• 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 by edge - Part III

Lanzy said:
Well if the LA crowd finds out you can find gold, you may never be allowed to leave. You would either be chained and forced to dredge forever to finance drug deals and gun runners OR you would just make all the talk shows on radio and TV over and over and over. That's one tough crowd.
Click to expand...
Lanzy, you're not helping.;)
 
I knew they would be hedging their bet but wow.
I am a ringer now I guess.

I’ll post the response you tell me.

I think I can still do this, but this will need to be clearer, I would think.

There are two ways to test this, all correct responses and just the metal.
Time matters in the second choice, but the first would be quicker, (all correct responses).
I’m not sure what they will want.
I thought the protocol was complete and according to the odds chart.
It’s their ball, so here, check it out.



Mike,

We looked at the protocol and are not happy with it.

For starters...
· We don't like the use of flour as the stabilizing material.
· We'll need 10 potential targets instead of 1 potential target for each trial
· (There may be any number of targets present from 0-10 in any given set)
· Neither the monitors nor you will know how many targets are being used at any time.
· We'd like to see 85 out of 100 hits for the money, and 17 out of 20 for the preliminary demonstration.
· You'll have to come to Los Angeles for the test. There are too many variables out of our control in other locations.
If these conditions meet with your approval, we can discuss the further details of a test.

Best regards,


James Underdown
Executive Director, Center for Inquiry-West
Chair, Independent Investigations Group


This was in the cc box and has been bounced to all these people,

Sherri Andrews" <sherri@iigwest.com>, "Owen Hammer" <owen@iigwest.com>, "David Richards" <david.richards@movingimagetech.com>, "Wendy Hughes" <wendya3d@earthlink.net>, "Spencer Marks" <spencer@southlandcomm.com>, "Jeff Wagg" <jeff@randi.org>, "James Randi" randi@randi.org



The protocol is on the other post.
I’ll link it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2773727#post2773727

There’s one spot where the JREF is mentioned and should have been changed to the I.I.G…Keep in mind I spaced it when I sent it.

What do you think am I being hornswaggled here?

As long as they are good with the rest of the protocol I can be down with this part, for starters it leaves it up in the air especially when the rest is pure logic, especially when it comes to the truth of the documentations.

What kind of stabilizing material will suit them?
I have a thousand other questions now?
If the metal shows up 4 times in a set of ten then what can be the stabilizing material in the next six, lets see pennies?
(Sarcasm)
All right SezMe where you at?
 
I think they're offering you compromises. I expect the reason for not wanting flour (or lime) have to do with the traces of powder that will almost inevitably be visible on the containers. They want to double blind the test by not having you or the monitors know how many targets will be used in any given run; that's reasonable. Go to LA, try the seventeen-out-of-twenty prelim test, and see how it goes. I've been to LA. I walked the streets of Anaheim and Burbank without a bodyguard. I've driven through the heart of Hollywood on a rainy Saturday night and lived to tell the tale.
 
I'm in agreement with Spektator.

Edge, I've said this before, but the point of the test is to control it so tightly so that the ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION LEFT is that your dowsing is working. It's something you should want to do, and should welcome with open arms.

So the test has to be set up in such a way that no one can come back later and say, "wait a minute, what if there were traces of [target material] all over the place? That means you could dig ANYwhere and find something!" or "wait a minute, the shape of those containers means that someone could clue edge in by positioning them just so" or "wait a minute, some of that sand/lime/whatever got on the outside of the container, so edge could tell which container had been monkeyed with" and so on, and so on, and so on.

You want a test where there's no possible way for anything to have interefered. So you have to make absolutely sure that you, nor anyone with you, knows where the target is, or can be clued in in any way as to where the target is. And, of course, you want to make sure that there is no interference.

This is what IIG is trying to do, as Spektator has pointed out. Every target is going to have to appear, in every way except dowsing, to be perfectly identical. That way, the only possible way to tell them apart is by dowsing.

I think (and this is a guess on my part -- ask them) the reason why they want 10 potential targets instead of just 1 is the time issue. Interestingly, though, this adds a (good for you) twist to the proceedings: you won't know how many actual targets are present during a run -- could be 1, could be 10, or anywhere in between. I say that this is good for you because it further isolates dowsing as the only possible method of detecting the target, which is what you want.

There is absolutely no way for anyone to hedge his or her bets in a properly-controlled test. I can't underscore the importance of this. If dowsing works, then it doesn't matter how tightly IIG wants to control the protocol.
 
Jackalgirl said:
I'm in agreement with Spektator.

Edge, I've said this before, but the point of the test is to control it so tightly so that the ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION LEFT is that your dowsing is working. It's something you should want to do, and should welcome with open arms.

So the test has to be set up in such a way that no one can come back later and say, "wait a minute, what if there were traces of [target material] all over the place? That means you could dig ANYwhere and find something!" or "wait a minute, the shape of those containers means that someone could clue edge in by positioning them just so" or "wait a minute, some of that sand/lime/whatever got on the outside of the container, so edge could tell which container had been monkeyed with" and so on, and so on, and so on.

You want a test where there's no possible way for anything to have interefered. So you have to make absolutely sure that you, nor anyone with you, knows where the target is, or can be clued in in any way as to where the target is. And, of course, you want to make sure that there is no interference.

This is what IIG is trying to do, as Spektator has pointed out. Every target is going to have to appear, in every way except dowsing, to be perfectly identical. That way, the only possible way to tell them apart is by dowsing.

I think (and this is a guess on my part -- ask them) the reason why they want 10 potential targets instead of just 1 is the time issue. Interestingly, though, this adds a (good for you) twist to the proceedings: you won't know how many actual targets are present during a run -- could be 1, could be 10, or anywhere in between. I say that this is good for you because it further isolates dowsing as the only possible method of detecting the target, which is what you want.

There is absolutely no way for anyone to hedge his or her bets in a properly-controlled test. I can't underscore the importance of this. If dowsing works, then it doesn't matter how tightly IIG wants to control the protocol.
Click to expand...

Yes I have to agree with you guys and gals, and I think they will run it like SezMe did apparently, which is no problem, especially if I am fresh.

This has to be a correct yes and no as they pass, is that what you get.
The odds of the target appearing, 17 out of 20 is way too high on a random chance, probable but highly unlikely.
Then they want to do, 100 passes for 85 out of 100, is that correct?

It is doable with the right target.
We are back to rubber or plastic, or empties for the non-targets.

I’ll write them tomorrow with my responses.
 
Don't worry about the 85/100 test for the money. If you manage to pass the prelim by dowsing 17/20, you WILL pass the 85/100. Concentrate your mind on the prelim.
 
colin said:
Lanzy, you're not helping.;)
Click to expand...

OK, Seriously.

LA is a nice place, I have never been assaulted there and except for an occasional panhandler not even approached.

So there, go have fun.:D
 
Lanzy said:
OK, Seriously.

LA is a nice place, I have never been assaulted there and except for an occasional panhandler not even approached.

So there, go have fun.:D
Click to expand...

Well I acually worked there for about two weeks when I went to CA., in 82.
I had too much fun with a dancer,(red hair) and I then went to SanBernadino to work with an army buddy for about a year.
 
This part of their e-mail is what I'm calling them out on.
As long as they don't mean 10 different targets I'm ok with it, if they do however I already have a rebutle for that.

The flour can be subsituted with plastic or rubber...
I'm still waiting.



For starters...
· We don't like the use of flour as the stabilizing material.
· We'll need 10 potential targets instead of 1 potential target for each trial
· (There may be any number of targets present from 0-10 in any given set)
 
It sounds as if they want ten targets, but if you're only dowsing one container at a time, that's no problem. If the target is 4 ounces of silver, for example, they can re-use the same target for each attempt.

What they're shooting for is to refine the approach somewhat. For each run of ten, they'll determine randomly how many times the target will appear. It could be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 times. (Maybe even zero times, but I doubt they'd do that). I suppose, but don't actually know (because I lack the math skills) that they're looking for some significant statistics this way.
 
All is quite on the western front.
I don't think they are going to risk it.
I have asked them to be specific and even copied and pasted what you said Spektator and twice now.
I'm confident now, and it seems they are not.
 
edge said:
All is quite on the western front.
I don't think they are going to risk it.
I have asked them to be specific and even copied and pasted what you said Spektator and twice now.
I'm confident now, and it seems they are not.
Click to expand...

Be patient, edge. They may need two years of thinking about it before getting around to working out a protocol. Some people are like that.
 
Running scared

edge said:
All is quite on the western front.
I don't think they are going to risk it.
I'm confident now, and it seems they are not.
Click to expand...

lol, yeah you have them running scared. Although they could line there under wear with mock gold lettering scraped from books! They have probably been tipped off by Randi on that.

Mock gold lettering to edge is like kryptonite to superman and they already know this .I'd suggest a scan of everyone involved as well as the area for "neutrality" ... :eek:
 
edge's proposed protocol will be on the agenda of the next IIG meeting which is August 18th. Nothing will happen until that meeting and further action depends, of course, on what comes out of that meeting. I will be attending!
 
I will wait till then.
Mock gold lettering to edge is like kryptonite to superman and they already know this .I'd suggest a scan of everyone involved as well as the area for "neutrality" ...
Click to expand...

You know nothing of which you speak.
 
SezMe said:
edge's proposed protocol will be on the agenda of the next IIG meeting which is August 18th. Nothing will happen until that meeting and further action depends, of course, on what comes out of that meeting. I will be attending!
Click to expand...

I hear crickets?? ?? ?? ??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom