Long Range Locaters?

Maybe we should ask this gent about this subject.
[en.m.wikipedia.org]

He only holds a bachelor degree in mathematics.

Maybe a manufacturer of some thing should hire this dude.

Gentlemen, I very much appreciate all of you challenging what I say. I know you have no great duty to convince me of anything yet you, and especially Tom, spend much time, and I know time is money, on the subject, This is skepticism and to me it is what science is about. In the world today, I believe pseudoscience is being used for purposes other than proving anything. One example is evolution. My problems. to name two: If I find a watch buried in the ground, no one contests it is man made because it took intelligence to make it. But if I observe something that can feel, see, smell, hear, walk, that has electrical circuits controlling movements and a billion cells all being provided nourishment by this something, it formed as a result of a big explosion of nothing or something and created everything. Then, my computer simulation demonstrates that the sea will rise to cover many islands and Manhattan by 2008. We are launching satellites to prove that the earth is warming. Oops, we programmed them wrong as they do not show what we predicted. The land on earth not warming the last 15 years is because the heat is being absorbed by the oceans. The oceans aren't rising because the weight of the extra water is pushing the seafloor down but this can't last forever. And 97% of scientists agree on this. However, both are being taught in schools. I'm sure it has nothing to do with whether dowsing can ever work or not, it is just showing my attitude. I am of the "Prove all things" and "trust but verify" persuasion.
I joined the discussion because everyone was saying science proves this is BS, illogical, and the many other adjectives, some of which were somewhat insulting, used to describe someone else's observations.

Tom, my only point is that DBT's are not the only way to prove anything. It seems most DBT testing is done in medicine and still statistical studies are needed because the efficacy of the tests are not conclusive. DBT testing on MMR vaccine is trumpeted as proving the vaccine is effective and even though measles were almost eradicated before the vaccine. Since 2003, no one has died because of measles but 200 have died because of the vaccine. Did the DBT's prove it was effective and safe? DBTs are very useful, no contesting that point but one test does not prove something conclusively. Is this moving the goalposts? The tests I cited have DBT tests too and they say the opposite, so which test do we believe and does it matter what we believe? I would settle for a preponderance of evidence but you claim proof with one DBT test. I have posted articles which cites many tests from many other sources, the first of which, Hansens, did what I asked you to do in pointing out deficiencies in the testing and he was not picking and choosing either but have not heard a peep about any of them. You gave an example of someone guessing about the identity of a card in the deck, that you would be right once in a while. Page 175 in the Munich cites three people who, in my opinion (agreed: opinions not worth much) Identified the whole shuffled deck in order. The examples on page 175 were always there in the study and you said that the rebuttal proved that it was false.
Steve, you reject the observation on Mrs. Kittemann and two others in Germany because you are skeptical and weren't there. Is this science? Then claim I might argue that the sticks have the power, which I specifically said did not move but needed to be connected to a human. As for psychic ability: I am not ready to agree on that. While people have attempted to demonstrate the efficacy of psychic power, testing has not proven it even possible. The conclusions in the Munich study do not attribute it to psychic power, they think it is more likely people's reactions to EMI within the earth along fault lines but urge more testing in the area.
Please, gentlemen, I don't care if you believe in dowsing or do not. Just do not try to tell me that science proves that it is impossible. (for emphasis only, not yelling) NEVER SAY NEVER!

Amen

Picketwire --

Skepticism is the "proper" bias, in science, IMO. Not closed-mindedness, but skepticism. In other words, a need for things to be rigorously tested, peer-reviewed, etc., before gaining some level of acceptance. Since I don't feel that dowsing has been rigorously tested, peer-reviewed, etc., I would personally want to see such things IN PERSON, MYSELF, and do my own testing/evaluating, before giving such things any validity whatsoever. I would argue YES, it IS science...

I was also not saying that YOU said the "sticks have power." What I was saying, in my hypothetical example, was if I were living in the pre-scientific era, and was walking along with a forked stick in my hand, and it started moving, I might naturally, logically (when trying to figure out what in the world was going on) wonder if perhaps the stick itself might somehow be the genesis of the movement I observed. I was not saying that YOU said or implied that, I was only suggesting that if I experienced a stick "moving by itself," that would have to be one of the possible "whys" that would have to be considered. I am thinking, based on your responses to my posts, that I am failing to get my points across in a clear way, as I can see there is quite a bit of misinterpretation of what I'm trying to say.

It's all good, though. Interesting discussion.

Steve

Here are my conclusions for what they are worth.
The youtube video test, DBT or not, proved that a few individuals who thought they could pass the test, failed conclusively. I really do not think the tester needed to be out of the tent while testing and that it made no difference. Mr. Randi, the first $10,000 and later the $1,000,000 man’s challenge is along the same line. You can find the test criteria easily if you want. Again the sample was very small and whether they believed they could or not seems to me irrelevant.
So, I attempted to find testing that had more merit. Mr. Hansen had already compiled a long list of tests and critiqued them. These were not just: can anyone walk over any object and find it with dowsing methods. The most interesting to me were the physical responses to magnetism, radiation, gravity and vibrations from the earth in different individuals. Science is attempting to discover how birds can migrate across great expanses of ocean while high in the air. They are studying why animals can sense a tsunami before it hits. Their testing is demonstrating that animals can sense stimulus from the earth at distances thought impossible to detect before. The testing of dowsers show that ones that had a higher probability of finding objects had different physical reactions to radiation than ones that had no probability. They found differences in the skin’s resistance between more successful and less successful individuals. They found that individuals with the highest probability could sense the smallest change in gravity and that as the probability of being successful at dowsing decreased, their sensitivity to gravity also decreased. I do not say that these tests prove dowsing works but if you are serious about knowing the truth, it would be part of the equation, especially if you are not falling back on the paranormal excuse.
Then I found the Popular Mechanics article,. It is short and concise and I would recommend anyone interested in the subject read it. It is not hard to find, google Popular Mechanics on dowsing. The article mentions the rebuttal that Tom in CA posted, This led me to the University of Munich research which demonstrated, to me at least, that it was serious in the quest for knowledge, that there were individuals who could locate water repeatedly, that they could find certain anomalies, that is fissures, in the earth that were not recognizable from the surface of the earth and were confirmed by conventional methods. The study recommended more studies in certain areas including tests of the proficiency of dowsers to prevent fraud.
Does this prove dowsing can find anything but water? No
Does it prove it can find water? Professor Betz is skeptical, he thinks it is more likely they are finding fissures that collect water . Whatever the reason, I think he has proven that something other than the paranormal is happening here, that dowsing has been successful at finding water and that people who say that science has proven that it is impossible for dowsing to work in any way are most likely wrong. The knowledge acquired by reading all these tests has knocked me off the fence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2019 07:55PM by Picketwire.

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gentlemen, I very much appreciate all of you chall
> enging what I say.

Trying to catch up on what you are saying. And again, can't address everything. But again, some spotty observations/answers/thoughts :


You cite a myriad of science that has admittedly evolved in recent years. Apparently to show what new realizations/discoveries come-down-the-pike to science, that was not previously known. And in the context of this dowsing conversation, I can't help but believe that your intended conclusion to this listing of pseudo-science vs science, is that : "Therefore we should all keep an open mind open that the scientific-ness of dowsing can likewise some day be shown" Right ? But then you go on ... in the same breath to say: " .... I'm sure it has nothing to do with whether dowsing can ever work or not .... "

Ok, then if you can agree that : Past science that "got corrected", does not prove that any conjecture is ... of necessity ... true, then: What are we talking about ? I think we can all agree that this world is a wonderful place, of things we are learning all-the-time. But that does not, of necessity, make any/all beliefs/conjectures, going forward, of necessarily being true. As it seems like you, yourself, concur.


Next, I'm seeing a contradiction between these 2 statements:

"Tom, my only point is that DBT's are not the only way to prove anything"

"I would settle for a preponderance of evidence "

Herein lies the problem: When you say that the "preponderance of evidence" would persuade you, then .... don't realize that THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT A DBT IS . A double-blind-test *is* the "preponderance of evidence".

Yet you turn right around (in the "moving goal posts") and ask someone to disprove the pg. 175. The problem is, that once they study it, and do-so, you'll just retreat back to saying that DBT's aren't necessarily proof.

So again I ask you: Why should I dive into the pg. 175 dilemma ? I will only do so (because yes, it's an interesting challenge) IF YOU AGREE that .... if-upon-successful answer, that you agree that .... yes ... the failure of this DBT does in fact disprove dowsing. If you continue to retreat to saying that DBT's don't show anything anyhow, then.... why should anyone spend their time doing this for this thread ?


Then you say:

"The testing of dowsers show that ones that had a higher probability of finding objects had different physical reactions to radiation than ones that had no probability."

I am willing to bet that this is skewed in the following way. Namely: If you took those 2 groups of people, you would .... likewise .... find endless differences between them, in-their-own ranks, as well. Like to study the dowser-failure group, you could no-doubt find "uncanny" divisions of chemistry between those with last names starting with R through Z, versus those whose last names start with A through Q.

Example: It sort of reminds me of the "trick" that md'rs fall into, when debating among themselves as to whether or not gold has a different TID signature or sound (like on an XLT smear) than aluminum objects. So they can assemble 100 gold rings and 100 aluminum objects and test them. Sure enough, lo & behold, they can find a difference between *every gold ring* vs *every aluminum object*. Thus seeming to prove a rhyme and reason that will allow us all to go dig gold rings till our arms fall off. While passing all aluminum. Right ? But wait ! What that study fails to take into account is: SO TOO will there be a "difference" between each piece of aluminum vs each other piece of aluminum. And a difference between each gold ring vs each other gold ring. And that ... .given enough time, you can mold an aluminum item to give the exact same "smear" and sound that a gold ring gave.

Next you say:

"The [Munich] study recommended more studies in certain areas including tests of the proficiency of dowsers to prevent fraud."

If the Munich study itself said this, then .... it doesn't sound to me like they came to a resounding conclusion that it works. I mean ... if their studies showed that it work, then why a recommendation for more studies ? Didn't their own studies "prevent fraud ?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2019 09:54PM by Tom_in_CA.

The first part about evolution and global warming, while I don't consider it bizarre but criminal, was to show that not all that is said to be science is really that. You blame me for moving goal posts but look at global warming, I mean climate change. I most certainly do not agree that this has been corrected.
As for the contradiction on preponderance of evidence and DBTs, I was saying to you personally, I would accept a preponderance and would not insist on DBTs, I also thought I have made it clear DBT's are very useful and very important but as I have said even if your youtube video was absolutely a double blind test, that all it proved was that the people who took the test (no data on the number) even though they thought they could pass were absolutely wrong. No doubt that test proved through observation, DBT or any other method was used unless the video was rigged. No, don't take my words and say that i said the video was rigged!
Then you accuse me of moving the goal posts by asking you to debunk one test out of the many you said you would debunk. Then you give excuses for not doing what you said you would do. You accuse me to falling back again(?) of saying DBTs don't prove anything. Please post where I said they don't prove anything. Please clarify if you think in pharmaceutical testing the DBT pill testing needs to be backed up by statistical analysis. Please show me where you have actually posted a certified DBT where I fell back again saying DBTs don't prove anything.
Re: different reactions to radiation--"I am willing to bet that this is skewed in the following way'. Sounds like pure science to me. No, wait, it sound more like divining but it sure is a great rebuttal even if you did not read the test. I am sure you know this is sarcasm.
Re: "why should i dive into the page 175 dillema when you will...?" Why are you afraid to look at the tests? Why do you project what i will do by what you have been doing since the thread began. The "page 175 dilemma" is the record of three people in Germany who are successful beyond pure chance. But you couldn't know and wouldn't even contest that because of me, because I didn't say that I would pronounce dowsing impossible if you could prove one part wrong. As far as I can see you have proven nothing except that x number of men who said they could dowse were wrong in this one test. I accepted that test even though you claimed wrongly that it was DBT..

The [Munich] study recommended more studies in certain areas including tests of the proficiency of dowsers to prevent fraud." Gee, I don't know, maybe to prevent people like the ones in the youtube video from contracting with a city to help find water?

If the Munich study itself said this, then .... it doesn't sound to me like they came to a resounding conclusion that it works. I mean ... if their studies showed that it work, then why a recommendation for more studies? Why a recommendation for any studies anywhere? I don't think I need to answer that but I would say to increase knowledge for the betterment of mankind. Without reading a study and then saying that "it doesn't sound to me like" shows me that you are stalling again and consider innuendo proper scientific method. You have no idea what any part of any testing of which I have provided links demonstrate and your rebuttals consist only of divining what I am trying to say. You you grandly proclaim that youI will prove the whole Munich study wrong but make excuses for not doing so. You cast aspersions at science testing without evidence, projecting fraud or ignorance on their part while clinging to your holy dogma "Dowsing never works".. I have spent many hour researching the data and have tried to present it for the advancement of knowledge and greedily, to find knowledge in scientific testing on a very interesting and enlightening subject. I have spent hours responding to your comments but you wouldn't even go to page 175 and read about 3 people. You wouldn't read Hansen's summary, you wouldn't read the Popular Mechanics article but you would spend hours attempting to cast doubt on people who actually did these studies, even condemning some studies on the evidence that they are old. All I asked for is science and by searching, I found much knowledge I never knew before. It was worth the time.

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

> ".... was to show that not all that is said to be science is really that...."

Sure. I got that. And in the context of this current conversation, I am going to conclude that your desired inference to this agreed-upon-fact, is that: Therefore : We can not conclude that dowsing isn't scientific, with our current-testing-knowledge, since .... as has been seen .... science over-turns previously erroneously held notions. And that some current so-called "science" is merely pseudo-science.

So to apply that to the current discussion ... be honest : No matter what "science" we apply in this discussion, to discern whether-or-not dowsing has a scientific basis (or even works in the first place), can simply be down-played by pointing out that "science" seems to be evolving. Right ? Your inference is quite clear.

Thus no matter how much a skeptic can point out DBTs, science of how there's no attraction or ability to "sense" underground fissures and seismic faults, etc...., the believer can merely say: "Well gee, science isn't always accurate, so your tests and data can't be relied upon to disprove dowsing".

Do you see the impenetrable bullet-proof web of protection this puts around dowsing ? It puts it outside of any ability to discuss. So on the one hand, the adherents will point to science (like the Munich tests, or whatever) to show that it works. And will insist it's scientific (albeit un-discovered), and not occult or spooks. Ok. But when the skeptic PUSHES BACK with science to rebut (challenges the statistics, shows more plausible explanations, etc...) , then the believers conveniently say that science isn't reliable to disprove it. Since , of course, there's unknown things, or evolved science, or conflicting scientists, etc...

But this is ass-backwards. I could tell you that I have a tennis shoe that finds gold. And can insist it's totally scientific (albeit un-discovered). And can point you to anecdotal stories of finds. And no matter how much you say "that's silly, it will never work", all I have to do is say : "Well gee, science can't prove everything", and "science has been wrong in the past", etc... And .... my tennis-shoe will become unassailable. No one can ever disprove it. See ?

As for the connection to the evolved schools of scientific thought on global warming debate, I am having trouble following your logic there. I assume that is more to your point that science is often up-for-debate about statistical analysis, opinion, new data, etc... Right ? And I'm guessing that .... to compare that to the current discussion, means that likewise, we can't toss-out dowsing as being un-scientific ?

Otherwise: I can't follow your intention with the warming thing. Sorry.


" >....I was saying to you personally, I would accept a preponderance and would not insist on DBTs,...."


Picket-wire: Please tell us: What "evidence" would satisfy you, that dowsing does not work ? I have a feeling, that any series of proofs you could outline as satisfactory proof, would amount to some form of DBT and/or science. But if I'm wrong, then please tell us. What evidence suffices for you ?

">.... your youtube video was absolutely a double blind test, that all it proved was that the people who took the test (no data on the number) even though they thought they could pass were absolutely wrong...."

Aahh, then I was pretty clever about predicting this push-back. Because it's one of the most common ones used by dowsers. The "no true scotsman" fallacy. Any time rigorous academic tests of dowsing show nothing-better than random chance, then the dowsing advocates merely proclaim: Those dowsers , in that particular test, were not skilled enough.

And they'll even use creative work arounds, like to compare it to metal detecting success: If you put a Minelab CTX in the hands of a rookie, and send him out to a worked out park, and tell him "find some silver". Odds, are, he WON'T find silver, Eh ? Because, of course, he's a rookie. But if you put that same CTX in the hands of a skilled md'r, then ... sure he will pass the test.

So too is it with the failed dowsing experiments. None of those tests ever hold merit. Because then the next dowsers, down the line, simply do the No-true-Scotsman exercise. And BTW : This is EXACTLY why some of those past DBT attempts have GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY to conscript and invite the TOP NOTCH dowsers. Ie.: those of most reknown, etc... To avoid this "those guys were rookies" pushback.


Re.: The de-bunking of pg. 175 , you say I :

">...Then you give excuses for not doing what you said you would do....".

And what is wrong with that "excuse" ? I'd say it was a darn good one. I do-in-fact need assurance that if I debunk it, that you won't simply fall back on saying that DBT's and science can't prove everything. Otherwise, why should anyone here bother to try to address it ?

> ... DBTs don't prove anything. Please post where I said they don't prove anything ..."

In your 3:24pm on 5/4/19 you said: "Tom, my only point is that DBT's are not the only way to prove anything"

At this point, I suspect we are going to enter into a debate of semantics about what you *meant* by that . And other similar quotes of your , to this effect, that I could find. Let's be honest picketwire: Here's what that above exact quote of yours will allow you to do : If a DBT (that we can all agree on) shows that dowsing doesn't work, you can BY THAT EXACT QUOTE OF YOURS , claim that there are other ways to prove dowsing. Hence I have paraphrased it by saying that you had said that "DBT doesn't prove anything". Let's not debate about the semantics of exact wording. It is the NET EFFECT that there are ways to wriggle out of DBTs, by the dowsers. And that's all I'm trying to say.

And also: You have had several posts now (which you will hopefully agree) that cast a shadow on the scientific process. Ie.: science can't prove everything (which I believe is an exact quote) . To which I'm merely substituting "DBT" in place of "science" . Again, let's not devolve into a debate of semantics. Suffice it to say: You're on record telling about things world around us that defy explanation, science that has "evolved" and so forth. So to that extent, yes, I have paraphrased you as saying "DBT's don't prove anything".

"> ... it doesn't sound to me like" shows me that you are stalling again and consider innuendo proper scientific method. ..."

And I repeat again, I will be more than happy to try to tackle that (the pg. 175 and so forth), once I have a gentlemen's agreement from you that you will completely agree that DBT's and science are conclusive and final. And that you can not simply move on to "yet other links" and "yet other studies" and "science isn't conclusive" and "DBT's aren't the only way", etc... I REFUSE to enter into a wack-a-mole game.

You can call that an "excuse" if you want. But for pete's sake .... there has to be a set-standard of evidence. Otherwise, yes, it's going to be perpetually moving the goal posts on your part. And BTW: I know you are quite sincere. So when I say "moving the goal posts", I do not mean to imply that you do that maliciously, purposefully, etc....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2019 11:07PM by Tom_in_CA.

Wow 5 pages on long range locators. No wonder some dealers sell them. Passion from the masses.

Picketwire --

I am going to ask a question, which Tom has been alluding to, but I'll ask it clearly.

Presuming the hypothesis here is that "some small number of people have the ability to locate an otherwise unknown source of water, using a stick or metal rod that -- when held by these people, will "point toward" the water source," how do you feel that this claim could be falsified? I don't agree with the reasoning that underlies this hypothesis to begin with, but putting that aside, in what way do you feel that this hypothesis can be falsified?

Steve

goodmore,

I think it's more of the case where some folks (like myself) tend to allow ourselves to get sucked into debates...

Steve

And some simply like debates, regardless of how many times the debate subject has been debated before with the same ending conclusion(s). And then, of course, there are always some feather rufflers. HH jim tn

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Picketwire --
>
> I am going to ask a question....

>," how do you feel t
> hat this claim could be falsified? ...


Bingo. Which is what I asked him: "What evidence would suffice ?" And no, I will not allow "generalities" (eg.: "sufficient proof" or "just read and answer this link", etc...). I want a specific promise that once that goal post has been reached, then there is no more moving-of-goal-posts.


jim tn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> with the same ending conclusion(s).

If I thought that this was the case, then I'd agree with you : "Why bother?".

While it's true that most people over 20 yrs. old are "set in their ways", yet: There are some adults who do-indeed weigh the data , and re-adjust their notions. To which you could still say "who cares?" and "why bother?". To which I'd answer : It's a fascination of how someone can look point-blank at data, and not come to a conclusion. If they can't, then gee, maybe it's ME that's coming to the wrong conclusion. And if so, then sure: I want to avail myself of the right equipment and data. I mean, who wouldn't want to have the ability to detect goodies from long distances ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2019 02:15PM by Tom_in_CA.

No question there are fraud devices out there and many, many people who claim to be able to dowse who are just deceiving themselves. I'd say a great majority think they can dowse because they got lucky one time. Map dowsing is even worse. It's a psychic thing and just by it's nature it is unreliable and inaccurate. You'd think they'd get lucky once in a while, but all you have to do is look on T-net and you won't find any successes in thousands of attempts. Maybe somebody stumble over it and claim it works. As i say, if somebody map dowses for you, they just marked the spot where it ISN'T located. LOL

I mainly posted this because I wanted to talk about dowsing rods. Colin Keay did research on geophysical electrophony. That's VLF from things like auroras, meteors, earthquakes, etc. that gets transduced into audio by objects like pine needles, eyeglasses, aluminum foil, thin wires, and i might add--forked sticks and dowsing rods.

I've done most of my work with the frequency generators. It's not some kind magic. Geophysical surveys use this type of equipment. The big stink came about when Dell Winders discovered he could detect the energy path with a set of dowsing rods. Skeptics went postal. Funny because the original frequency locators used an electronic receiver instead of the rods. I've said many times that it is very difficult for most people to learn how to use the rods. Nobody wants to take the time to learn some basic form of meditation in order to achieve a Zen-like state. It's human nature to take the easy path. Those who claim "You don't need it." probably can't do it in the first place.

I'm here to argue and I won't get sucked into any.

Hey there Contraption, thanx for chiming in. Your post seems to start off distancing itself from LRL's . Which, yes, we can all agree is bogus. But then you seem to give credit to dowsing. Right ? You say :

Contraption Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .... It's a psychic thing....

and

> .... basic form of meditation in order to achieve a Zen-like state....

and

> .... and just by it's nature it is unreliable and inaccurate....


In which case, I don't think anyone here would disagree that , if we ascribe the power of dowsing to those things , that makes them beyond the ability of science and DBT's to measure. Right ? Can we agree ?


Yet in the typical bait-&-switch moving goal-posts, we see the following :



> .... did research on geophysical electrophony.....


>.... the original frequency locators used an electronic receiver



Which, to the casual reader, does indeed seem like you want to ascribe the power-of-dowsing to something scientific. Not psychic, zen, spiritual, etc... Right ? And thus lend itself to a scientific discussion. Care to clarify what you are saying ?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2019 10:25PM by Tom_in_CA.

LOL Oops!!! I meant to type I'm NOT here to argue." I used to think I was helping people to see the light, but after so many years I came to realize it doesn't even matter if you show someone. Once they get hardened there is nothing that will convince them otherwise. It's laughable because like i said, the geophysical surveys use similar, but more sophisticated equipment.

[csegrecorder.com]

Contraption --

If I understand what you are saying, you are essentially saying that VLF radiation can get "converted" or "transduced" into sound waves, by some objects, etc.

I don't have a particular problem with this; I know nothing about such a phenomenon, but it would seem at least within the realm of possibility, i.e. logically fathomable.

However, once you relate it to dowsing, the idea begins to veer off into the weeds, in my opinion.

Let's go back to the original premise you presented -- VLF radiation being "converted," by some type of "transducer" into sound (vibration). Could, say, a copper "dowsing rod" somehow act as a "transducer," in some way, through which VLF radiation could be converted to sound (or vibration) that could be "felt" or "sensed" by someone, through one of the 5 known senses (presumably touch or hearing)? I would not immediately rule out the possibility; again, I could at least see how you could possibly arrive there through inductive reasoning. I am not stating whether I think it COULD happen, I'm just saying that I could imagine it's something that could be determined, via scientific testing. There's a certain "logic" to where I could see it as at least being something that could be within the realm of possibility.

BUT -- and here's the big BUT that I have had in this whole discussion, and which is a large part of why I don't believe dowsing "works"...

How would some type of radiation begin emitted by water be uniquely, specifically discernible, to a human being, using nothing but a copper rod or a forked stick as a "transducer" of some sort (again, assuming that's even possible), from amongst ALL THE OTHER OBJECTS EMITTING RADIATION ALSO? This, to me, is where the hocus-pocus begins to enter into the picture.

Basically, to use a metal detector as an analogy, what I would have to believe, to believe that someone is capable of "dowsing" successfully, is the following:

I would have to believe that at a person holding a forked stick becomes a very sophisticated "receive coil," and what they "receive"(radiation?) is then run through some highly accurate "ID/discrimination circuit," with the "discrimination knob" set to ignore all other "targets" except "water." Further, there would have to be a highly effective "EMI filter," naturally built into the individual, so as to filter out all the "radiation" emanating from all other sources, so that the "water signal" is not lost amongst all the "noise." The ID/Discrimination circuit, and the EMI filter, would function all by themselves -- involuntarily, not voluntarily, and apparently the ID/Discrimination circuit, and the EMI filter, were "built into" this person as "standard equipment," that they neither know about, per se, nor have been trained to use. It just sort of "happens."

Really?

So, to go back to your original point, Contraption, convincing me that VLF radiation could somehow be "transduced" into a sound wave, by presenting me with some well-reasoned science, would be one thing. But taking that next "step," (which is actually an ENORMOUS, GINGANTIC LEAP), to where I'd be convinced of the possibility of dowsing based on the "transducing of VLF radiation into a sound wave," thesis, would be an INFINITELY harder sell.

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2019 03:45AM by steveg.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> ...... There's a certain "logic" to where I could see it as at least being something that could be within the realm of possibility......

And if someone uses enough $20 words, then ANYTHING can sound like a Star Trek dialogue. They toss out "possibilities" and then just "proclaim them to be so". Yet that does not "make them to be so". I would agree.

And next you do what any scientific minded person does, when presented those Star Trek explanations by dowsers : They go to try to show how it's not possible.

And I GUARANTEE YOU , that the dowsers next move will be to go to "un-discovered" science fall-back lines. Or to say , as Picketwire does, that science can't prove all things. And will prop up that assertion by pointing to quirks of nature (critters that run to higher ground before an earthquake even starts) to show an un-measurable phenomenon. Thus nullifying all your attempts to show that a rod can't magically swing to a gold coin. Right ?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2019 01:04PM by Tom_in_CA.

All these arguments are Useless---According to AlGore and "settled science" the world Ended several years ago.

The human mind is the filter system with unbelievable sensitivity to things like voltage polarity and current. As they say, the mind makes sense of the senses. The same process of seeing different colors is a bit complicated to explain.

As for the rod response, I tend to think of it as on the subconscious level, just below the threshold of awareness. With practice many people can access it. It's a natural process that has long become dormant. many animals still use it, like the antennae of an insect.

But I don't care to discuss dowsing but I suppose I could give some info. You really need to be some king of Zen master to be any good at it. Usually takes fifteen years of practice to be a good dowser or not-so-good.

I've been into the frequency generators and they are easier to learn. Below the link explains how the signal can travel with minimal amounts of power. That's always been a big beef from the skeptics. And like I said, the geophysical surveys use this type of equipment. I always wondered why these electronics experts couldn't see this. Guess they ain't looking.

[amasci.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2019 02:17PM by Contraption.

You keep saying you dont want to discuss or debate but it seems that you joined the forum SOLELY to debate and support this nonsense.

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

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

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2019 06:18PM by silverfiend.

Tom,
#1: You have DBT youtube videos claiming dowsing is proven "not possible", I have provided multiple links where DBTs were used and you claim, without any data or research, that they don't prove anything. Sematics?
#2: You are not going to even look at the links until I, a diesel mechanic with no college education, agree to make a statement? One, does it matter what I say or believe? No. You are the one that has posted one link and proclaim it proof positive, Two, all I have asked is prove your point.
#3: You are "willing to bet" that research at a major international university does not follow protocol of even high school science.
#4: You accuse me of moving the goalposts at the same time that you tell me that you will refute and entire 10 year study by a major university and then will not even look at one tiny part of the university"s research until I, a diesel mechanic, agrees to your terms. If I moved the goalposts here, it was to your benefit in that I only asked for a response on one tiny part.. Who is refusing to look at scientific research?
#5: All I asked is where is your evidence that dowsing never works as you seem to believe it totally. You have supplied one youtube video, line upon line of conjecture ("if you say...then..."), accusations of anti-science bias ("you say DBTs don't prove anything"), etc.
#6: If I say science can't prove all things then do you believe it can? If it can, why are you using personal attacks instead of providing links? Where is your links to scientific research or are you basing it upon youtube videos? Do you believe that science has proven that there is no God or that it proves there is One? Has science proved why we are here and can think?
#7: I am not sure where in any of the links I have provided, it demonstrates your "And I GUARANTEE YOU , that the dowsers next move will be to go to "un-discovered" science fall-back lines." Please provide them.
#8: Show any example in any of the research I provided where it was claimed that dowsing rods, sticks, tennis shoes with peanut butter, etc. by themselves, are claimed to move near a gold coin, water, or any other object. Surely with a search function, it shouldn't take up too much of your time.
#9: "How would some type of radiation begin emitted by water be uniquely, specifically discernible, to a human being, using nothing but a copper rod or a forked stick as a "transducer" of some sort (again, assuming that's even possible), from amongst ALL THE OTHER OBJECTS EMITTING RADIATION ALSO?" There is something in the links I posted pertaining to your question which is there for you to refute. It's funny how your conjecture is already being studied. Maybe someone was really wanting to know?
#10: Don't do it for me. If you are not curious about, from the Munich test:

"I. Gronig. For a number of years, a geoscientist of the University of Bonn has observed the activities of this lady dowser. She repeatedly succeeds in indicating very exactly the depth, quantity and quality of the water she detects by means of the dowsing technique."

and do not want to look at it without my "Gentleman's agreement, that is fine with me. If you want to believe it doesn't work that is fine with me. I will not vilify. If someone wants to think it does, that is fine with me also. Just do not tell me one DBT youtube video and your intuition proves it does not. I know, I know,"How many youtube videos do I have to provide before you admit that dowsing has never, does never, and will not ever work?" Or, "I am willing to bet the geoscientist from the University of Bonn is wrong."

Few days ago I was talk with man who is searching with magic rods 15 years. He is also working with one treasure hunter. They both work for government projects and on archeological sites. Lots of success. What is mean? I believe them.... maybe of part of it. There is not business in it. And best part. Famous polish metal detecting manufacturer prepare rod gun for them.... he can’t use it. And don’t know what to say about it. They order it from him. I’m testing one unit and I can’t say that it work but also I can’t say that it doesn’t work.

Contraption Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> " I used to think I was helping people to see the
> light,


And I suppose that this "light" that you speak of, is that "dowsing works". Right ? Hence .... woe-is-us that don't see the light. Tsk Tsk. But since when is "dowsing works" a given ? Since when has that been shown to be true ? Maybe the "light" is that "dowsing doesn't work", and that it's the dowsers that aren't seeing the "light" . Eh ?


Contraption Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>... You really need to be some
> king of Zen master to be any good at it. Usually t
> akes fifteen years of practice to be a good dowser
>

Which becomes the perfect "out" as to why all dowsing tests fail. Those dowsers, who failed, weren't "zen masters" (ie.: they "needed more practice"). Right ? It's NEVER that dowsing simply doesn't work. It's always that the persons who are trying it "need more years". Which is convenient, because .... 15 yrs. later, you can just tell them: "You need 20 yrs. practice". And so on, till infinity. Right ?

ok then: Why don't some of these "zen masters" come show the world that it can be done ? By going through DBTs (and not just showing anecdotal finds?) . If everything you're saying is true, why haven't we ever seen test-able results ??

Since all this star wars terminology is confusing, How about this? You said "All this BS about dowsing is just that, BS. I said "Proof is in the pudding, feed me some." You said, "Here's an honest to goodness DBT youtube video that proves it." I said, "Yup, that proves that these guys couldn't find a bottle of water under a box! Is that all you got?" Then you said, "Hey, everyone, here is a stupid dude that don't believe all DBTs prove everything and he is moving the goalposts." I said, "Hey, dude, here is a few things to talk about, not my ideas but them there college people ideas, if you want to look at it." You said, "BS, why should I even look at it 'cause I know you'd move the goalposts again and besides they believe stupid stuff and you must too. I mean I already proved it and you don't admit it. Just 'cause you can find all kinds of BS from the last two or three hundred years how can any of it be right? It don't make no sense. I know 'cause I can smell BS a mile away." And I said "WTF? I thunk you was gonna show me how stupid them college people are." And you said "Jeezus Christ! I don't need to prove anything, it is already settled and you just keep trying to weezel out of all the stuff I provided that proves it." Now I guess I can stand up and say, "You win, you done gave out piles and piles of information showing me it cain''t be done. How can I argue with logic like that?"

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


> .... I have provided multiple links where DBTs were used and you claim, without any data or research, that they don't prove anything....

And I have repeatedly given you my pre-requisites, before I dive in. A) you need to agree that science will solve this current question / topic. And can not resort to the "science doesn't prove everything" pushback, once I am done de-bunking your links/articles. B ) You need to tell us what , to you, is sufficient proof to prove that dowsing DOESN'T work. Ie.: something *specific*. Not *generalaties* Not to say "sufficient proof" or "evidence". Lest you can just perpetually move the goal posts and say "that's not sufficient" or "that doesn't qualify as evidence", etc...

>..... all I have asked is prove your point.....

And all I/we have asked you is: "What is sufficient proof " ? Because I refuse to enter into a game of wack-a-mole. So the sooner you agree to the gentlemen's agreement, the sooner we can progress.

> ....that I only asked for a response on one tiny part.....

And I appreciate that you are focussing on that one tiny part. Otherwise, it would be unfair for EITHER OF US , to give endless volumes of material to each other, demanding that the other side spend their lives answering each paragraph "lest the issue not be resolved". Because, as you can surmise, that would be endless for you too.

For example, like the video link I gave you, some people might think that's conclusive to show that dowsing doesn't work. Right ? Yet you successfully showed (with a push-back I'm well familiar with) that: Those dowsers, in that singular video, were not qualified enough. Right ? So I suppose I can show you yet-another video or article. Which ... likewise, ... you could find some fault with, that they too were not conclusive. Right ? So then I gather up 10th , and 11th link and article, for you to have to debunk. And so forth till eternity. Right ?

Hence yes: There comes a point where we need to set a singular standard by which either side can say "This level or type of evidence would convince me". Whether it be for a singular study to be debunked. Or a singular demonstration of ability under a controlled set of circumstances, or ... whatever. SOMETHING TO STOP THE GOAL POSTS from being moved.

So with that said, I'm glad that you define your standard as the "one tiny part". So I'd need your gentlemen's agreement that if I debunk that one tiny part, that you publically come on board saying that dowsing is b*ll-sh*t. Ok ? And also, I'd need you , ahead of time, to tell me what would be the proper standard for how that "one tiny part" can be said to have been de-bunked. In other words, I don't want to de-bunk it, only for you to come back and say "that didn't debunk it, because there's some fabulous remote contingency of how it could still work under xyz circumstance", blah blah . So I need a fixed goal post on how I am to debunk the "one tiny part", such that .... you yourself agree ahead of time, that you can't wriggle out of.

> ..... #5: All I asked is where is your evidence that dowsing never works......

picket-wire, this is bass-ackwards. It is not up to skeptics to prove dowsing *doesn't* work. It is up for dowsers to prove it *does* work. Please do not shift the burden of proof. Nice try.

> .... #6: If I say science can't prove all things then do you believe it can? If it can, why are you using personal attacks instead of providing links? Where is your links to scientific research or are you basing it upon youtube videos? Do you believe that science has proven that there is no God or that it proves there is One? Has science proved why we are here and can think?....

Bingo. See why I'm insisting on fixed goal posts ? I have already answered this. I've acknowledged that there are things in the supernatural realm (God, etc...) that are outside of the ability of science to measure. And you've already gone on record as saying that dowsing is not connected to any such supernatural power. Right ? You've gone on record numerous times as saying that something scientific (albeit maybe un-discovered) is going on with dowsing. And that it is NOT powered by the supernatural .

Yet here you are again, bringing that up as an example of how some things can't be proven by science. You need to agree with me ahead of time, that dowsing *IS* a topic that science can prove or disprove. That it IS WITHIN the realm of science to prove or disprove. Otherwise, like you did with this point #6, I fear you will simply dismiss any evidences and proofs I can answer with. Do you see now why I need the terms-of-evidence agreed to ahead of time ? Your own words here in #6 are EXACTLY THE REASON why I smell wack-a-mole game would result.

But heck... in-lieu of your point #6, why don't you just go ahead and attribute the powers to supernatural things ? Like the dude in my link who said that "God" was giving him the info (I realize he doesn't speak for all dowsers). Because if you did, then we could be done with the conversation.

But I know why you (and most dowsers) don't go down that path. Because the moment you do, is the moment it opens up an entirely different box of problems. Thus: Why oh why do you bring it up in your point #6 ? And now can you blame me for insisting that the pre-requisites of fixed goal posts be agreed to, before I tackle your "one small point" ?

> .... #7: I am not sure where in any of the links I have provided, it demonstrates your "And I GUARANTEE YOU , that the dowsers next move will be to go to "un-discovered" science fall-back lines." Please provide them......

As you may surmise, I have studied this long & hard for decades. THAT is how I toss out words like "guarantee you....". Because I have been in so many countless discussions on this. If you are the new-found exception, GREAT ! Simply agree to the pre-requisites, and we can move forward.

.....#8: Show any example in any of the research I provided where it was claimed that dowsing rods, sticks, tennis shoes with peanut butter, etc. by themselves, are claimed to move near a gold coin, water, or any other object. Surely with a search function, it shouldn't take up too much of your time......

I don't think I'm on record as saying a rod or a shoe moves on its own. On the contrary: Just like a metal detector, the detector doesn't get up off the table, and go out in the field, and find coins. It requires an operator. So too does the rod need an operator. So for purposes of when I talk about "rods", I am implying "rod+ operator". I know that the beliefs of the dowsing crowd is that the human being is the 2nd-half of the system.

BTW, the detector analogy, for that, doesn't totally hold water: Because a detector can be propped on a table, with no operator touching it. And you can wave a quarter in front of it, and the detector "beeps". Even without an operator holding the detector.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2019 08:50PM by Tom_in_CA.

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .... I s
> aid, "Yup, that proves that these guys couldn't fi
> nd a bottle of water under a box! Is that all you
> got?" Then you said, "Hey, everyone, here is a st
> upid dude that don't believe all DBTs prove everyt
> hing and he is moving the goalposts.

picket-wire : If you scroll back through my posts here, you will see that I acknowledged that your push-back , about that singular video, was valid. Ie.: That perhaps just those singular test-subjects were not qualified. Yet .... there are zen-master dowsers out there, that would no doubt have passed the test.

I can accept this explanation. But as you can surmise: That pushback will be never ending. How do we correct for this never-ending "no true scotsman" push-back ? Because no matter WHAT dowser we get in there, that fails the test, ...... be honest: The next person watching those zen -masters fail, can simply say the same thing: "They didn't have enough experience ". Eg.: If they were 20 yrs. into practice, well gee, they need 30 yrs. If they were 30 yrs. into it, well gee, they need 40. And so forth.

How do we correct for this ?? Do you see how it makes your beliefs un-testable ?

And BTW : In the course of various tests, like that , that I've seen, the people conducting the tests:

a) go out of their way to find persons who are not mere rookies. Ie.: they don't just pick students from a college class room, put a rod in their hand, and see what happens.

b) In all those tests, they interview the dowsers ahead of time, and see what their claimed abilities are. So it is the DOWSER HIMSELF who is FAILING HIS OWN CLAIMED ABILITIES. As opposed to some 3rd-party set-idea of what dowsing is supposed to be able to do, and then thrusting those standards on an un-suspecting dowser.

Picketwire --

You posted this quote...

"She repeatedly succeeds in indicating very exactly the depth, quantity and quality of the water she detects by means of the dowsing technique."

Just plain ridiculous. I'm sorry, but this is simply ridiculous. You have to be kidding me. So now, you expect me to believe that not only can dowsers "find water," but accept that they can ALSO tell the exact depth, the amount of water in the underground source, and what minerals, etc., are dissolved in the water? All by holding a forked wooden stick?

DO you seriously expect me to believe that there is "science" behind the idea that you hand this woman a forked stick, and she will not only find a previously unknown pocket of underground water, BUT she will also tell you exactly the depth, number of gallons, and minerals present within the water?

You really expect people to believe this? By the way -- that "journal" that the guy from Munich published in? It is far from being a "reputable" journal, from what I can tell. They publish about bigfoot, UFOs, etc. Not quite the Journal of Applied Geophysics...

Remember your post, early on in the thread, where you talked about "evil spirits" moving the Ouija board pointer? That, to me, is a far more "plausible" explanation, were I to ever observe someone holding a forked stick, that moved in a certain direction, and then the person told me, with accuracy, based on the stick movement, the location, exact depth, exact amount, and exact chemical makeup of an underground water deposit...

If I saw that occur, I wouldn't be setting up experiments to study how the person did it. I'd be getting as far away from that person as I could...

Wow.

This thread has entirely exceeded my ability to muster the patience to engage in reasonable discussion on this topic. As far as I am concerned, we may as well be debating the scientific merits of the tooth fairy...

Steve

Aw no, here we go, can't wait to read this Tooth Fairy debate. She's probably friends with the divining rod demon.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .... By the
> way -- that "journal" that the guy from Munich pub
> lished in? It is far from being a "reputable" jou
> rnal, from what I can tell. They publish about bi
> gfoot, UFOs, etc. Not quite the Journal of Applie
> d Geophysics...
>

Steve, allow me to jump in here on to the dowser's defense : What you are guilty of here, is known as the "genetic fallacy". Attacking the source of the information, rather than the pro's & con's of information itself. An example of this is : If you found out that your math teacher had some flaw on other grounds. Eg.: had a DUI in his past, or has bad breath, etc.... Notice that doesn't change the fact that 2+2 still equals 4. Your math teacher can be "odd", but still teach correct math. So instead of attacking 2+2=4 on the basis of the reputation/personality of your math teacher, you would tackle the validity of 2+2 on the merits of the math itself.

So too could the dowser crowd dismiss this as nothing more than genetic fallacy. See ? I know the dowsers push-back lines better than the dowsers themselves I should have been a dowser ! Anyhow, what Steve is saying :

Here is the magazine publication where the Munich appears: study [rationalwiki.org]

In that wiki link, it is called a "pseudojournal". Here is the definition of pseudojournal: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudojournal

Here is wiki's wrap-up to the reputability of this journal:

"JSE has much less to do with science than it does with whatever pet crank theories its editors are out to promote. It's chock-full of all kinds of woo, including (but not limited to) alternative medicine, astrology, remote viewing, AIDS denial, quantum woo, UFOs, and much, much more! The society also puts out a magazine called EdgeScience, possibly trying to ape this organization dedicated to actual science. "

I know that the sketchy origins of the study don't *necessarily* mean that the data isn't true. But .... At the risk of being guilty of the genetic fallacy, .... it *does* sort of make a person wonder. Because unlike a math teacher with bad breath or a DUI (that have nothing to do with the truthfulness of 2+2=4 ), yet in THIS particular case, it is-indeed hand-in-hand with the ability of authors to come to truths of their other topics. Ie.: a reputation that precedes them. NOT that that won't stop me from tackling your p. 175-thing (as soon as you agree to our gentleman's agreement on the terms).

I have a question for picket-wire: Is there any reputable scientific journals where similar pro-dowsing studies,like this, can be found ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2019 02:02PM by Tom_in_CA.