Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[Paul2]

A person still moves it to a location or moves it.
Who will a robot report to and who tells the robot to look?
And with out a battery a metal detector is non functional.
Who powers or powers up one of these machines?
Do they also have desires?

How are any of these questions relevant, and to what question? Duh, some person has to *make* a metal detector! So what? It still works the way it works.

 

[Tricky]

Without a person what use is it?

This is pretty lame. Obviously anything invented by humans had some human purpose in mind. That doesn't mean they need to be there when it operates. See the example of metal detectors used for traffic-light control. Nobody is touching those detectors when they are operating. They don't even have handles.

Why the handel?

Because everyone likes a Messiah. Hallelujah!

 

[Drs_Res]

Yes, a metal detector needs a power source.

No, a metal detector does not have desires.

A metal detector will do it's thing weather a person is holding onto the handle or not. If it "sees" metal, then it indicates that it is there, period.

Without a person it's not really of much use since it is a machine designed to aid a person. The metal detector could care less.

The handle is there to make it easy for a person to use it.

You know all of this already, or at least you should.

You should be spending your time coming up with a proper test, not arguing about how a machine designed to detect metal works.

I'm a person who has read through all of the posts relating to your application and your work (at least I think I read them all).

I have to agree with others that you are not the easiest person to interpret from your writings. Some of your posts are hard to decipher without multiple readings, and even then it's hard to get the gist of what you are trying to say at times.

Listen to the people here that are trying to help you out.
Take into consideration what these people are trying to tell you.

I would love to see you attempt a properly controlled test.

Best of luck to you.

 

[chillzero]

Yes, but metal detectors are graduated. The more (or closer) the metal, the greater the response. If you hooked it to speakers, it would sound like a theremin when a train goes by.

That's also why those "smart lights" won't change for a bicycle.

Thanks for that Tricky. I thought they just went off when any metal was there, and would therefore be squealing at the tracks. Didn't realise there could be a difference like this.

Sorry for the derail . Carry on.


(oh, good grief - pun not originally intended. )

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Has this thread now officially become a Monty Python movie?



So, edge, when can we except your next application?

 

[Marcus]

This thread has gotten so absurd I felt the sudden need to contribute. Metal detectors are often employed in manufacturing processes, frequentely to detect metal that has inadvertantly gotten into the product stream. They can go for years without getting anywhere near a human. Their output is fed to other machines, never even seen by people except later in the form of process summaries.

 

[edge]

Take the battery out and then what will it do?
No power, no reaction.
So the similarity is when the instrument of dowsing leaves a persons hands there is no reaction.

 

[Tricky]

Take the battery out and then what will it do?
No power, no reaction.
So the similarity is when the instrument of dowsing leaves a persons hands there is no reaction.

Gosh, this is what we've been telling you all the time, Edge, but you wouldn't believe us before. It is you that is making the dowsing rod twitch. The dowsing rod couldn't be "nearly pulled out of your hands" if you are the power source.

The twitch you see in the rod is your muscles (or "battery power", if you prefer) making the rod twitch. The idiomotor effect is what tells you (unconsciously) when to make the rod twitch.

Could it be that we've finally had a breakthrough?

 

[edge]

Gosh, this is what we've been telling you all the time, Edge, but you wouldn't believe us before. It is you that is making the dowsing rod twitch. The dowsing rod couldn't be "nearly pulled out of your hands" if you are the power source.

The twitch you see in the rod is your muscles (or "battery power", if you prefer) making the rod twitch. The idiomotor effect is what tells you (unconsciously) when to make the rod twitch.

Could it be that we've finally had a breakthrough?

So what you are saying is that my unconscious mind knows that the gold is there when my conscious mind can't see the gold.
So we are back to the paranormal event that you have this classified as.
Horse patutty!

What if I'm right and there is a field from the body (aura) that connects to the stick that connects to the metal in the field of the Earth?

Then what?
Because your explanation on what’s going on with dowsing is even weirder than mine.
That would make muscles smart.
I know what you are going to say it’s a combination of geology and known facts about what traps placer gold in certain spots.
But what I have found out is gold is where you find it and it may be there or not.
And I have proved the negitive as well as the positive on that case.
And there is the fact that I should have been on a losing streak and found absolutely nothing at all.
In other words I should get a high percentage of total loser spots with out a trace of gold or any metals in the places that the dowsing rod or stick show that the metals are there.
There are a high percentage of places like that here and I have proved that on more than one occasion to be sure.

 

[Cuddles]

So what you are saying is that my unconscious mind knows that the gold is there when my conscious mind can't see the gold.
So we are back to the paranormal event

No. What we are saying is that your unconcious mind tells your body to make the stick move. Whether it does so because it is detecting something through paranormal means, through mundane means, or not detecting anything at all is the whole point of testing.

 

[Tricky]

So what you are saying is that my unconscious mind knows that the gold is there when my conscious mind can't see the gold.
So we are back to the paranormal event that you have this classified as.
Horse patutty!

No, I am saying you can't see gold at all, but your unconscious mind makes your hands twitch when it thinks there is gold. That is why you (and most other dowsers) pass tests when their mind knows where the gold is, but fail when they don't. Of course, you later told us you cheated at your "open" test with Randi and intentionally made your rod twitch over the targets where you saw the gold being placed, but do you think all dowsers cheat like that?

What if I'm right and there is a field from the body (aura) that connects to the stick that connects to the metal in the field of the Earth?

Then you have discovered a new law of physics. I find that very unlikely. Also, it makes a dowsing stick unnecessary. If there is an aura that your body can sense, then just feel the aura and point at the gold. If the stick picks up the "aura", then it doesn't need a human. If the human picks up the "aura", then you don't need a stick.

Of course, you have no evidence whatsoever of this "field". What kind of field is it? Why can't other instruments sense it? Answer these questions and you will have a Nobel Prize.

Because your explanation on what’s going on with dowsing is even weirder than mine.

LOL. That strawman you call "my explanation" is weird, but of course, that wasn't at all what I said. My explanation is simply that your brain plays tricks on you and makes you think you sense things when you don't. We all know this happens all the time. That is what happens when you look at an "optical illusion". Remember, your brain is easy to fool.

That would make muscles smart.

Are you saying the "aura" makes your muscles twitch without involving any messages from your brain? That's even weirder.

No, the muscles are under control of your brain, but often the control is subconscious. You admit that you can make the rod twitch if you want to, right? That is what you did at the "open test" with Randi, right? Well, your brain can make it twitch even if you don't tell it to.

Now in some of your stories, a strong force pulls the rod from your hands. In the most recent stories, the human body provides the force. You can understand why we are skeptical, can't you? You can't keep your stories straight.

I know what you are going to say it’s a combination of geology and known facts about what traps placer gold in certain spots.

Like the "open test" at your first trial, having information on where the gold is likely to be will cause you to be more likely to "sense" it when you dowse. You might be a great gold-finder, Edge, but it ain't because of some magical rod. It is because of experience.

But what I have found out is gold is where you find it and it may be there or not.

I hope you realize that the sentence above means, "When gold is there it is there." Yes, that's true, but not particularly illuminating.

And I have proved the negitive as well as the positive on that case.

No, you haven't proved anything. You have convinced yourself, but so far as I can tell, not many other people. If you could prove it, you could be hired by a mining firm to do it and you wouldn't have to dig or try to find available land.

And there is the fact that I should have been on a losing streak and found absolutely nothing at all.

Why should that be a fact? It makes no sense at all.

In other words I should get a high percentage of total loser spots with out a trace of gold or any metals in the places that the dowsing rod or stick show that the metals are there.

No it doesn't. The odds of finding gold don't change depending on the outcome of your dowsing. If it is a good spot, you will find gold whether or not you dowse it.

There are a high percentage of places like that here and I have proved that on more than one occasion to be sure.

No proof. Anecdotes.

By the way, did you take your scales to attach to your dowsing rod when you found these places? If not, then why do you need them for the test? That slows down the procedure greatly, and from what you have told us, you never used them until recently.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

So, edge, when can we except your next appliaction?

 

[edge]

Are you saying the "aura" makes your muscles twitch without involving any messages from your brain? That's even weirder.

No, the muscles are under control of your brain, but often the control is subconscious. You admit that you can make the rod twitch if you want to, right? That is what you did at the "open test" with Randi, right? Well, your brain can make it twitch even if you don't tell it to.

On a neutral spot I cannot make the rod move, so no I can’t .
I would say it's weirder if I found nothing at least half of the time.


On a neutral spot I cannot make the rod move, so no I can’t.

By the way, did you take your scales to attach to your dowsing rod when you found these places? If not, then why do you need them for the test? That slows down the procedure greatly, and from what you have told us, you never used them until recently.

In the field it would slow you down but for the test, it makes the test infallible.
We were going to try it in the field, but testing is all I need it for.
there are No mistakes in what I feel then.
The test can be made fast enough scales or not.
It was actually slower with out the scales.
I have to remember all of the pulls with out the scales, if I scan ten containers.

If I only scan with the scales then the metals are unmistakably noticeable and why would I want to scan the rest of the empties if I make my pick?
That would be really fast in a double blind test, just scan till I find the target.

I find the target and then that set is done whatever the number is that contains the target is after all the only one I’m interested in.
Speed is not the issue with you it’s about confusion.
Also there is no mistaking a quarter ounce reading with a quarter pound reading that’s why.
Both of those readings feel almost the same with out the scales they are a marker, a calibration that I don't have to memorize.
It is very difficult to sense the difference between ten different targets when all of the ten containers have different readings, there is not ten neutral spots and there lies the difficulty.
So In a double blind test that was run the same way that I did in the JREF office I at this point would not be satisfied with any placement of containers because it is impossible to do that and be satisfied that there are no readings from any of the containers that are empty.
I eliminated that problem for a honest test of dowsing.
It is merely an optimization of the protocol.
This also eliminates one excuse doesn’t it?

Besides it proves at the same time that the force behind dowsing can be measured which lends to the creditability of dowsing doesn’t it?
It’s like killing two birds with one stone, which would cinch it, and it does.

No proof. Anecdotes.

Proof to me and anecdotes to you, that's all.
If I hadn't witnessed the proof I wouldn't be here.

 

[Tricky]

On a neutral spot I cannot make the rod move, so no I can’t.

LOL. One of your longest-running excuses was that you couldn't find a "neutral spot". As I recall, in your first test, one of your targets was a quartz crystal. Does the presence of quartz throw you off?

In the field it would slow you down but for the test, it makes the test infallible.

Why would it make it infallible? A false response is still a false response, regardless of whether or not it is measured by a scale.

The test can be made fast enough scales or not.
It was actually slower with out the scales.

I have a hard time believing that. You either have to set up the scales between each attempt or set up a new target between each attempt. Both of those things take time.

I have to remember all of the pulls with out the scales, if I scan ten containers.

No you don't have to remember anything. You can write it down if your memory is so poor. Are you saying that the pulls are so similar that you need the scales to tell which one is a real response? If so, how can you dowse without scales?

If I only scan with the scales then the metals are unmistakably noticeable and why would I want to scan the rest of the empties if I make my pick? That would be really fast in a double blind test, just scan till I find the target.

I mentioned this several days ago. Of course, you could simply blow off the rest of the tests (in a set of ten) once you had your target picked. You'd be a fool to do so though.

I find the target and then that set is done whatever the number is that contains the target is after all the only one I’m interested in.

Since you have not claimed 100% accuracy, any time you stopped before dowsing all of the containers would mean you were throwing potentially useful information which would tell you if you had a "false reading" on one of the earlier containers. Are you now claiming 100% accuracy?

Also there is no mistaking a quarter ounce reading with a quarter pound reading that’s why.

So again, if you cannot tell these things without a scale, how do you dowse in the field?

You have to realize, Edge, nobody cares what your "readings" are. They don't care if it is a quarter-ounce or a quarter-ton. All they care about is "can you find the container with the gold". If you are using as scale, then it is because you need it to tell the difference, not because it makes any difference to the observers.

Do you need it to tell the difference? What happened to that foolproof dowsing you did before you used a scale?

Both of those readings feel almost the same with out the scales they are a marker, a calibration that I don't have to memorize.

So they DO feel almost the same? So much the same that you couldn't dowse without scales?

It is very difficult to sense the difference between ten different targets when all of the ten containers have different readings, there is not ten neutral spots and there lies the difficulty.

Why can't you dowse ten neutral spots? What is your difficulty? If neutral spots are so hard to find, then how the heck do ever dowse successfully? If you can tell the difference between gold vs. no-gold in the field, then why can't you do it when the target is closer and larger?

This gobbledygook is simply you making more excuses.

So In a double blind test that was run the same way that I did in the JREF office I at this point would not be satisfied with any placement of containers because it is impossible to do that and be satisfied that there are no readings from any of the containers that are empty.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Empty containers should not give a response. If you could dowse, you could tell that. I don't get this, Edge. Sometimes you are absolutely certain of your abilities, and sometimes you can't tell the response of an empty container from that of a real target.

I eliminated that problem for a honest test of dowsing. It is merely an optimization of the protocol.

I cannot see that it has optimized the protocol. It seems to make it more difficult and incoherent. I suspect this is the reason the JREF rejected your application. You can't write a coherent protocol. Or sentence.

Besides it proves at the same time that the force behind dowsing can be measured which lends to the creditability of dowsing doesn’t it?
It’s like killing two birds with one stone, which would cinch it, and it does.

No, it does not. Nothing in your protocol indicates that the force comes from anything other than your muscles. Since you cannot dowse without holding the rod in your hands, you cannot show that the force exists when your muscles aren't involved.

Besides, nobody cares about your theories. First, show that you can do what you say, then worry about explaining it. It is a total waste of time to come up with theories for an effect which you have not shown exists. All the investigators care about is if can you do what you say you can.

Here's a thought for you though. If all you need is contact between you and your dowsing rod, why not make one that is suspended by string from the scale. In order to make it work, you simply touch it. That would allow the contact you need, but prevent any influence from your muscles. Have you ever dowsed while wearing gloves? If so, then you don't even need to touch the rod. You only need to be close, right?

Proof to me and anecdotes to you, that's all.
If I hadn't witnessed the proof I wouldn't be here.

Proof is available to all. What you are talking about is faith.

We know you believe your anecdotes, Edge. That is not in question. Can you demonstrate it for an objective audience? That is what is in question. Unless you can do that, it isn't proof. It's not even evidence.

 

[edge]

Proof is available to all. What you are talking about is faith.

We know you believe your anecdotes, Edge. That is not in question. Can you demonstrate it for an objective audience? That is what is in question. Unless you can do that, it isn't proof. It's not even evidence.

But this audience isn't objective enough to accept a protocol that optimizes the conditions.
Because you believe that there are no conditions, that simply interfere with reception, and that's why they will never accept a protocol that proves it all.

That would make all you so called educated people look bad, or at least you believe that, subconsciously.

To not look at all the evidence I have now is pure ignorance to the highest degree.

If I were wrong about this then I would have to finally admit that you have been right.
If I am right think of the implications and where it would go, because do we not need some other way of producing power and fuel?
How long till we get what we need?
Simply test me, I will do it for free, there now there is no fear, or is there a deeper reason?
That way there is no pressure on me either.
I am going to leave this part of the country soon, within a couple of days.
I will be going through L.A. I wonder if the IIG will do it for free?
It will be their last chance; I might be knocking on their door.
I guess I should put it to them too, a free test.
My protocol should be accepted then.
If you can then find any flaws any holes I’ll kiss your pututty.

 

[Tricky]

My protocol should be accepted then.
If you can then find any flaws any holes I’ll kiss your pututty.

I pointed out numberous flaws and holes with your protocol right here, Edge (post 1387 in this thread). You have not fixed them. It is still incoherent.

But you can keep your kiss. I just washed my pututty.

 

[Reno]

I don't understand why you keep going on about a 'free' test edge. No-one is charging you anything for a test. The only thing you have to pay for is the expenses YOU incur in the test. If you need to have the test performed on a special magical spot, then it's YOUR responsibility to cover the expenses of setting up a test in that spot.

 

[Cuddles]

I don't understand why you keep going on about a 'free' test edge. No-one is charging you anything for a test. The only thing you have to pay for is the expenses YOU incur in the test. If you need to have the test performed on a special magical spot, then it's YOUR responsibility to cover the expenses of setting up a test in that spot.

I think by "free" he means he doesn't want the prize money. For some strange reason Edge seems to think that the main reason no-one wants to test him is that they don't want to give him the prize money, rather than it being anything to do with his lack of ability and inability to write a coherent protocol.

 

[The Pig]

But this audience isn't objective enough to accept a protocol that optimizes the conditions.
Because you believe that there are no conditions, that simply interfere with reception, and that's why they will never accept a protocol that proves it all.

Do you believe that the people offering the various paranormal challenges actually believe in the paranormal?

Which specific conditions of your protocol do you think have been unfairly rejected?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Which specific conditions of your protocol do you think have been unfairly rejected?

This has been discussed ad nauseam.

Through this discussion it became painfully obvious that edge had no idea how to set up a proper controlled test. He would not listen to propositions, either, and meander around and around and around...

I mean: Look at this very thread.

One million dollars for two successful controlled tests. One effing million dollars.

Anecdotal evidence, stories, fish tales galore.

Solid evidence: Zilch.



A believer needs his belief to be true. Otherwise he would have to admit he wasted his one life on this planet. Do we really expect a believer to accept evidence, or the lack thereof?