• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Dowsing By Edge

Edge, the fault is completely your own. I can't count how many times people here offered to help you write your protocol, pointing out places where it would not be a proper double-blind test. You have continued to insist on your own rambling, near-incoherent descriptions. You have never listened with any comprehension to any of the suggestions that were made to you.

Take a look at this post, Edge. It was made over a year ago.
On the plus side, you will have lots of new excuses and lies about how JREF is afraid to test you. That may make you feel better, but it won't harm JREF. I'm sure they've heard them all before.
What I said a year ago is exactly what has happened. It was not hard to guess.
 
The TV producer offered this,


At a limestone quarry in Japan, the way the test was done at office the first time, all ten containers on the ground, at once.
About four hours split into two days or what ever they would accommodate.
The only thing that changed was from the creek bank to the quarry.
Time was not really an issue since it took about 4 hours at the JREF office.
I was never given an explanation of what that issue was?

Three days later after being turned down for that expedition I learned about the scales working in the calibration of the target and empties as I experimented.
This increased my odds to the degree of 60 to 90%.

I then changed the protocol to include that.

I had to think of time and place since that opportunity passed. They didn't come up with anything else so I worked on that.

The time-line for an opportunity came when the resort owner said I could dredge there, but not till after season which would be September.
That is the last month of dredging season up here the month of September.
If they couldn't do the test here, then October was the next window of opportunity, which would mean I would have to go to Florida.
I wrote that, pages ago on this post.
So common sense would indicate that we had a few more days to come to an agreement.
And up to a year really to come to an agreement on a date to actually do the test.

I won't accept a protocol that eliminates the scale as it is a major break through, and I won't take it indoors in an office or in a TV studio, And you know the reasons why.

The only thing left was the placebo targets and the time issue,
[length of the test, how much time] in the protocol that I had sent in.
Spectator wrote up the correct protocol and it included what I needed it also took care of both issues.

What good would it do to scan a TV studio and say there is no neutral ground just like in the office test at JREF headquarters even though I braved it at that time and took the test there the first time?

Just for their convenience to televise a failed attempt for the second time?
I don’t think so!

Leaving the inconsistencies in your statements aside:
Bearing in mind that only a successful demonstration of your claim will convince anyone, edge, what is the purpose of you posting in this thread?

More specific:
With your application terminated, what are your goals involving the JREF at this point?
 
Every once in a while edge says something interesting...

I tested myself with silver or a dime, when I ran out of gold.

So, edge, I'm curious. If dowsing works, why did you run out of gold?
 
Every once in a while edge says something interesting...



So, edge, I'm curious. If dowsing works, why did you run out of gold?

Why do people mine?
Is it's for the money it brings?
Maybe, Duh.

I went to the bank I worked last year, yesterday and found more in a spot that I dowsed last year.
It was a place that the dredge couldn't hit because it's out of the water line.
And even more so this year.


("Because of the drought this year Tricky, wells go dry." )

My dowsing proved right agian even from last years scan and I have new gold now.
The load that's there is three more feet in, I just got a taste, There is three feet of material on top of the spot, digging by hand with a shovel can hurt your back, but still very intresting to prove.
The gold lite up the sluice box like little stars.
 
Why do people mine?
Is it's for the money it brings?
Maybe, Duh.
That is exactly right, Edge.

  • Now, who makes the most money mining? The answer is simple: Mining companies.
  • What is the one thing companies are most interested in? Again, the answer is easy: Maximizing profit.
  • Would it be easier and more profitiable to simply dowse for minerals rather than hiring geologists and other scientists to find the minerals? Yes. Obviously.
Now, the last easy question that you cannot seem to grasp, Edge:

  • Why don't mining companies maximize their profit by hiring dowsers? Come on, Edge. The answer is just as easy as those other answers. If you can logically explain any other answer than "Because dowsing doesn't work", then please do so.
Why haven't you applied for one of those high-paying jobs at a mining company, Edge? You wouldn't even have to dig the gold yourself.

Duh.
 
Leaving the inconsistencies in your statements aside:
Bearing in mind that only a successful demonstration of your claim will convince anyone, edge, what is the purpose of you posting in this thread?

More specific:
With your application terminated, what are your goals involving the JREF at this point?

Lime was something that had a great density for the compactness of weight.
And we were only two steps away from finalizing the protocol, as I needed it to be, to cover all the experiments that I did that supported the theory that dowsing works.

I could not have come up with an excuse if I failed also, if I could have used all that I had learned, through my knowledge of these experiments, that meant I had a great possibility of passing the tests, if I failed I would have no excuse.
I stated in a previous post that I would at that time admit that dowsing doesn't work.

But once again yesterday’s excursion proved it did work.(see previous post)

They understood the protocol up to that point because of the e-mail sent to me by them.
I never though of flour till after they complained about the lime.
Hell they could have come up with something; they came up with doing the test in Japan.

I figured that if I had something that this would happen so I'm not too disappointed.
The I.I.G., still hasn't got back to me and maybe they shouldn't, they, (in my mind) will lose too.




How do you get this?

They stepped up and tried to make it in JREFs favor.
After I told them every step of the way what I have learned.

SezMe had no problem testing me.

GzuzKryzt Askes,


I would hate to put in this much time again and then be turned away.
I'll try, and I am in the process of contacting one more group the I.I.G…
I might try Gary Schwartz at the University of Phoenix.

Is this coherent enough for you?
Geez!

(Bolding mine.)


Simple question answered with irrelevant blahblah. Edge being edge.



Another try:
With your application terminated, what are your goals involving the JREF (not IIG, not Gary Schwartz) at this point?
 
The I.I.G., still hasn't got back to me and maybe they shouldn't, they, (in my mind) will lose too.

....

I would hate to put in this much time again and then be turned away.
I'll try, and I am in the process of contacting one more group the I.I.G…

First you say you have contacted the IIG then you say you are in the process of contacting them. Which is it? How did you contact them? When? Who?

edge, when you mention Schwartz in this forum, it is like pissing into your own boot. If you proceed along that line, I suggest you say no more about it here or else the level of ridicule will go through the roof.
 
edge, when you mention Schwartz in this forum, it is like pissing into your own boot. If you proceed along that line, I suggest you say no more about it here or else the level of ridicule will go through the roof.

"departed hypothesized co-dowsers"?
 
That's a crap excuse. If someone claimed an over unity Internal Combustion Engine, would you not allow him to use gasoline? Lime is available to the general public, and if handled properly isn't any more dangerous than hundreds of other household chemicals and products.

I've got no problem with giving up on Edge because he's incoherent, or that his protocol was unworkable (though several forum members were honestly trying to step up and help), but I do have a problem with the JREF declining Edge's application because it uses a "caustic" substance. That's a crap excuse, and sets up the JREF for the woos who claim that "Randi always has an out".

The lime wasn't the reason. It was another layer of complexity on a wide variety of already existing levels of complexity. Mr. Guska isn't going to be tested simply because every time he was queried regarding his protocol, he returned multiple incomprehensible paragraphs rather than a simple answer.

Here is what Mr. Guska said:

Me,
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
strenth 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, when I brought this information to Jeff, it was based on the lack of coherence. Had we continued, the first question Jeff would've recommended I ask is if we could substitute anything besides lime. Can you see how this would lead nowhere?

There are tons of applicants right at this very moment, and one of me. If an individual has proven time and time again that they cannot get a protocol down, it's time to devote the same amount of effort to other applicants and ensure they get a shot.

This is not the Mr. Guska Challenge.

Regards,

Remie
 
You mean like this?

Randi's not without detractors. While he insists he conducts fair, double-blind tests, Gary Schwartz, a University of Arizona professor and an expert on the paranormal, says Randi alters testing parameters. "The phenomena are very sensitive," says Schwartz. "He doesn't optimize conditions." - Mike Guska, who failed to prove he could find gold, agrees. He says taking the "Challenge" in an office threw off his channeling ability. Guska wants to retake it: "They're going to have to come to me."
Taken from here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4331962/

I think he would hear me out and test me if he wants to, don’t you?
See the big bold dash (-) there Edge? That is where Lindsey Gerdes, the guy writing the article stops talking about Schwartz and starts talking about you. (By the way, I pointed out this story to you when I read it in Newsweek over a year ago). Gary Schwartz was not talking about you. Sorry to burst your bubble.



What I have done with the protocol is optimize the conditions and still it’s a double blind test.
I have never seen any indication that you understand what a double-blind test is. Last I saw, you thought it meant that the target was placed in two containers.

We were learning to build the protocol as you and I went along in this post, since this has never been done before, “optimizing the conditions”, taking in all parameters so, all the participants would be satisfied with the test.

But that was too hard for RemieV, and I don’t want to hear the excuse that I was incoherent, bull spit!
Edge, you are incoherent. People here have been telling you this for years. You cannot seem to maintain a consistant train of thought. Do you remember all the things you have said about your dowsing, how the rod was nearly ripped out of your hands, how dowsing violates Newton's third law and all that stuff? You are practically babbling. I've looked at your protocols and I can't see that you have a clue how to run a double-blind test. You go off rambling about "black sands" or totally unrelated stuff.

Sand would have brought interferences if I accepted that as a dummy targets.
I seen through the bullspit and they didn’t like that, in M.H.O...
What does sand do? There is sand or the same minerals that are in sand all over the place where you are dowsing for gold. If it doesn't affect you there, it is unlikely to affect you on a test. This is another good example of you being incoherent.

If you didn’t understand anything that I wrote or said then we wouldn’t be having this conversation would we?
It is out of morbid curiosity and maybe the hope that someday you will join us in the real world that we continue to answer (as best we can) your weird posts.

Tricky says,

If someone can prove dowsing works then it should be easy to get the job, especially for me.
Then why don't you prove to a mining company that dowsing works. You do it in the field, right? Just invite them on one of your prospecting tours. Or say to them, "Without looking at your maps of un-mined ore, I'll show you exactly where it is and it will match what your geologists say." You don't think a mining company wouldn't jump all over that.

Of course, it would help if you were coherent.

Dowsing has been around as long as geology, Edge. Why haven't dowsers been a part of mining operations? I'll tell you why. Because it doesn't work.

I’ll beat the price of any geologists pay.
I'll bet you would. With all your "talent" you are still not rolling in dough. You'd probably work for near minimum wage because you don't have a talent you can sell.

I would give it a try it would be a great experiment.
Could I go into a tunnel and find what they missed? I think so.
Then go talk to them and convince them you can do this. Be aware though that mining operations do not remove every speck of ore or minerals. They only do it when it is economic to do so.

Still, finding the big veins without geologic maps would be pretty convincing if you could do it. You wouldn't need to go into the tunnels. You could do it from the surface.

Tricky asks,
Why haven't you applied for one of those high-paying jobs at a mining company, Edge? You wouldn't even have to dig the gold yourself.

I like mining for gold, but you never know I might.
You could still mine for gold. I believe you have indicated that the dowsing is a small part, time-wise, of your mining. You could do it for them in a couple of hours and still have plenty of time to do your own mining. Heck, you might even get access to some richer hunting grounds.
 
BTW, here is Edge's old dowsing thread in case anybody is interested.

From edge's first post in the above thread:

"...
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!
Zeta Reticuli 1 & 2 star chart!
..."



I may be old-fashioned in this way, but when I see someone barging into a room waving the god flag, it kinda determines what I have to expect from this person.

And this doesn't even include the demons or Reticulians.
 
I think it is a good idea for edge to contact Gary Schwartz. There at least he will find somebody who will believe him no matter what. But of course, Dr. Schwartz might tell edge to use his powers to do some serious mining and get rich that way instead.
 
Here is what Mr. Guska said:

Me,
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
strenth 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, when I brought this information to Jeff, it was based on the lack of coherence. Had we continued, the first question Jeff would've recommended I ask is if we could substitute anything besides lime. Can you see how this would lead nowhere?

There are tons of applicants right at this very moment, and one of me. If an individual has proven time and time again that they cannot get a protocol down, it's time to devote the same amount of effort to other applicants and ensure they get a shot.
I already suggested rubber and plastic, and you then suggested sand, so you already knew what to do with the sand. After that I suggested lime.
When that wasn't good enough I slept on it and came up with three alternatives to lime, flour being the most benign. You say,
Had we continued, the first question Jeff would've recommended I ask is if we could substitute anything besides lime. Before this you say, Now, when I brought this information to Jeff.

So you never asked?
Which is it?
I have never seen any indication that you understand what a double-blind test is. Last I saw, you thought it meant that the target was placed in two containers.
The double blind was already established for the test; the double container was brought up because you said I shouldn’t see the numbers on the containers when brought to the spot that I would dowse at.
This also covered the wind problem brought up by RemieV for the empty containers.
At that point she brought up the dummies containing Sand.
Way before that I covered the dummies, I said you can use plastic or rubber, what was wrong with that?
It is the order of the target passing where I dowse, not the dummies anyway, if they are all the same, empty or placebo.
All you had to do was switch the lids with the number on it in the next set of ten because all the containers are the same, that would make it faster to run that next set of ten.
The dummies wouldn’t have had to be switched with the target actually, and in the bucket with the lid; which stays on my spot, where I dowse each container, I wouldn’t have seen a thing. This was in your favor not mine. It would have been triple blind, since in the first test, in the office in 1999 I got to see the containers with the all the numbers on them. It didn’t help me then did it?



What does sand do? There is sand or the same minerals that are in sand all over the place where you are dowsing for gold. If it doesn't affect you there, it is unlikely to affect you on a test. This is another good example of you being incoherent.


This is another good example of you being incoherent, as I explained this already.
You are the geologist? On the creek it wouldn’t matter but in a test with everything calibrated it would.
You forget I did a test with black sands and got a score that wasn’t quite good enough, but I got a score.
If JREF brought the sand for the test, again how would I know if they spiked it with metal filings or gold fines?


I listened to your link Paul.
95% drop out.
I didn’t! So that means that they are only dealing with 5%, Out of 200 only 10 are worked out.
Wow what a load.
What ever occurred on this post from May2006 to February of 2007 is irrelevant to the application.
 
...
What ever occurred on this post from May2006 to February of 2007 is irrelevant to the application.

No, it is not irrelevant.

Your repeatedly displayed back-and-forth side-to-side up-and-down approach to developing the test protocol suggests that you had not thought it through. At least not enough. By far.

Before terminating your application, the JREF very likely considered everything - and that includes your display on this thread from May 2006 to February 2007 - leading up to the point where it became screamingly obvious that you were in no way ready for a test under controlled conditions.



That being said: With your application terminated, what are your goals involving the JREF (not IIG, not Gary Schwartz) at this point?
 
Last edited:
[/quote]
Before terminating your application, the JREF very likely considered everything - and that includes your display on this thread from May 2006 to February 2007 - leading up to the point where it became screamingly obvious that you were in no way ready for a test under controlled conditions.
[/quote]

Another lie.

Really, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2722435#post2722435

Easy as that, Done in Arnolds voice (just do it).

And now I bid you Good day!
 
The lime wasn't the reason. It was another layer of complexity on a wide variety of already existing levels of complexity. Mr. Guska isn't going to be tested simply because every time he was queried regarding his protocol, he returned multiple incomprehensible paragraphs rather than a simple answer.
Fair enough. From the post that I quoted, it sounded to me like the lime was the dealbreaker.

I haven't dowsed since I took the test with Sezme.
...
In the previous post I explain what I did yesterday, it's not a fish tail.
Wasn't that previous post talking about dowsing and finding gold?
Those statements seem to contradict each other.
 

Back
Top Bottom