• 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

edge said:
Only a skeptic can't understand this, but it's only been two days.:)

I think I will now seek a science team where they are not risking vast amounts of money to keep the statuesque.

I'm done with skeptics it leads to nothing of value in the realms of new discoveries and change.
Click to expand...
If you look here, Edge, you'll see I've gone over your protocol and noted some of the problems with it. It was quite an effort to do so, as you didn't use any paragraphs and often no spaces between sentences.

If IIG is not eager to attempt communication with you, they can hardly be blamed. You cannot form a coherent sentence.
 
Tricky said:
If you look here, Edge, you'll see I've gone over your protocol and noted some of the problems with it. It was quite an effort to do so, as you didn't use any paragraphs and often no spaces between sentences.

If IIG is not eager to attempt communication with you, they can hardly be blamed. You cannot form a coherent sentence.
Click to expand...

In my own defense, when I originally posted the bulk of the suggestions that edge used as his protocol, the material was divided into paragraphs. Edge lost the paragraphing when he cut and pasted. And I knew that the protocol that I wrote out wasn't yet in good shape--I was trying to take edge's expressed descriptions of what he proposed to do and organize them as just a first step toward a finished protocol.
 
It's really so simple, but when money is involved that can make it complicated.
James Underdown is in contact with me and it will be slow going.

So far I have to scan all the containers and there will be one target to work with and I hope he looks at SezMes' test to get a jist of what I want.
It would make it faster if he did.

I want him to now tell me, that he understands that all the containers must pass on one spot under the scales.
All targets, or empties must pass on one neutral spot of my choosing, where the scale is set up over that spot.
 
Here's what I wrote,


James,
OK 1 target in a set of ten cans.
I will dowse each one of the ten cans and that is one
set out of ten sets.

All of the cans will pass on one spot.
That spot will be of my choosing.

One at a time so I can measure the force OK?

Did you read SezMes' report because from there you
will be able to see what it is that I do?

Never mind how we scored, Just the method.
Are you OK with this way?

Mike
 
Last edited:
He asked me about this,
All of the cans will pass on one spot.
That spot will be of my choosing.

One at a time so I can measure the force OK?
Click to expand...

I have to start all over with everything that's why this will take time.
 
edge said:
OK 1 target in a set of ten cans.
I will dowse each one of the ten cans and that is one
set out of ten sets.

All of the cans will pass on one spot.
That spot will be of my choosing.

One at a time so I can measure the force OK?
Click to expand...
Edge, why have you broken down the test into 10 sets of 10 dowsings? If you're doing the same thing on each individual dowsing, why not carry out a fixed number - maybe 20 or 30 - with an agreed pass-rate? Clearly this would be much quicker - why the complication?
 
edge said:
Here's what I wrote,


James,
OK 1 target in a set of ten cans.
I will dowse each one of the ten cans and that is one
set out of ten sets.

All of the cans will pass on one spot.
That spot will be of my choosing.

One at a time so I can measure the force OK?

Did you read SezMes' report because from there you
will be able to see what it is that I do?

Never mind how we scored, Just the method.
Are you OK with this way?

Mike
Click to expand...

As I pointed out in the thread over in the challenge forum, changing the "target to be dowsed" after every thread is horribly time-consuming and may be disadvantageous to you by preventing you from dowsing a previously dowsed target. Also, it means once you have picked a target, you might as well not dowse the others because you can't have more than one pick per test.

I may have come up with a way to get around this. Here is what I suggest:

put all ten targets on a long board which is on rollers or can, in some way, be easily moved. have the board extend from either end of the "dowsing area" (that passes under the tripod). You may move the board back and forth to dowse individual targets, but you may not move or touch individual targets. This way, you can reexamine targets if you have some doubt as to which has a stronger response. The drawback is that the targets are fairly close together (unless you have a really loooong board), and that may make you claim interference. Still, you should, with repeated attempts, be able to tell the difference between a target directly beneath your dowsing rod and a target several feet away that is not beneath your rod. (Your rod should move in the direction of the real target, right?)

This will prevent the long time period involved in having the targets swapped while you are out of the room, and also allow you to re-check previously dowsed targets.

Of course, there are still tremendous problems with your protocol (as noted in the MDC thread) but this may alleviate one of them.
 
I thought of that too, amazing.

The thing about it is when it is present 'the target" there is no doubt.

The rest will be the same as the first empty so the readings are the same or at least in theory.

We aren't on the time thing yet.

I might only spend a second on the rest of the containers, real fast.

The longest thing is walking away and walking back.

It's a good point though.

I was going to go through it only once and not re-dowse.
The scale makes that possible.

The board would have to be about 16 to 20 feet or so.
I don’t think I’ll need it though.

Once I pick, that set should be over that's the quickest way.
After that it's my good or bad.
 
Last edited:
The Pig said:
Edge, why have you broken down the test into 10 sets of 10 dowsings? If you're doing the same thing on each individual dowsing, why not carry out a fixed number - maybe 20 or 30 - with an agreed pass-rate? Clearly this would be much quicker - why the complication?
Click to expand...
From these tables, edge would need to score 19 or better from 20 passes to show significance better than probability of 1:10,000 (MDC Preliminary Test pass requirement).

That test as per the one SezMe witnessed (and edge failed) - 2 targets: 1 gold/silver, 1 dummy.

In a test of 30 passes, as score of 26 or better would get a pass for the MDC prelim.
(paradoxically, a score of 1 to 4 correct is *also* statistically significant).

Of course this would require a 95% success rate - well beyond edge's original 60% claim. He only agreed he could do 70% when JREF pointed out that 60% was not significantly beyond chance.

So this is not testing edge's claim either.
 
Last edited:
Well, I meant hope for a coherent post from edge, not the hope of a successful dowsing test.
 
EHocking said:
From these tables, edge would need to score 19 or better from 20 passes to show significance better than probability of 1:10,000 (MDC Preliminary Test pass requirement).

That test as per the one SezMe witnessed (and edge failed) - 2 targets: 1 gold/silver, 1 dummy.

In a test of 30 passes, as score of 26 or better would get a pass for the MDC prelim.
(paradoxically, a score of 1 to 4 correct is *also* statistically significant).

Of course this would require a 95% success rate - well beyond edge's original 60% claim. He only agreed he could do 70% when JREF pointed out that 60% was not significantly beyond chance.

So this is not testing edge's claim either.
Click to expand...
I see; I didn't know edge was only claiming a 60/70% hit-rate.
 
EHocking said:
From these tables, edge would need to score 19 or better from 20 passes to show significance better than probability of 1:10,000 (MDC Preliminary Test pass requirement).

That test as per the one SezMe witnessed (and edge failed) - 2 targets: 1 gold/silver, 1 dummy.

In a test of 30 passes, as score of 26 or better would get a pass for the MDC prelim.
(paradoxically, a score of 1 to 4 correct is *also* statistically significant).

Of course this would require a 95% success rate - well beyond edge's original 60% claim. He only agreed he could do 70% when JREF pointed out that 60% was not significantly beyond chance.

So this is not testing edge's claim either.
Click to expand...

That's all up to them and I don't care because I should hit 90 tp 100 % with the scale or at least show way more than 10%.

If *I show even 60 or 70 that would mean I was right about a lot of things in the orignal JREF test which I believe to be flawed.
 
edge said:
If *I show even 60 or 70 that would mean I was right about a lot of things in the orignal JREF test which I believe to be flawed.
Click to expand...

Please explain as clearly as possible why you believe the original JREF test you failed was flawed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom