To make this easier for the JREF I will more than likely go back to Florida.
I don’t relish this as that state is miserably hot and the humidity is almost unbearable.
I still have all my contacts for work but it is slow there right now.
I will probably never mine again once I go back unless I win.
Mining is a young mans hobby, work, as it has taken a toll on my body.
But you never know.
I kind of miss my trade and business I had a great reputation and always had work and money.
But that too, is hard to do in that weather, on your body, and a young mans game.
It’s a catch 22 but what else is new?
No matter what you guys have forced me to learn this damn thing called a computor
I don’t relish this as that state is miserably hot and the humidity is almost unbearable.
I still have all my contacts for work but it is slow there right now.
I will probably never mine again once I go back unless I win.
Mining is a young mans hobby, work, as it has taken a toll on my body.
But you never know.
I kind of miss my trade and business I had a great reputation and always had work and money.
But that too, is hard to do in that weather, on your body, and a young mans game.
It’s a catch 22 but what else is new?
No matter what you guys have forced me to learn this damn thing called a computor
While we're on this roll, by which time will you have picked a location and a definite date, edge?
Since you are here often, I suppose we can continue to work through things here.
Okay, I'm confused by your statement. I ask again that you be both concise and precise.
I think this is what you are saying:
We will, as stated previously, place the cannisters (you did not respond on what kind they were supposed to be that I saw, so I will ask again, what kind are they supposed to be?) one at a time and you will dowse them one at a time within a reasonable time limit for each.
There will be ten sets of ten cannisters, and one in each set of ten will definitely contain your target metal.
Rather than use the breaks as actual breaks, you would prefer to instead stop at the cannister containing the metal?
So it would go like this, is what you're saying:
You enter the room. The cannister is there. You dowse it and decide it is empty.
You leave the room and re-enter. The next cannister is there. You dowse it and decide it's empty.
You leave the room and re-enter. The next cannister is there. You dowse it and decide it contains the target metal. You wait five minutes before leaving the room.
You then leave the room and re-enter. The next cannister is there and you have already decided, because you have decided that the previous cannister contained the target metal, that this cannister is empty.
You leave the room and so on for all ten cannisters in that particular set. You have opted not to take the ten minute break, so instead of having one we continue straight into the next set of ten.
Is this what you are suggesting?
Thank you for the clarification.
~Remie
I don't understand the request. Is your suggestion that the testing be recorded by two separate persons? One who is a JREF member and one who is with you? Only they will be recorded via hidden camera and you will never see the camerapersons?
Because your cameraperson definitely would not be permitted to have contact with you if they were allowed to stay in the room when the cannisters were changed. Not contact of any kind, including body language or eye contact. I don't see a way around that.
RemieV says,
Here's how they did it before, Two of JREF members hide the target and record the results on paper, hits, misses.
They come and go leave the area with out me seeing a thing or them.
The person of my choosing will be with them.
I never see them.
One JREF member will be with me to make sure that I don't.
Or hear anything.
At the end they “my friend" will verify the results.
They, " the JREF team" are either correct or not with their findings.
That's all.
I would never see any of those three people hiding or bringing the cannisters, which by the way are ten 11 once Folgers plastic cans till the end of the test.
Before the test happens I will bring them to the JREF so they can see and do with them what they want.
If unsatisfactory we can change them to anything else that is plastic.
In other words the way you guys want to run it, how would I know that what was written down is the truth?
The only other way I could know the results, "for sure" with out a person of my choosing with them, is to see my pick when it occurs, then that set of ten is over that’s the other way to run the test.
That would be faster....I’m only there to find the metals not the empties….
The last time they did this.
But this time all the containers pass on one spot of my choosing.
So you say I have to scan all of the containers.
That’s OK.
If you are worried about time then reconsider this way.
I’m not implying anything but lets say that I got 9 of 10 correct they because of the amount of money, could say that I got 9 of 10 misses and how Would I know?
Even I need a watch dog but not like the one in my profile.
It’s called,
I hope this clarifies it once and for all, but if you reconsider what I said above I’m all for that way too, no problem.
Keep in mind that I work so I might not answer quickly but I’m here.
I want you to be clear on this.
It’s a tough test.
Here's how they did it before, Two of JREF members hide the target and record the results on paper, hits, misses.
They come and go leave the area with out me seeing a thing or them.
The person of my choosing will be with them.
I never see them.
One JREF member will be with me to make sure that I don't.
Or hear anything.
At the end they “my friend" will verify the results.
They, " the JREF team" are either correct or not with their findings.
That's all.
I would never see any of those three people hiding or bringing the cannisters, which by the way are ten 11 once Folgers plastic cans till the end of the test.
Before the test happens I will bring them to the JREF so they can see and do with them what they want.
If unsatisfactory we can change them to anything else that is plastic.
In other words the way you guys want to run it, how would I know that what was written down is the truth?
The only other way I could know the results, "for sure" with out a person of my choosing with them, is to see my pick when it occurs, then that set of ten is over that’s the other way to run the test.
That would be faster....I’m only there to find the metals not the empties….
The last time they did this.
But this time all the containers pass on one spot of my choosing.
So you say I have to scan all of the containers.
That’s OK.
If you are worried about time then reconsider this way.
I’m not implying anything but lets say that I got 9 of 10 correct they because of the amount of money, could say that I got 9 of 10 misses and how Would I know?
Even I need a watch dog but not like the one in my profile.
It’s called,
C.M.A…
I hope this clarifies it once and for all, but if you reconsider what I said above I’m all for that way too, no problem.
Keep in mind that I work so I might not answer quickly but I’m here.
I want you to be clear on this.
It’s a tough test.
Last edited:
Tricky
Briefly immortal
That's very possible. There are some places near Austin with good, thick limestone beds. Also, the Austin Chalk is the local equivalent of the same formation that is responsible for the White Cliffs of Dover in England.
No bad flooding here, but lots of rain. I don't much mind. Beats the hell out of drought. Thanks for asking.I hope you are not in the flooded area?
I don't understand... Why did they hide the target? If you are simply telling which cannisters contain metal and which contain nothing, why do they have to be hidden as well?
I do not see a problem with having a person of your choosing with the individual who places the cannisters as long as you never see them, but again, Randi will give final approval/disapproval.
SezMe
post-pre-born
edge, is your person going to be Danny?
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
Remie, let me attempt an edge-translation:
He just wants to have one of his own people with the JREF people who are setting up the test canisters for each attempt. Edge won't have any contact with the team that does the setting up (or with his own person) until the very end, when the two groups get together to compare their results.
As far as I can tell. I've yet to see a true peanut-butter-and-jelly description of this protocol -- good luck!
Edited to add: in reading this page, and the Challenge thread, am I understanding that the protocol will be something like this:
Materials:
One 11-ounce opaque plastic Folger's Coffee container
One target (a x-ounce bolus of y) (where x is a weight and y is the type of metal)
One dowsing rod, prepared by edge
A location ("The Area"), as yet unspecified, determined by edge to be free of interference
Two "holding areas" out of sight of the above location and of each other.
Teams:
Team "A" -- consisting of edge and a JREF rep
Team "B" -- consisting of at least one JREF rep and a representative chosen by edge
Protocol:
For the purposes of this protocol, an "attempt set" consists of ten separate attempts, lettered a-j. There will be ten attempt sets in the test, overall, each numbered 1-10.
An attempt will consist of Team "A"'s attempt to determine whether the container does or does not contain the target. Only one attempt within a set will consist of the container covering the target; the other nine attempts within that set will consist of container with nothing under it.
For each attempt set, Team "B" will randomly determine (how?) which attempt within that set will contain the target. Team "B" will then set up the first attempt: they will place the target in The Area, place the container over the target so as to obscure it, and record both the attempt number (1a) and whether the target is present under the container or not. Team "A" will leave The Area and go to their holding area, and will signal to Team "B" that setup is complete (how? Radio keying?).
Team "B" will leave their holding area, go to The Area, and edge will make his attempt to determine whether the container is covering the target, without touching the container. The other member of Team "B" will record edge's result. Team "B" will then leave The Area, return to their own holding area, and signal to Team "A" that they are done.
Team "A" will return to The Area, pick up the container, and replace it (with or without the target underneath, as determined by their initial determing of which attempt within the set actually will contain the target). Again, they will record the attempt (in this case, 1b), whether or not the container is covering the target, then leave the scene and signal to Team "B" that The Area is ready for Team "B"'s next attempt.
This process will continue until all attempts within the first attempt set are complete. At this point, there will be a ten-minute break.
After the break, the next attempt set (set 2) will begin. Same protocol as for set 1. Again, after this attempt set is complete, there will be a ten-minute break, after which attempt set 3 will commence, and so forth until ten attempt sets are complete.
When all 10 attempt sets are complete, the two teams will get together and compare their results.
-=-=-=-=-
Questions to be answered: is this correct? I'm going off of your post in the Challenge area. Also, I'm assuming that this will happen OUTSIDE, correct? Because edge postulated (in this thread, sometime way before) that a reason for his initial failure at the Challenge was due to the fact that the target was "ungrounded", and this somehow affected his ability to detect the object. So I am assuming that this protocol will take place outdoors. I realize that this was a long time ago, and the wanderings of the protocol have kind of fried my brain, so is that right?
Next: if this is true, then I assume that the target will be placed on the ground, and the can simply placed over it (rather than the target actually placed within the container).
Next: how will the setup team determine which attempt is going to actually have the target present or not? Dice? I'd suggest two ten-siders, because I'm a gaming geek, with one marked with 10s (10, 20, 30, etc) and the other marked with 1s (1, 2, 3, etc). 01-10 = target is under the first attempt of the attempt set. 11-20 = target is under second attempt of an attempt set. And so on until 91-00 = target is under 10th attempt of an attempt set.
Next: I would recommend that Team "A" have a set amount of time to do the setup for each attempt (set a timer for, say, three minutes, or something, depending on how far their holding area is away from The Area). That way, no clue can be gleaned from the time it takes to do the setup.
Next, I'd recommend two-way walkie-talkies with a keying capability, so the teams can just buzz each other when they're ready.
Last: how many "dry runs" (that is, uncontrolled, "calibration" attempts) will be done before the fully-blinded test is conducted?
He just wants to have one of his own people with the JREF people who are setting up the test canisters for each attempt. Edge won't have any contact with the team that does the setting up (or with his own person) until the very end, when the two groups get together to compare their results.
As far as I can tell. I've yet to see a true peanut-butter-and-jelly description of this protocol -- good luck!
Edited to add: in reading this page, and the Challenge thread, am I understanding that the protocol will be something like this:
Materials:
One 11-ounce opaque plastic Folger's Coffee container
One target (a x-ounce bolus of y) (where x is a weight and y is the type of metal)
One dowsing rod, prepared by edge
A location ("The Area"), as yet unspecified, determined by edge to be free of interference
Two "holding areas" out of sight of the above location and of each other.
Teams:
Team "A" -- consisting of edge and a JREF rep
Team "B" -- consisting of at least one JREF rep and a representative chosen by edge
Protocol:
For the purposes of this protocol, an "attempt set" consists of ten separate attempts, lettered a-j. There will be ten attempt sets in the test, overall, each numbered 1-10.
An attempt will consist of Team "A"'s attempt to determine whether the container does or does not contain the target. Only one attempt within a set will consist of the container covering the target; the other nine attempts within that set will consist of container with nothing under it.
For each attempt set, Team "B" will randomly determine (how?) which attempt within that set will contain the target. Team "B" will then set up the first attempt: they will place the target in The Area, place the container over the target so as to obscure it, and record both the attempt number (1a) and whether the target is present under the container or not. Team "A" will leave The Area and go to their holding area, and will signal to Team "B" that setup is complete (how? Radio keying?).
Team "B" will leave their holding area, go to The Area, and edge will make his attempt to determine whether the container is covering the target, without touching the container. The other member of Team "B" will record edge's result. Team "B" will then leave The Area, return to their own holding area, and signal to Team "A" that they are done.
Team "A" will return to The Area, pick up the container, and replace it (with or without the target underneath, as determined by their initial determing of which attempt within the set actually will contain the target). Again, they will record the attempt (in this case, 1b), whether or not the container is covering the target, then leave the scene and signal to Team "B" that The Area is ready for Team "B"'s next attempt.
This process will continue until all attempts within the first attempt set are complete. At this point, there will be a ten-minute break.
After the break, the next attempt set (set 2) will begin. Same protocol as for set 1. Again, after this attempt set is complete, there will be a ten-minute break, after which attempt set 3 will commence, and so forth until ten attempt sets are complete.
When all 10 attempt sets are complete, the two teams will get together and compare their results.
-=-=-=-=-
Questions to be answered: is this correct? I'm going off of your post in the Challenge area. Also, I'm assuming that this will happen OUTSIDE, correct? Because edge postulated (in this thread, sometime way before) that a reason for his initial failure at the Challenge was due to the fact that the target was "ungrounded", and this somehow affected his ability to detect the object. So I am assuming that this protocol will take place outdoors. I realize that this was a long time ago, and the wanderings of the protocol have kind of fried my brain, so is that right?
Next: if this is true, then I assume that the target will be placed on the ground, and the can simply placed over it (rather than the target actually placed within the container).
Next: how will the setup team determine which attempt is going to actually have the target present or not? Dice? I'd suggest two ten-siders, because I'm a gaming geek, with one marked with 10s (10, 20, 30, etc) and the other marked with 1s (1, 2, 3, etc). 01-10 = target is under the first attempt of the attempt set. 11-20 = target is under second attempt of an attempt set. And so on until 91-00 = target is under 10th attempt of an attempt set.
Next: I would recommend that Team "A" have a set amount of time to do the setup for each attempt (set a timer for, say, three minutes, or something, depending on how far their holding area is away from The Area). That way, no clue can be gleaned from the time it takes to do the setup.
Next, I'd recommend two-way walkie-talkies with a keying capability, so the teams can just buzz each other when they're ready.
Last: how many "dry runs" (that is, uncontrolled, "calibration" attempts) will be done before the fully-blinded test is conducted?
Last edited:
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
I was going to suggest, in my protocol, that Kelly pool (pin and pea pool in the States, I believe) such as these could be used for both randomising the numbering of the canisters and the selection of canisters for each trial. These could quite literally be used as "pulling a number out of a hat", and I thought would be simpler than die and better than shuffling cards.
On the former randomisation, my idea is to fill 9 35mm film canisters with an equivalent mass (or volume - edge needs to decide this) to the target (1/4oz gold/silver). BlueTack(TM) could be used.
The 10th has the target placed in it which is also held in place with BlueTack(TM) so that no one can get an audible hint as to the canister's contents.
The above is done in full view of all participants to verify the target will be present. The tops are put on the canisters and "sealed" with a length of masking tape over the canister lid. The number of the canister will be written on the tape.
Canisters are placed in a lidded box (shoe box would do) and gently rotated to mix them up. Canisters are then drawn randomly from the box and the Kelly Pool balls (1-10) are used to number the canister.
For trial randomisation, same deal. Kelly pool balls are randomly drawn to determine the order in which the canisters are used in each trial. Beauty of using the kelly pool balls/bottle is that they can be drawn on the fly and you don't run into the problem of having to make multiple die throws, as you *will* get multiple repeats of the same combination with dice.
I've offered to write up an entire double-blind protocol for edge, step by step with examples of forms, equipment and personnel list.
But have been rebuffed by edge. That's why I offered RemieV my condolences in having to deal with edge, and agree with Reno's estimation of the outcome.
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
Am I correct in understanding that the canisters would be renumbered during each attempt (or attempt set)? So, for example, the container with the target in it would not be container number 9 (or whatever) for each test?
Also, I don't think that coming up with the same number multiple times would really be a problem (if I'm understanding what the Kelly pool is; I've read the Wikipedia entry on this as a game and it's making my head swim, so if I'm wrong, please help!).
After all, in a truly random number determination, it's quite possible that this would happen.
Also, I distinctly remember that edge postulated that the target would have to be in physical contact with the ground in order for this test to work (he stated that one of the problems with the original test is that the target was "ungrounded"). So you'd have to rework your protocol so as to be able to allow the target to be touching the ground -- that is, of course, if this is still an issue...
Edited to add: I found the post, in which edge states:
edge said:
Last edited:
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
No. No renumbering. Merely blind/randomise the initial numbering. Draw a numbered ball from the bottle, mark that number on the canister drawn from the lidded box. That way no one will know the number of the canister which has the target in it.
Then use the same ball drawing process to determine the order in which the canisters are placed for the trial. ie draw ball 3 - canister 3 first, draw another numbered ball - place the correspondingly numbered canister next, etc.
Ignore kelly pool rules - I had meant merely to use the tally bottle and the numbered balls instead of die or cards for the randomising tool. All they are are mini pool/snooker/billiard balls in a thin necked bottle. Shake the bottle and the thin neck only allows one ball to be drawn at a time. I suggested this method because it is faster than rolling die and IMO more random than shuffling drawing playing cards or rolling dice.
Using the Kelly pool ball/bottle, there are only 10 numbered balls, drawn one at a time and not replaced. No repeat numbers drawn. Fast and simple randomisation where fewer mistakes could be made. In my opinion.
Good memory there. Problem is that edge changes his mind so often that *he's* probably forgotten that he said that.
I do believe that he's just as happy now to have the plastic coffee tin placed on the ground with the numbered canister inside the lidded "tin". This after he introduced the absolute requirement of using the gold balance/scale with his willow rod.
Post 1284 "I may find one neutral spot, where the targets empty or not can sit on, one at a time and pick the one with the metal, silver, gold what ever the target maybe."
Last edited:
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
Okay, I think I grok you here. So, in essence, there would be a "Team C", who'd be the one who does the canister numbering, who'd simply do that initial numbering (and record which number corresponds to the target), and then Teams A and B would do their stuff, with no one else knowing until the very end which is which, because they're all weighted equally?
EHocking said:
I understand you now. This does make sense, and sounds a lot simpler than the dice. I'm just a gaming geek, I guess. ; )
EHocking said:
My concern is that after all of this is said and done, he'll suddenly remember the "grounding" issue and declare the test invalid. That's why I bring it up again. Also, I don't see anything involving a scale in Remie's protocol...then again, I suppose it doesn't matter. Edge can do anything he wants to determine what's in the canister short of touching it or using an actual functional metal detector on it. Whether or not he decides to use a scale or a black cat and a rubber chicken -- it doesn't matter, hey? ; )
I'm still a bit confused as to why this has to be separated out into ten separate attempts in each attempt set (with ten attempt sets). It seems to me that this will slow things down immeasurably. I don't understand why edge can't simply dowse between ten containers ten times. I'm sure if I went back and read through everything, I'd get it, but it just seems overly...overly to me. But please, don't explain. I don't need to know. It'll just hurt my head more. ; )
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
This was an outline of one way to do it.
Well the other side could be Randi detractors:
"What, choosing the canisters was done by a magician drawing the cards?!" Yet another excuse of "cheating" by JREF.
That's why a *detailed* protocol needs to be drawn up. All bases need to be covered.
edge claims that I'm merely being anal - you've spotted WHY I'm being particular.
You are quite right - my estimate is 10 mins per canister - 1000mins minimum. Ridiculous.
edge has decided that he wants to do it this way because he claims that he could never find a large enough "neutral" area to place 10 canisters at a time. He claims, now, that finding a single spot to place each canister on one at a time will reduce outside influences on his dowsing rod during the test.
Spektator
Is that right?
Which leads me to wonder: If a tiny patch of ground the size of a coffee can is tthe largest area edge can find that does NOT attract his dowsing rod--how in the world can he ever find gold in the wild?
A couple of thoughts regarding Edge’s observer:
He/she should not be allowed to touch or handle the containers at all.
If he/she is keeping their own list, the lists should be compared after every attempt in order to prevent any ‘anomalies’.
Does he/she actually need to physically be where the containers are? Can they just observe remotely via a video camera?
He/she should not be allowed to touch or handle the containers at all.
If he/she is keeping their own list, the lists should be compared after every attempt in order to prevent any ‘anomalies’.
Does he/she actually need to physically be where the containers are? Can they just observe remotely via a video camera?
Spektator
Is that right?
This concern is a good reason to have a third team or person who will actually conceal the target in the container, or otherwise insure through some randomizing process that the people placing the containers do not know until after each run of ten which time the target was present.
Because it is not out of the realm of possibility that a confederate could tip off the dowser when the target is present--by making a little scuff mark in the dirt, for example, when the actual target is in the container. That's why double-blinding is important: the target-placing team should not be aware until the run of ten attempts is over which time the real target was present.