Spektator
Is that right?
I hope the protocol isn't along the lines of "I'll go out and find some gold." It has to be a controlled, double-blind test, and there's no way that going out in the field would meet that requirement.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Further evidence that Edge should contemplate conventional metal detecting methods?
http://www.abc.net.au/southwestvic/stories/s1309966.htm
"An interstate prospector named 'Len' has come forth with a 2kg nugget found near Maryborough...
Len's been detecting for over twenty years; he, like many interstate prospectors makes the trip to Central Victoria every year... last Friday he got a signal in the ground and decided not to dig - it was not until Saturday morning that he dug - I'm sure he didn't realise it was such a big nugget," he says."
Slightly more than the daily pennyweights Edge is turning up....
Spektator
Is that right?
Better hurry, Edge. The JREF will be getting more stringent about applications in a few days.
Cuddles said,
They expect me to pay for their expenses, I can in gold or cash.
When it's mined at the time.
It looks like no one here has a brave heart, to willingly volunteer, to take a chance.
Nothing but cynical skeptics, to fat sitting here day after day, being cynical.
See here what Tricky says,
Sure I’ll admit it the second time if I have a need to.
I have a hard time believing that you are so hung up on the money thing tricky, especially with all the money you make working for the Oil Company as a geologist. I would think you would be happy just to get where real geology gets interesting? You should be rolling in the dough, and bored with that flat smelly ground of Texas.
I suppose your too tender to camp and I’ll have to put you up in a local motel?
As far as a metal detector goes, again they only tell you what’s at the surface the best might read three feet deep.
Most of them are only good for about a foot.
The length of the coil at the bottom is as far as they go. If it’s 12 inches across that’s as deep as they are capable of sensing in the ground.
As any geologist knows most placer gold is on the bottom unless it just blew in. This is why that guy found that nugget, it had to be a fluk it must have just been deposited and not had time to sink.
Where there’s the kind of gold worth mining is usually under at least four feet or deeper, deeper than most metal detectors can reach, this is the reason for dowsing.
Why should you bother? because what you will make after the expenses are paid for is profit,either during the test or if jref says you can't then if you want to stay longer after the test, you see because if I pay for your trip then you will get a percentage for being here at least after the test.
I don’t intend to waste your time that is why I’m making sure it’s the right ground verified by dowsing, the first time I hit will be a verification that the ground is good enough to pay five people instead of two. You see I already know that with out mining it first.
Your time is valuable and this is not a bribe but honesty for standing in the heat of the day watching us if jref says it’s OK.
But you will, if you volunteer have to live it like me, on the creek for at least 2 weeks, camping, roughing it.
I don’t know if any one here on this forum can handle that.
I’m waiting for permission from a certain land owner and the spot that I chose is to make sure that it will still bring a profit for myself and the whole operation.
You guys after all have to eat while your here, have ice and drinks and if I’m there you will be as comfortable as possible. You may even walk out with a nugget or two for yourselves.
I found that woman are better at this than most men.
Being there every day.
So they are not excluded from this test if it is accepted.
You like my cat rjh01, they never went hungry and I had three cats and a dog on the creek “third year dredging pics”.
My dog even had a girl friend on the creek the white wolf dog in the pics..
So what’s your problem Billyjoe got to go with a small cat. Usually guys that brag about themselves are “in at a cat’. “Joke”
Spektator said,
How blind do you need it to be?
If I had x-ray vision there would be no need to dowse would there?
I already told you how I did it last year and what happened.
If I’m turned down that means James isn’t stupid because he will lose it in the field, that’s the only reason he will turn me down because I will win…in the field, this is where dowsing for gold actually works. There’s a difference in winning ground and losing ground and I can prove it both ways as we go along.
A geoligist can verifiy tampering or not when the gold is being uncoverd and dredged up. This means he or she will have to be on the bottom when the hot spot is being uncovered, not a big deal.
GzuzKryzt It was a picture of the camp I had above the wall were I was digging into, the cat just happened to be there.
The line of gold that I followed into the wall had no signs of human activity, just gold, that is very rare.
Even so if you look at what’s in the green pan it’s not much maybe a penny-weight that gives you an idea of what a losing day is like and if you look in the metal pan that gives you a idea of a winning day. The green pan is on the first year pics, the metal pan is on the third year pics.
I intend to show this every day shown by dowsing, pretty easy to tell the difference. J.R.E.F.will be able to tell everyday however many days it takes, by what I say will be or not be there.
According to you all no one can do this right?
In other words as we dredge I’ll have picked out and marked the wining spots, ten of them, in-between them will be gold but a lot less or none, the losing spots, nine of them. A good stringer will be in a line down the creek in that line I will have marked ten winners and ten losers if they require both to happen I can also tell how big each area will be. This is very difficult as I will be giving three-dimensional readings, how’s that for a blind test? Width length and depth is what I’ll have to read in both instances.
This ground will have three stringers at least.
The idea is to by pass the losing ground and make a jump, what I normally would do. But to prove it I’ll not make the jump and run for nothing, basically to prove it both ways at the same time when it’s there and when it’s not.
To be profitable I have to be on very good ground.
However this can also be proved on ground that isn’t very profitable with less gold in the hot spots and less in-between.
Very rich ground is what I’m going for which will prove I knew right off the bat that I was correct in choosing the area in which we will test and mine at the same time.
Until you’re standing on this creek you have no idea how immense the task is, just using book knowledge helps but I know the odds of hitting that way they are 1 in 30 spots will hit.
Not only is this ground rich from what I can tell scanning it from the sides but I won’t be able to see any of the bottom which means virtually no book knowledge is really applicable.
I do know some of the history like no one has dredged it and the Kelly mine is right above it, that’s it.
This means it’s either there or not.
But where exactly is it?
There is a couple of hundred thousand cubic yards of rock to move on this property before I might even get some so I might go broke.
The odds are in jrefs favor so I had better be good at what
I know!
They expect me to pay for their expenses, I can in gold or cash.
When it's mined at the time.
It looks like no one here has a brave heart, to willingly volunteer, to take a chance.
Nothing but cynical skeptics, to fat sitting here day after day, being cynical.
See here what Tricky says,
Sure I’ll admit it the second time if I have a need to.
I have a hard time believing that you are so hung up on the money thing tricky, especially with all the money you make working for the Oil Company as a geologist. I would think you would be happy just to get where real geology gets interesting? You should be rolling in the dough, and bored with that flat smelly ground of Texas.
I suppose your too tender to camp and I’ll have to put you up in a local motel?
As far as a metal detector goes, again they only tell you what’s at the surface the best might read three feet deep.
Most of them are only good for about a foot.
The length of the coil at the bottom is as far as they go. If it’s 12 inches across that’s as deep as they are capable of sensing in the ground.
As any geologist knows most placer gold is on the bottom unless it just blew in. This is why that guy found that nugget, it had to be a fluk it must have just been deposited and not had time to sink.
Where there’s the kind of gold worth mining is usually under at least four feet or deeper, deeper than most metal detectors can reach, this is the reason for dowsing.
Why should you bother? because what you will make after the expenses are paid for is profit,either during the test or if jref says you can't then if you want to stay longer after the test, you see because if I pay for your trip then you will get a percentage for being here at least after the test.
I don’t intend to waste your time that is why I’m making sure it’s the right ground verified by dowsing, the first time I hit will be a verification that the ground is good enough to pay five people instead of two. You see I already know that with out mining it first.
Your time is valuable and this is not a bribe but honesty for standing in the heat of the day watching us if jref says it’s OK.
But you will, if you volunteer have to live it like me, on the creek for at least 2 weeks, camping, roughing it.
I don’t know if any one here on this forum can handle that.
I’m waiting for permission from a certain land owner and the spot that I chose is to make sure that it will still bring a profit for myself and the whole operation.
You guys after all have to eat while your here, have ice and drinks and if I’m there you will be as comfortable as possible. You may even walk out with a nugget or two for yourselves.
I found that woman are better at this than most men.
Being there every day.
So they are not excluded from this test if it is accepted.
You like my cat rjh01, they never went hungry and I had three cats and a dog on the creek “third year dredging pics”.
My dog even had a girl friend on the creek the white wolf dog in the pics..
So what’s your problem Billyjoe got to go with a small cat. Usually guys that brag about themselves are “in at a cat’. “Joke”
Spektator said,
How blind do you need it to be?
If I had x-ray vision there would be no need to dowse would there?
I already told you how I did it last year and what happened.
If I’m turned down that means James isn’t stupid because he will lose it in the field, that’s the only reason he will turn me down because I will win…in the field, this is where dowsing for gold actually works. There’s a difference in winning ground and losing ground and I can prove it both ways as we go along.
A geoligist can verifiy tampering or not when the gold is being uncoverd and dredged up. This means he or she will have to be on the bottom when the hot spot is being uncovered, not a big deal.
GzuzKryzt It was a picture of the camp I had above the wall were I was digging into, the cat just happened to be there.
The line of gold that I followed into the wall had no signs of human activity, just gold, that is very rare.
Even so if you look at what’s in the green pan it’s not much maybe a penny-weight that gives you an idea of what a losing day is like and if you look in the metal pan that gives you a idea of a winning day. The green pan is on the first year pics, the metal pan is on the third year pics.
I intend to show this every day shown by dowsing, pretty easy to tell the difference. J.R.E.F.will be able to tell everyday however many days it takes, by what I say will be or not be there.
According to you all no one can do this right?
In other words as we dredge I’ll have picked out and marked the wining spots, ten of them, in-between them will be gold but a lot less or none, the losing spots, nine of them. A good stringer will be in a line down the creek in that line I will have marked ten winners and ten losers if they require both to happen I can also tell how big each area will be. This is very difficult as I will be giving three-dimensional readings, how’s that for a blind test? Width length and depth is what I’ll have to read in both instances.
This ground will have three stringers at least.
The idea is to by pass the losing ground and make a jump, what I normally would do. But to prove it I’ll not make the jump and run for nothing, basically to prove it both ways at the same time when it’s there and when it’s not.
To be profitable I have to be on very good ground.
However this can also be proved on ground that isn’t very profitable with less gold in the hot spots and less in-between.
Very rich ground is what I’m going for which will prove I knew right off the bat that I was correct in choosing the area in which we will test and mine at the same time.
Until you’re standing on this creek you have no idea how immense the task is, just using book knowledge helps but I know the odds of hitting that way they are 1 in 30 spots will hit.
Not only is this ground rich from what I can tell scanning it from the sides but I won’t be able to see any of the bottom which means virtually no book knowledge is really applicable.
I do know some of the history like no one has dredged it and the Kelly mine is right above it, that’s it.
This means it’s either there or not.
But where exactly is it?
There is a couple of hundred thousand cubic yards of rock to move on this property before I might even get some so I might go broke.
The odds are in jrefs favor so I had better be good at what
I know!
Tricky
Briefly immortal
It's not "taking a chance" Edge. It's "throwing money down a rat hole". Considering that you've been doing this for some years and still no big success, I wouldn't call what you do "brave". There's another word for it.
LOL. There's one way to show our cynical fat asses who's right.
LOL. If you think I'm getting rich, you're wrong. I just have a job. I don't own any oil, and I'm definitely not an executive-type. You have a grave misconception about the real world, Edge. Maybe if you lived there for a while, you'd see that.
And there is little that is interesting about what you do. There is very little science involved. And yes, I expect to stay at a motel, as I'm suspecting all the other "volunteers" do. You seem to keep forgetting that this is not a fun field trip to watch a deluded person using a little stick to guide him to insanity.
Could have been luck. Or maybe he just knew more than you.
I don't want a percentage of your take, Edge. From what I can see, that wouldn't even pay for the trip. Besides, it looks like you need anything you can get. I'm not going to spend time reinforcing your delusions.
You do realize, don't you Edge, that JREF is not going to approve a protocol where the certainty of the existance and location of the target is not known, with 100% accuracy, in advance? This is why you need to submit your application so you can work out the protocol. If you don't, you are simply wasting your time.
If you think JREF (or any volunteers) are going to agree to a two-week test, you are crazy. How about this. Just have a volunteer bury a lump of gold in several of the spots you have already dowsed and determined had no gold. What could be simpler? Give me a reason why your "skill" can't detect this gold?
This is total BS, Edge. Have you or have you not been dowsing for gold there for two years. Just go to one of the places you've already found gold (but is now depleted). Natural setting, right? Not enough gold there to set off your dowsing rod anymore, right?
LOL. If you're trying to make this sound like a vacation paradise, it's not working.
What is it about this that you don't understand:
Edge: I can find gold in a natural setting.
JREF: Here is some gold that we are placing into a natural setting. Find it.
So it becomes ever more obvious that you will never be tested again because you are totally unreasonable in your demands. Instead, you will continue to scrabble out an existence, never admitting that dowsing doesn't work, yet never being able to show that it works. Good luck to you, Edge. I wish you well in your fantasy world, but I cannot help but hope you will join us in the real world some day.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Edge
I would like your opinion on the video that is linked to the first post of this thread.
James Randi In Australia, the full documentary.
The subject is dousing.
I would like your opinion on the video that is linked to the first post of this thread.
James Randi In Australia, the full documentary.
The subject is dousing.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Having exchanged posts with Edge for quite some time, I have to say that he is definitely not a con artist. At no point has he ever asked for money or promised that he could help them get rich or anything. He is actually a nice, affable guy who is simply and sadly deluded. It is because of his good nature that I continue to exchange posts with him. Yes, it can be frustrating but it is not wasted.
Even though Edge will almost certainly never relinquish his magical beliefs, it is instructive to others who read this thread and see how the mind of such a person works. If one person reads this and says, "wow, I had no idea that dowsing was such crap," then it's worthwhile. I am reasonably certain that nobody will observe our feckless friend and say, "wow, that dowsing stuff really works!"
SezMe
post-pre-born
Edge, as others have already noted, NO field test will be an accepted protocol. The results have to be known (or knowable) before or as a part of the test. Your diggng for gold out in the field after dowsing does not meet this criterion (as well as many others).
Which part of the word "test" do you not understand? We want to test you precisely because we don't believe you can find anything, or at least no more than anyone else would by chance. If we accepted this, it would have to be because we believed you would find enough gold to pay us, but if we believed that we would have no reason to test you in the first place. In addition, your stories indicate that you are very poor and can barely find enough gold to support yourself, if that. Why would we believe you can find enough to pay expenses for 5 people for two weeks if you can't find enough just to buy food for one?
What you are suggesting is not a test of your dowsing abilities but your abilities as a surveyor for gold. If there is actually anything found there, how would we know that it was not the colour of the soil or whatever that tipped you off (subconsciously) rather than the movement of your divining rod?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
That problem can be circumvented, though it is a bit of work. Simply have Edge dowse an area in his "natural setting" where he had determined that there is no gold (or not enough to affect his dowsing rod) or better still, an area where he found gold before but now has determined it is gone. Use that site for the test. It would be simple to just put the gold target under cups, but since Edge has already declared he must find it in natural settings, you may have to bury the target in order to please him.
Though a little harder, the test could still be done in a day.
So, Edge. What is your excuse for not taking a test like this?
ObscureReferenceMan
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 566
Looks pretty straight-forward, Tricky. Reminds me of the Australian Mitta Water Challenge. I'd add; have edge provide several nuggets that are "detectable". Have him detect them above ground as a "test run". Then bury them. Have him detect again. Check results. Easy!
Burner
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Messages
- 144
How would you conceal the digging site so he can't recognise it visually?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Any number of ways. You can place ten targets, only one of which is gold, or you can dowse the exact same site ten times, nine times with a non-gold target and once with a gold target. They will all look dug-up.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Yep. That's where I got the idea. I love that video.
Oh yes, the "open test" is de rigeur. As on his first failed test, Edge can provide a target that he knows gets a response.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
Pick your excuse, the ground is too wet, the ground is to dry, the sky is too cloudy, the sky has no clouds, the gold is too deep, the gold is not deep enough, the gold is not the pure, it is too pure etc etc and I know you will think of more.
Paul
Paul
ObscureReferenceMan
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 566
True. But that is why The Challenge always has words to the effect of:
-Are your powers "on" today?
-Is there anything that would prevent you from performing?
So we hope there would be no weaseling.
But, that won't stop the weaseling. To cite the Mitta Challenge again, one of the excuses there was that the water "sat too long" and got ionized. Or lost its ionization. Or something.
rjh01
All I know is that there must be a lot of variables to water dowsing as there are in metal dowsing.
If they did it in piping then every molecule of water would have to be eliminated, if it wasn’t then from what I know there would be also many false readings, let alone what’s under the field that they tested on.
Are these tests they did, water dowsing,?
Because I cannot load the video on this computer.
I spent 7 years figuring out what could make metal dowsing fail, the same must be true for water dowsing except the difference between metal and water.
Skeptator said,
This is a water planet and a heavy metal planet, it’s impossible to get on neutral ground in either case.
The best tools we have on the planet can’t extract all the metals in the ground, there is always going to be some left, agreed?
I don’t know what to say about your accusations except that I have never asked any thing from any other miner for my services as I left it up to them weather or not to share with me for putting them on the right track..
I think Tricky did a good job in my defense.
There is a greater reason to pass the test than the money and Ashless so far is the only one who has a hint at where I’m going with this.
First thing I’m not here to break James or to just take his money,.
I see something greater after proof, if I can show proof, but there are many variables that interfere with dowsing.
I came here to see if I could figure out what they are and I think I have learned much about why it works so well in the field and not under a controlled setting.
In other words I need creditability for manipulation of the gravity field.
I have explained why book knowledge can’t work always and why you need to dowse so I won’t go into that, just read back on this thread
Why this happens are my theories and I have a whole new understanding now that is totally different from what I thought back in 1999 and before.
When I went to James I thought I knew back then but was proved wrong and I never thought that I would be ridiculed for my belief’s, I thought that it would be more like curiosity and a learning situation.
So I came here to see if I could figure out what went wrong, and I have.
There is no such thing as neutral ground as far as I can see unless Tricky can tell me where we can test where the bedrock is just rock.
Lack of metals in bedrock might be hard to find, and might not exist but there might be an area in the world where we can test with neutrality to do the tests the way JREF tests?
I have dredged a spot clean as I can and what I found out is that most of what I felt was gone and close to neutral but there is a pull here and there which will give false readings.
There are layers of false bedrock or bottoms that still contain metals.
As a miner I can afford to by pass them and move on to the next spot to keep mining because it is not feasible to penetrate deeper and is not cost effective for a miner to destroy any more of the bottom to get to what’s there.
We are limited with the tools at hand and with the laws of mining.
Even a drag line bucket can’t do that and it can go through many layers.
It still leaves some behind.
The one thing I know for sure is that it works in the field and that’s where the next set of tests should take place because it won’t work in an office or a setting where targets are placed on the ground.
If JREF is right I won’t win my way either, if they are wrong I will.
At that point they will lose the bet and it won’t matter it will be such big news they will get what they lost back in a short time just because of the hoopla and the fact that this would be publicized.
I have changed my mind about the ten-inch dredge as it is too big and powerful to do the test and it is dangerous.
I think two six inch dredges will be better for two reasons it will allow close observations of the area being mined. The reason is so the spot can be observed to be a real placer deposit verified by a geologist such as Tricky who will have to be on the bottom to do this with a second set of dive gear.
And the fact that I can shorten the test by a week with two machines,
by attacking two spots at once in two different lines of gold and metals.
No one knows where the gold is that’s the premise for dowsing that includes JREF this is the reason for dowsing for gold.
It’s pretty easy to see the difference as I showed in the pictures of the pans with the gold in them, any miner can see the difference so I don’t know why you can’t?
I can still be fooled in the creek such as getting a pull that I think is a load, and claiming it to be a load, then uncovering a penny-weight of gold with 5 ounces of lead in a pocket.
If I say it’s a winner I lose.
If I say it’s a loser than I win, if I describe it as a loser for gold and much lead I win, I have to be explicit about what I describe in a situation such as this because all metals are capable at being detected.
Since I’m in the gold fields then chances are in my favor that it’s a gold pocket but not necessarily.
What I intend to do is prove it both ways at 60% correct or loads and 60% looser spots in each case I have to hit and avoid the gold no matter how tempting or against my nature to do that is.
I have tested myself with a shovel by hand and with dredges when the season starts for dredging.
Cuddles what I have or don’t have is irrelevant.
You don’t have to concern yourself with that, I will always be capable of making a living and possibly paying for this whole ordeal.
I just read pauls lastest .b.s. and curlyjoes and rjho1
If they test me in the way I discribed and I fail I will then say they are right.
no excuses!
All I know is that there must be a lot of variables to water dowsing as there are in metal dowsing.
If they did it in piping then every molecule of water would have to be eliminated, if it wasn’t then from what I know there would be also many false readings, let alone what’s under the field that they tested on.
Are these tests they did, water dowsing,?
Because I cannot load the video on this computer.
I spent 7 years figuring out what could make metal dowsing fail, the same must be true for water dowsing except the difference between metal and water.
Skeptator said,
This is a water planet and a heavy metal planet, it’s impossible to get on neutral ground in either case.
The best tools we have on the planet can’t extract all the metals in the ground, there is always going to be some left, agreed?
I don’t know what to say about your accusations except that I have never asked any thing from any other miner for my services as I left it up to them weather or not to share with me for putting them on the right track..
I think Tricky did a good job in my defense.
There is a greater reason to pass the test than the money and Ashless so far is the only one who has a hint at where I’m going with this.
First thing I’m not here to break James or to just take his money,.
I see something greater after proof, if I can show proof, but there are many variables that interfere with dowsing.
I came here to see if I could figure out what they are and I think I have learned much about why it works so well in the field and not under a controlled setting.
In other words I need creditability for manipulation of the gravity field.
I have explained why book knowledge can’t work always and why you need to dowse so I won’t go into that, just read back on this thread
Why this happens are my theories and I have a whole new understanding now that is totally different from what I thought back in 1999 and before.
When I went to James I thought I knew back then but was proved wrong and I never thought that I would be ridiculed for my belief’s, I thought that it would be more like curiosity and a learning situation.
So I came here to see if I could figure out what went wrong, and I have.
There is no such thing as neutral ground as far as I can see unless Tricky can tell me where we can test where the bedrock is just rock.
Lack of metals in bedrock might be hard to find, and might not exist but there might be an area in the world where we can test with neutrality to do the tests the way JREF tests?
I have dredged a spot clean as I can and what I found out is that most of what I felt was gone and close to neutral but there is a pull here and there which will give false readings.
There are layers of false bedrock or bottoms that still contain metals.
As a miner I can afford to by pass them and move on to the next spot to keep mining because it is not feasible to penetrate deeper and is not cost effective for a miner to destroy any more of the bottom to get to what’s there.
We are limited with the tools at hand and with the laws of mining.
Even a drag line bucket can’t do that and it can go through many layers.
It still leaves some behind.
The one thing I know for sure is that it works in the field and that’s where the next set of tests should take place because it won’t work in an office or a setting where targets are placed on the ground.
If JREF is right I won’t win my way either, if they are wrong I will.
At that point they will lose the bet and it won’t matter it will be such big news they will get what they lost back in a short time just because of the hoopla and the fact that this would be publicized.
I have changed my mind about the ten-inch dredge as it is too big and powerful to do the test and it is dangerous.
I think two six inch dredges will be better for two reasons it will allow close observations of the area being mined. The reason is so the spot can be observed to be a real placer deposit verified by a geologist such as Tricky who will have to be on the bottom to do this with a second set of dive gear.
And the fact that I can shorten the test by a week with two machines,
by attacking two spots at once in two different lines of gold and metals.
No one knows where the gold is that’s the premise for dowsing that includes JREF this is the reason for dowsing for gold.
It’s pretty easy to see the difference as I showed in the pictures of the pans with the gold in them, any miner can see the difference so I don’t know why you can’t?
I can still be fooled in the creek such as getting a pull that I think is a load, and claiming it to be a load, then uncovering a penny-weight of gold with 5 ounces of lead in a pocket.
If I say it’s a winner I lose.
If I say it’s a loser than I win, if I describe it as a loser for gold and much lead I win, I have to be explicit about what I describe in a situation such as this because all metals are capable at being detected.
Since I’m in the gold fields then chances are in my favor that it’s a gold pocket but not necessarily.
What I intend to do is prove it both ways at 60% correct or loads and 60% looser spots in each case I have to hit and avoid the gold no matter how tempting or against my nature to do that is.
I have tested myself with a shovel by hand and with dredges when the season starts for dredging.
Cuddles what I have or don’t have is irrelevant.
You don’t have to concern yourself with that, I will always be capable of making a living and possibly paying for this whole ordeal.
I just read pauls lastest .b.s. and curlyjoes and rjho1
If they test me in the way I discribed and I fail I will then say they are right.
no excuses!
Edge, can you whittle your test proposal down to the required length, as described under rule #1 of the application form:
"(...) Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. (...)"
From what I understand now, the success/failure criteria have too many variables. But I may be wrong, as I have trouble understanding what you're getting at.
Please post the text of your claim in this thread, as you would write it on the application form.
"(...) Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. (...)"
From what I understand now, the success/failure criteria have too many variables. But I may be wrong, as I have trouble understanding what you're getting at.
Please post the text of your claim in this thread, as you would write it on the application form.
George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012