Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[edge]

First let me address this.

My mate, however, was absolutely furious with me regarding this whole episode. She was
convinced that Mike and Danny ran a scam on me and that I was a total fool to even let the
whole experiment proceed. She’s convinced that Mike (and Danny) are scammers of the first
order and knowingly made an absolute jerk out of me.
Who knows?

What you have witnessed is what it is.

I have to adapt to it continuously as I learn more.

If I have a person with me he will be with one of the JREF members and the other JREF member will work with me.
That ends that.

I learned many things from that experience too, at Coffee Creek.

The calibration phase established a background “force” of ¼ ounce and a target force of 1
ounce. Yet, in nearly all the trials, these benchmarks were ignored. Many times (no, I did not
write down the final stabilization reading) the scale read 2 ounces or above yet Mike would
declare (correctly) that the target was not there.

That information is private and too hard to explain right now for my use only.
If I win all that I know will be revealed and then you’ll know.
This is what gives me an edge.

During one trial (#7, I think) Mike declared that the rod was “just not grabbing” him like it
had done before so, in spite of the scale reading he (correctly) declared that the target was
absent.
In retrospect, I was really stupid to not get Mike to state - and adhere to - his decision criteria
before we actually began the trials..
5.5 What’s going on?

When Danny and I got there we traveled 40 miles or so to do another set of tests, that day we had already done about 40 passes on our own tests, 4 sets of ten which were exactly the same all correct hits counted.
I was extremely drained, the testing takes from your energy in two ways, electrical and physical, the reason to hold on tight is to get maximum results from the scale.

In retrospect, I was really stupid to not get Mike to state - and adhere to - his decision criteria

I assume you mean to use the scales?
I use feel to clarify what’s going on along with the readings which are hard to see as they are small, I can kind of see the arrow pointer and where it is pointed but numbers are important too, more information.
It's all for my use any way.

My impression of Mike in person very much reflects what you see on-line. He is a voluble
guy who has trouble putting his thoughts in clear order. We’ll have to deal with that fact.

Every day I test even now; there are changes and more to learn.
I tried to cram as much information in your brain as I could I had an hour and a half or so.
I wish that we had ten runs of what we did there.
We only did one.
Had I really thought about it I would have had Dan and Ellen switch positions.
The other thing I would have changed if we had the time to do ten runs of ten is that we would have gone only for the target.
That would have to be one strong magnet!

GzuzKryzt
1. Have you set a location where you can perform - and succeed - by hitting at least seven times in ten tries with your above, um, protocol? Yes

2. How many trial runs have you performed at said specific location, 10
and how many successful hits did you register? See SezMes post
This is not the same location as I am giving you above this location is the best case.
At the worst case place I am at 58%.

And the most important point: 3a. Were those trial runs double-blinded?
They where as blind as two people could do them.


3b.How did you do that?
First there was a tarp where the target was placed then I walk around a corner, next the other person would draw a card one through ten and that was the time the target would be placed if it was three I would be scanning the first two times against an empty container, then it would show up.
Each time I would walk away he would wait exactly a certain amount of time before calling me back to scan each container, he would time each move the same.
With the large target it was easier to use one box.
Believe me I couldn’t tell if it was there or not, in either place.
The other person kept the score and I didn't know anything till the ten scans were done.

The other way that we did it was when I picked we ended that round of ten.
One test was for the metal the other was for all the correct hits, no target and target.
The metal shows up more times but the odd thing is that the percentage of metal hits correct against the wrong works out to about the same, as the overall average of the two combined.

For instance if the metal shows up 50 times I get it right 30 times, with the negative correct hits and the positive correct hits I go it 58 correct hits this is out of 100. Close to 60%.

The place before that was worse, so it got better as we found better base line numbers by the scale which proves my point about more neutral ground.


The scale is a visual breakthrough.
I need to find a new place to run another set of tests that reads the same as Coffee Creek, the base line of a quarter ounce.
I believe I can find this most anywhere now, one spot that’s void of readings.
Dan’s back if Fl., Now, I need an assistant to continue.

 

[edge]

Absolutely right, because Dan has mined with me.

Could there have been a hole in the box that would allow Mike to see into it. Yes. Again, we worked with what we had.

I still have the box there’s no holes.

What I showed you was real.

With the benefit of hindsight and time, here is the most important question I have regarding this demo.

The pre-trial calibration phase showed a "background" force on the scale of ½ ounce and a "target" force of 1 ounce. Yet some of the trials showed a scale reading greater than 1 ounce yet you stated that the target was not there. On what basis did you, Mike, make your determination of the presence/absence of the target other than the reading on the scale.

Another matter that I can't understand is why my car did not affect your dowsing rod. You were much closer to it and it has a couple of orders of magnitude more metal mass than your tray.

The next day when we did some more experiments.
I'll try to explain this but it's hard to put into words.

It goes with this theory of mine, the initial readings are light, after about three scans of the area for the base line and then the target I get a maximum reading.
The more I dowse the more sensitive I get to a point.
As I tested there I figured this out and proved it to Dan the next day when we continued testing we witnessed the change in the scale to be sure.
Things we talked about on the way home.

So I used what I know on the creek, remember me trying to pull up on the stick?
It's what I do on the creek to know how heavy it is, how much gold is there.
I did this with the non-target tries too.
That showed me the differences.
The heaviest spots will break the stick or twist the bark apart from the heart if they are green.
In A sense I have to warm up.
The next thing we had to do was to figure out what the ghost readings are, the wrong totally readings, the misses and the reasons why which we had to theorize.

If we were correct then there has to be a time limit and there is.

When the metal appears on a spot then disappears why does it still read like it's there when it’s not?
This is where gravity is involved, so after a certain time it must dissipate and go back to normal or what the base line was.

With a target appearing one out of ten when that set of ten is done I must wait a certain time before the next set of ten starts.

How many times did it appear?
And I still got it right?
To prove there is a force here I have to know these things I won’t be fooled again.
I may only have one more shot here.

The car, is way less of a pull than the silver on the tray, It was far enough away.
I could have made the stick bend over it but that wasn’t the demonstration I had in mind that’s why we walked to the creek, no car there.
The gold in the creek when the stick was aimed in that direction over rode both cars.
Heavy elements are a key factor.
Had we set up the test 5 feet from the car there would then had been a major flaw in the test I would have not got the 90%.

 

[edge]

edge, your elaboration really on makes things more complicated. Regardless, I'm prepared to attempt to write up a protocol based on your past posts, if you could answer a couple of questions.

1. Can you select 2 sites that you would be willing to be tested at? One as a back up - you have to give JREF an option. Site only needs to be large enough to place a single box on as per your preferred protocol. Yes

If you can't - why not? You demonstrated for SezMe on the porch of a cabin with no problems.

2. Do you *have*, positively *have* to use the scales? If yes, the readings will play no part in the protocol, it will merely be an additional accessory for your use only. That's right and yes.

Why the scales? You don't use them in the field or in the middle of a creek when dowsing for gold. No, Why for the Challenge? First it will assure the best spot by the numbers.

3. Will you allow JREF (or whomever tests you) to inspect the dowsing rod and ALSO allow them to remove anything you attach to the tip? One stipulation would be that anything attached to the tip will be inspected BEFORE a test is performed and attached while being witnessed by the testers. No problemo.

4. How much time do you have before this JREF Challenge application runs out? Next Febuary I think a year from them receving it.

I think that's it for the moment.

I'll write up a protocol as per your post I'm replying to and let's get it out in the public domain here to get hammered out.

Sounds good.
They will never find me cheating so no problem.

 

[SezMe]

That information is private and too hard to explain right now for my use only. If I win all that I know will be revealed and then you’ll know. This is what gives me an edge.

See, edge, this is precisely what frustrates us. Why in the world would the information be "private"? If you do devise a protocol for the MDC, the information cannot remain private. But thanks to this comment, I now know why your nic is "edge". Cute; I like it.

When Danny and I got there we traveled 40 miles or so to do another set of tests, that day we had already done about 40 passes on our own tests, 4 sets of ten which were exactly the same all correct hits counted. I was extremely drained, the testing takes from your energy in two ways, electrical and physical, the reason to hold on tight is to get maximum results from the scale.

That is not my memory. You told me you had to pick up Danny from work so I doubt that he had participated in 40 tests...unless that is his work. And when we first met you were quite animated and did not complain of fatigue. I mean, being lighthearted here for a moment, we started out having some fun, devised a set of trials and proceeded to do them. Never did you state that fatigue from previous trials that day played a role in your performance.

You DID state that you were feeling fatigued during our trials and we DID pause for 5-10 minutes at that point to give you some time to recoup.

I assume you mean to use the scales? I use feel to clarify what’s going on along with the readings which are hard to see as they are small, I can kind of see the arrow pointer and where it is pointed but numbers are important too, more information. It's all for my use any way.

But, edge, what is "feel"? How does it "clarify" what's going on? More specifically, the calibration trials established "absence" to be ¼ ounce and "presence" to be 1 ounce. Can you give us a clear explanation why a reading of, for example, 2 ounces in one trial resulted in your stating (correctly) that the target was not there when the calibration trial indicated that it was, in fact, there?

Had I really thought about it I would have had Dan and Ellen switch positions.

Actually, I agree. We could have done any number of variations on the basic protocol we used. For example, we could have had eliminated BOTH Ellen and Danny from the trials and seen what the result was. We could have done any number of things. This is a perfect illustration of why this was a "demo" not a preliminary test. We did what we could with what we had - I would hope that no one would quibble with that. BUT, that said, I would hope that you would recognize the conditions under which we did our test implies that the results must remain inconclusive. Interesting? Yes. Conclusive? No.

The scale is a visual breakthrough. I need to find a new place to run another set of tests that reads the same as Coffee Creek, the base line of a quarter ounce. I believe I can find this most anywhere now, one spot that’s void of readings.

While the scale may be a "visual breakthrough" is a protocol nightmare. As I stated to you as we departed, you have to use a scale that you cannot see and the recording of the "stability" point is unknown to you. You will have to state what scale reading translates to "presence" or "absence" of the target before the test begins.

One final point, edge. I would hope that this demo and the subsequent critical discussion of it in this thread would help you formulate a precise MDC protocol. If not, our time together, while certainly fun and illuminating, will have been for naught.

 

[EHocking]

Sounds good.
They will never find me cheating so no problem.

Ah, chaeating and being *caught* cheating are two different things!

edge, an aside. You've brought up the word cheating a couple of times. I want to state clearly that I am not and have not ever accused you of cheating. Any protocol I'll try to come up with will be designed so that you CANNOT be accused of cheating, I assure you.

Also, when I use the word "guesses" it is only due to the lack of a better word. It seems to get your goat as well. I'm not running you down by using the word, if you have a preferred word I'll use it in the future.

As for my previous post - could you answer each of the number items please? I need to be clear on them so I can come up with a protocol that reflects what you say you can do and under conditions that you believe you can achieve the success you claim.

I've got an outline protocol, but I want to seed it with a few clauses for both you and JREF so that all bases are covered.

You claime your JREF contact still hasn't grasped what you are claiming from your correspondence with them, I believe that I can clarify your position and your intended Challenge if you will clarify the numbered points for me.

How much time do you have before the offer expires? Feb 2008?

 

[EHocking]

..While the scale may be a "visual breakthrough" is a protocol nightmare. As I stated to you as we departed, you have to use a scale that you cannot see and the recording of the "stability" point is unknown to you. You will have to state what scale reading translates to "presence" or "absence" of the target before the test begins.

I agree.

The scales reading should not be a condition in the protocol. If edge wishes to use them fine, but the "yay" or "nay" call will not be dependent on readings, nor will any readings be taken by the testers, the call on yes or no will be entirely edge's.

I would suggest in the protocol that a 2nd person reading the scales will NOT be allowed. The 2nd person is a variable that JREF cannot control and I would be surprised if they agreed to it at all.

edge. Comments?

 

[EHocking]

...[re:scales]That information is private and too hard to explain right now for my use only.
If I win all that I know will be revealed and then you’ll know.
This is what gives me an edge.

That's why I'd be inclined to remove the scales as equipment in the test - if you fail it gives you an excuse for failure, *especially* if someone not known to you gives you the readings. You *could* claim that they did not feed you the readings correctly and thus JREF cheated on the Challenge.

Remember, all this talk of cheating cuts both ways. We need to remove the *possibility* that either party can cheat the other. This is not an accusation of lack of integrity of either party, it is a requirement to remove the possibility of that accusation post-test.

I suggest that you lose the idea of using the scales *during* the test.
FIne, perhaps for you to determine the suitability of a site, but NOT an indicator to be recorded for the test. I think JREF would stipulate that. Also, you don't use it when panning for gold, why is it necessary for the test?

...I need to find a new place to run another set of tests that reads the same as Coffee Creek, the base line of a quarter ounce.

So. COffee Creek is a contender for a site for the test?

I believe I can find this most anywhere now, one spot that’s void of readings.

Great - choose two, since you can find a spot anywhere. That's one problem out of the way.

Sites for the test are chosen!

 

[edge]

SezMe,

The next day when we did some more experiments.
I'll try to explain this but it's hard to put into words.

It goes with this theory of mine, the initial readings are light, after about three scans of the area for the base line and then the target I get a maximum reading.
The more I dowse the more sensitive I get to a point.
As I tested there I figured this out and proved it to Dan the next day when we continued testing we witnessed the change in the scale to be sure.
Things we talked about on the way home.

So I used what I know on the creek, remember me trying to pull up on the stick?
It's what I do on the creek to know how heavy it is, how much gold is there.
I did this with the non-target tries too.
That showed me the differences.

Even here the initial readings start out about three quarters of a ounce that's with an empty container, the target starts out at about two and a half ounces.
After about three passes the non-target readings end up at two ounces and the target maxed at four ounces.

The same thing happened there.
It does peek out and stop, if I am confused then I lift up using my arms to see if it's heavy if the metal was there, if it's light then it's not.

We where doing tests here for about six days or so at about 30 to 40 passes on one container.

The important thing for me was to see the target show 4 ounces at your spot, but because the initial reading was low I didn't have to go as far as 4 ounces for the metal.

Like I said it's hard to explain.

The deeper the scale goes the harder it is to do.

If I could find a spot with no reading at all before the target is placed, then I think I could get 100%, but so far that is something I haven't found.
I wouldn't have to go deep at all.

It would make it so much faster and less fatiguing.

Dan was on vacation and we did some mining with the sluice and pans.
He was here the year before when we dredged with the 5 inch.

I will address your questions next Ehocking.
I have to walk Odie now.

 

[edge]

EHockings says,

The scales reading should not be a condition in the protocol. If edge wishes to use them fine, but the "yay" or "nay" call will not be dependent on readings, nor will any readings be taken by the testers, the call on yes or no will be entirely edge's.

For my use only.

I would suggest in the protocol that a 2nd person reading the scales will NOT be allowed. The 2nd person is a variable that JREF cannot control and I would be surprised if they agreed to it at all.

edge. Comments?

Only if it's the JREF member, that hangs with me, if they allow it, or I'll have to get better glasses.
Basically I can tell by the position of the arrow indicator.
What we were doing is trying to get it down to specifics.
But there are variables even using the scales.
I can work with that either way.

 

[edge]

That's why I'd be inclined to remove the scales as equipment in the test - if you fail it gives you an excuse for failure, *especially* if someone not known to you gives you the readings. You *could* claim that they did not feed you the readings correctly and thus JREF cheated on the Challenge.

Remember, all this talk of cheating cuts both ways. We need to remove the *possibility* that either party can cheat the other. This is not an accusation of lack of integrity of either party, it is a requirement to remove the possibility of that accusation post-test.

I suggest that you lose the idea of using the scales *during* the test.
FIne, perhaps for you to determine the suitability of a site, but NOT an indicator to be recorded for the test. I think JREF would stipulate that. Also, you don't use it when panning for gold, why is it necessary for the test?

It is a measurement of the force.
There is a fine line to be able to tell a little from a lot.
I am starting to use both the feel and the numbers.
My scores are higher and more reliable.

Lets see when I'm mining the metals have been there awhile and not moved back and forth on a spot.

When removed and I dowse the spot there is a drastic change.
Put the metals back and it would change again but it wouldn't be quite the same.
This is what causes false readings and those are always different.
I will always get a good reading till the metals are placed on the spot, I can pick it out but then the very next time that I scan it appears to be there but it's not.
It has to do with the Ghost readings.
It's very difficult to explain, but we have tested for this.

For instance the target is removed and the spot is empty instead of 4 ounces I might get 3.3, which dissipates back to where it should be in a few minutes.
Then I get the real reading.
The scales help me with that; the empty reading is very reliable, it’s when the metal is placed there and removed then I have problems, but if I wait for a few minutes it’s back to a normal reading.
When I rushed the test to save time I didn’t do well when I took my time the correct hits increased drastically. We watched the numbers.


If all my theories are correct about how this is working then I will have it down to an art and a science.
I have to make sure, why no one has passed the test.


I see a full moon that might affect me and I see it on this post.
I can't dowse when there's a paula full moon out.
Throws me off.

 

[Paulhoff]

I see a full moon that might affect me and I see it on this post.
I can't dowse when there's a paula full moon out.
Throws me off.

The moon is always full, just because you don't see the dark side, doesn't mean it is not there. Light does not make more gravity.

Paul

 

[edge]

But gravity makes more light.

 

[EHocking]

{re: use of scales}...If all my theories are correct about how this is working then I will have it down to an art and a science.
I have to make sure, why no one has passed the test.

OK. I believe I have got your wish/approach to use of scales. Let me modify my proposed protocol to accomodate.

Could you please answer each of the numbered questions from my previous post? Again, to help refine a preliminary protocol that will suit all demands of a preliminary MDC.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2684798&postcount=1290

Apologies. I've just read your response and realised that you didn't sort the quoting function. I will reread it. Modify a protocol (overnight) in light of your answers and post here for discussion.

Are you OK with us thrashing out a protocol here in public?
Should we start a new thread to ONLY discuss the ins and outs of a protocol once I have edge's acknowledgement that I've captured his claim correctly?

 

[Paulhoff]

But gravity makes more light.

NOT

Paul

 

[EHocking]

EHockings says,


For my use only.

Only if it's the JREF member, that hangs with me, if they allow it, or I'll have to get better glasses.
Basically I can tell by the position of the arrow indicator.
What we were doing is trying to get it down to specifics.
But there are variables even using the scales.
I can work with that either way.

Would you be willing, if a balance/scales are absolutely necessary, for me to propose a type of scale that is just as sensitive, but is easier to read?

ie. a scale/balance over the target area that you can read without aid of an assistant?

Something like a spring balance : http://www.scales-r-us.com/images/abbagreen-model-16-l.jpg . for the test we could mark with paint/highlight, 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, etc ounces on it and you would not require an assistant.

This is mere a quick google. I could probably find something more suitable - but if we can find a suitably sensitive scales/balance that you can read from 3 ft (ie length of the dowsing rod) would that be ok?

Or this digital one? http://www.scales-r-us.com/images/kern-mh10-10kg-hanging-scale-l.jpg . Divisions are 10g = 0.35 ounces.

I have no doubt we could finance this.

*I* would pay the £30 on the proviso the test went ahead.

 

[Spektator]

I think edge should be encouraged by the results of the demonstration--but again, in a test like this, it's only fair to count the actual hits, especially if the dowser has reason to believe that the target will be absent more than it is present. Otherwise it's too much like the coin-flip example.

Good luck on clarifying the protocol! I can't think of anything much else to add than the suggestions I made earlier.

 

[GimmePepsi]

Please read my pdf. Reno's post, while capturing the text accurately, does not include my pics which I think are essential to understanding the whole write-up.

I still don't get anywhere when I click your pdf link. I just get "The web page you are trying to access doesn't exist on Yahoo! GeoCities." I've been trying since yesterday.

 

[edge]

Something like a spring balance : http://www.scales-r-us.com/images/ab...model-16-l.jpg . for the test we could mark with paint/highlight, 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, etc ounces on it and you would not require an assistant.

Yes that's a good one.

The other one is cool too.

They will have one of the JREF team members shadow me anyway.

One real good tell would be if I stood on a scale to see if I could affect it?
If there is a real force then there should be a change.
It would have to tell in small increments.
I would have to stand real still get the base line then make the reaction happen.
Like Spektator said shifting and moving changes them easily.
I need to use a scale like they have at most recycle places.
Something to keep in the back of my head.
The whole dowsing stick that I have is about, 25 inches long.
Getting old sucks I probably need Bifocals now.

Yes I backed up and tried the link and it still doesn’t come up.
Try this one, 50 MB disk space, this may give you more space ?

http://www.freeservers.com/
I can't believe that I have a web site still, wow.
I'll have to see if I can find the others I practiced building them at several different ones and different ways.
It appears to be a good way to use and store text and photos on remote servers. I must have five or so and it's been 5 years.

Here’s the link.
http://dowsingforgold.freeservers.com/

 

[EHocking]

Something like a spring balance : http://www.scales-r-us.com/images/ab...model-16-l.jpg . for the test we could mark with paint/highlight, 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, etc ounces on it and you would not require an assistant.

Yes that's a good one.

The other one is cool too.

They will have one of the JREF team members shadow me anyway.

One real good tell would be if I stood on a scale to see if I could affect it?

No it is not. too many variables and not indicative of your claim.

Please stick to one claim at a time.

I will only be working on your claim that you can dowse one target from 10 choices, 70% of the time.

Please stop derailing your OWN protocol thread.

 

[edge]

[derail]
It's for me not the test but after sleeping on it It should prove to be true also.
Just more insentive in a positive manner.

Hey do you guys know if I can run two seperate windows on two different drivers, drive c and drive e.
Millinnium and XP.
The XP would be strickly for the camcorder moives.
I would'nt have to crash the whole thing. [/derail]