Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[Oualawouzou]

You know, with the amount of crucial development and tuning your dowsing has reportedly undergone in the last year alone... At which point in the past was it useless?

I mean, we're not talking about mere fine tuning or slight changes to improve an already well established method... You keep reporting changes that are absolutely crucial to successful dowsing. Before you put whatever type of metal on the rod, before you used the scales, before you determined there are "ghost readings", before you got wary of all "contaminating" metals and magnetic fields, etc., what use what your dowsing? Yet, what kind of success were you convinced to achieve back then?

In two years from now, once you will have piled up a few more crucial discoveries, and you'll look back to your present claims of success, what will you think?

 

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

Edge: I've been spending a conciderable amount of time testing dowsing myself. I'm currently at the point where the energy that sticks to the paper I use for blinding is bothering me because it retains memory. At this point I'm starting to wonder if I can actually do it. Just saying, you're probably going to end up at little annoying things like this as well.

Now this leads to an unpleasant thought. If the disturbances ruining your tests are so small, how can you have success in the field so easilly?

I hope you could answer this one since it's nagging at my brain too.

 

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

I mean, we're not talking about mere fine tuning or slight changes to improve an already well established method... You keep reporting changes that are absolutely crucial to successful dowsing. Before you put whatever type of metal on the rod, before you used the scales, before you determined there are "ghost readings", before you got wary of all "contaminating" metals and magnetic fields, etc., what use what your dowsing? Yet, what kind of success were you convinced to achieve back then?

Hmm you've summarized my problem here quite well. I'm starting to wonder when it's time to call it quits.

 

[EHocking]

I was there when it was being recorded, we all of us. I remember just fine as I seen the look in James’ eyes, it was the first pick that I made that was correct.

From Randi's Commentary.

"Mr. G. and I stepped out of the library area, and two other persons randomly (by choosing a face-down card, as before) placed the target package in position, then they left the area and informed us that the target was in place. Mike and I re-entered, alone, and he made his determination while I watched carefully to be sure that he did not nudge any cups, or otherwise attempt to use any means but the movements of his forked stick, to make his guess; at no time was any such procedure observed."

Neither you nor Randi knew which cup had the target in it.

Or are you claiming otherwise?

"After Mike made his guess on each trial, the other two persons were invited back in, and we recorded the results."

Are you claiming that this indicates that both Randi and you were told between each trial whether you had been successful on the preceding trial?

But once again it doesn’t matter except the time but I may get 6 out of ten which means something is occurring.

Yes - random chance.

But that doesn’t win the million does it?

No.
Results expected by random chance would not win the $MM.

 

[edge]

How about carrying out the whole experiment in a cage of fine conducting (iron, copper etc) mesh? This should stop all electromagnetic waves with wavelengths longer than the diameter of a mesh hole, and cancel out any static electric field. This will leave you with only static magnetic fields to deal with.

I have no Idea of what that will do but I can find a sufficient place out side when reading the scales.
It would make for a good experiment and I have seen these in the places I have been to in Florida at,{Trying to think},,,Highly classified place I was delivering a classified computer.
I delivered several of these and one was at the Cape for the Delta rocket.
I really shouldn’t divulge any information about this.
There should be some kind of change in how dowsing works in one of those, what it would be though is unknown at this time.

Originally Posted by Kenny 10 Bellys
I'm sorry, but I'm once again unable to follow the semi-literate ramblings of Edge. Can someone sum up for me what the hell he means in that last post?

It wasn’t directed at you EHocking and again what's your vested interest, what business are you in?
The Bullspit was though.
I thought I would be nice and take that out.

 

[edge]

Are you claiming that this indicates that both Randi and you were told between each trial whether you had been successful on the preceding trial?

That's why I said that I would not like to know in an earlier post some where.
It really doesn't matter once I choose.

Neither you nor Randi knew which cup had the target in it.

This is correct.

 

[edge]

Yes - random chance.
Quote:
When the test procedure was double-blinded, he obtained exactly what chance alone would call for: one out of ten correct.

 

[edge]

You know, with the amount of crucial development and tuning your dowsing has reportedly undergone in the last year alone... At which point in the past was it useless?

I mean, we're not talking about mere fine tuning or slight changes to improve an already well established method... You keep reporting changes that are absolutely crucial to successful dowsing. Before you put whatever type of metal on the rod, before you used the scales, before you determined there are "ghost readings", before you got wary of all "contaminating" metals and magnetic fields, etc., what use what your dowsing? Yet, what kind of success were you convinced to achieve back then?

In two years from now, once you will have piled up a few more crucial discoveries, and you'll look back to your present claims of success, what will you think?

It doesn't change when you go to ground that hasn't been messed with; these things that I have learned are for the test only.
Only because the target is in a contaminated spot not neutral and the target of metals is being moved on and off an area or a single spot.

On the creek it's much quicker I can scan an area and know with in a couple of minutes what to do.
This was also what a friend of mine that I taught does as I watched him dowse the other day.
The test is grueling.
The success in the field is extremely high.
Last year 11 out of 11 correct for the gold and 8 out of ten for nothing bad spots as I checked my self..

 

[IXP]

Conditions for a blind test are that the person being tested is not given feedback on his success during the test.

In a DOUBLE blind test NO ONE knows where the target is until revealed at the end of the entire test.

Except that this is not one test, it is ten separate INDEPENDENT tests, each of which is double-blinded. Whether or not anyone knows the result of a previous test before the next test starts is completely irrelevant. It has no effect on the probabilities of passing the test. If the applicant requires that he knows the results of each of the trials after he completes it, it should not be a problem.

As far as the testers knowing the results of the 10 trials before they are all complete, check out this line from the description of Edge's first test:

Following the "open" sequence, for each of the "blind" tests, Mr. G. and I stepped out of the library area, and two other persons randomly (by choosing a face-down card, as before) placed the target package in position, then they left the area and informed us that the target was in place. Mike and I re-entered, alone, and he made his determination while I watched carefully to be sure that he did not nudge any cups, or otherwise attempt to use any means but the movements of his forked stick, to make his guess; at no time was any such procedure observed. After Mike made his guess on each trial, the other two persons were invited back in, and we recorded the results. That procedure was repeated ten times.

Note the sections that I have bolded.

It is not clear whether Edge and Randi knew the results after each test, but, by this description, the randomizers certainly did.

IXP

 

[edge]

IXP says,

It is not clear whether Edge and Randi knew the results after each test, but, by this description, the randomizers certainly did.

Exactly right how could they not, since they have a new draw for a new spot or container on each set of ten tries.
Once I pick it's over, even in the office I could do that!
Yes we did know it was over in that set of ten sets.
It wouldn't matter even if they randomized the containers passing on one spot.
My pick is my pick and that round should be over.
This is For speed.]
Their smart enough, they know.

 

[SezMe]

Now I know what the flaws were, all metals and magnetic fields are picked up.

Then how come your dowsing rod did not react when you held it only a foot or so above my car which is a lump of about 1 ton of metal?

 

[EHocking]

Except that this is not one test, it is ten separate INDEPENDENT tests, each of which is double-blinded. Whether or not anyone knows the result of a previous test before the next test starts is completely irrelevant. It has no effect on the probabilities of passing the test. If the applicant requires that he knows the results of each of the trials after he completes it, it should not be a problem.

Yes. I agree with you on that point.

But edge is not proposing that THIS test is conducted in that manner.
Instead of having 10 cups to choose from, edge wants to dowse each one, one at a time AND, if he selects one as the target not dowse the remaining targets.

That is not ten separate independent tests. It is ten partial tests, with a clear indication of which canister is being chosen each time.

As far as the testers knowing the results of the 10 trials before they are all complete, check out this line from the description of Edge's first test:

{quote missing}
Note the sections that I have bolded.

It is not clear whether Edge and Randi knew the results after each test, but, by this description, the randomizers certainly did.

IXP

Well, I don't think it is *certain*, but that is certainly a possibility.

My argument though on THIS test is that it WILL be certain that one or more of the people conducting the test will have knowledge of the result before the end of the test.

Considering that we're still debating the conditions of the FIRST, it is very much in the interest of JREF (and frankly dowsing sceptics) that this test does not have these uncertainties.

That really was my only point.

 

[SezMe]

Oh, and Edge, he meant that if he replaced the nickle with a chocolate one you'd still go out and claim to find metals, you'd never notice that your magic stick had defaulted to it's water magic setting. Try that for a laugh, get someone to alter it and see if your made-up rules work.

Yes, that is what I meant.

Wouldn’t he find chocolate now? Lost Halloween candy perhaps?

Now that's funny. What would edge use if he wanted to dowse for a date? Oops, he's married so assume that he is dowsing for a date for his brother, Danny.

 

[EHocking]

IIt wasn’t directed at you EHocking and again what's your vested interest, what business are you in?

Since you cannot be bothered to read the post, I will repeat it for you.

I have a personal vested interest in this being under bullet-proof double-blind conditions.

Dowsing doesn't work and this would be yet another data point to support my position on dowsing

The Bullspit was though.
I thought I would be nice and take that out.

As with most things - it's the thought that counts...

 

[IXP]

Yes. I agree with you on that point.

But edge is not proposing that THIS test is conducted in that manner.
Instead of having 10 cups to choose from, edge wants to dowse each one, one at a time AND, if he selects one as the target not dowse the remaining targets.

That is not ten separate independent tests. It is ten partial tests, with a clear indication of which canister is being chosen each time.
Well, I don't think it is *certain*, but that is certainly a possibility.

My argument though on THIS test is that it WILL be certain that one or more of the people conducting the test will have knowledge of the result before the end of the test.

Considering that we're still debating the conditions of the FIRST, it is very much in the interest of JREF (and frankly dowsing sceptics) that this test does not have these uncertainties.

That really was my only point.

In this new protocol, each series of 10 containers is one test and each of those tests must be double-blind until it is over. Stopping early because Edge thinks he as identified the target ends that test. At that point any and all participants can learn the result of that test without it affecting the overall challenge.

I am not suggesting that we lift up the container after Edge says no. That would be a violation.

BTW, on second reading of Randi's description I think they did all know whether Edge was correct or not after each test. He states that the result was recorded, not that Edge's pick was recorded, and there is no mention of checking the results after the ten tests. If you took the bar exam would the result of the test be 1: c, 2: d, 3:a ... or would it be pass / fail? It sounds to me like they recorded pass / fail after each test.

IXP

 

[edge]

Then how come your dowsing rod did not react when you held it only a foot or so above my car which is a lump of about 1 ton of metal?

First off I told you I did.
If I stood their long enough it would have, remember you were pressed for time I only had a few minutes to check the creek,.
Do you think I should have wasted my time on your car or learn about the creek, you own the car!
By me going to the creek I was figuring out a scenario of probabilities on which I could support a test there, where my test site would suit me, covering some of the expenses that I would incur to bring out the JREF team to that site which was comfortable for both purposes.
Second It's mostly iron so the reaction is less than the heavier elements, be it that the load that was concentrated in the area of the creek that we went to was the heavy spot of the area, it was unmistakably noticeable something I’m looking for, not your car.
Which we will see if I'm right about, won't we.
Why do you think I talked with the owner after we parted company?
I’m going to have to do a couple of films on what this all is about.
While we are waiting for responses from the JREF.
This way you can see why this is to your advantage but really I’m more interested in the reaction being that little power is put in for way more work out, in an electrical manner, dealing with gravity.

What I’m really feeling is little dents in the field when it’s gold or other metals..
Some how there is a connection to the field, to the dent together.
The connection is in the form of electrical.
Imagine being able to feel the entire field of the Earth.
Then getting a work force out of it in electrical form through a machine and what could it do in other forms of machinary?

GzuzKryzt what's the point, if we can't have some fun.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

First off I told you I did.
If I stood their long enough it would have, remember you were pressed for time I only had a few minutes to check the creek,.
Do you think I should have wasted my time on your car or learn about the creek, you own the car!
By me going to the creek I was figuring out a scenario of probabilities on which I could support a test there, where my test site would suit me, covering some of the expenses that I would incur to bring out the JREF team to that site which was comfortable for both purposes.
Second It's mostly iron so the reaction is less than the heavier elements, be it that the load that was concentrated in the area of the creek that we went to was the heavy spot of the area, it was unmistakably noticeable something I’m looking for, not your car.
Which we will see if I'm right about, won't we.
Why do you think I talked with the owner after we parted company?
I’m going to have to do a couple of films on what this all is about.
While we are waiting for responses from the JREF.
This way you can see why this is to your advantage but really I’m more interested in the reaction being that little power is put in for way more work out, in an electrical manner, dealing with gravity.

What I’m really feeling is little dents in the field when it’s gold or other metals..
Some how there is a connection to the field, to the dent together.
The connection is in the form of electrical.
Imagine being able to feel the entire field of the Earth.
Then getting a work force out of it in electrical form through a machine and what could it do in other forms of machinary?

GzuzKryzt what's the point, if we can't have some fun.

I'd say the point is to secure an acceptable protocol for a set of two tests that will net you USD 1,000,000 (along with other perks like e.g. notable attention of the community, a chance to work with highly-regarded specialists/scientists, contract offers galore, prime time TV exposure, iconic status, etc.) because you simply have to do what you claim to be able to do for decades in the field.

But that's just moi.

 

[EHocking]

In this new protocol, each series of 10 containers is one test and each of those tests must be double-blind until it is over. Stopping early because Edge thinks he as identified the target ends that test. At that point any and all participants can learn the result of that test without it affecting the overall challenge.

I am not suggesting that we lift up the container after Edge says no. That would be a violation.

BTW, on second reading of Randi's description I think they did all know whether Edge was correct or not after each test. He states that the result was recorded, not that Edge's pick was recorded, and there is no mention of checking the results after the ten tests. If you took the bar exam would the result of the test be 1: c, 2: d, 3:a ... or would it be pass / fail? It sounds to me like they recorded pass / fail after each test.

IXP

OK, OK I concede already!!

And yes, for the record, I AM being quite pedantic about the whole double blind thing.

But part of my job for the past 20 odd years has bee collection, collation and analysis of data for multi-milion £ projects. The fallout of getting the numbers or the process wrong can be quite expensive, not just in cash, but also in reputation and integrity.

Look at the discussion we've just been having about the LAST Challenge.

I'm too old to be still discussing THIS one 5 years later

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Don't forget the bragging rights, edge.

Also, don't forget the TV interviews: You could hang any of your fish tales on any interviewer. You'd be the big kahuna, they'd have to listen to you and pretend you're interesting. TV stations would be like the Sideshow Bob to your Grampa Simpson in the Simpsons episode "Brother From Another Series".

Bragging rights for life.

 

[edge]

Bragging rights for life.

At this point in our history it's not about that, but maybe some form of reusable energy that we can tap into.

If provable it would be up to you Geniuses to make something from this that's usable.

Imagine roads with power in them pulled from the field, separate from the vehicles.