Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[GzuzKryzt]

A thought just struck me about the incoherency of Edge's postings. Is it possible that we're just data mining the bits that make some sense and ignoring all the rest? Isn't that what the bible-coder nutcases do?

I think edge deserves some leeway because he has performed a test back in 2002. That deserves some credit. (Decide for yourself if edge still has some.)

However, if the JREF would follow the requirements from the time edge's application got accepted, namely: for him to state how he intends to prove his claim in two paragraphs, I doubt we'd see this claim proceed to the testing stage.



Data mining is our bread and butter when faced with edge's edgeness.

I pretty much assume he's trying to provoke the JREF to cut the cord, so he can prance around claiming: "They were scared to test me again. I'm the real effing deal. Dowsing works but those effers refused to test me."

 

[edge]

:
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 container that will hold the target, and 9 containers without or, empty. Or if they prefer 9 containers with lime in them, as a dummies.

When the ten of a set has passed, I say where the target is. Then we take a break.
One person, of my choosing to be on their side, against me, and working for them.
I don't think I'm asking for much.

There!

If up until the test I can get the reaction that SezMe witnessed then we may save some time by placing the ten containers in one area.

That scenario will require more experiments and testing.

The only way possible to guarantee having a target that caused that reaction on that Creek is to mine that spot and use what is there, or to match it with silver, "size, quantity” but I would have to mine it to know for sure.
We are talking about two different metals silver and gold, maybe platinum.

How many ounces of silver are an unknown to me with out testing with silver of sufficient quantity. 5 ounces is a guess.

This part,
"When the target is there according to me, we take a break."

I'll take a risk and leave it out.
I know another way to deal with what happens.

Nathan don’t worry about it.
I'm not going to explain it to you I don't have the time.
I'm agreeing to lime.

Alright SezMe how long did it take to do that one test of 10 passes?

They already agreed to 8 hours.

 

[nathan]

Nathan don’t worry about it.
I'm not going to explain it to you I don't have the time.

Thanks for confirming that you do indeed claim 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

but that you don't have time to answer my question 'What is so different about situation #3?'

 

[Jackalgirl]

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?

Yes, what is different -- especially if the target contains so much of the metal that it supposedly causes an unequivocal response in the dowsing rod?

 

[Grimoire]

Thanks for confirming that you do indeed claim 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

but that you don't have time to answer my question 'What is so different about situation #3?'

Unfortunately, it is not up to us, the JREF, or anyone else to dictate the hows and whys someone's magical ability works. If edge says it won't work that way, then an alternative solution must be found that he finds acceptable. Demanding rational, logical explanations for clearly irrational, illogical claims just won't work. We can point out inconsistencies, but at the end of the day, it is solely up to edge to judge whether or not a protocol is free from interference.

 

[SezMe]

How many ounces of silver are an unknown to me with out testing with silver of sufficient quantity. 5 ounces is a guess.

Actually, edge, I applaud you for this attitude. I urge you to do some testing with various target quantities until you are confident that you know what amount will lead to the unambiguous effect we noticed at Coffee Creek.

But note this: Making that determination implies that you already have that amount of target material! Thus, you can provide the proven target for the test. Great! That eliminates one variable.

They already agreed to 8 hours.

No, up to 8 hours. If it can be done more efficiently, then it should be.

 

[Paulhoff]

We can point out inconsistencies, but at the end of the day, it is solely up to edge to judge whether or not a protocol is free from interference.

Sounds good, but after the protocol is free from interference and judge to be OK by edge, and after he fails again there will be interference claimed by edge.

Paul



All tested dowers do fail, and then claim some type of interference and he will be no defferant.

 

[edge]

Quote:
Alright SezMe how long did it take to do that one test of 10 passes?

I should'nt have put that other line under the one above.

Up to 8 hours for the whole test is what they said.

What about the one pass of ten?

 

[SezMe]

edge, I still enjoy interacting with you. Thanks for the response. However, two problems interfere with our (meaning not just you and I but you and the whole JREF community that is following this thread) clear communication.

First, learn to use the quote function. Is that too much to ask? It really helps all of us keep track of who said what to whom about what topic. I am sure you want to get to a good, solid protocol like all of the rest of us and using the forum's tools to facilitate good communications will get us to that goal sooner rather than later.

Second, please try to respond to individual issues one-at-a-time. Or as I said upthread, "focus". For example:

I should'nt have put that other line under the one above.

What the hell are you talking about?

What about the one pass of ten?

What the hell are you talking about?

edge, JREF and (unofficially) the forum posters who continue to contribute to your MDC cannot - and will not - get to an acceptable protocol unless you get your act together and make clear, unequivocal statements.

Thanks.

 

[nathan]

Unfortunately, it is not up to us, the JREF, or anyone else to dictate the hows and whys someone's magical ability works.

I was asking for clarification of his claim, and further asking about the apparent inconsistency in it. I'm glad Edge confirmed that I had understood his claim correctly. That allows us to move on and design a watertight protocol for it. I'm unsurprised he has 'insufficient time' to explain the apparent inconsistency

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Well, this thread now is officially the longest - and by far the most viewed - in this sub-forum. We did it. Applause all around. Great effort.



Now that we got this out of the way, edge, can you submit a protocol proposal which has the alleged interferences under control? I.e., can you do what you're supposed to do?

You have a million reasons.



(I will repeat this until the cows come home.)

 

[edge]

I think that the test at Coffee creek took about 40 to 60 minutes.
That was scanning only ten targets out of 100 so I'm not too far off the time limit of an 8 hour time limit set by Remie and the JREF.
400 to 600 minutes give or take.

 

[Jackalgirl]

I think that the test at Coffee creek took about 40 to 60 minutes.
That was scanning only ten targets out of 100 so I'm not too far off the time limit of an 8 hour time limit set by Remie and the JREF.
400 to 600 minutes give or take.

Six hundred minutes is 10 hours. That's too long. It can't take longer than 480 minutes (8 hours), tops, as per RemieV.

The total time includes not only the time it takes you to dowse, but the time it takes to reset the scene between passes, the time it takes, between passes, for the metal "reading" to fade back to background levels (how many minutes, again?) and the time you take for breaks.

If you take two minutes to dowse a single container, and it takes three minutes for "switchover"* to occur, that's five minutes per pass (and an extremely optimistic estimate, at that), NOT INCLUDING any time it takes for the metal's "reading" to fade from the scene once the target is removed after a pass.

Ten of these passes constitutes one set -- 50 minutes, plus 10 minutes for you to take a break after the set is complete. So: one hour per set. Since you'll be doing this 10 times, that's 10 hours, which is 2 hours over the 8 hour maximum imposed by JREF.

You need to rethink the test.

*switchover: the process of a team setting up the container then leaving the area, then edge & his team coming in, dowsing, and then leaving the area, and then the other team coming in and removing/resetting/replacing the container to set up for the next pass, and then leaving the area. This happens in sequence, with no overlap, as there can be no contact between edge's team and any other team.

 

[edge]

RemieV says,

Thank you for your patience. The final protocol will be in this e-mail, though I ask you to keep in mind that Randi must sign off on any protocol before the process to begin testing.

You will come to a location, so far unspecified, and find a spot within said location that has no "reading" on your dowsing rods. You will then leave the room while a cannister (what kind of cannister? Film? Coffee?) is placed. You will return to the room and dowse for the target metal (either gold or silver, to be determined based upon availability).

You will dowse the single cannister and leave the room while a second is placed. The process will continue for ten cannisters. One of those will definitely contain the target metal. The other nine in each set will definitely not.

You will then be allowed a short break (about ten minutes) and return to dowse the next set of ten in the same fashion.

You will be asked to dowse ten sets of ten cannisters in this fashion.

You will not be permitted to touch the cannisters. The JREF will have a volunteer standing by to place them. You will not be permitted to watch when the cannisters are switched.

A positive result for the preliminary test will be identifying the target substance (of either gold or silver) correctly in seven out of the ten sets of ten.

Let me know if this protocol works for you, and please answer the questions above as concisely as possible.

Thank you again for your patience,

JREF Challenge Desk

So far this is all good, so yes.


.
Then She asks this,

If we are doing this outside, we would need to fill the canisters 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 canister (with the sand) that one would indeed weigh more.

Still workable?

No but you can use lime a 5 pound bag bought at Ace Hardware should do.
You get nine plastic bags of sufficient size and distribute the lime in each bag all weighing the same 9 of them.
That way you could switch easily between the target and the dummy with the bag of lime in it.
The one with the target is only holding the target.


Now this is what I need also,

Quote:
:
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 container that will hold the target, and 9 containers without or, empty.
Or if they prefer 9 containers with lime in them, as a dummies.

When the ten of a set has passed, I say where the target is. Then we take a break.
One person, of my choosing to be on their side, against me, and working for them.
This should take between 400 and 600 minutes.
I don't think I'm asking for much.
There!

SezMe, or myself might provide target.

Now can we get pass this part RemieV ?

I have more to work out like place and the time.
SezMe may have more input on this too, if we do the preliminary up here at Coffee creek.
Which then the JREF, will make him and a person of his choosing your representatives to run the preliminary on me.

JackalGirl says before I can even post,

Six hundred minutes is 10 hours. That's too long. It can't take longer than 480 minutes (8 hours), tops, as per RemieV.
Six hundred minutes is 10 hours. That's too long. It can't take longer than 480 minutes (8 hours), tops, as per RemieV.

Again you’re not thinking in scientific terms.
I can't prove shioet unless I do what it takes.
I think the time limit is their way of avoiding the pay off.
Since you all know what it will take.

It should be left up to the

volunteers

and me what it takes with the stakes so high.
I have spent 4 YEARS UP HERE TRYING EXPERIMENTS AND RESERCHING.
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MINUTES!
WHAT THE [**** RULE 8.]
Is this a test or a joke?

So if I get 7 out of 10 right then we can stop. There's the option,....

The rest of the scans are irrelivent right?
That should save your minutes.
That would be about 300 minutes!
What the ****.

 

[Tricky]

So if I get 7 out of 10 right then we can stop. There's the option,....

No, edge. If you read carefully, you will see that the test must be complete before the results are shown. That is one of the ways you double blind a test. If you were allowed to "learn" which picks were correct, you might discover, even subconsciously, subtle differences in the correct picks versus the incorrect picks,

 

[edge]

No, edge. If you read carefully, you will see that the test must be complete before the results are shown. That is one of the ways you double blind a test. If you were allowed to "learn" which picks were correct, you might discover, even subconsciously, subtle differences in the correct picks versus the incorrect picks,

I'm not the one quibbling about how long it's going to take.
It might take an hour or two it might take 8.

I'm willing to take it, "the test", however long it takes.
So what am I supposed to do? It will take what it takes in time.
You are the ones making a big issue about a few minutes.

It is not the biggest issue in this process for me.
I have more important issues about this test to consider.
All I can say is, we will try with in the time limit.

It may take a fat person more time to waddle back and forth with a target, than a skinny person, or an 80 year old twice the time than an 18 year old.
You guys could purposely take longer and foil the whole test.

Big friggen deal!

Someone steps into a fire ant pile then what?
Some one breaks their ankle, what then.
Some one has to crap, what do we do say no you can’t time won’t allow it?

It’s not that hard.

You guys can really worry if I get by the preliminary.

Tricky says,

If you read carefully, you will see that the test must be complete before the results are shown.

I have no problem with that.

What if it takes eight hours and ten minutes?
What if I spend 8 hours and we have one more set of ten to do?
I’m not going to call it off, are they?

This is nit picking at it’s finest.

I hope that the damn test won’t take more than a few minutes.
I wish that an hour would work.

The empty containers go really quick.

If the target is huge I will also be able to go quick.
How fast is still an unknown................I'm not worried about it.

 

[nathan]

It should be left up to the

volunteers

and me what it takes with the stakes so high.

This is precisely the reason why the protocol must be watertight, and explicitly detail the procedure.

I have spent 4 YEARS UP HERE TRYING EXPERIMENTS AND RESERCHING.

Hmm, in that case, why this ...

How many ounces of silver are an unknown to me with out testing with silver of sufficient quantity. 5 ounces is a guess.

How come after 4 years, you have no idea what makes a good target? It seems like you have no methodology behind your research

 

[nathan]

This part,
"When the target is there according to me, we take a break."

I'll take a risk and leave it out.
I know another way to deal with what happens.

Please clarify. Do you have a way of reducing the time for each test? What is it?

I suspect it will not be acceptable for you to knowingly 'take a risk', that gives you an obvious 'out' should you fail. You've not got a good track record of sticking to your word that the initial conditions were fine

 

[SezMe]

I'm concerned about the use of lime. Isn't that a white powder? After working with the targets and cannister for a while, won't there be white power everywhere.

edge, I want to remind you that you said you'd do some testing to find a target mass sufficient to give the unequivacable downward position of your dowsing rod. Doing so removes the time issue.

Oh, BTW, thanks for using the quote function.

 

[edge]

Please clarify. Do you have a way of reducing the time for each test? What is it?

I suspect it will not be acceptable for you to knowingly 'take a risk', that gives you an obvious 'out' should you fail. You've not got a good track record of sticking to your word that the initial conditions were fine

You guys are not listening; I tried to cover anyway out.
Go back and read, really read.
You ask, What is it?
Nonya!

I took a risk here testing and I know what to do.

But breaking after the target has appeared is not acceptable apparently.
So now I have an excuse according to you, it's their option not to break then, so what do you want me to do?

How come after 4 years, you have no idea what makes a good target? It seems like you have no methodology behind your research

LOL I have been living off of what makes a good target.

Apparently you don't know that I am mining for, gold not silver.
I have been selling my targets to live on.

The tray probably contains 1 ounce.
It worked, so 4 or 5 will do better.

I like how you come in here all of a sudden and demand answers. You ( ! ) head.

In the field a target acts one way and in a test when moved, it acts differently.

But one at a time on one spot makes all the difference.