Dowsing by edge - Part III

[SezMe]

How can you have a rebuttal when you don't know what happened? Maybe they decided you can dowse and to give you their prize without any testing.

Sadly, I could not get down to LA to the meeting. I'll talk to Jim next week and see what happened.

 

[edge]

How can you have a rebuttal when you don't know what happened? Maybe they decided you can dowse and to give you their prize without any testing.

Sadly, I could not get down to LA to the meeting. I'll talk to Jim next week and see what happened.

LMAO, Wouldn't that be nice.

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

The first two things are what I questioned.
The first ones easy, the second one is what gets me.
The rest I can deal with.

I’m predicting the future, My rebuttal,
If you are saying that you will use ten different targets,
“I have asked them about this with no response” you then go against what all my experiments have told my to be true, and have hedged your bet into infinity and nullified
My experiments that optimize the conditions, this would be in your favor, and you must now admit that dowsing works since physics say there is no measurable force. Especially if this is what you mean.
Since the skeptics truly believe that there is only a 10% chance in getting the right hits or what’s predictable in a double blind test.
You have entered in many different calibrations, which will be impossible to do unless I take a great amount of time to record all ten of the target calibrations and the empty calibration, when there is no target. Different targets means that there will be different calibrations.
To do many comparisons, will mean that each pass of ten containers will take several hours now and you will enter in the time problem that you in essence have created.
Then I must ask, where is your confidence now if you are so sure I will fail?

If I'm wrong about the multiple targets then I will retract my statement.

Same target multiple times I have no problem with.
Only two calibrations are necessary, that is way easier. Turns it into a yes or no for me.

Different targets are what I have to recognize in the field as being good or bad, no one has control there.
It's all about control on what, information?
If it is I will talk about that later, the whys.
I won’t send my rebuttal until they answer my basic questions that I sent in my last
E-mail to them to clarify that statement.
It’s a simple question.


You can compare what I stated here with what I wrote in the million-dollar challenge thread about the final protocol.
My final experiments, described there, is what I am going by, when the finalizations on the protocol where really getting close, for an honest and true test of dowsing, the JREF backed out. Now who’s full of excuses?
I with my protocol eliminated all excuses that I could fall on and by doing that, “figuring out what when wrong” it enabled me to actually have a chance at passing it, in essence I have scored way higher than I did back in 99 in the JREF office test.
So what you found to be my excuses where correct and by eliminating the interferences I was able to get clarity in a test with a moveable target.
You bring up the Bronze ink on books it wasn’t that as much as what was behind the wall where the books where placed.

.
If I was found out to be a fraud and actually had the money in my hands I could be prosecuted and do Jail time so there is the motivation for the truth.

If dowsing is found to be true the implications to physics is worth billions and these prizes are peanuts.

I’m about to put a 6 inch dredge in Coffee Creek if Brian and Mary will still let me, if they do then what I said about that spot, that day SezMe, will be revealed to you on this site.
I have left a message and am still waiting for their phone call, to know that I can still dredge there for 30 days.
I may take a ride up there and find out soon, if nothing else.
For information on that read SezMes’ report here’s the link.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2722435#post2722435

If my predictions are correct, you got to wonder about my other theory’s that I predict, based on predictions, that I am correct.

Yes Paula I know. Prediction?

 

[edge]

I'll take a box of crickets, I’m going fishing.

 

[edge]

How can you have a rebuttal when you don't know what happened? Maybe they decided you can dowse and to give you their prize without any testing.

Sadly, I could not get down to LA to the meeting. I'll talk to Jim next week and see what happened.

Well you started this thread what's up?

 

[SezMe]

The IIG only meets once a month, edge, so you cannot expect them to be responsive on a daily basis like JREF/RemieV might be. My understanding is that they were going to get back to you with their considered response but apparently that has not taken place. I'll check with them and prod them to respond if they have not done so........

 

[edge]

The IIG only meets once a month, edge, so you cannot expect them to be responsive on a daily basis like JREF/RemieV might be. My understanding is that they were going to get back to you with their considered response but apparently that has not taken place. I'll check with them and prod them to respond if they have not done so........

Well they haven't so what did you find out?

 

[Garrette]

I know nothing of the IIG, but I have to admit that it is disheartening that there is no response to Edge, yet. Unless, of course, I'm not getting the full story.

 

[edge]

I’m about to put a 6 inch dredge in Coffee Creek if Brian and Mary will still let me, if they do then what I said about that spot, that day SezMe, will be revealed to you on this site.
I have left a message and am still waiting for their phone call, to know that I can still dredge there for 30 days.
I may take a ride up there and find out soon, if nothing else.

They have changed their minds and won't let me dredge their property.
The reason was given to me that it would be too noisy and would disturb the patrons.
That's the way it goes sometimes.
I'm down to two other spots.
The IIG still hasn't answered my inquires.
I'll send them one more E-mail just to see if they will even respond.
If they don't then I am sure that I'm right about all of this and will seek a science team where they are not risking vast amounts of money to keep the statuesque.

It is disheartening people always say one thing and when called on it change their minds.

 

[edge]

Here is what I just sent.


Hi James,
I asked about this,

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.

I still am waiting for the answer.
What do you mean about this in particular?

We'll need 10 potential targets instead of 1
potential target for each trial

Are you talking about ten different targets or that
you will use my one target up to ten times in a set,
or multiple times? This part is very important.

Are you going to run this like SezMe did in his test?
Have you read his report?
Because he introduced the target multiple times in a
set.The same target was used each time.
He used rubber for the dummy target.
We only had to use one target one container and one
dummy target.
The reason is that I scanned on one spot multiple
times.
The reason for that is that I can find one spot that
is neutral and can calibrate the empty and the target
and measure the force that dowsing produces for each.

If you introduce 10 different targets I would have to
have calibrations for ten of them and they would all
be different numbers on a scale and that would take
hours to do.
You would be hedging the bet into infinity.

I can accept everything else and you can use ten
containers but that one answer is what I really need
to know.
If you use a placebo for stabilizing it has to be
rubber or plastic.

There is confusion when dowsing in a test like this
where the target is moved on and of different spots
even in one spot.
What I have done is optimized the conditions so there
are no excuses.

Mike

If they don't answer now, they won't touch me with a ten foot pole.
They have realized now, that they stand a good chance of losing.

Have they read your report SezMe?

 

[Garrette]

It is disheartening people always say one thing and when called on it change their minds.

You are included in that group, Edge.

Your response to your initial failure at JREF was simply a change of mind that did not coincide with the facts.

 

[edge]

This is where you are wrong and why experimenting is important.
That's where the facts come from that change the inital knowlage.
I am still willing to test and they are not.

 

[Garrette]

This is where you are wrong and why experimenting is important.
That's where the facts come from that change the inital knowlage.
I am still willing to test and they are not.

No, Edge.

You performed perfectly well in the challenge until you didn't know where the material was. Then you failed.

Then you said the gold binding interfered (though it hadn't just a few moments before).

And other stuff.

It's good if you're willing to learn from experiments, but you did not learn from that test. You rationalized your way out of it.

Mind you, I still say the IIG should communicate with you in some fashion, but that's not the same as saying you are an honest negotiator.

 

[edge]

Two days after I sent my E-mail, and still no response.
Simple questions where asked of the I.I.G..
They seem not to want to risk it either.

 

[Tricky]

Two days after I sent my E-mail, and still no response.
Simple questions where asked of the I.I.G..
They seem not to want to risk it either.

More than likely they have reservations about dealing with a deluded and argumentative person, and who can blame them. You had four years to develop a protocol for something you claime is obvious, but you couldn't do it. You still can't do it.

Go prove to a mining company you can dowse for gold or other minerals, edge. If you can, you'll get a nice salery and a fairly easy path to an application to JREF under the new rules.

But you can't. You cannot convince anyone but yourself. Why do you think that is? If you're not including the possibility that "dowsing doesn't work", then you're not being honest with yourself.

 

[SezMe]

edge, I talked to Jim and he acknowledges that the ball is in his court to get an e-mail back to you. But you are facing the same problem with the IIG that you did with JREF. Your communications are so muddled that it is difficult to understand what you really want. Forgetting your dowsing abilities for the moment, you now have direct evidence from two essentially disinterested parties that you do not express yourself clearly. If you want something positive to come out of these experiences, take a good, hard, clear look at that fact and act accordingly.

I say this as someone who enjoyed our brief time together and would like to see you move ahead.

 

[edge]

edge, I talked to Jim and he acknowledges that the ball is in his court to get an e-mail back to you. But you are facing the same problem with the IIG that you did with JREF. Your communications are so muddled that it is difficult to understand what you really want. Forgetting your dowsing abilities for the moment, you now have direct evidence from two essentially disinterested parties that you do not express yourself clearly. If you want something positive to come out of these experiences, take a good, hard, clear look at that fact and act accordingly.

I say this as someone who enjoyed our brief time together and would like to see you move ahead.

I don't know how to make this any more clear SezMe,

I ask,

What do you mean about this in particular?

he says,

We'll need 10 potential targets instead of 1
potential target for each trial

I ask,

Are you talking about ten different targets or that
you will use my one target up to ten times in a set,
or multiple times? This part is very important.

Do you understand what I asked for in the e-mail that I sent?
Has he read what you have written because maybe that would clarify it for him?
If that line of his isn't muddled then what does he not understand about my question?

If he reads the way we have tested in your report, then what in the world doesn't he understand?
You know we can work out the fine details on the site.
They are either satisfied or they can walk away at that time.
I can assure you there isn’t and wasn't anything that was trickery in what we did that day.

Maybe it’s too much information at one time.

I need that one line answered.
It leaves it up in the air and I won’t even attempt the test if he means different targets.
We have to get past that question first.

 

[edge]

I wrote another letter and I hope this will do it for an answer.

Is this clear enough?

James,

I still am waiting for the answer.
What do you mean about this in particular?
You say,
We'll need 10 potential targets instead of 1
potential target for each trial


Are you talking about ten different targets ( a ring a coin a bracelet ect.) or that
you will use my one target, lets say of 5 ounces of metals up to ten times in a set.
This part is very important.

Are you going to run this like SezMe did in his test?
Here’s the link,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2722435#post2722435


Have you read his report?
If you are talking about the way he did it then we can move on and I have no problem.
Lets stick to this for now his report should clarify the way this can be proven by me.

Mike

 

[edge]

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.

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

edge,

Are you completely unaware that you lack basic communication skills?

I have read the entire "Dowsing by edge" thread in the MDC, as well as many of your others post. I really have to hand it to people like SezMe and Spektator - the fact that they continue to post and help you try to get a working protocol is a tribute to their patience. I'm a patient guy, but I would have given up long ago.

Too often, I find myself reading and re-reading your posts to try to figure out what you are saying. You don't write in complete sentences, you constantly have errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. Don't get me wrong. An occasional error isn't terrible - often one can figure things out from context. But with you, even a simple sentence can be undecipherable. [One very small example... What do you mean in your last post (#58), where you said "they are not risking vast amounts of money to keep the statuesque"? What does that mean? I've read it several times, and I've got no clue.]

My suggestion to you; brush up on your writing skills. It will definitely help you in finalizing a protocol. Your "stream of consciousness" style of writing is not working.

Just my $.02...

 

[Tricky]

[One very small example... What do you mean in your last post (#58), where you said "they are not risking vast amounts of money to keep the statuesque"? What does that mean? I've read it several times, and I've got no clue.]

He meant "status quo", not "statuesque". That much I've learned from years of deciphering Edgebabble. What he meant by the sentence, I am unsure. It seems to be some sort of attack on skeptics as not wanting to see change. Of course, that is completely nonsensical, but hey, that's our Edge.