Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[GzuzKryzt]

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.

Quality post, Spektator. Edge must not be allowed to pull off a scam. Please remember SezMe's mate's point of view.

...
5.5 What’s going on?
I will offer two distinct impressions of Mike (and Danny).
I conclude Mike really believes that he can dowse. Danny is most certainly a believer so that
ANY test that involves him must be rejected out of hand. Mike can, in a wink of an eye,
explain away any inconsistency and just plow ahead as if he is actually dowsing.
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?
...

(Not that I insinuate you would try to deceive, edge. Seriously, I don't.)

With Mr. Randi at the helm, however, a scam seems not really likely, does it?

 

[EHocking]

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.

One of the reasons that over 2 weeks ago I started in the fact that what edge was proposing was not double blind and why I proposed this back on the 21st (post 1377).

(apparently when I discuss double blinding, it's merely a reflection of my anal retentiveness)

 

[edge]

Remie,,Hiding the target in one of the containers, I get to see the containers.
Acually if they are so worried, then cover the contaner when on the one spot of my choosing, and in my scanning area, with a cardbord box also.

 

[edge]

edge, is your person going to be Danny?

Probably not, I’m thinking a friend who I haven’t seen and is a skeptic also.
Or who doesn’t know anything about what I’m doing till we get there.

 

[edge]

Jackelgirl says,

Materials:
One 11-ounce opaque plastic Folger's Coffee container.

I think you got it, except the JREF will want 10 contaniers, which I have.
They can even cover those up [one at a time on that one spot] if they want, as they pass on the one spot.

 

[Spektator]

One of the reasons that over 2 weeks ago I started in the fact that what edge was proposing was not double blind and why I proposed this back on the 21st (post 1377).

(apparently when I discuss double blinding, it's merely a reflection of my anal retentiveness)

Not to me--I honestly don't think any useful information could be produced by any dowsing test not double-blinded. Kudos for your suggestions, and I commend them to the attention of JREF.

And I honestly didn't mean to suggest that edge would intentionally cheat, either--however, as has been said before, it's possible for someone to mark a target-containing attempt even inadvertently, and for a dowser to pick up on subtle cues.

 

[edge]

Quote:
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:

They can be sealed contianers now because of the scales.
Not an issue.
The scales test is what it's based upon now.
The way SezMe and I did it was on a porch remember, new ways of testing that I did as we went along.



Good memory there. Problem is that edge changes his mind so often that *he's* probably forgotten that he said that.

No I remember everything, factors changed as I tested different ways till I got what I needed to at least get higher correct hits.
This is what happens as you keep testing different things.
Stay with the last experiment and protocol.

JREF will choose the way they select the container to hold the target.
To me it’s irrelevant.

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."

Correct.

I’m only there to find the metals not the empties….
But this time all the containers pass on one spot of my choosing.
So you [JREF] say I have to scan all of the containers.
That’s OK.
If you are worried about time then reconsider this way.
When the target shows up that set of ten is over, whenever I say the metals are there.
We then do the next set of ten with a new number picked by them for the metals to show up at, in that next set of ten containers.
In other words I only have to scan till I say it's there for each set of ten contaniers what ever that random choice was for the draw.
Right or wrong pick that I choose.

I believe they have made up their minds that all the containers need to be scaned.

Things you don't know are involved here.
The tricky part where I could lose or win.
What gravity does when you remove the target on and off many times.

 

[edge]

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?

The test and dowsing in the field are two different, lets say tests, and the rules of what I can do are different in each case.
Too much for you to know right now and for me to explane but if you read back there is an explanation that I give.

 

[edge]

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?

They are part of the A team which I have no contact with during the testing.
They need to physically see what occurs.
This is a physical type of test.

 

[edge]

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.

My person can watch at a distance while they place the targets on the spot and never get near the spot.

You better hope we don't use ESP!
Geez!

 

[Spektator]

FWIW, edge, I'm 100% sure you won't use esp.

 

[edge]

With Mr. Randi at the helm, however, a scam seems not really likely, does it?

The only way to scam is to read my partners mind.
If I could do that and achive the numbers then I'm testing for the wrong thing right?

 

[SezMe]

My concern is that after all of this is said and done, he'll suddenly remember the "grounding" issue and declare the test invalid.

I think this is a very valid point. The protocol needs to address the placement of the containers.

You are quite right - my estimate is 10 mins per canister - 1000mins minimum. Ridiculous.

EHocking is right - it is riduculous.

And, edge, you should object to this too. In our little demo, you were getting fatigued after 5 trials and we took a little break. Five. The protocol has to take this fatigue factor into account.

For others, I think edge's fatigue is real, for two reasons. First, as you can imagine, he grips the rod very tightly while dowsing. Of course, this soon wears on the hands. Secondly, if he uses the scale technique, he has to stand very still and rigid and not move his arms at all or else that is what will affect the scale reading.

In my opinion, there is no way edge can do 100 trials. No way. It might even lead to his using fatigue as an excuse. A good protocol for JREF and edge has to take this into account. Alternatively, the protocol should include an explicit statement that edge acknowledges that fatigue will not be a factor influencing his capabilities using the agreed upon protocol. But I'd rather that the protocol remove the fatigue issue entirely.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I think this is a very valid point. The protocol needs to address the placement of the containers.



EHocking is right - it is riduculous.

And, edge, you should object to this too. In our little demo, you were getting fatigued after 5 trials and we took a little break. Five. The protocol has to take this fatigue factor into account.

For others, I think edge's fatigue is real, for two reasons. First, as you can imagine, he grips the rod very tightly while dowsing. Of course, this soon wears on the hands. Secondly, if he uses the scale technique, he has to stand very still and rigid and not move his arms at all or else that is what will affect the scale reading.

In my opinion, there is no way edge can do 100 trials. No way. It might even lead to his using fatigue as an excuse. A good protocol for JREF and edge has to take this into account. Alternatively, the protocol should include an explicit statement that edge acknowledges that fatigue will not be a factor influencing his capabilities using the agreed upon protocol. But I'd rather that the protocol remove the fatigue issue entirely.

Quality post, SezMe.

(That's not fair, you guys keep saying all there is to say faster than me.)

 

[Jackalgirl]

...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.

Excellent, excellent point -- and I hope that JREF will do this.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Jackelgirl says,


I think you got it, except the JREF will want 10 contaniers, which I have.
They can even cover those up [one at a time on that one spot] if they want, as they pass on the one spot.

Edge, I think they want containers because they're still thinking that this will consist of ten runs, each run consisting of you figuring out which of 10 containers has the target in it. Or, at least, they did when they insisted on 10 containers. I could be wrong, though -- they might just be thinking that it's important to have additional containers to prevent trickery, since no one will know in advance which of the containers will actually end up with the target in it. Which is not a bad idea.

One important issue that EHocking and SezMe have brought up is the issue of fatigue. You do realize that running this trial of ten attempts = 1 set and 10 sets means that you will be making 100 separate dowsing attempts. If you get fatigued after five, this means you'll have to take 20 breaks. Are you going to be able to maintain the endurance to do all 100? And this isn't even taking into account that you definitely should (and will probably be required to) do one or more "calibration" runs (i.e., unblinded).

 

[edge]

Originally Posted by SezMe
I think this is a very valid point. The protocol needs to address the placement of the containers.



EHocking is right - it is riduculous.

And, edge, you should object to this too. In our little demo, you were getting fatigued after 5 trials and we took a little break. Five. The protocol has to take this fatigue factor into account.

For others, I think edge's fatigue is real, for two reasons. First, as you can imagine, he grips the rod very tightly while dowsing. Of course, this soon wears on the hands. Secondly, if he uses the scale technique, he has to stand very still and rigid and not move his arms at all or else that is what will affect the scale reading.

In my opinion, there is no way edge can do 100 trials. No way. It might even lead to his using fatigue as an excuse. A good protocol for JREF and edge has to take this into account. Alternatively, the protocol should include an explicit statement that edge acknowledges that fatigue will not be a factor influencing his capabilities using the agreed upon protocol. But I'd rather that the protocol remove the fatigue issue entirely.
Quality post, SezMe.

They are giving me ten minutes in-between each set of ten tries.
That's good.

Once I scan and find the target what I suggested was, to end that set of ten that would help.
But that probably won't happen and that would shorten up the test time.

Those two things together would help immensely. I might be able to do the whole test in one day.

When I did the test with SezMe I had already did, I believe 40 scans at the house.
I did many more days before that.

It was very fatiguing the first time in the office too with all of them on the ground at once.

That is why I said to be fair I should scan 30 a day for two days and then a 40 scan day for the last, but then time is involved.
They may see it that way once we begin the test and make that suggestion themselves to continue the next day.
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

I need a target that does what SezMe witnessed at the creek a quick hard response.
In this way there is no mistaking the response.
And that was at the end of the day.
That’s the kind of target I need to dig up and look at, and then factor in the many possibilities of why that happened according to weight and placement.
If it were a baseball size nugget then it would be cut and dry.
Many factors are involved.

I will do more experiments to find the solution to that problem.

The one solution is to control my scans of the rest of the empties when they come up to conserve energy, after I know the target has shown up or has passed the spot.
My first instinct is usually correct.


I guess it’s going to my problem because they don’t want to do it as a scientific research experiment really would, to take in all the factors.

One of the factors is that dowsing on the creek doesn’t take that long and is not very fatiguing, because I’m not fighting the resistance of the scale.
I can hold it looser than with the scales.

This is a big concern of mine also.

 

[Jackalgirl]

The test and dowsing in the field are two different, lets say tests, and the rules of what I can do are different in each case.
Too much for you to know right now and for me to explane but if you read back there is an explanation that I give.

Edge, I think you are missing the point of double-blind testing entirely.

The point to double-blind testing is to eliminate all other possibilities, leaving ONLY the possibilty you suspect as the reason for the effect you're observing. For example, you have been given MANY possibilities to explain what is really going on when you dowse -- e.g., the ideometer effect & subconscious cuing being the major ones. So the point of the double-blind test is to conclusively prove that it's NOT the ideometer effect, subconscious cuing, etc, going on -- the test is designed to work ONLY if what you claim (dowsing as its own ability) actually works.

The rules should NOT be different in each case -- they should be exactly the SAME. If the rules are different, then that means that something other than dowsing is going on in the field.

 

[Jackalgirl]

...I guess it’s going to my problem because they don’t want to do it as a scientific research experiment really would, to take in all the factors.

I'm sorry but this is an inaccurate statement of what scientific research does. The purpose of a double-blind test is to take in all of the factors, but eliminate any other possible explanation. That's why we keep asking (and asking and asking and asking) what might interefere, so that that can be controlled for and not be a factor in the test.

One of the factors is that dowsing on the creek doesn’t take that long and is not very fatiguing, because I’m not fighting the resistance of the scale.
I can hold it looser than with the scales.

This is a big concern of mine also.

I don't understand why you're fighting the resistance of the scale. If the effect is that pronounced, you shouldn't have to fight anything. In fact, fighting the scale would invalidate the subsequent reading, no?

 

[SezMe]

That is why I said to be fair I should scan 30 a day for two days and then a 40 scan day for the last, but then time is involved.
They may see it that way once we begin the test and make that suggestion themselves to continue the next day.
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

Everybody else would.

edge, once the protocol is established, that's it. No changes are allowed during the trial. That is why the fatigue factor has to be dealt with up front.