Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[Jackalgirl]

can't believe you don't get it, what poor memories.
The bucket will double blind each of the 10 canisters.
Some one has to know which of the 10 cans has the target or else how would they be able to record on paper which canister I chose and which has passed on the spot???
You say if I see the numbers I'll some how see a pattern???

Edge, "double-blind" does not mean that the target (or dummy) is covered by two layers of obscuring material. It means that neither you NOR the people setting up the scene for you can have any inkling as to where the actual target is.

Therefore, a bucket is completely unnecessary. There is NO NEED for a bucket if:

1) The team that places the container has no way of knowing whether it contains the target or a dummy
2) You have no way of knowing whether the container contains the target or a dummy (other than, of course, by dowsing).

This requires that a third team be the one to prepare the container, by placing the target in one container and the dummies in the other 9, OUT OF SIGHT OF YOU AND THE PLACING TEAM.

It also requires that you not be present while the containers are being placed, and that the placing team not be present while you are doing your dowsing. Of course, once the preparation team is done preparing the canisters, they can't see anything else that goes on either. There can be no form of, or possibility of, communication between the teams other than the ability for each team to let the others know that they're done with whatever their task is. NO ONE can know the results of any attempt, or all attempts, until the very end, when the records are compared.

In other words, because both the people who set up the container are "blind" to whether the container actually has the target in it, and because you are "blind" as to whether it contains the target (at least, until you do your thing with the dowsing), the test is "double-blind".

...When the target appears on the one spot and then is removed It will still read like the metals there for a few minutes.
It will then return to the original readings by the scale which will be less readings by the scale than when the target is there.
There is no confusion in the readings for the rest of the empties in that set of ten.

You will need to figure out what an appropriate time is for the reading to return to its "background" value after the target metal has been removed, and then wait that amount of time between EACH and EVERY dowsing attempt. Otherwise, again, it simply amounts to you stopping the attempt set once you've selected what you think is the target.

I'm rescanning an empty area, targets, people, then I leave, they then continue.

I still do not understand this sentence. If the area is empty, how can you be scanning targets? If the area is empty, how can you be scanning people? Why do you want to scan people? Who is "they", in this sentence, and what are they continuing?

I am guessing that by the rest of your quote, this is what you are saying:

"When I am sure I have a hit, I will assume the other containers contain the dummies and will be quick with them, since I'll assume I've already found the target."

Which is fine, if that's how you want to handle it. But -- and this is critically important to the fairness of the test -- you have to treat every attempt (in terms of the steps you take) the same as every other attempt. Which means that if you have to wait x minutes after finding the true target for that target's "background interference" to fade from the area before a new container is brought online, you are going to need to wait x minutes after every attempt.

It is up to them to double blind the target or not.

See above. Once again, "double blind" doesn't mean "double-wrap".

 

[SezMe]

When the target appears on the one spot and then is removed It will still read like the metals there for a few minutes.

What? WHAT?? WHAT????

This is an ENTIRELY new assertion by you, edge. It completely invalidates the demonstration we did at Coffee Creek. It says each of our tests was not independent of the previous one.

And it completely invalidates the explanations you have previously given for your dowsing capabilities.

And it introduces a complication into the test protocol that is almost impossible to overcome. The reading persists "for a few minutes"???? What does that mean? 2 minutes? 3? 4.451? It gives you a perfect out, namely, that the hysteresis between each trial screwed up your reading.

It seems to me that we are reduced to two options.

One, you agree that the target is one (like the 5 ounces of silver that I have offered to buy) that leaves NO ambiguity as to the response.

Two, you go eff off.

Sorry to be so blunt, edge, but it really comes down to that. Everything else is game playing. Which is it?

Yeah, yeah, those of you who have been saying this whole dance has been a waste from the git-go and that I've a sucker might be right. So sue me.

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

I don't know how you all stick with it. I can barely understand edge when he writes - it's like a stream of semi-consiousness with poor spelling, no concept of grammar or punctuation. My hat is off to you all.

Edge - You really have to work on your writing skills.

And did you REALLY think that "double-blind" meant "double-wrapped"?

 

[colin]

Even if Edge doesn’t understand the double-blinding of the containers at the moment, I think the real deal killer is going to be the time issue. One container at a time (of 100!), pause between each, occasional testing with no container, lots of walking back and forth, and all the while keeping an eye out that everyone is where they should be when containers are placed… I’m fatigued just thinking about it! I can’t see it physically being done in eight hours. Certainly, the whole thing would be very rushed which may lead to mistakes being made.

Edge, did you say limestone was good, neutral ground for you? Quarries tend to be large places. Would a limestone quarry give you enough space to put down ten containers at once and perform a test similar to your last JREF test? Not only would that speed the test along, it would make it a bit simpler too.
Oh, and I see there’s lots of limestone quarries in Florida where the JREF is headquartered. http://www.cagenweb.com/quarries/states/fl-photos_1.html
(hint, hint)

 

[edge]

Can you bring your own target metal? Will it matter that we switch what cannister the target metal is in? As in the cannister positions might be absolute and unchanging, and we would physically take out the target metal and put it in another cannister. Would it leave behind any kind of residue that might throw everything off?

If we are doing this outside, we would need to fill the cannisters partially with sand to ensure the empty ones didn't blow away. They would all have the same amount of sand, making them equal weight, but if the target metal was inside a cannister (with the sand) that one would indeed weigh more.

Still workable?

This is why, a bucket would do two things.
Sand would screw things up, I would be thrown off.
4 or 5 onces in a small coffee can would be noticable on grass, lets say in a park.
It would compress the grass and give me a visual cue.
In a larger bucket the weight would be spread out and the wind wouldn't effect it.

 

[edge]

Rule #05a: Introduce a new twist to your claim which renders the previous protocol negotiations virtually useless. But don't forget Rule

No it does not.
I know what i'm doing.

Paul says,

Well SezMe, you are learning, as we all are. There was nothing wrong with your trusting of edge. You have learned much, and this lesson was worth it for you. We all at some time don’t see the forest for the trees. I don't, for one, think you where a sucker.

SezMe got to witness something that you haven't...

Look at this agian,

 

[edge]

Number 8 and 9.
If SezMe took the target after 8 moved it, and then put it back, then there was a distortion.
This happened here whether SezMe did this or not it was unknown to me if he just left it or went through the procedure of walking it back in to the cabin and back out.
But it happened with Dan and I “especially” after the target was moved and then an empty was put on the one spot.
The way around this was to wait just a little longer and I then got the correct responses.
I should have got all of them right in SezMes test.

Lets say the metal appears on the 10th try and then on the next set, on the 1st. try.
Understand?
Or if the metal appears on the 10th and the first of the next set it’s empty, I would miss.
I'm doing this to win not lose.

 

[colin]

You're new here.............

We have been going on and on about this BS for over a year on one thread or another.

Paul

Actually, I’m not new. Although admittedly I’ve only begun posting recently, I’ve been a lurker here for longer than you’ve been here, and I’m well aware of the lack (the very frustrating lack) of follow-through on the part of people making extraordinary claims.
However, Edge has one thing going for him: he has been tested in the past. I think redoing the first test in a large area that is good for him (limestone quarry) would stop a lot of the confusion.

Will he test again? I don’t know, but he has in the past and has an accepted application (which has a time limit) in now. Only time will tell.

 

[Paulhoff]

I think redoing the first test in a large area that is good for him (limestone quarry) would stop a lot of the confusion.

The point is that he says out on the field he has no problem, and on the field you dont' get to choose the bedrock, he is just looking for a way out when he fails.

Paul

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Presents our Top 20 Logical Fallacies

11. The Moving Goalpost A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.

 

[SezMe]

Sand would screw things up, I would be thrown off.

Now sand affects your dowsing capability. That's rich considering that underneath the porch we did our little demo was...........sand.

edge is building up an impenetrable wall of potential excuses should he fail again. Were I Randi, I'd step in and call the whole thing off.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Now sand affects your dowsing capability. That's rich considering that underneath the porch we did our little demo was...........sand.

edge is building up an impenetrable wall of potential excuses should he fail again. Were I Randi, I'd step in and call the whole thing off.

Which would be exactly what edge tries to provoke. He knows he has only chance to succeed in a controlled test.

No, we will remain patient, SezMe.
Sooner or later, edge's claims will self-destruct.
When he and the JREF can't agree upon a protocol within one year after his application got accepted: "Game Over".

It is upon the JREF and to a lesser extent upon the JREF Forum members to ensure every possibility of devising a protocol has been explored. So far, it seems we're on a good track.

It has been long ago that this thread has evolved into a who-will-outlast-who contest with the JREF Prize not really being the stake anymore.



Does anyone really wonder why no fellow dowsers have emerged to take edge's side?

Does anyone have any doubt that edge is absolutely incapable/unwilling to devise a controlled test for his alleged ability which would net him 1,000,000 George Washingtons?

 

[colin]

The point is that he says out on the field he has no problem, and on the field you dont' get to choose the bedrock, he is just looking for a way out when he fails.

Paul

Yes, that’s one of the few things that he’s said that I understood, and I agree that dowsing is practically useless if its effect is essentially immeasurable and that most claimants just talk and talk and talk and talk ad nauseum.
However, Edge has tested in the past, has an approved application, and the JREF is working to get an agreeable protocol (and I pity those poor, hard working fools ).

Don’t get me wrong. I too made some snide, dismissive comments earlier in the thread because I felt (and still feel mostly) that the poor dead horse has been beaten way too much already. But if the JREF is still taking it seriously, why not help try to find a solution?

The one container at a time, I think, is a nightmare. I think the easiest solution is to repeat the first test in an area that Edge says is free of interference i.e.: minerals, gold colored paint, sand, automobiles, … wait… actually, cars weren’t a problem for some reason.
Anyhow, if the front porch of a cabin was sufficient for Edge not too long ago, a large limestone quarry should be awesome now!

What do you think Edge? Repeat the protocol that you’ve already done (ten containers at the same time, all spread out, only one with a target) in a limestone quarry in Florida?

 

[Paulhoff]

But if the JREF is still taking it seriously, why not help try to find a solution?

I do not in anyway speak for JREF.

It is my understanding that JREF is only taking edge seriously because he had put in for the test before the rules were changed for the challenge. It is also my understanding that one of the many reasons that JREF has changed the rules is because of the time spent on test like this one only support the misconception that there is something to test and only give it false credit.

I once again do not speak for JREF.

Paul

 

[edge]

Now sand affects your dowsing capability. That's rich considering that underneath the porch we did our little demo was...........sand.

edge is building up an impenetrable wall of potential excuses should he fail again. Were I Randi, I'd step in and call the whole thing off.

Yes what's in the ground is one thing, but you want to add to the problem, then all the containers will have different base lines, that would really slow me down and I would have to keep track of every base line.
If they want no Movement of the 11 once containers because of wind then put them, one at a time in a

bigger five gallon bucket, there problem solved.

GzuzKryzt say,

Edge has made 300+ posts in this 1700+ post thread.

Having applied to win the JREF Prize, this thread mirrors edge's efforts to devise a protocol for a controlled test of his claimed abilities.


It is a document of failure.

All I'm doing is eliminating any possibility of failure, according to the tests I have run..

All I know is the protocol I have now, as I stated, works for me.
The limestone quarry is a theory that needs testing and I am open to that.
The funding has to come from me to do all this.
I doubt that they want to go to a quarry right at this time of year, so there’s time.
I doubt that they want to do it anywhere out side right now.

Besides I have to earn the money to have the right to test 4000 miles from where I now reside.

My thermometer on my truck is reading 118 degrees.
I am willing to do the test in quarry, which might happen on the way to Florida at Trickys location, to test the theory.
Then we, if successful could do the scans with all the containers on the ground for each set of ten.
I can, however right now, run the test my way anywhere.

Paul utters,

11. The Moving Goalpost A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.

Bullspit.
This is the way that works right now. I have tested their way, and the way I have tested is way more fool proof.
It still is within the parameters of the test, the way the test was run before, I had to scan each and every target, empty or full.
All I did was to figure out why I failed before and fixed it, and now you still want me to take it the same way as before, why would I want to do that?

All they have to do is agree to these conditions.
I scan on one spot.
Nine empty, and one with the target, in a ten-container pass,
(The same way it was done before), one that will hold, the target and 9 without, empty.

When the target is there according to me, we take a break.
When the ten of a set has passed, I say where the target is.
One person, of my choosing to be on their side.

I don't think I'm asking for much.
The rest is up to them I have enough to think about.
No

Sand

rubber or plastic.
I’m even willing to do it near their office.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Yes what's in the ground is one thing, but you want to add to the problem, then all the containers will have different base lines, that would really slow me down and I would have to keep track of every base line.

I do not understand this statement. What do you mean, "all the containers will have different base lines"? Are you saying that your dowsing rod is so sensitive that the "base lines" of ten identical PLASTIC containers will cause a problem?

If they want no Movement of the 11 once containers because of wind then put them, one at a time in a

bigger five gallon bucket, there problem solved.

Will this bucket be made out of plastic? I ask because:

I don't think I'm asking for much.
The rest is up to them I have enough to think about.
No

Sand

rubber or plastic.
I’m even willing to do it near their office.

(Bolding mine.)

So if NOW there can't be any PLASTIC involved, that leaves...what? A metal bucket? Won't that interfere more? A stone bucket? A wooden bucket? What about the Folgers containers? You were the one to initially specify that they would be the Folgers containers made out of plastic. This is a problem now?

Edited to add: Oh, by the way, you never answered one of my other questions:

I'm rescanning an empty area, targets, people, then I leave, they then continue.

I still do not understand this sentence. If the area is empty, how can you be scanning targets? If the area is empty, how can you be scanning people? Why do you want to scan people? Who is "they", in this sentence, and what are they continuing?

 

[SezMe]

bigger five gallon bucket, there problem solved.

What, we now have cannisters in containers in buckets. Get Tricky to be involved and maybe he can bring 10 oil drums to put the buckets in. There. Cannisters in containers in buckets in drums. Quadruple-blind. Can we have a, er, drum-roll please?

Besides I have to earn the money to have the right to test 4000 miles from where I now reside.

edge, this is nonsense. A well designed protocol will allow you to conduct the test anywhere. Period. You may have some reason to go to Florida but which is fine but doing so just to get the right test conditions does not make sense.

edge, you have never responded to my offer to buy enough silver so that your rod dips to vertical almost instantly. That completely eliminates all issues regarding background noise. Why won't you agree to use silver as the target?

 

[edge]

SezMe asks

Originally Posted by edge
Besides I have to earn the money to have the right to test 4000 miles from where I now reside.
edge, this is nonsense. A well designed protocol will allow you to conduct the test anywhere. Period. You may have some reason to go to Florida but which is fine but doing so just to get the right test conditions does not make sense.

edge, you have never responded to my offer to buy enough silver so that your rod dips to vertical almost instantly. That completely eliminates all issues regarding background noise. Why won't you agree to use silver as the target?

Me, I never said I wouldn’t.

Who’s going to pay for the JREf members/volunteers expenses to come here?
I don’t know if a date is set that I can.
I may be able to cover their stay, and that’s not set in stone either.

Get 5 ounces.

If they want a placebo in all the empties then Lime would work in bags so that the weight matches the target.
It can be bought at Ace for about $5.00 a 5 pound bag then distribute it evenly and place it in 9 plastic bags, then 9-containers.
This way it can be switched out when the target is switched out easily.
It’s compact and dense.
I will get to see the containers this way.
Unless you use the one and only 5 gallon bucket that would be needed for the test to insure that I can’t use probabilities from the numbered containers., which some one has brought up.

JackalGirl says,

I do not understand this statement. What do you mean, "all the containers will have different base lines"? Are you saying that your dowsing rod is so sensitive that the "base lines" of ten identical PLASTIC containers will cause a problem?

Only if they have sand in them.
There are different types of sand.
For instance the kind that comes from the Great Lakes would contain Iron, more orange.
There’s white there’s yellow some contain quartz.
Quartz is associated with gold and piezoelectric qualities.
I have enough to deal with looking for the perfect piece of ground.
Why would I need to be confused by supposedly empty containers with sand?

Jacalgirl asks,

I do not understand this statement. What do you mean, "all the containers will have different base lines"?

If you use sand in them they will.

Are you saying that your dowsing rod is so sensitive that the "base lines" of ten identical PLASTIC containers will cause a problem?

Not if they are all the same and they are empty.

I figured you remember things so let me clarify,

Originally Posted by edge
I don't think I'm asking for much.
The rest is up to them I have enough to think about.
No sand
Only rubber or plastic, lime will work.
For a placebo.
I’m even willing to do it near their office.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Edge, you need to understand that your consistent non-use of punctuation is completely confusing to the rest of us. In the message to which I replied, you said:

The rest is up to them I have enough to think about.
No
Sand
rubber or plastic.

To me, reading, this comes across as "No sand, rubber or plastic" -- If you mean "No sand -- only rubber or plastic", then that is what you need to say -- leaving out "only" has a dramatic effect on the meaning of the sentence, do you see? Using the [Return] key is not a way to express a pause or the end of a sentence (use the comma for the former, and the period for the latter).

It matters only slightly that you said, earlier, "only rubber or plastic, lime will work", because you have actually changed what you've required and what you need on occassion.

Please, PLEASE learn to use the period at the end of all of your sentences. Please, PLEASE learn to use COMPLETE sentences. This kind of confusion is only slowing things down immeasurably.

Okay, back on topic. You say that lime will do for "a placebo", which I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) means the same thing as "a dummy".

So, if all of your containers are partially filled with lime (to weigh them down), and contain either the target material (4+ oz of silver, right?) or a dummy material (4+ oz of lead, right?), then that should not only give you an adequate reading, but should not interfere with your detection of the target vice the dummy. Correct? This will resolve the problem of how to weigh down the canisters with something that is not sand, yes?

Remember: it's important that the steps of each attempt be the same. Therefore, if you have to wait x minutes after detecting what you think is the target, you're going to have to wait x minutes after each and every attempt. This is going to slow things down. Once again, this situation really calls for some kind of test setup that enables you to address all 10 canisters at once, rather than one-by-one. If, as SezMe has suggested, the target material is present in enough quantity as to provide a very distinct and unmistakable response, this should work, right? Then you'd only have to wait x minutes until the next set of 10 containers, which will allow you to get through all 10 sets within a reasonable amount of time.

I cannot see, in any way, you managing to keep the test down to 8 hours doing it the one-canister-at-a-time route, unless JREF agrees to let you stop an attempt set once you've found what you think is the target.

You still have not answered my other question:

I'm rescanning an empty area, targets, people, then I leave, they then continue.

I still do not understand this sentence. If the area is empty, how can you be scanning targets? If the area is empty, how can you be scanning people? Why do you want to scan people? Who is "they", in this sentence, and what are they continuing?

 

[SezMe]

edge, you have over 750 posts here so I assume you know how to use the quote tool. Would you please use it so it is easy for all of us to follow the conversation. Thanks.

Me, I never said I wouldn’t.

Great...er, I think. But did you ever say you would? Please send an email to RemieV that includes something like the following:

1 The target will be five (5) ounces of silver to be provided by SezMe.
2. When I dowse for this target, my dowsing rod will drop to a vertical position in less than three seconds.
3. When I dowse for ANY other target that does not contain five ounces of silver or (...exceptions to be provided by edge) then my dowsing rod will exhibit no reaction.

Again, the exact wording is up to you but I think (hope?) you get the importance of what I am asking for.

Who’s going to pay for the JREf members/volunteers expenses to come here?

Not an issue. I will come at my own expense. I think Tricky has made the same statement (correct me if I am wrong, Tricky).

Get 5 ounces.

Get real.

I hereby state that I will purchase 5 ounces of silver within seven (7) working days from the date that RemieV states that edge and JREF have formally accepted a dowsing test protocol that uses 5 ounces of silver as the ONLY target to be used in the testing protocol.

The remainder of your post is too incoherent for me to understand and respond to. Sorry, edge.

 

[nathan]

Sand would screw things up, I would be thrown off.

Am I to understand that your dowsing:

1) IS NOT thrown off by sand in river beds and aluvium, so that you CAN detect minute amounts of gold in that environment (with the gold intermixed with the aluvium)

2) IS NOT thrown off by sand underneath a container holding a 5oz silver target or non-target

3) IS thrown off by sand being in the same container as a 5oz silver target or non-target

What is so different about situation #3?