• 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.

Dowsing 4 gold

Am I interpreting this right? It seems to me edge is suggesting a paranormal test where a pile of gold is hidden in a can, and he finds it. Now, while I'm sure that's just because dowsing works best with gold, isn't the idea just a little bit suspicious for an objective observer? As I assume edge isn't particularly rich himself, he's essentially asking that a skeptic group provides a pile of gold to the location of his choosing. Yeah, I just can't see how that could go wrong.
 
Ladewig said:
How much were the containers moved?

Did the testers admit to moving the containers?
Click to expand...

Couple of inches, and yes to some one on this forum that is where I read it.
I'm sure he's reading this.

Maybe he'll repeat it here.
I could care less really.
Tomorrow I'll know whether I even have a chance, I need definite readings that are at two ends of the scale.
No mistaking and it and must be repeatable over and over again, it gets tiring.
So I’m not in a big hurry but I must make sure first, that’s all I know.
Because of what happened I searched for years for this way, one that cannot fail.
If this is the way?
If not I can't see any other way of testing the phenomenon.
 
Mirrorglass said:
Am I interpreting this right? It seems to me edge is suggesting a paranormal test where a pile of gold is hidden in a can, and he finds it. Now, while I'm sure that's just because dowsing works best with gold, isn't the idea just a little bit suspicious for an objective observer? As I assume edge isn't particularly rich himself, he's essentially asking that a skeptic group provides a pile of gold to the location of his choosing. Yeah, I just can't see how that could go wrong.
Click to expand...

I provid everything, dowsing for my target with my method, my target.
It's just their time.
As long as I follow the rules.
 
edge said:
I provid everything, dowsing for my target with my method, my target.
It's just their time.
As long as I follow the rules.
Click to expand...

So you have a pile of gold in your house?

Are you a leprechaun, by chance?
 
edge said:
Couple of inches, and yes to some one on this forum that is where I
Click to expand...

And what exactly was in the container?

Did you say before the test, that moving the container a couple of inches would impact your ability to dowse?
 
If the target is a couple of inches too far to the left for your method then it's a bit restrictive isn't it?
How much gold do you miss out 'in the wild' because it was a couple of inches too far to the left?
 
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.

EHocking says, above in number 5 all I need is 7 out of 10 to match the odds. Number 6 he says:
Click to expand...

Why do you have to get 8 out of 10? Why not 6 out of 10 average over a bunch of tests? At some point even the debunkers would have to concede the point and throw in the towel.
 
jakesteele said:
Why do you have to get 8 out of 10? Why not 6 out of 10 average over a bunch of tests?
Click to expand...
It depends entirely on what level of chance you wish to test for.
Refer back to the tables of chance here, for a quick summary.

At 100:1, given choosing 1 target correctly from 10 possibles, and conducting 10 trials, you can expect 4 correct guesses due entirely to random chance.
At odds of 10,000:1, odds are that 6 correct due entirely to random chance.

Part of the MDC is to rule out random chance - or a lucky streak, being responsible for a success.
At some point even the debunkers would have to concede the point and throw in the towel.
Click to expand...
As soon as someone demonstrates the ability to dowse successfully better than lucky guesses, then I'd show more interest in the veracity of the "phenomenon".

... and the oil and gas and mining industries would save billions of dollars spent on seismic and geotechnical analysis by going out and buying a bent coat hanger.

The difficulty with edge's claim is not determining the odds of success, but edge devising a workable protocol. Refer to the MDC pages on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
And what exactly was in the container?

Did you say before the test, that moving the container a couple of inches would impact your ability to dowse?
Click to expand...

All I knew was that it worked perfectly in the field.
In the containers were things that I thought would over ride interferences, I was wrong.
It took me some time to figure out what it was that was under their office that would cause a variable if moved just slightly.
None of that matters now I have a test that is as perfect as I can make it, there are no excuses in the new protocol.
If I were to place the cups where I would have the best responses then what would moving them do to those responses?
None of that matters till I try what I am going to try today.
Till I do that I won’t know whether to move forward or not with this.
So till later today none of this makes a difference.
 
As soon as someone demonstrates the ability to dowse successfully better than lucky guesses, then I'd show more interest in the veracity of the "phenomenon".

... and the oil and gas and mining industries would save billions of dollars spent on seismic and geotechnical analysis by going out and buying a bent coat hanger.
Click to expand...

One thing at a time.
I do not think that a dowser will replace what is in place at this time due to limits.
There is something else that is more important on a smaller scale.
 
edge said:
One thing at a time.
I do not think that a dowser will replace what is in place at this time due to limits.
Click to expand...
Yes, dowsing not working will limit it's usefulness.
There is something else that is more important on a smaller scale.
Click to expand...
Ah, so we've got to look for small things? Creationists' brains, the pope's heart, that sort of thing?
 
edge said:
All I knew was that it worked perfectly in the field.
In the containers were things that I thought would over ride interferences, I was wrong.
It took me some time to figure out what it was that was under their office that would cause a variable if moved just slightly.
None of that matters now I have a test that is as perfect as I can make it, there are no excuses in the new protocol.
If I were to place the cups where I would have the best responses then what would moving them do to those responses?
None of that matters till I try what I am going to try today.
Till I do that I won’t know whether to move forward or not with this.
So till later today none of this makes a difference.
Click to expand...

Why did it work so well when you knew which containers held the gold? Wouldn't the same interference have thrown you off?
 
edge said:
All I knew was that it worked perfectly in the field.
In the containers were things that I thought would over ride interferences, I was wrong.
It took me some time to figure out what it was that was under their office that would cause a variable if moved just slightly.
None of that matters now I have a test that is as perfect as I can make it, there are no excuses in the new protocol.
If I were to place the cups where I would have the best responses then what would moving them do to those responses?
None of that matters till I try what I am going to try today.
Till I do that I won’t know whether to move forward or not with this.
So till later today none of this makes a difference.
Click to expand...

So you are upset at them for moving the containers a couple of inches even though you never said, "don't move the container even one inch."

Also, you never described for us what was in the target container. What material in what quantity?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So it only works when you know which container has the target?
Click to expand...
Edge has already admitted that he lied. It was in a post from many years ago, so I doubt that I could find it, but he said something to the effect of that he knew something screwy was going on in the room, but he hadn't come all that way to miss his chance to take the test, so when Randi asked him if his "power" was working, he lied and said "yes".

At least, that was one of his excuses. He never mentioned this to Randi even after the test was complete though.
 
Funny how people with 'powers' seem to lose them when someone is watching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom