Long Range Locaters?

Signal is all time repeatable. But I’m not sure about real live efficiency... I’m testing it.

Shelton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Signal is all time repeatable. But I’m not sure ab
> out real live efficiency... I’m testing it.

Ok. And if it is "all time repeatable", then it will be "real live efficiency" .

You can detect buried object by you. It works. But what about EMI and other factors? And small items. I’m not sure about that.

It gets better and better

Shelton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can detect buried object by you. It works. But
> what about EMI and other factors? And small items.
> I’m not sure about that.

Well if you personally buried the object, then how do you know it's not simply your own subconscious tilting of hands, to the object/direction that you already knew ?

As for "EMI and other factors" : This would be the common push-back fall-back excuses used by the adherents, when they fail all DBT's. And things like "sun spots" and "nearby magnets" and so forth. It's never that it simply doesn't work. Of course not.

I was find two spots and rods show it all time... the same place 5x5. But I didn’t find nothing. It could be anomaly. I don’t say that is work in 100%. I need more time for tests. Buried item was shown in two person hands. Each time with the same person precision. I don’t understand how to explain it.

If ANY LRL or dowsing rods worked, people wouldn't be selling them. they'd be too busy digging up every bit gold and silver around them. They'd be millionaires and digging up buried caches faster than they could spend them. People love to make up their own tests to say "see! see! They really work" but as soon as anyone else comes in to set up targets or to observe the procedures, everything fails.

I have offered my stash of silver many times. I have over 30 pounds buried in a field and anyone who can walk up to that spot with whatever "dowsing" method they want can have it all. So far nobody has even taken up the challenge.

======================================================

You can see my videos here: [www.youtube.com]
My blog is here: [thesilverfiend.com]

======================================================

For an interesting article on dowsing and links to many of the scientific tests cited, google 'Dowsing: A review of experimental research" by George P Hanson. Then tell me what you think.

Thank you!

This thread is hilarious.
And sad at the same time.

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For an interesting article on dowsing and links to
> many of the scientific tests cited, google 'Dowsin
> g: A review of experimental research" by George P
> Hanson. Then tell me what you think.


Garbage. Those "tests" cited were from 50 to over 100 years old and were useless in their "findings". I didn't even need to read the entire thing in depth, I scanned and read sections. It talks about parapsychology, being about to identify changes in electric current and magnetic fields and even their own test were inconclusive. The very abstract says nothing was found in any of the studies but he was going to talk about them anyway.

======================================================

You can see my videos here: [www.youtube.com]
My blog is here: [thesilverfiend.com]

======================================================



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2019 11:21PM by silverfiend.

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For an interesting article on dowsing and links to
> many of the scientific tests cited, google 'Dowsin
> g: A review of experimental research" by George P
> Hanson. Then tell me what you think.


Sure. I'll tell you what I think. The same thing the author himself concluded, cut & pasted here :

"In spite of the large number of investigations made into dowsing, its status remains unclear. This is largely a result of sloppy experimental procedures and or report writing".

Thus, as you can see, the report concludes nothing. And admits that no DBT's have been done (at least not that have ever been passed).

silverfiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If ANY LRL or dowsing rods worked, people wouldn't
> be selling them. they'd be too busy digging up ev
> ery bit gold and silver around them. They'd be mi
> llionaires and digging up buried caches faster tha
> n they could spend them. People love to make up t
> heir own tests to say "see! see! They really work"
> but as soon as anyone else comes in to set up targ
> ets or to observe the procedures, everything fails
> .
>
> I have offered my stash of silver many times. I h
> ave over 30 pounds buried in a field and anyone wh
> o can walk up to that spot with whatever "dowsing"
> method they want can have it all. So far nobody h
> as even taken up the challenge.

Hey there silver-fiend, allow me to answer on their behalf :

a) The logic of "if it worked, the users would be getting rich" doesn't work. Because the same thing could be said about metal detectors: Ie.: "If metal detectors really worked, then the users would be too busy digging up gold and silver, and be millionaires digging caches"

As you can see, this logic doesn't work. Despite the indisputable fact that metal detectors work. Therefore ... kind of hard to hold a double standard to dowsing , eh ? They could turn right around and apply the logic to metal detectors.

b) As for your 30 pounds of silver, they would say something like "We have nothing to prove", or "we're after bigger game caches and don't trifle ourselves with petty challenges". Or "your test (the various ones that have historically been offered and failed) were "rigged" and "unfair". Eg.: the testers had magnets in their pockets to foil the dowsers results, etc....

And .... heck .... even if they came to your field and didn't find the 30 lbs of silver, they'd just have the snappy come-back about how ........ likewise ....... md'rs don't find silver every time they go out md'ing. Right ? Some days you come back from md'ing totally skunked , with nothing but some pulltabs, right ? Hence: Why the double standard for dowsing ?

Thus unfortunately, your points fall on deaf ears .

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Thus unfortunately, your points fall on deaf ears
> .


Oh, I know. Its a matter of faith for them, hence why so many fall back to excuses.

======================================================

You can see my videos here: [www.youtube.com]
My blog is here: [thesilverfiend.com]

======================================================

Silverfriend, my friend, I can see you admit you did not read it all. The tests start from the first testing in the late 1400's and go up to the person offering $1million to prove it, including what he demanded for testing. His test is in there and honestly evaluated. He includes tests that conclude that dowsing does not work. He wrote the article in 1982 (we landed on the moon in 1969) and reports test results from 1979 which is the $1 million reward test of James Randi, He has footnotes to all the tests in the article and where you can find them. Please, if you know of tests since then, you would do us all a favor and tell us how to find them. If you see problems with the method of testing, cite these problems. You seem to read the 100 year old tests and pronounce the whole thing as garbage. Is this the scientific method? I googled "double blind test" to see what they actually entailed. Then I googled "double blind test on dowsing" to help give ammunition to whoever is right here. I did not pick and choose. I have no dog in the fight, but I could not find any double blind tests listed and described as such. At least Mr. Hansen had a list of tests performed by scientists on the subject. He also has an article on "Tricksters and the Paranormal" so I don't see where your accusing him of bias carries much weight. I absolutely do not believe long range locaters work at long range, but belief proves nothing scientifically, same as repeating the mantra "failed all double blind tests" without citing links to such tests and saying "Garbage" to tests performed by honest scientists who actually wanted to know the truth. The tests cited are still open to peer review so you can point out where these tests are invalid and the problem scientifically with them. I don't think saying they are old is proof they are false. I really don't see what is hilarious about this thread. The sad thing to me is lack of scientific method in it. If a person wants to use science to prove his point, he should be able to cite the actual tests that prove it. I joined the forum because I thought, and still do, it is the most scientifically based forum on metal detecting.

silverfiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom_in_CA Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Its a matter of faith for them,

And humorously enough, I have found this "faith" explained away by them too. And quite logically. It works like this:.

In the same way that when an md'r heads out into the field in a p*ss-poor mood (ie.: no "faith"), then naturally, they're not tuned to the nuances of deep silver sounds. Right? In other words: You have to be in a positive up-beat mode of mind, to increase your odds of hearing and correctly interpretting those faint-beeps. Otherwise, you're mind's wandering and you won't hear/interpret them . Right?

Then why the double standard for dowsers ? Why "diss" them them for calling on "faith" ?

Years ago I came across a book titled, "De Re Metallica," published around 1556 by Georg Bauer, aka Georgius Agricola. It is a work regarding all aspects of metals, from discovering ore bodies, mining them, refining, smelting, etc. At that time, and for years later, it was considered one of the finest works on the topic.

The book is illustrated with several lithographs, one of which depicts miners engaged in the various activities related above, including dowsers using forked sticks to locate ore bodies.

So, scam or not, apparently miners in those days had enough success dowsing to locate ore bodies that it was considered a legitimate method.

On another note, one of the most skeptical people I know, who for years, considered dowsing to be "Hokum," had his mind changed at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville when he watched a utility worker located a underground water pipe by dowsing in a large grassy park. I know other people who insist dowsing can be used to locate water, metal pipes, and so forth.

All that being said, I still think the modern devices designed to locate treasure are pretty much fake. If they weren't there would be at least one legitimate, verifiable modern day account of a wealthy dowser.

Tom in CA, in top level competition, visualization seems to be used by many top competitors and they feel it gives them an edge. I feel like this is like the positive attitude edge. I can't imagine how they could do a double blind test of it though but if you read articles from consistently top placing shooters in DCM competition, they say it is one of the things that makes them successful.

Greg (E.Tn) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Years ago I came across a book titled, "De Re Meta
> llica," published around 1556 by Georg Bauer, aka
> Georgius Agricola. It is a work regarding all aspe
> cts of metals, from discovering ore bodies, mining
> them, refining, smelting, etc. At that time, and
> for years later, it was considered one of the fine
> st works on the topic.
>
> The book is illustrated with several lithographs,
> one of which depicts miners engaged in the various
> activities related above, including dowsers using
> forked sticks to locate ore bodies.
>
> So, scam or not, apparently miners in those days h
> ad enough success dowsing to locate ore bodies tha
> t it was considered a legitimate method.
>
> On another note, one of the most skeptical people
> I know, who for years, considered dowsing to be "H
> okum," had his mind changed at the University of
> Tennessee in Knoxville when he watched a utility w
> orker located a underground water pipe by dowsing
> in a large grassy park. I know other people who i
> nsist dowsing can be used to locate water, metal p
> ipes, and so forth.
>
> All that being said, I still think the modern devi
> ces designed to locate treasure are pretty much fa
> ke. If they weren't there would be at least one l
> egitimate, verifiable modern day account of a weal
> thy dowser.

What an interesting and informative post_cheers

[www.earthscan.co.nz]

Greg (E.Tn) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Years ago I came across a book titled, "De Re Meta
> llica," published around 1556 by Georg Bauer, aka
> Georgius Agricola. It is a work regarding....

> apparently miners in those days h
> ad enough success dowsing to locate ore bodies tha
> t it was considered a legitimate method.
>


Hey there George: Just want to make sure I'm not mis-interpretting you. Let me see if I have this right :

A practice, done in antiquity, and believed to have been successful back then, is therefore meritorious. Right ? And that the longer it has been believed in and practiced, then ... logically, ... the more meritorious it must be. Right ? Because, of course, they wouldn't have been doing it that long ago, and for that duration, if it wasn't successful. Right ? Just want to make sure I understand this flow-chart of logic premise, before responding.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2019 06:49PM by Tom_in_CA.

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> visualization
> seems to be used by many top competitors and they
> feel it gives them an edge.

Hey there Picketwire. This is a very revealing post. Because, actually, it simply shows the ability that is being capitalized on: Visualization. In other words: Strictly subtle terrain clues, and the rods are actually doing nothing. Can we agree on this ? By your own words and own admission here ?

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Picketwire Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Note that I never said it was true, all I said is that how do you know that it is absolutely not true?
>
Same argument could be used for religion.... cannot prove or disprove it, so how do you know it is or isn't true?

I think what it means is, prior to the book being published, learned, intelligent men had enough success using dowsing to locate ore bodies, that it was found to be successful more times than not, at least successful enough that the geologists and metallurgists of the times decreed dowsing to be an effective and more importantly, proven method of locating ore bodies.

By "proven" I mean, tested in the field and found to be reliable, NOT in a scientific laboratory, using "blind" and "double-blind" experiments.

And again, I'm not suggesting modern day long-range locators work at all, I'm just saying dowsing was successfully used at one time to detect bodies or metallic ore.

I'd suggest reading the book. You can get it on Amazon for $19.95. It's a hard, but interesting read.

Greg (E.Tn) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... it w
> as found to be successful more times than not, at
> least successful enough that the geologists and me
> tallurgists of the times decreed dowsing to be an
> effective and more importantly, proven method of l
> ocating ore bodies.
>
>

Ok, then can we apply the same logic to other ancient practices that people, back then, thought was successful ? For example: Throwing virgins into volcanoes to control the weather ? Hard to argue with what appears to be success. After all, if it hadn't have worked they wouldn't have been doing it or believing in it. Right ?

I'm only trying on your logical stance for size. If it works for dowsing then .... let's see how that logic works for other goofy ideas that people, in antiquity had. Like that the earth was flat, etc...

Hence, as you can see: The age of a belief and the amount of historical practice, has utterly no bearing on the validity of the method. Sorry 'bout that.

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom_in_CA Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Picketwire Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > Note that I never said it was true, all I said
> is that how do you know that it is absolutely not
> true?
> >
> Same argument could be used for religion.... canno
> t prove or disprove it, so how do you know it is o
> r isn't true?

Hey there Cal-Cobra, I'll bring the coat hanger to our next hunt, and you can wave it around. Ok ?

I do not believe that visualization is the answer. Did you read all the tests? You said that a positive attitude helped when detecting; that's why I mentioned visualization. How do you compare the tests from the 1960's on as equivalent to throwing virgins into volcanos? I find it odd that you'd rather say, this argument could be used to... than rebut the tests validity by telling us why the scientists were wrong in their methods and conclusions. To me it looked like they were sincere in their wish to know the answer and devised pretty good tests. Where are your research results? How would you go about testing this? I've been made fun of before but at least I am trying to find an answer. Here's another one-google Albert Einstein on dowsing. Maybe he was ready to throw a virgin into a volcano too?

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------



"....Did you read all the tests?..... "

Yes I glanced through it. But the work of review was pretty much already summed up by the authors at the end: That it was not conclusive to show dowsing works. Kind of hard to argue with the authors themselves, eh ?

.....How do you compare the tests from the 1960's on as equivalent to throwing virgins into volcanos?.....

Because George had appealed to historical usage and belief as giving the method some sort of Merit. Ie.: they 'found success" and it dates-way-back, etc.... So I was taking this notion for "test drive". By comparing it to other ancient notions and beliefs (earth is flat, etc...) to show that: Beliefs-of-old, and age-of-belief do not necessarily equate to : Validating merits of a method.

..... Where are your research results? How would you go about testing this?....

There is no shortage of DBT's on youtube. And as you can see, they've all shown it to be nothing more than random chance and guessing. If you'd like links to some of those vid's, let me know.

....Re.: Albert Einstein ....

Are you aware that Einstein also had other quotes , that ended up not coming fulfilled ? For example, there's the story that he and Gerhard Fisher knew each other (d/t they were both German inventor friends). And one day, Fisher showed Einstein the prototype metal detector, that would end up becoming Fisher Co. detectors. Einstein was quoted as saying that there was no market for such a device. And that he saw no future in it.

As you can see, there's quite a market and usage for detectors. Thus .... showing ... Einstein did not know everything. Eh ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 04:26AM by Tom_in_CA.

The question of LRLs may seem fantastic ... finding buried treasure in the ground which might be improbable. But, I know a man who lived up in the mountains, he told a story which is improbable but true. He was out hunting one day and randomly took a shot at some game running past, and to his surprise, the shot missed the animal but opened a tiny hole in the ground. Not unlike LRLs finding gold in the ground that old mountain man became a millionaire because he had unwittingly found buried treasure. You see, out of the bullet hole, up came bubbling out - black gold! It was crude oil unbeknownst on his property. In the end, the man sold the mineral rights to a developer and took the money he made and moved with his kinfolk to a really nice house in the big city. That one lucky shot led to a life of luxury, with swimming pools and movie stars. So, you have to think that some improbable things like finding treasure with a stick could happen; just remember that story of that poor mountaineer and how he discovered buried treasure! Makes you think.

Tom, I'm trying your logic on for size. Visualization is what finds things and the rods do nothing. So I can leave my metal detector at home and fine things because all I need is visualization? Here is a test I would suggest. Locate a waterline with your detector because that is the most cited object of people who believe in dowsing. Make sure it goes some distance and in some way not conspicuous mark it. Dlo like you suggested to Cal Cobra and take a coat hanger with you. Try it yourself if you aren't afraid of the evil spirits. Walk in a square, that is cross the line, go a ways parallel to it, cross it back and then walk parallel to where you started' Did it work or not? There would be one data point. Ask another person to do the same, hopefully someone who does not know for what the rods are supposed to do. Does it work for them or not? That's two data points. Are 2 points statistically significant? No. Try as many people as it takes to have 99% confidence in your results. If someone says they feel the rods cross, try again at a slightly different angle. This is pretty much blind test if the person trying does not know there are water lines there. Or you could go to your local water department and ask about their procedure for finding them. Then ask if anyone there dowses and see if you could go with them the next time they have to locate. As far as people being stupid years ago, find a builder today that could make a pyramid as straight and tight fitting as the ancient Egyptians did. How long ago did Galileo, Michaelangelo, and Sir Issac Newton live? Read De Re Metallica and see how much is still relevant today. I believe that will surprise you. They knew about amalgamation, how to extract gold from ore but weren't smart enough to know that dowsing had no value whatsoever? I find that hard to believe. This book was used by Great Britain and France also as a mining guide. Have you ever even tried it or do you just know that it won't work because people believed in a flat earth at one time? What is your logic for saying that the multitude of people that believe it works are wrong? What scientific tests do you rely on? Honestly, I could not find a test later that the article I cited earlier by Mr. Hansen. I am still searching and will report the results if I do. Pretty much what I see here in this thread is ridicule, not science.

Johnnyanglo!! Yes!!, they made a sitcom about Jed and his family that lasted for 9 years....loved that show. ><