Nightmare?
You have to do a controlled test to prove an ability you have repeatedly claimed you possess. Upon success, you receive One Effing Million Sacagaweas.
Nightmare?
Nightmare?
You have to do a controlled test to prove an ability you have repeatedly claimed you possess. Upon success, you receive One Effing Million Sacagaweas.
Nightmare?
SezMe
post-pre-born
Good point but sometimes a little manipulation can bring out details otherwise hidden. That said, I think a good compromise is to include both so the skeptical observer can draw his/her own conclusions.
How could we have convinced you, when you have repeatedly claimed it does work?
The only reason for us being able to convince you - by e.g. pointing out that there had to be a previously undiscovered law of physics for dowsing to work - would be that you know already you are fooling yourself with distorted perception, but stick with an unproven theory in which you have invested a great deal of time and effort.
How else could we have convinced you, when you have repeatedly claimed it does work?
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Look me up when you're in London next.
In the meantime work on finalising a test with JREF.
Last edited:
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
I don't think JREF should or would agree to averaging your score. In the example above you would arrive at an average of 7.33 "hits".
You cannot select 7.33 targets.
The proper way to calculate would be, using the above example, 70% of 30 possible targets is 21.
ie, you need to get 21 or better "hits" to win and in this example you have got 22 - thus a "win".
Simpler, cleaner, easier to demonstrate, no confusion with the maths.
edge, you *do* have a problem with percentages - you're statements that you have been 110 and 180% correct demonstrate this, so I would suggest that you stick to number of correct guesses.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
It does vary. It varies directly in accordance with whether or not you have been shown where the target is.
It would be interesting to see the videos of your first test when you unfailingly showed a response right over the target on the "open" test when you knew where the gold was. That response was, you now claim, faked so that you could get to the finals.
Video might show if there was a differece in the nature of the response when it was real (on the test you failed) versus faked (on the open test). Did the responses look the same? If so, is the ideomotor effect that easy to fake? Since you are the only person who has admitted to faking the ideomotor response, I was hoping you could enlighten us on how you did it and made it look so convincing, because in the past, you have told us that the force "nearly ripped the rod from your hands".
Several suggestions have been made, including suspending the target in the air so there is no "ground" at all to give you a false response. You have refused to take any of these suggestions without giving any good reason for doing so.
But I'll say it again. If dowsing cannot detect the difference between a piece of ground that has no obvous gold and a piece of ground upon which there is a large target of gold, then dowsing doesn't work.
Patejdl
Scholar
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 66
Measurable force?? Force of the hand or the force of the stick?? Gravity?? Argh.. what is this?? Kindergarten???
No point in talking with Edge about physics, statistics or even simple logic.
The only good question for Edge is that what he's going to do if he fails again?? What excuses will he find?? What new quack theories will he come up with.
Really Edge, what will you do after failing again??? I'm curious
No point in talking with Edge about physics, statistics or even simple logic.
The only good question for Edge is that what he's going to do if he fails again?? What excuses will he find?? What new quack theories will he come up with.
Really Edge, what will you do after failing again??? I'm curious
Argh.. is the only thing that you said that is right.Measurable force?? Force of the hand or the force of the stick?? Gravity?? Argh.. what is this?? Kindergarten???
No point in talking with Edge about physics, statistics or even simple logic.
The only good question for Edge is that what he's going to do if he fails again?? What excuses will he find?? What new quack theories will he come up with?
Really Edge, what will you do after failing again??? I'm curious
I guess you don't read?
So we know all there is to know?
Question should be what are you going to think if I show it works and pass?
I can answer that.
Your excuse will be chance?
Remember in the church of skepticism 10% is what you claim that a dowser will hit.
Even if the win is 90% and I get 89% you will still say chance, there is no chance on the creek only hard labor, unless you dredge for it, or mine with heaver equipment, where the machine does the labor, it’s a hard task.
Another hour or two with SezMe and he would have been able to Dowse and see and feel.
In case you don’t comprehend here it is again.
1. Last years testing with a dredge proved that it works perfectly well in the field.
Why is that? Out of 21 picks I got 100% in good places and 80% in bad places.
Those targets are there and have been there and are only moved from the spot once!
Once cleaned out the readings in those spots change dramatically to nil or very close to that because of certain variations and flaws in the bottom of the creek.
Pieces of metals under the false bottom, or where even the dredge can't get to it to bring it up can bring doubt.
2. Several double blind test I have done here, above me and on the ground have proven that 10% correct hits of a target is a false statement.
I even had one friend place two targets with out me knowing during the double blind test we did, to see how good I am, and I was able to discern that he did.
My score in that test was higher than expected.
3. My numbers indicate that there is a better than 50% chance to show it really works, If I was not able to hit above 50% then the point would be moot.
4. Physics say there is no measurable force, wrong!
Calibrations indicate that it is different from place to place.
It indicates what is there naturally and that it changes when a target is placed on the exact same spot.
It also confirms my theory that, the more neutral the ground is the easier it is to pick out a movable target.
If it were all Idomotor effect then the calibrations of the scale wouldn’t change from place to place….
Very hard to achieve, neutrality, and I’m in the worst place to be able to find it.
But it can be done even here, so a place like Florida is good as long as I find the right spot and that is more likely now as the neutral spots are better there than here.
If you can’t see what I am doing and why just by these 4 statements then you are double blind.
Tricky you are lying.
I knew the moment that I scanned the room that it was going to be difficult.
Scanning the target was easy as I could see it.
I thought that I could over ride the ghost scans.
I went by information that my teacher had told me...
He was wrong and did not know as much then as I do now.
I said after going that far I needed to see what the test was all about and duration of it for my endurance.
I then say that the more you dowse the more sensitive you get and tired.....
That was then this is now,
I have a chance for a million and you don't........
From a failure I learned what to avoid next time and what caused it.
In the church of skepticism you will lie and say I have excuses, while I give you the facts of many experiments that verify what I have found out.
I have no idea what makes you so angry and rude to people that make these claims, I feel that if there is ever a win you want to be the first to know because that would drive some of your distain and hatred right out of your bodies so that you can change.
You want to see proof but are unwilling to go to the sources to see and try.
This source is on the river not in an office.
With in a couple of hours here,” and that’s about as long as it would take”, you would be convinced.
There was a place in the 80s that I mined at that the gold deposits, when dowsing, would break the sticks, the ground contained that much it would twist its self from its skin or bark when the stick is green, when it’s dry and old they would break.
Now that is verified by another dowser who dowses for water that you and I quoted several pages back on this post as he describes now what I did several years ago.
So far only one of you skeptics had the balls to meet with me where I could show you what the deal was and how immense the task was standing on the rivers and creeks.
Mining can physically hurt your body and any short cut to find the money helps immensely versus going at it blindly.
Geology as the only means of finding gold worked in the old days but doesn’t work always in this point and time as the obvious is not so obvious because the old timers cleaned out those spots along with the Chinese immigrants who also dowsed for it.
Not to mention those giant dredges they had in the 30s and 40s that went through this area.
Last years test was done on a major spot that one of those dredges sat on and striped it clean, my task was to see and get what they missed.
No one there thought that I would find much of any thing even they were wrong.
There is no way to fail when actually mining and dowsing, while testing a movable target the rules change but not on the field where it should be tested, to know for sure.
But that’s too hard for JREF they don’t have the time or the money.
But I may document that with film.
I think it’s funny that you all say 10% but now are upping the ante.
Their not so brave any more, we’ll see.
Tricky says,
I can fake the response.
I have tried and it’s impossible, I should be able to do that with one hand on the dowsing stick also but can’t.
Can’t even fake it with two hands.
So tell me Tricky what’s your explanation for it working when two people complete the circuit, I would like to hear this one.
The same pull the same direction that one person gets and the same reaction in the same place where there is nothing how come the responses are the same for nothing then something with one and then two people, L.M.A.O.?
It needs a complete circuit to work.
SezMe was shown this.
Argh.. is how I feel!
SezMe
post-pre-born
Nope. (TM by prewitt81).
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I don't believe I am. I recall quite clearly what you said after you failed.
You never mentioned a single thing about this to the testers. Why not? You were specifically asked if the room was okay and you said it was. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
I have about the same chance as you.
Then prove me wrong if you can. We will see who is lying. I've outlined a number of simple tests you could take. You have not accepted a single one of them. Have you made excuses? What other possible explanation is there?
BS. Why don't you put the target next to a river then? What is your excuse for not doing that? If the source is gold, it can be in a river or in an office, on the ground or in the air, on top of limestone or on top of granite. You say you can dowse for gold, Edge, not rivers.
If you come up with a reasonable protocol, I'd consider it. So far, you have never been able to coherently describe your protocol. Neither have you accepted any of the ones that have been suggested. If you can find gold under a properly double-blinded test, I will believe you. So far you have given no indication whatsoever that you even understand what that means.
Yeah, I've heard these tall tales before. Too bad you can't seem to show any of this stuff happening.
Back in the 80's I could lift a one-ton weight with a single hand. Oh, you want me to show you? Sorry. I have to find the perfect place first.
Come up with a proper test and I'll consider it, Señor Huevos Grandes.
You don't have to mine to dowse. If you could accurately find gold by dowsing, you'd never have to mine another day in your life.
Spare us the lesson in "Edge's Alternate History". If those spots still produced commercial amounts of gold, they'd still be mining them. Or else, you would have all the money you'd ever need.
I'm assuming you think that sentence made sense.
Nobody is going to put up a lot of money just to allow you to nurse your delusions. If the someone in the test doesn't know BEFORE the test starts whether or not there is gold, then it cannot be a double-blind test. The result of a single dowsing response must be "correct" or "incorrect". It cannot be, "let's dig and pan and see what we find". If you think that the sort of test you describe will ever be acceptable, then you will forever be making excuses. Of course, this is exactly what I expect you to do.
BS again. You did it at your first test. You even admitted it.
My response is "Learn to write a comprehensible sentence."
My further response is, "You say you can dowse for gold. There is gold under one of these ten targets. Find it."
What? You can't? LMAO.
SezMe still hasn't written up his observations. I think I'd rather hear from him just exactly what he was "shown". You have a habit of remembering things differently than they happened.
Spektator
Is that right?
edge, this isn't accurate. If you have a one-in-ten chance of finding a target, then you could expect somewhere around 10% just by chance--on some runs it might be higher, on some lower, but the more runs you do, if chance alone is operating, ten per cent would be about the average to expect. However, if the test is set up differently, so there was a one-in-five placement of the target, then you could expect 20% hits by chance; if it was one-in-three, then 33% hits by chance, and so on. This is oversimplified, but not as much as saying "a dowser will hit 10%."
And yes, if you set 90% as a cutoff for success, then 89% is still a failure. Goal lines shouldn't move in a football game or in a dowsing test.
And no matter what the test score, it doesn't indicate that you can't or shouldn't hunt for gold in the creek--of course you're free to do that, whether you score 0 or 100. It's just that in the former case, you wouldn't have proved that dowsing will help you find gold in the creek.
Last edited:
Spektator
Is that right?
If you scored 89% consistently in a series of double-blind tests that requrired 90% for a win, I'd think, "Gee, edge came so close."
That's what I figured.
Took a second or two.
So when we going to see this write up, and I hope you had a good time up here.
This is some beautiful country up here and the weather is the best.
Looks like some rain today.
It took me several shots to get the tree.
Spektator said,
If you scored 89% consistently in a series of double-blind tests that requrired 90% for a win, I'd think, "Gee, edge came so close."
Ok fair enough what would you think about dowsing then?
Attachments
I've read this post four times and I still can't make heads or tails in how it relates to the question asked by Mrs. Smith.
Can someone help me, please?
SezMe, should I not hold my breath any longer waiting for your write-up?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Nice pictures, Edge.
You forgot to include the one where you successfully dowse for gold.
You forgot to include the one where you successfully dowse for gold.