably is not helping things): if NO one knows where the material is...how did it get there?

And how can you compare results in the end?

You're not being stupid, this is what I was also saying. From the Wiki page EHocking linked to:

In a double-blind trial, one researcher allocates a series of numbers to 'new treatment' or 'old treatment'. The second researcher is told the numbers, but not what they have been allocated to. Since the second researcher does not know, they cannot possibly tell the patient, directly or otherwise, and cannot give in to patient pressure to give them the new treatment. In this system, there is also often a more realistic distribution of sexes and ages of patients. Therefore double-blind (or randomized) trials are preferred, as they tend to give the most accurate results.

The person who places the target in the cannister is the first researcher. This person knows where the target is, but has no contact with anyone else until the test is finished. The second researcher is the person (or people) who actually place the target in the room and does not know where the target is. The subject obviously also doesn't know where the target is. As you say, there must always be someone who knows where the target is because there must always be someone who put it there. What is important is that this person does not have any contact with the other researchers until after the test has finished.

As I said in my last post, it is called "double-blind" because both the tester and the testee are blind. It is irrelevant whether anyone else is blind because no-one else is allowed to have any presence during the test. It is possible to add further levels of blinding by also blinding those analysing the results, but that is not really rellevant to this test.

 

[EHocking]

Okay, help me out here, because I'm definitely feeling pretty stupid (getting only 2.5 hours of sleep last night probably is not helping things): if NO one knows where the material is...how did it get there?

At the start, 1 canister has the target. 9 are dummies. All are prepared and sealed in front of all participants and taped closed. The canisters are randomly numbered - but no one now nows which contains the target.

During the test the canisters are then randomly chosen to be placed on the test area (or at 10 different locations).

The randomising team records the number (1-10) of the canister and the order/location (a-j) it is taken to the test site.

The testee team records which in the order/location (a-j) that edge says the target is under.

So. One team knows the order in which the targets were placed in the test area and the other team knows the order/location that edge chose as the target in each trial. But no one knows if he's been successful or not.

And how can you compare results in the end?

At the end, you just open the canisters, 1-10, and find out which number canister the target was in. Let's say it was no.4.

Using the randomising team's record you can then say what position/order the canister was placed for each trial, e.g.,

Trial number / target position
1 e
2 j
3 b
4 c
etc

Using the testee's record you can indicate edge's dowsed choices

Trial number / target position
1 c
2 e
3 b
4 d
etc

In this case he got a hit only on trial 3.

Classic tests include things like wine-tasting things (for, say, the "Wine Clip"): one person prepares the samples, and writes down which wine goes into which cup. Another person serves the samples and records the responses of the people being tested. Neither the person preparing the samples nor the person serving the sample are allowed to come into contact with one another until the very end of the test, when the preparer's list of what wine was where is compared with the server's list of results. This isn't double-blind?

My way's blinder

Again, I think I'm probably just being dumb in this case.

Nope - just me being pedantic.

SezMe, I think that your suggestion, in combination with the suggestion than all ten canisters be present, would speed things up immesurably. Hopefully lead won't give off a false "silver-like" vibe. If it has to be gold, though...edge, do you have four ounces of gold? You need to be the one to provide all of the required materials -- although SezMe is being very generous by offering to purchase the silver.

 

[EHocking]

You're not being stupid, this is what I was also saying. From the Wiki page EHocking linked to:

The person who places the target in the cannister is the first researcher. This person knows where the target is, but has no contact with anyone else until the test is finished. The second researcher is the person (or people) who actually place the target in the room and does not know where the target is. The subject obviously also doesn't know where the target is. As you say, there must always be someone who knows where the target is because there must always be someone who put it there. What is important is that this person does not have any contact with the other researchers until after the test has finished.

But this is the point that others have made. It is possible that if someone in the test area knows where the target is, they may inadvertently give a signal. Small that this possibility is, the very simple protocol I'm suggesting removes that possibility without adding complication or time to the protocol.

I fail to see what all the objections are to a process that adds security to the test protocol without adding time or complexity to it.

As I said in my last post, it is called "double-blind" because both the tester and the testee are blind. It is irrelevant whether anyone else is blind because no-one else is allowed to have any presence during the test. It is possible to add further levels of blinding by also blinding those analysing the results, but that is not really rellevant to this test.

I'm just trying to remove any possibility of accusations of collusion, cheating or whining about the possibility of edge receiving subconscious signals during the test.

And since it can be done simply without compromising edge's or JREF's position in the protocol I'm *really* at a loss as to why anyone would have objections to doing it?

What *are* your objections to the process?

If it's just that you think I'm being too ana.... pedantic, fine, but I can't see why such a stink is being raised about it. It's actually GOOD science to add this extra control.

 

[EHocking]

Ya, that’s cool. I’m just dotting ‘I’s and minding ‘P’s and ‘Q’s.

And with Edge’s observer, in addition to ‘scuffing’ the ground, I’d be concerned with leaving other signals as well. Such as: leaving the container or box in a certain orientation, or leaving behind things like cigarette ashes or butts, toothpicks, gum, pistachio shells, farts… well, maybe not smells ;-), but etc, etc… You get the idea. To be honest, the JREF volunteers don’t need something else to keep an eye on during a test.

Just wanted to repeat this post to help explain my pedantry with the extra controls on blinding.

It's a point well made.

When edge fails there will be all sorts of excuses and there are enough JREF detractors out there to pick nits - why not use a bit of malathion to counter that.

If, by some miracle, edge succeeds there will be all sorts of excuses that there was collusion, hints etc as described by Colin - why not use the blinding process to eliminate as many of these possibilities as are practicable.

All I'm doing is trying to suggest controls for known variables.

Collusion, cheating or subconscious hints are known variables.

 

[EHocking]

I applaud your unfailing optimism that edge will actually take the MDC this time around. I, on the other hand, am a realist. He won't.

I'm not that concerned if he takes it or not, but I *am* concerned that JREF is seen to have tried as hard as possible to make it happen and to make sure that there can't be complaints later that they didn't try to test exactly what edge's claim was.

 

[edge]

That is a red flag if I ever saw one.

Sand