• 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

Drs_Res said:
Probably because we keep asking questions in this thread.

Maybe we should all just go to the other thread and let this one die? :con2:
Click to expand...
I like this thread. It is moderated, so it limits "shoot from the lip" posting. Also moderation tends to keep it on topic. Of course, Edge has the final say so. If he doesn't post, the thread will die, or at least atrophy.
 
The only way to prove Dowsing works

You all know the final protocol I had drawn up.
What is aggravating me is the links to the moderated thread from my last application a year ago or so.

I see the links to your deception even on my face book page to the right of my stuff on my site, so I am going to post it as I see it should be done in order to prove that dowsing works at least 70 to 80 % correct responses.
This page is my rebuttal to your links to the moderated sites you have on search engines and my own web pages where they shouldn’t be.
In this way you can and they the people out there can see how simple the protocol really was once I figured out exactly how I was to accomplish proving in a controlled test that dowsing really works.

I will not get caught up in fifty questions that lead us into arguments or further moderation where my rebuttals are deleted.

1: Nothing in the containers that will interfere with the test, ballast can be rice, corn or flour.

2: All targets will pass across one spot, one at a time and I do not care how long it takes the test can be done in two days if the JREF is really interested in proving the effect one way or the other as a supposed scientific test then they will spend the time as I see no other way for a legitimate test of dowsing.

3: There will be 100 passes with the target showing up 10 time in all the passes, once every ten sets of passes.

4: Let me put it another way each set of ten will have the target show up once there will be ten sets of ten containers.

5: As before you will want me to get at least 8 of ten correct, picking out the target each time they are present this will mean also that I have to get 90 correct hits on the empty containers with out the target present, that in it's self is an extraordinary accomplishment.

6: I pick the spot to test at in a park near their office for their convenience.
The test may not last the duration of the time it takes if I fail early enough to just end it, in other words I have to pretty much go the duration to hit 8 of 10 correct or better if I don’t then you can re-coop the time and we are done, no pressure, or we can go the duration if you want to.

7:One of your people hangs with me one of mine hangs with you.

8: Anything else you want to do to insure I don’t see or hear is up to you.

9: There is nothing else you need to know as far as I can see except that you can also cover the containers with a box also made of cardboard or plastic.

10: The target can be any kind of metal, gold, iron, nickel, silver, as long as it is metal.
I might even use mercury if you aren’t scared since mercury covered gold is mined where I was dredging.



Chances are gold or silver as I have yet to try mercury although I can and have access.
You shouldn’t have any questions cause any 9 year old can understand this.

There is no sense in filling out an application till there is an agreement on the protocol.



I will put up links to this post.
 
Mr (pardon the presumption of gender). edge,

I am one of those who does not happen to know you at all, so I must ask your forgiveness for any questions or queries I may have which you have covered previously - they are not meant as insults. Before beginning any sort of attempt to understand your suggestions, are these considered by yourself as the genesis for a new protocol statement entirely or merely as additions or changes to your previous one? If the latter, I will happily go and study your prior protocol.

~ Matt
 
This is as fine as I can tweak it to eliminate any interference and at the very end of my last posting/thread this is what I finally was lucky enough to come up with at which point one of the members here, “SezMe” came up in Northern California on a vacation so we got together to do a short test with me, on ground that was loaded with interference/ gold in the ground. I basically have to find a spot that is neutral no hits or pull, and then it’s obvious when you put a target down.
The best thing I can tell you is this, there is a reading even then but real slight, put a target down and it is obvious but I have to measure the force both ways.
The place was famous and last year some people did really well there mining.
My biggest challenge was to find out why in a controlled experiment, in a building, I did so poorly but yet in the field I was locating at the time or before the test, I was pulling ounces.
Why I was able to do so well in the field and so bad in a controlled environment and in a building.

After many experiments this is the only way to get a clean reading each and every time.
My target was large to maximize the effect. I have to get a smaller target for a formal test that does the same thing.
Go here for a view to get an idea of how I am able to know this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85571

It's the same.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the OP, I'm struggling a bit with your grammar, but as far as I can tell the test seems reasonable and similar to other dowsing tests done in the past. 8 out of 10 correct with each test having 1 in 10 available positives seems reasonable. Anyone else see any major issues here?
First glance, this seems like a very workable protocol.
 
In My Spare Time said:
Regarding the OP, I'm struggling a bit with your grammar, but as far as I can tell the test seems reasonable and similar to other dowsing tests done in the past. 8 out of 10 correct with each test having 1 in 10 available positives seems reasonable. Anyone else see any major issues here?
First glance, this seems like a very workable protocol.
Click to expand...

It's the only way.

Excuse my grammar I am writing fast and in more than one place on the net.

What I thought would work didn’t the last time I did this I was struggling to find the right way as I was writing in here I had to work and mine and find the right way to do this.
I had to test in between all of the chores of survival as I wrote Ideas in here.
Then they booted my application.
They did that just as I found the way, as I was perfecting the protocol as you read it now.
Talk about frustrating.
 
rsaavedra said:
An opportune link here, with an example of testing a dowser's alleged ability. Check from about the 8th paragraph and on:

http://skepdic.com/control.html
Click to expand...

I get what your saying there.
You guys just don't know to what extent I have tested in the field. I have seen every little speck nugget I have sensed and pulled up.
Then I checked the other way, no reading in a spot then dig to prove that.

Like I said it works in the field then when tested in a double blind test even I got many readings and was confused.
Six out of ten containers had hits that weren’t there, and how can that be?

You have to figure out what it is that isn't there and eliminate it, what I found out is you can't, so how do you fix that?
My protocol answers that question and eliminates it.

JREF has the odds stacked in their favor, I have to get 90 hits that are not holding a target right then 8 that are, that leaves two mistakes or miss-readings as leeway, that’s pretty tough odds.

It all depends what’s under the targets, in the ground.
 
May I make a suggestion?

I think it would add quite a lot to the clarity of your protocol if you broke it down into three sections.

1) Setup
2) Procedure
3) Evaluation
 
What does this make? Five years now?

Seriously, Mike... you need to grow up already.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lionking said:
Have you ever seriously entertained the thought that your belief in your ability is wrong, edge?
Click to expand...

I would then switch teams.

What does SezMes' test say?




Psiload says, "What does this make? Five years now?

Seriously, Mike... you need to grow up already".
Click to expand...

Well... attacking my maturity, if it was provable then what would you say to me?


My last problem is finding a compact target that has the same effect as that tray.

First thing I have been mining and dowsing since 1984, with a few years being a sub contractor. I have about a total of… 11 years mining and dowsing.

They aren't going to test me anyway not now.

Have you ever had a premonition?
A hunch.
It's not about the money so much as, what if they are wrong then what do we lose?

In a nutshell, we lose possibly, and this is theory, the ability to move about in a vacuum using electrical current only.

Compared to the energy input you get a greater work force as an output.

If true.

Am I mature or curious?
 
Cavemonster said:
May I make a suggestion?

I think it would add quite a lot to the clarity of your protocol if you broke it down into three sections.

1) Setup
2) Procedure
3) Evaluation
Click to expand...

They know what to do and how to do it.
It's the same as the original test except the containers; ten of them, are in motion and all will be placed on one spot one at a time.

They know exactly what to do and how to do it, switching the container that's holding the target, all that.
My job is to tell them where it's at.
 
Audible Click said:
This may add something to the discussion as James Randi speaks about Edge and the test that was done with him. I believe this talk was given during TAM 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1JP0R6SHxQ&feature=channel
Click to expand...

I like this protocol. You could try the same one. That way there will be very little discussion of the protocol.

The $1m question is what double blind testing have you done in the last year using that protocol? Also you mention in your OP that you use it in the field to discover gold. Are you a multi millionaire? If yes then dousing probably works. If no then you have failed to show that it works.
 
Hi edge. Good to see you're still around - not so good but unsurprising to see you are still clinging to your old shtick.

To the newer folks, here's a brief summary of Mike "edge" Guska's adventures with controlled tests. I recommend reading the links since it will eliminate most of the ensuing discussion. I have very few doubts though, that many will try to engage edge in the same points he has been engaged over and over and over in the past few years - with the lack of success all too apparent.

1. He took a MDC test back in 2002. Any guesses on how it went? Please scroll down to March 29, 2002.

2. Then came this thread.

3. Then this.

4. And then this.

I'm not sure if I got all the relevant threads. Someone kindly post the ones I missed.



To sum it up:

Edge seems to have the heart at the right place. If someone needed a place to sleep he could have his couch any time, along with a healthy breakfast in the morning.

It seems to me that his mind, although also well-meaning, wanders off from time to time.

He has difficulties - or is unwilling - to write what most people call coherent, understandable language.
 
The only way to prove Dowsing works is to eliminate the ideomotor effect as a factor and show that you can still find whatever you're dowsing for significantly more often than would be expected by chance. A test which eliminates the ideomotor effect is trivially easy to set up. With a protocol like the one in the OP, which is far more complicated than should be necessary, I would worry that there is too much opportunity for the ideomotor effect to creep back in.

I'm new to this particular case but it sounds to me like the original test proved that the applicant's perceived ability was due to the ideomotor effect, like every other dowser who's ever been properly tested. But instead of accepting this result he has been trying ever since to come up with a more complicated test protocol which looks convincing but doesn't completely eliminate the ideomotor effect, and hence shows a result better than chance.

edge said:
My biggest challenge was to find out why in a controlled experiment, in a building, I did so poorly but yet in the field I was locating at the time or before the test, I was pulling ounces.
Click to expand...
My guess would be because in the controlled environment the ideomotor effect was completely eliminated, whilst in your field testing it was not. In other words there were visible clues in the field environment which your brain was unconsciously processing, but no such clues were available under properly controlled conditions. Have you considered this explanation? If so, why did you dismiss it?

ETA: Just saw the previous post. Thanks for the information, I won't waste any more of my time.
 
Last edited:
edge,

As per your suggestion, I have read through SezMe's report of your demonstration to him pertaining to this matter. While certainly an interesting demonstration, it does raise several questions that seem (at least to me) worthy of further experimentation or at least consideration - speculation is easy on my part, but ultimately I fear it is you who will have to evaluate whether or not these ideas hold merit relative to your own abilities.

My confusion about the demonstration fall generally into three categories - the target items, the purpose of the scale, and the presence of the dimes in the dowsing rod (my apologies if this has been covered before, but in light of SezMe's report I think they deserve a bit of consideration now as well). Originally I had experienced some minor confusion in regards to the presence of this Danny individual, but from rereading the report it seems he was assigned to observe and report the readings of the scale.

The target items employed for this test seem to have been a silver tray, composition unknown, and a RubberMaid drain pad. Many silver trays, however, are merely silver plated and not fully themselves made of silver. Someone with greater metallurgical knowledge than I undoubtedly knows of a method to quickly tell or identify the composition of the tray. Advance warning though - several of these tests involve breaking off a piece of the tray (cutting it off really, probably with a pair of scissors or a blowtorch depending upon thickness) and subjecting it to chemical analysis. If the tray has any sentimental value to you, I would suggest finding something else to use - an idea would be something made of aluminum or some other comparatively cheap item. WikiAnswers suggests that iron is mildly magnetic, while admittedly it isn't the greatest source in the world it does seem possible that the tray may be partially composed of iron and that you are feeling the magnetic effects of the tray on the dime.

The scale's purpose is also not quite clearly elaborated upon in SezMe's report. I gather from what he mentions that you are concerned in some way about the gravitational effects upon your downsing rods? If this is indeed the case, the consistent pull downward from gravity on the rods would seem easily discernable from the rapid jerk downward when the target metal was detected (presuming that there is some sort of rapid movement downward, the document is not quite clear on what the dowsing rods do on a hit or miss). In any event, a reaction caused by the target materials would certainly differ from that caused by normal gravitation?

SezMe's report states that the dimes in the dowsing rods give it the ability to locate metals, and if read literally suggest that they are the sole cause of this ability. Put a slightly different way, would a dowsing rod capable of detecting water (e.g. one without dimes) also be capable of detecting precious metals to any degree? Further note that the composition of dimes has changed greatly over the years (Wiki offers an interesting list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dime_(United_States_coin)#Design_history ) and that the current model of dime (those produced after the passage of the Coinage Act of 1965) now also contain nickel, another ferromagnetic material.

edge said:
My biggest challenge was to find out why in a controlled experiment, in a building, I did so poorly but yet in the field I was locating at the time or before the test, I was pulling ounces.
Why I was able to do so well in the field and so bad in a controlled environment and in a building.
Click to expand...

I am curius to see what you discovered in this area.

Thanks for your time,

~ Matt
 
Last edited:
To give the new folks an idea how difficult a discussion with edge might be, please view the following quotes from consecutive posts in this very thread,

edge said:
...
6: I pick the spot to test at in a park near their office for their convenience.
...
Click to expand...

Translation: I can do this in a park near the JREF office.

Then there's this, around two hours later:

edge said:
This is as fine as I can tweak it to eliminate any interference and at the very end of my last posting/thread this is what I finally was lucky enough to come up with at which point one of the members here, “SezMe” came up in Northern California on a vacation so we got together to do a short test with me, on ground that was loaded with interference/ gold in the ground. I basically have to find a spot that is neutral no hits or pull, and then it’s obvious when you put a target down.
The best thing I can tell you is this, there is a reading even then but real slight, put a target down and it is obvious but I have to measure the force both ways.
...
Click to expand...

Allowing for the possibility that edge might not find a suitable spot, the translation: I can do this in a park near the JREF office, IF...
 
Last edited:
Before you spend too much time on this, Edge, I think you need to read the application rules. They have changed a little since the last time you applied, particularly as regards to the twelfth rule:

Challenge Application said:
This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions: First, he/she must have a “media presence,” which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person’s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified.
Click to expand...

It is possible that the Swift write-up of your previous trial seven years ago, or the small blurb in Newsweek may count as a "media presence". But unless you convince an academic to witness and sign off on your "powers", then you needn't waste any more of your time time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom