Dowsing it work for me!!

[YoPopa]

That could open up the possibility of the testee later claiming (on a false-positive): "They didn't dig down deep enough!"

I think that objection could equally apply to any dowsing test but it is controlled by having the dowser pretest the site.

By testing the the holes prior to filling the dowser determines if there is any pre-existing problem with the site.

I haven't described all my ideas of how to run a fair and honest test. I was hoping that John would reply and help in designing the test.

John, hello, John, come in John, I have bottles.

 

[lionking]

I have a friend who was convinced he could dowse, by all other measures he is a completely rational and skeptical down to earth guy.

I was visiting someone who was a lecturer at a TAFE (polytechnic) College and as we were walking across the campus she started to talking to a workman digging a ditch. We were having a chat as we pseed him and he said he was worried about hitting a water pipe. "No problem" said the lecturer, who went to her car to get her "wires" and then "located" the pipe for. I tried my hardest, but the revulsion on my face would have been apparant.

 

[Paulhoff]

John G. A lot of static from the non believers but it doesn't matter.

No it doesn't matter, you will just keep your mind closed to the bigger world, while you think you are open to one. Not needing proof is what a child does, it is not what an adult does.

Paul

 

[john glassman]

Hey leroy you test sound good but why you put the bottle's back in the ground ?? The test site should be virgin and undug!! I can tell you what age's of the bottle's already in the ground and what is unbroken and dig them up in four by four feet area's. I guess wont anwser back on that one Hey leroy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Pixel42]

Hey leroy you test sound good but why you put the bottle's back in the ground ??

Because in order to find out whether you can find bottles any more often than would be expected by chance it's necessary to know what the chance rate of finding bottles is, so your result can be compared to it. That requires there to be a known number of bottle-filled holes and a known number of empty holes, so you can demonstrate that you can tell one type of hole from the other by dowsing more often than you could by guessing randomly.

ETA: On the troll/genuine thing: I always reply to the poster as if he/she is genuine, even if I strongly suspect he/she is not. I lose nothing by doing so, as the opinion of a troll is worth nothing to me.

 

[Explorer]

So in theory you could have ten cardboard boxes, each containing either nothing, broken bottles or whole bottles and you could correctly ascertain in which boxes the intact bottles were located (using only dowsing rods held over the boxes)?

Is that correct?

Mr Glassman is not claiming that he can find bottles inside cardboard boxes, broken or otherwise, so I think the test that you have proposed would be scientifically inappropriate. He probably has never tried that experiment for himself either, so why should he submit himself to that particular contrived test, where he is much more likely to be doomed to fail.

He sounds like a chap who might rashly allow himself to be submitted to contrived conditions, like many dowsers who are over confident in their abilities, and who do not really understand the source of their so-called powers. The test of their own daft theories as to how it is all supposed to work should not be the subject of any scientific experiment, which should focus on the actual success or otherwise in real field conditions.

As others have suggested above, far better to bury several bottles in the ground in a test area, or several test areas, under controlled conditions and then do a statistical analysis to see if his success is above random chance, or better than non-dowsers just randomly digging for bottles. Field conditions where he claims his successes, surely should be the first choice for scientific evaluation. The broken and unbroken claim could also be included in the experiment (although defininitions may be a problem e.g. does a chipped bottle count as broken?).

 

[Old Bob]

John G, now you can see what your up against. Lots of neg. people out there, bit hard to convince them but easy to get a negative post. I collect them for fun.

 

[SezMe]

I've never seen, or even heard of a genuine dowser.

Oxymoron.

 

[lionking]

John G, now you can see what your up against. Lots of neg. people out there, bit hard to convince them but easy to get a negative post. I collect them for fun.

All we ask is proof. Prove you or anyone else can dowse and we will all bow down in admiration. Guaranteed.

 

[Mashuna]

John G, now you can see what your up against. Lots of neg. people out there, bit hard to convince them but easy to get a negative post. I collect them for fun.

Not true - it's very easy to convince us. Just demonstrate that you can do what you claim.

Hiding, dodging, making claims and not backing them up - that's all we've seen so far.

 

[Just thinking]

So, is there a consensus yet? Troll, Poe or Deluded?

My vote's for bored ... and will soon move on.

 

[EHocking]

Hey leroy you test sound good but why you put the bottle's back in the ground ?? The test site should be virgin and undug!! I can tell you what age's of the bottle's already in the ground and what is unbroken and dig them up in four by four feet area's. I guess wont anwser back on that one Hey leroy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just to get this clear in my head.

When you "dowse" for bottles, you actually excavate a 4ft x 4ft ditch to find them?

Is this the limit to your "dowsing" accuracy, or have I misunderstood the above post?

 

[laca]

John G, now you can see what your up against. Lots of neg. people out there, bit hard to convince them but easy to get a negative post. I collect them for fun.

No no! We're not negative! We're absolutely positive that you're... well... deluded at best.

I'll just repeat for emphasis what others have already said: it is easy to convince us. All you have to do is prove your claim.

 

[Femke]

John G, now you can see what your up against. Lots of neg. people out there, bit hard to convince them but easy to get a negative post. I collect them for fun.

Sorry, Old Bob, apart from an occasional witty remark, and some disbelief caused by experience with dowsers, I only find inquiring minds, serious questions about dowsing and suggestions for John to test himself, so that he would have more than anecdotes to show for his ability.
The negativity is in the eye of the beholder, I think.

Like most in this thread I think that dowsing is not paranormal, but a combination of ideomotor effect and confirmation bias. However, if John would come up with evidence that he can perform way above chance, I would certainly be interested. But that evidence would have to be gathered with better controls than seem to have been in place so far.

Femke

 

[YoPopa]

Hey leroy you test sound good but why you put the bottle's back in the ground ?? The test site should be virgin and undug!! I can tell you what age's of the bottle's already in the ground and what is unbroken and dig them up in four by four feet area's. I guess wont anwser back on that one Hey leroy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John,

I am starting to feel ignored here. It was not HeyLeroy who offered to help you with the test, it was me.

There are a couple very good reasons why the bottles should be buried in new holes.

#1. It is already too easy to find where old bottles are buried. I found four places on my land where there were old bottles just by observing the conditions above ground. The old farmers always chose spots to discard their trash which would not interfere with other uses of the land. They usually chose natural depressions beyond the easily tillable fields.

#2. See post by Pixel42 above.
If you want to prove your ability you need to be able to show it was more than one time luck.

There is no need to predict how old the bottles will be. If you know anything about architecture you can easily tell that my home is about 100 to 150 years old. That tells you how old the oldest bottles will be.

So let's do a fair test. As I already said, I live in the same state as you do and I have plenty of time to work around your schedule. I promise to treat you with respect whether your test is successful or not.

 

[Mojo]

It is already too easy to find where old bottles are buried. I found four places on my land where there were old bottles just by observing the conditions above ground. The old farmers always chose spots to discard their trash which would not interfere with other uses of the land. They usually chose natural depressions beyond the easily tillable fields.

Small wooded areas, out of sight of houses but not too far away, were always good places to look.

 

[YoPopa]

Small wooded areas, out of sight of houses but not too far away, were always good places to look.

Spot on. The thing you need to know about New England is that many, if not most, of the once tilled fields are now wooded areas. It helps to know a little about plant succession to recognize the older areas but even without any book learning you get a good sense of the age of a dump by the trees around it.

 

[SezMe]

I've heard that John lives in the same area as YoPapa. Too bad YoPapa won't post in this thread and offer to help with a test. Slacker.

 

[HeyLeroy]

I think that objection could equally apply to any dowsing test but it is controlled by having the dowser pretest the site.

By testing the the holes prior to filling the dowser determines if there is any pre-existing problem with the site.

I haven't described all my ideas of how to run a fair and honest test. I was hoping that John would reply and help in designing the test.

John, hello, John, come in John, I have bottles.

Doh!

Of course pretesting the site would have to be done.

You haz smarticles!

Hey leroy you test sound good but why you put the bottle's back in the ground ?? The test site should be virgin and undug!! I can tell you what age's of the bottle's already in the ground and what is unbroken and dig them up in four by four feet area's. I guess wont anwser back on that one Hey leroy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Umm, I just added my $.02. YoPopa is the one who's trying to come up with a suitable test.

 

[john glassman]

Waiting on your test site's!!

I am waiting for both people in here to give me proper site to dowse. I hear flax right now if you want to prove me wrong stand at the plate give me site !!!Iam waiting where is do!!! You want to me to meet in Mass. what time and date