Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[IXP]

Uh, then you don't understand any of the protocols being proposed. I suggest you read back a few pages - or search on protocol on this thread.

And I suggest you look back at your post that I was replying to.

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.
<snip>

There is nothing in here that indicates a second randomization for each test and placement of the container inside another container. When one uses "the canisters" in two successive paragraphs, I would assume he is referring to the same canisters, not another set of canisters in which the first set is placed after a randomization. In this description, you left out a critical step.

IXP

 

[EHocking]

This actually wouldn't work... Because there are ten cannisters and they are given out in sets of ten, the target metal has to jump cannisters. It can't just be in a different order because the ten cannisters are all going to be slightly different - not due to any cheating or anything of that nature, just because there's no identical two of anything, let alone ten.

The target will have to be physically taken out and switched to another cannister for each set because... alright, let's say that on the first run of ten, Guska was able to figure out, by pure chance or dowsing, which cannister contained the target. He would be able to find it in every subsequent set because of the appearance of the cannister rather than the dowsing, if he chose.

That increases his odds to one in ten (the odds of guessing right on that first set).

The people who place the cannisters will know exactly where the target metal is in every set, they just won't be observing the dowsing.

I think we're only confused on terminology. The idea was that 10 individual 35mm film canisters would be used to hold the dummy or target. 9 as dummies and 1 containing the target metal. Each of these canisters would be hidden in, and transported to/from, the test site inside a plastic, lidded coffee "tin", in order to hide the number on the 35mm canister from everyone at the test site itself.

I'll leave the details for JREF, since you're obviously in contact with edge now and have more chance of movin this forward than our discussion on the forum.

 

[EHocking]

And I suggest you look back at your post that I was replying to.

There is nothing in here that indicates a second randomization for each test and placement of the container inside another container. When one uses "the canisters" in two successive paragraphs, I would assume he is referring to the same canisters, not another set of canisters in which the first set is placed after a randomization. In this description, you left out a critical step.

From the start of this discussion (May 2006) it's always been that the target/dummy canisters would be hidden inside or underneath another container.

In that post we were merely discussing the process of randomisation and worth of blinding, the fact that the 35mm canisters would be hidden had already been settled.

 

[RemieV]

From the start of this discussion (May 2006) it's always been that the target/dummy canisters would be hidden inside or underneath another container.

In that post we were merely discussing the process of randomisation and worth of blinding, the fact that the 35mm canisters would be hidden had already been settled.

When Guska just clarified, though, he stated only the Folger's plastic cannisters as the containers.

Mr. Guska, is it correct that you want there to be film cannisters inside the Folger's cannisters?

 

[EHocking]

...The people who place the cannisters will know exactly where the target metal is in every set, they just won't be observing the dowsing.

I really think that it is in JREF's interest that this not be the case.

When edge fails there will be all sorts of excuses - and one could be that JREF knew where the target was, and somehow (people will invent a somehow) imparted confusing signals to edge during the trial.

We already know that edge *does* look for these signs from this post:

Quote:
After Mike made his guess on each trial, the other two persons were invited back in, and we recorded the results. That procedure was repeated ten times.

I was there when it was being recorded, we all of us. I remember just fine as I seen the look in James’ eyes, it was the first pick that I made that was correct.

Whether it is a true recollection or not - edge will swear this was the case in the last trial. A better blinded protocol would protect the JREF testers of just this sort of accusation/excuse post-test.

One method of randomising and hiding the target prior to the test was outlined in Post 1571
Pass it by James (if I'm not being too forward) that the number of the target canister is only revealed to all involved only after the test has been completed and only in order to tally the results. I'd be surprised if he didn't think it was a good idea.

If he doesn't think it's necessary, well, it *is* his Challenge, after all.

 

[edge]

Remie says,

That would not be possible. You cannot see the placement or removal of the canisters. You would have to walk away while it was removed and return after it was gone.

I know.
You have to number the smaller cans 1 to 10; I have a plastic bucket that is entirely plastic.
You then put the smaller can into the bucket and seal it with its lid then you take both back and forth.
This will insure I see nothing.
This will also be quicker for you, I see nothing till the end……

 

[Jackalgirl]

Remie says,

I know.
You have to number the smaller cans 1 to 10; I have a plastic bucket that is entirely plastic.
You then put the smaller can into the bucket and seal it with its lid then you take both back and forth.
This will insure I see nothing.
This will also be quicker for you, I see nothing till the end……

Edge, what Remie means is that you can't be in the testing area at all while the area is being prepped or unprepped (i.e., while the canisters are being removed or replaced). You can't be anywhere where you could observe the setup team doing its thing, regardless of whether you could see the actual canisters or not. You can't see the people, either.

 

[Jackalgirl]

FWIW, I completely missed on the whole film-canister-in-a-coffee-container thing too. That's why film canisters were not listed on the "materials" list in my peanut-butter-and-jelly protocol. Now that they're mentioned, the protocol makes more sense.

However, if the film canisters ("FCs") are prepared in front of everyone, then everyone sees which film canister the target goes into. If there is anything distinguishing about the film canister -- the way it is taped, its shape, any nicks or dings -- it is quite possible that the person preparing the coffee canisters (having observed the initial FC preparation) will know that the FC it contains has the target in it.

The preparation of the coffee canisters -- whether they contain FCs or whether the target just goes into the coffee canisters -- should be done by a separate team out of the sight of everyone else involved. Videotape it, yes. But no one else should, at any point, be privy to where the target is, and no team should ever be in any form of contact - visual or otherwise - with any other team.

Just my $.02. None of this prevents cheating in a truly determined person, of course, but that's the point of having each team consist of an observer from both "sides of the equation", as it were (and videotaping everything).

 

[SezMe]

This cannister-in-a-can approach is unduely complicated. Why are we doing this?

 

[Jackalgirl]

This cannister-in-a-can approach is unduely complicated. Why are we doing this?

We've gotten lost in multiple protocols proposed by multiple people out of a desperate need to make sense of what edge says. EHocking's protocol is not, insofar as I understand it, the protocol as understood by RemieV/JREF.

RemieV, please take no offense, but I think that discussing this test in this particular thread is a mistake. There are too many people involved (myself included), throwing out their interpretations of what edge is saying, and trying to come up with a protocol that fits whatever it is that edge has thrown into the proverbial (and now, apparently, actual) bucket at the time.

IMO, it would be far better for you to conduct this conversation with edge via email, and email only, and to stay away from this thread. This thread is so convoluted that I expect to see Cthulhu popping out of it any day now.

 

[SezMe]

Maybe a better approach is to let edge - and edge only - post in the Challenge thread where he and RemieV can thrash it all out. But we can still view the train wreck and comment here until our fingers start to bleed.



Start?????

 

[Jackalgirl]

Maybe a better approach is to let edge - and edge only - post in the Challenge thread where he and RemieV can thrash it all out. But we can still view the train wreck and comment here until our fingers start to bleed.

I think that'd be a good idea, if it's technically feasable to lock a thread ( as opposed to a forum) like that. It would certainly save Remie the hassle of copying the emails into the thread...

 

[EHocking]

Remie says,

I know.
You have to number the smaller cans 1 to 10; I have a plastic bucket that is entirely plastic.
You then put the smaller can into the bucket and seal it with its lid then you take both back and forth.
This will insure I see nothing.
This will also be quicker for you, I see nothing till the end……

edge, I have a proposal for you that might break this deadlock on your one site, one-at-a-time protocol.

As you know, JREF always allows the applicant to perform an "open" test. That is, you get to dowse each of the sites and containers with the target in full view so that you can be assured that there are no outside influences that will affecting the dowsing and that you are getting the sort of reaction you expect from both the dummy and the metal target.

Forgetting the detail and physical process to a point, would the following be acceptable?

You dowse an area and mark 10 spots as being suitable. Wooden stakes/pegs mark each spot and and numbered. At each spot you get to dowse with the dummy in place and then the target in place and mark each of these background benchmarks on the pegs. This way you will know what your initial readings were at each site so do not have to "recalibrate" between each trial.

If the above is OK with you, you could probably spend an hour or so setting the sites up and calibrating and you still have 6+ hours to perform the actual Challenge. Dowsing 10 cans at once in this manner, you should be able to complete the Challenge in the time given by JREF, with time out for yourself between trials to rest AND to have a spot vacant of dummy or can for the time you wish.

I think also that you should restrict hammering out details of the protocol with JREF offline - but the offer still stands, if you want a detailed protocol written up for you to present to them, I still got one. The ad hoc nature of the discussion so far is slowing things down, you need to get very specific about each step and THEN hammer out details to suit both parties.

 

[edge]

Edge, what Remie means is that you can't be in the testing area at all while the area is being prepped or unprepped (i.e., while the canisters are being removed or replaced). You can't be anywhere where you could observe the setup team doing its thing, regardless of whether you could see the actual canisters or not. You can't see the people, either.

I know.
I'm rescanning an empty area, targets, people, then I leave, they then continue.
No longer than two minutes.

 

[edge]

This cannister-in-a-can approach is unduely complicated. Why are we doing this?
So I can't see any of the numbered containers.

 

[edge]

RemieV just e-mail me.
If you want we can disscuse this on the locked thread.

 

[Spektator]

This cannister-in-a-can approach is unduely complicated. Why are we doing this?
So I can't see any of the numbered containers.

Edge, it isn't enough that you can't see any of the containers; no one can know whether a given container has the target or a dummy in it. This is a double-blind procedure.

If you can successfully locate the target when no one knows where it is, then you're demonstrating dowsing.

If you can locate the target when someone else already knows where it is--even though that person seemingly is not communicating with you--you are not demonstrating dowsing, because there are other possible explanations.

If you want to succeed and be recognized for your success, go with the double-blinding.

 

[Jackalgirl]

I know.
I'm rescanning an empty area, targets, people, then I leave, they then continue.
No longer than two minutes.

I don't understand. Are you staying that you're rescanning the area after everything has been cleared from it? So an attempt actually consists of two scans -- one with the container or containers in place, at which point you attempt to determine whether the container (or containers) has the dummy or target in it, and then another scan once the area has been cleared? (Note that I highly suspect that JREF will require you to leave the area before they actually remove the container(s). So you'll have to go away, then come back once the area is clear, then do your rescan, then go away, at which point the setup is repeated, etc.)

If so, this is still going to slow things down immeasurably. Remember, JREF says you have 8 hours, tops, to do all of this.

Edited to add: you say "I'm rescanning an empty area, targets, people, then I leave, they then continue." I do not understand this sentence. You can't rescan targets or people if the area is empty, because the area is EMPTY (nothing is there). So what do you mean?

Secondly, I don't understand the purpose of the bucket. There is no need for a bucket. You are ONLY in the room when the setup is ready for you to do your dowsing attempt. So why do we suddenly have a bucket in the process?

 

[edge]

I can't believe you don't get it, what poor memories.
The bucket will double blind each of the 10 canisters.
Some one has to know which of the 10 cans has the target or else how would they be able to record on paper which canister I chose and which has passed on the spot???
You say if I see the numbers I'll some how see a pattern???


I will explane one more time, What I know about a target moving on the one spot and off and then on again and so forth.

When the target appears on the one spot and then is removed It will still read like the metals there for a few minutes.
It will then return to the original readings by the scale which will be less readings by the scale than when the target is there.
There is no confusion in the readings for the rest of the empties in that set of ten.

This will insure that I get every guess right for all ten picks in a set.
This is what I learned from my experiments.

Jackalgirl this only happens once in ten when the metal appears.

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl
Edge, what Remie means is that you can't be in the testing area at all while the area is being prepped or unprepped (i.e., while the canisters are being removed or replaced). You can't be anywhere where you could observe the setup team doing its thing, regardless of whether you could see the actual canisters or not. You can't see the people, either.

I know.
I'm rescanning an empty area, targets, people, then I leave, they then continue.
No longer than two minutes.

The empties I can scan quickly.
The scale hardly moves.
This will insure that it goes quicker, for the remainder, and up untill the metal shows up in the next set of ten.
That's when I'll take my break agian.
I can still choose any of the ten in the set as the target, for me it will be the first the second the third ect; weather or not the numbers are mixed or not.
I may say the third but it may be numbered 6, because it's hidden from me in a bucket.
That will insure to JREF that I have not followed any pattern.
My offer to them.

It is up to them to double blind the target or not.
I offered.

 

[edge]

ROFLMAO : scanning, rescanning, buckets....is this the JREF MDC or is it a reality TV candid cameras show?

Try to follow.