Long Range Locaters?

Sorry for interrupting your "Skeptic Power" support group. LOL Honestly, the negativity is detrimental to your health. Yeah, I know, it's an addiction and i don't want to be feeding the trolls, enabling. ANd you know what the gold hunters say, "Nobody finds gold with a negative attitude."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2019 12:59PM by Contraption.

Contraption Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... the negativity is detriment
> al to your health. ...


Gee, I'm so sorry but .... sometimes truth is negative

Tom, in post 41 I said: Gentleman's agreement: "I have read all the rebuttal but only parts of the Munich studies. I still say it only casts shade one part so the ball is in your court to rebut the rest of the study. If you do, I will hang my head in shame, admit that there is an extremely high probability that dowsing has never worked, and apologize for wasting your time reading," What is holding you back? Do you want me to say the scientific term "never". Like I said in post 41, I agreed then and I still agree to the terms of your Gentleman's agreement. no more whack a mole(?). I freely gave information on multiple studies without a gentleman's agreement, yet all I have seen are posts questioning me, not one person has read any of the studies. I thought you said science proves it does not work, but now you are saying it is up to me to prove it does like as if I am some kind of a great scientist? I'm just a messenger with links to actual scientists. I think you are the one moving the goalposts by saying that you don't need to prove anything, but that is okay. And now you say, "Yet .... there are zen-master dowsers out there, that would no doubt have passed the test." It seems from that quote you are saying it will work.

Steve: This quote is from the University of Munich research. It cites others' research in it too. This is not the only research, pro and con, to which I have provided links. As far as I can see, no one else has provided any links on the subject except one youtube video. I don't expect you to believe anything I say. Belief is not science. I am sure the same arguments were used when scientists proposed that the world was not flat. I would expect you to look at the evidence and tell me why it is wrong instead of attacking the author. It seems to be the operating procedure here to attack the messenger (science denier), attack the author (believes in UFOs or Christianity or something), ignore any study that may disagree with one's belief and say it is more plausible that the boogie man is causing it. I will say I reacted differently in that if it is true I wouldn't "run from the devil", I would want to know if the science could benefit mankind. I didn't stop reading there, I chose the quote as a challenge: Here is something that should be easy to refute. Did you refute it by stating how ridiculous it is? Is that all you got? There is information on a 90% success rate finding water in the desert when conventional methods did not prove as successful, finding a drinking water source between two sources that that had to much arsenic, the fact that someone was willing spend the money to drill there on the evidence of a dowser. Do I expect you to believe that too? No and it doesn't bother me that you don't. All I have ever asked here is to read the research and if it is wrong give me scientific explanations why. Due to the fact that the quote surprised you tells me you did not examine the evidence and were waiting for me to prove it. I can't prove anything, I have neither the knowledge or resources. Don't take my word for it, examine the evidence. If you feel it is wrong, don't try to tell me it is because it is unbelieveable, not reasonable, and like studying the tooth fairy. If you feel the need to question my integrity, that is fine, I don't claim great amounts of it, but I don't care if the researcher is Adolph Hitler himself, I can't say his research is wrong because he is the author. I can't say it is wrong because it is ridiculous to me or that it strains anyone's credibility because we might as well be studying the tooth fairy. Saying something could not possibly be true because you absolutely think it is impossible does not further science anywhere and just shows me, an ignorant individual who freely admits it, that you did not examine the information at all. I don't think the Ouija board-evil spirits explanation is very plausible in that from my experience with it, it lied to cause dissension and did nothing to help mankind like finding drinking water. . Besides, paranormal forces are not science and nowhere that I have found in the Munich study does it attribute dowsing to evil spirits, UFOs or Bigfoot. But don't worry, Tom is going to refute it for us all. And if and when he does I, a genuine high school graduate from 50 years ago, am going to stand up and proclaim dowsing never works, never did and never will, thus proving to all that it is a hoax.

Tom,

While I get what you are saying, I am not sure I totally agree with you.

Let me give you an example.

A coworker in my office recently served as a reviewer on a potential journal article. He's one of the most respected reviewers of scientific studies related to this particular topic, in our field. The article he was asked to review, was submitted for publication in an appropriate journal, within our field of discipline. However, the paper did NOT pass my coworker's scrutiny. His review required "major revisions" of the article, due to what were legitimate flaws in the study (mis-construing the data, followed by an incorrect conclusion drawn from a trend in the data). It's a data trend that you have to be "on the inside" to understand, within this particular scientific discipline -- because to someone on the "outside," in a different scientific discipline, they would be TOTALLY UNAWARE of the subtle -- but extremely important -- nuance in the dataset that is the actual cause of the data trend observed (and not the cause proposed by the authors). At this point, the paper was to have been entirely re-written, with major revisions, and then would have had to have been re-submitted, for a whole new round of review, before being accepted for publication. This is not abnormal; this is often the outcome of an initial review of a paper. That's the whole point of the "peer-review" process, within science.

HOWEVER, the issue is, if the author would have acknowledged my co-worker's critique, and made the necessary revisions, it would have destroyed a major conclusion of the paper. And the issue there, is that I strongly believe -- based on proof -- that the author had an AGENDA -- in other words, he WANTED to arrive at his particular conclusion, and to do so REQUIRED that he maintain his (incorrect) assessment of the data trend. In other words, the author wanted to prove a point, and he interpreted a data trend in a SPECIFIC, but ERRONEOUS, way, so that his interpretation supported his desired conclusion. He had an agenda, and respecting my colleague's very accurate, correct assessment of the flaw in the research would have meant that the data WOULD NOT have supported the author's agenda.

So, what did the author do? Revise, and then re-submit the paper? Of course not; as I said, the conclusions drawn by the paper would have been destroyed UNLESS the author interpreted (erroneously) the data in exactly the way he did. No, instead, the author decided to submit the paper to a DIFFERENT journal, one that is NOT within this specific scientific discipline, but one that is instead only peripherally related to the topic at hand. Why was this important? Because the author knew that he could "slide the paper through" the review process for THIS particular journal, since the reviewers from THAT scientific discipline would lack the "inside information" that would be needed to have allowed them to catch the "sleight of hand" being perpetrated by the author. On the surface, the conclusions the author drew were "logical," and without that inside information about the dataset, it is not immediately apparent that the author's conclusion about the data trend was false. The REAL reason for the trend in the data is actually due to a different, ENTIRELY UNRELATED cause (for a hint, the author was publishing a paper blaming "climate change" for the data trend in question, when it actually has NOTHING to do with climate change at all. The observed data trend is actually due to a gradual change in the way the underlying data was reported over time, beginning several years back; in other words, the dataset has been compromised by slight, gradual changes in the way the data was reported, but which occurred very quietly and without "fanfare," such that the change is only known by a rather small group of "insiders" who work intimately with this data, and the data reporting.

In the end, the paper was of course accepted, and published, in this OTHER journal, having slid past the reviewers --WITH the erroneous conclusions drawn by the author fully intact. And thus, the paper now enters the body of "research" supporting "climate change" -- even though the underlying data IN NO WAY supports this conclusion. And it is likely that no one will EVER KNOW that the paper was nearly rejected -- only to be accepted if major revisions to the conclusions were completed -- due to the fact that the conclusions of the paper are actually false. Instead, from here forward, the paper will be "accepted" as "truth," and of course will be pointed to as being "another study" that adds to the "body of evidence" supporting "climate change." And again -- this is all despite the fact that it didn't pass a thorough peer review for publication in a journal within the ACTUAL scientific discipline that the paper pertains to.

Now, while this is not quite "apples to apples," in that the journal the paper WAS published in, is still a "reputable" journal, it is nonetheless an example of how the value (and thus, truth) of a study depends GREATLY on the quality of the reviewers selected by the editors of that journal -- in other words, the "quality" or "reputability" of the journal, itself...

In my opinion, that entire publication process for the Munich study -- the journal, the editors, etc. -- is HIGHLY SUSPECT...based on what I know of the general publication process for research studies, and on the little I read about the reputability of the "journal," itself.

And that is why I refuse to discuss the study, and why I think it is CORRECT to point to the "suspect nature" of the journal itself. BECAUSE, if that study were nothing more than a "fake" study, a sham, published in a non-reputable publication, you have already given away the farm by engaging in a discussion of the study on the "merits" of the study, itself. Sometimes, you have to go back to the beginning, and point to likely flaws PRIOR to the "study" being "published."

Steve

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > .... By the
> > way -- that "journal" that the guy from Munich p
> ub
> > lished in? It is far from being a "reputable" j
> ou
> > rnal, from what I can tell. They publish about
> bi
> > gfoot, UFOs, etc. Not quite the Journal of Appl
> ie
> > d Geophysics...
> >
>
> Steve, allow me to jump in here on to the dowser's
> defense : What you are guilty of here, is known a
> s the "genetic fallacy". Attacking the
> source of the information, rather than the pro
> 's & con's of information itself. An exam
> ple 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.... Not
> ice that doesn't change the fact that 2+2 still eq
> uals 4. Your math teacher can be "odd", but stil
> l 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 o
> f 2+2 on the merits of the math itself.
>
> So too could the dowser crowd dismiss this as noth
> ing more than genetic fallacy. See ? I know th
> e dowsers push-back lines better than the dowsers
> themselves I should have been a dowser !
> Anyhow, what Steve is saying :
>

ozzie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aw no, here we go, can't wait to read this Tooth F
> airy debate. She's probably friends with the divin
> ing rod demon.


Now THAT, was FUNNY! LOL!

Picketwire --

Let me be frank with you. I AM a scientist. I have been through the experience of "running the gauntlet" of the peer-review process to have research published in scientific journals, AND have been a reviewer, of studies done by fellow scientists who were seeking to have their work published in scientific journals. I am thus pretty familiar with both the process of conducting research TO BE published in a journal (and the subsequent scrutiny that occurs during the process), as well as the process of PERFORMING peer reviews of scientific studies, pre-publication. I have seen, and heard of, a whole bunch of very "interesting" things; I've seen GOOD studies, I've seen GARBAGE studies...there are whole RANGES of folks, with different levels of experience, and with different "agendas" or "biases" at times, seeking to have their work published in a scientific journal.

I also know, as most of us do, that there are obviously flat-out HOAXES that occur. There are those who wish to dupe people -- just for entertainment, if not something more "malicious." Then, there are ALSO those who truly BELIEVE what they are saying, and yet they are far enough "off," mentally, that they don't realize the errors/biases in their ways of thinking. For these types of folks, they blame the journal, they blame the reviewer, they blame some "conspiracy" against their work, they blame others who are simply "not attuned enough" or not "intelligent enough" or whatever, to see the "accuracy" of their work. And you know what? Sometimes, occasionally, it IS the journal, or the reviewers; sometimes there IS a "conspiracy" against their work, etc. etc. But -- in most cases, that is simply a convenient fall-back position, for the author in question. And so, at times, these folks will decide to have their work "published" in "non-reputable" places -- a "pseudo-journal," or, worse yet, a webpage or a blog or whatever.

I have no real way of "proving" whether the Munich study is legitimate in ANY way. The possibilities range from it being an ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE study, that will someday be proven true (while my skepticism will be shown to have been entirely misguided and unfounded), ALL THE WAY to the other extreme...which is the possibility that the "study" is a COMPLETE hoax -- a farcical fabrication being foisted upon unsuspecting readers. You have to admit, that EITHER of these are among the possibilities. It is entirely possible that the WHOLE THING is BALONEY -- a completely made-up pile of nonsense. I am NOT saying that's what it is; I'm saying that is a POSSIBILITY. I don't mean to come across as arrogant; Lord knows I have flaws and biases and lack sufficient knowledge in many areas. With that said, however, I believe that I have a reasonably good "BS" meter; I have learned to trust my instincts on things. That doesn't mean I'm always right, but it DOES mean that I trust myself to sniff things out that don't pass the "smell test." And frankly, scientifically, this does NOT pass my smell test.

What you have done here, is handed us a "study," and with a baseline position that the study is REAL and LEGITIMATE, and was conducted with scientific integrity, you've asked us to "disprove" the claims of the study. How would I do that? How do I know this woman we have spoken of, even exists? How do I know that this study was ever actually conducted? See, you have ASSUMED the veracity of the study, from the get-go, and then placed the burden of proof UPON US, to "disprove." You can't shift that burden; to me, the burden of proof lies elsewhere -- the burden, to me, is to prove that this was a LEGITIMATE study, and not just some nonsense published in a very "questionable" source. You've skipped RIGHT OVER that particular point, and gone straight to asking us to "disprove" something that no one can even be certain is REAL, to begin with.

When a scientist has questions about a study, and its conclusions -- as I do this one -- the normal course of action is to take the study, and RECREATE it, as closely as possible. Set up the same initial conditions, run the same tests, collect the data, and see if your results confirm or deny the results of the study in question. In this case, I am not in a position, nor do I have the knowledge, time, or desire, to set up or conduct such a "test." But there are those who do -- and if this study were LEGITIMATE, I would expect that there would exist LEGITIMATE confirmations of the study, as re-created by independent groups of scientists, to test/confirm whether this study "holds water," or not. Given the potential economic and societal benefits that such an ability (dowsing) would have, IF IT WERE ACTUALLY TRUE, there should be no shortage of folks -- geophysicists or whatever -- who should be interested in replicating/testing that "study." The fact that this does not seem to be the case, and thus that the "phenomenon" remains "fringe," ALSO suggests to me that there's no "there" there.

The bottom line, for me, is that I do not believe this study. I was not there, I did not see the experimentation occur, and its claims seem illogical and impossible enough, based on my instincts as a scientist, that I choose not to believe it to be true, or legitimate.

You don't have to agree with me, but that's where I stand.

Steve

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Steve: This quote is from the University of Munic
> h research. It cites others' research in it too.
> This is not the only research, pro and con, to whi
> ch I have provided links. As far as I can see, no
> one else has provided any links on the subject exc
> ept one youtube video. I don't expect you to bel
> ieve anything I say. Belief is not science. I am
> sure the same arguments were used when scientists
> proposed that the world was not flat. I would ex
> pect you to look at the evidence and tell me why i
> t is wrong instead of attacking the author. It see
> ms to be the operating procedure here to attack th
> e messenger (science denier), attack the author (b
> elieves in UFOs or Christianity or something), ign
> ore any study that may disagree with one's belief
> and say it is more plausible that the boogie man i
> s causing it. I will say I reacted differently i
> n that if it is true I wouldn't "run from the devi
> l", I would want to know if the science could ben
> efit mankind. I didn't stop reading there, I chose
> the quote as a challenge: Here is something that
> should be easy to refute. Did you refute it by st
> ating how ridiculous it is? Is that all you got?
> There is information on a 90% success rate finding
> water in the desert when conventional methods did
> not prove as successful, finding a drinking water
> source between two sources that that had to much a
> rsenic, the fact that someone was willing spend th
> e money to drill there on the evidence of a dowser
> . Do I expect you to believe that too? No and it
> doesn't bother me that you don't. All I have eve
> r asked here is to read the research and if it is
> wrong give me scientific explanations why. Due to
> the fact that the quote surprised you tells me you
> did not examine the evidence and were waiting for
> me to prove it. I can't prove anything, I have ne
> ither the knowledge or resources. Don't take my w
> ord for it, examine the evidence. If you feel it
> is wrong, don't try to tell me it is because it i
> s unbelieveable, not reasonable, and like studying
> the tooth fairy. If you feel the need to question
> my integrity, that is fine, I don't claim great am
> ounts of it, but I don't care if the researcher i
> s Adolph Hitler himself, I can't say his research
> is wrong because he is the author. I can't say it
> is wrong because it is ridiculous to me or that it
> strains anyone's credibility because we might as w
> ell be studying the tooth fairy. Saying something
> could not possibly be true because you absolutely
> think it is impossible does not further science an
> ywhere and just shows me, an ignorant individual w
> ho freely admits it, that you did not examine the
> information at all. I don't think the Ouija boar
> d-evil spirits explanation is very plausible in th
> at from my experience with it, it lied to cause di
> ssension and did nothing to help mankind like find
> ing drinking water. . Besides, paranormal forces
> are not science and nowhere that I have found in t
> he Munich study does it attribute dowsing to evil
> spirits, UFOs or Bigfoot. But don't worry, Tom i
> s going to refute it for us all. And if and when
> he does I, a genuine high school graduate from 50
> years ago, am going to stand up and proclaim dowsi
> ng never works, never did and never will, thus pro
> ving to all that it is a hoax.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2019 02:44AM by steveg.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom,
>
> While I get what you are saying, I am not sure I t
> otally agree with you.
>
> Let me give you an example.
>


Re.: Your post on 5/7/19 , 8:03 am :

Steve, basically what you are saying is: If an author has a bias or agenda, then it is perfectly reasonable to call-into-question the conclusions. Because they could be colored by his biases. And this therefore, is not guilty of genetic fallacy. Have I understood you correctly ?

If so, then ... to the dowser's defense again: Merely having a bias or agenda .... STILL doesn't make the data false . Or the author's desired conclusion to be erroneous. Let me give you an example:

If a rape victim is on the witness stand in the courtroom. She now has a "bias" against rapists. Right ? She has an "agenda" to see the rapist, who-is-on-trial, put behind bars. Right ? But does this bias or agenda, in any way invalidate her testimony ? NO ! So as you can see: Bias and Agenda do not, of necessity, cause written works to be false.

And then you go on and on about "inside" vs "outside" information. Ok, but isn't that what picket-wire is driving at ? He is EXACTLY ASKING for competing views. So how has he been anything less than fair in fulfilling that inside vs outside criteria ?

See ? Again: I should have been a dowser proponent, eh ? haha

But seriously now: I understand what you are saying. For example: Picketwire didn't seem to object to the debunking of another major section of the Munich report. But is making a fuss that another section (pg. 175) was-not-yet de-bunked.

Ok, but , the fact that he can acknowledge some other glaring errors,.. wouldn't it make the ENTIRE THING suspect ? Wouldn't that cast a shadow of suspicion on the rest of it ? After all, we're not talking about "off-the-cuff" casual writings. We're talking about stuff that was supposed to have been super scrutinized scientific from the start. So the fact that a section of it can be so easily debunked, does raise eye-brows for the rest of it.

Kind of like: If we turn to the grocery store tabloids like National Enquirer to give us the "real skinny" on UFOs, bigfoot, or the latest correct diet fad, you *might* conclude that ..... you would START with a skeptical mindset. Given-the-source that it's coming from. NOT saying that tabloids can't publish true things. But ... just saying .... when you consider the source, you can hardly blame someone for starting with a skeptical attitude.

Picket-wire: I see your post, and will address it later today or tomorrow. Am running out the door right now.

Tom,

I think you may have "slightly missed" a part of what I was saying, possibly. I wasn't so much talking about bias. I was only setting that up (the bias of the author), in my example, to show you WHY the author sought out a "different" journal to publish in. He KNEW (or at least, he found out) that his work would not pass the scrutiny of a top scientist WITHIN the discipline, so he "went around" the objections to his work, seeking a "backdoor route" to have his paper published (i.e. in a different journal, one where he could slip the study past the scrutiny of the reviewers).

The analogy there is, if I were performing a COMPLETELY bogus study, that I KNOW will not be accepted in ANY scientific journal, but I still wish to have it "published" (for whatever nefarious reason), then I would look for "alternative" ways to have it published -- which would likely mean places that are not "reputable," such that I could either "slip my work" past their editor, or, even worse, find a place where the editors would be willing to join me in foisting my nonsense on others.

I am NOT saying that this is necessarily the case here, with the Munich study, but I AM saying that it can be legitimate, and logical, to be skeptical of a medium that an article is published in.

Like you said with the National Enquirer, not EVERYTHING published there is fake. But SOME, is...and thus, if I were to announce that, lacking the time or ability to fully research a particular piece published therein, I am choosing to doubt the piece, due to the "reputation" of the publication itself, and their track record pertaining to some other things they published in the past, that is not an "illogical" position. No, it can't PROVE that any particular piece published within it is true or false, without scrutinizing the piece specifically and scientifically, but it sure can serve as one piece of evidence that casts some doubt on the veracity of the claims of anything published therein...

Steve



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2019 09:12PM by steveg.

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


> ..... read all the rebuttal but only parts of the Munich studies. I still say it only casts shade one part so the ball is in your court to rebut the rest of the study......

Yes. And I am waiting on you to enter into setting some "fixed goal posts". Ie.: Gentleman's agreement. I will get to work on encapsulating what terms I'd ask for.

> I will hang my head in shame, admit that there is an extremely high probability that dowsing has never worked.....

I know you are trying to be nice here, but I sense this is still an "out". A way to *not really* admit that dowsing is b*llsh*t. So do tell us: What evidence will it take to close that gap to 100% probability ? ( Instead of just high probability ?)

>.....yet all I have seen are posts questioning me,.....

Yes. And for good reason. Because as I had pointed out in those previous posts: There was evidence, even from within singular posts of yours, that would flip-flop back and forth on the criteria of evidence needed, and the source of the power of dowsing.

> .....but now you are saying it is up to me to prove it does.....

Well, not necessarily YOU personally, but yes: dowsers in general. For example: You have put forward that link. Which purports to be proof of the ability of dowsing. So in that sense, you have already fulfilled the burden of proof . Whether or not that "proof" holds merit, is now in my court to debunk, if I wish to take the time to tackle it.

> ...."Yet .... there are zen-master dowsers out there, that would no doubt have passed the test." It seems from that quote you are saying it will work......

No, that was a sample conversation of your comment about my youtube link. You had said that all it shows is: Those individual dowsers could not pass the test. Not that all dowsers couldn't have passed the test. In other words, as if you were implying that maybe those individual dowsers were rookies.

Thus the test on them was inconclusive to the larger picture/question of "does dowsing work ?". I pointed out that this is the "no true scotsman " fallacy. No matter HOW many dowsers would fail the test, all the other dowsers can just say "they too were rookies". As if to imply, that somewhere, there are top-notch dowsers ("zen masters") elsewhere, who could indeed have passed the test. And I was pointing to you that this is a never ending pushback. Unless you test every single dowser on earth, this will just be the convenient "out" . Where does it end ?

> ..... thus proving to all that it is a hoax....

Hoax is too strong of a word. That implies deliberate lying or deception. On the contrary I believe that dowsers are all quite sincere. None of them is "lying" or perpetuating what they believe to be a "hoax". They are sincere. Yet sincerely mistaken.

Ok, Now : All this talk about "gentleman's agreement" (before I try to answer p. 175) has been scattered throughout too many posts already. I am going to have to make a single post encapsulating all of the terms I propose . And you can accept or reject the terms. I will get back to you with that, in a separate post.

First however: Ever since Steve found out that the periodical itself was "suspect" , I'm going to have to do some thinking on how to proceed. Because, for me to even evaluate the material itself, only presumes, as a starting point, that all the data points are TRUE . What I mean is, what if someone lists various safeguards that were put into place, to ensure double-blind. Well .... I'm just taking that as a "given". But if the authority/accuracy of the material itself is suspect, then ... I'm putting myself in a pickle. So I'm going to have to study the entire back-ground of the people and methods, before I simply assume that everything on p. 175 is a "given". Perhaps it is. Perhaps the test itself was done by a reputable university, and .... sadly ... ended up in an un-reptuable journal.

So on all counts, I'll be back to you in a separate post, to see if we can proceed.

Throughout all of the arguing I have done through the years on politics and religion on line I must admit I don't think I ever got one person to change their mind. Even though I knew with 100% certainty that I was 100% correct 100% of the time. People believe what they choose to.

Post got me to thinking to look up some videos of dowsing in action.

Wish he had dug a hole to see if anything was there.

[www.youtube.com]

Keith

“I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own”
-Nikola Tesla

goodmore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... I don't think I ever got one person to chang
> e their mind.

Believe it or not, sometimes people (adults who would seem to be set-in-their-ways) do indeed revise their world-views. And I think picket-wire is being more than fair , and ... hopefully open to where the evidence leads.




Keith Southern Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Post got me to thinking to look up some videos of
> dowsing in action.
>
> Wish he had dug a hole to see if anything was ther
> e.
>
> [www.youtube.com]
>
> Keith


That's a crazy video Keith. The guy actually TALKS to the rods. Not just say "please point to goodies", but also proceeds to ask the rods Yes or No questions. Hmmm, where have I seen this type activity before .... OH YEAH, when we were kids at slumber parties playing with Ouiji boards.

Not sure whether that guy in that video would thus attribute the power to spooks or mysticals or God or something. Or whether he's going to say there's some scientific rationale for talking to rods. Or do what a lot of them do : Waffle back and forth between the 2 powers. Some will even say "I don't know or care what powers it. All I know is that it works". Yet they jump right out of that statement, by immediately explaining to you some sort of physical attraction (albeit unknown). Or immediately jumping to some spiritual allusions. Yet jump right back and say no one knows. It's quite comical.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2019 02:25AM by Tom_in_CA.

Also called Water Witching. Def of Witch = A woman claiming or popularly believed to possess magical powers and practice sorcery.

Dowsing aside, remember this gem of a story on using long range locators to detect bombs - didn't work out so well for him nor for the victims of undetected ordinance in Iraq.

[www.theguardian.com]

ozzie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also called Water Witching. Def of Witch = A woman
> claiming or popularly believed to possess magical
> powers and practice sorcery.


Except that scores of dowsers, who hang with md'rs, will distance-themselves from this explanation of dowsing. And insist there's something scientifically explainable (albeit un-discovered) going on.

Aurelic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dowsing aside, remember this gem of a story on usi
> ng long range locators to detect bombs - didn't wo
> rk out so well for him nor for the victims of unde
> tected ordinance in Iraq.
>
> [www.theguardian.com]
> mb-detector-conman-jailed


thanx for the link.

I can't remember if it was that device, or some other similar , that also made the news. For airport security drug-detecting, bomb detecting, etc.... And, like your link, was found to be nothing other than LRL with a battery in it, blah blah. Yet various countries and airports had invested millions in the devices.

But what was especially fascinating was, is that even after the devices were shown to be non-functional dowsing gizmos, the individual people, at the various individual checkpoint-charlie inspection border points, continued to think they worked. Swearing that they had found contraband with the devices. And that ... gee.... "It just takes more practice", blah blah.

Wifey says that I can't form an"association" with the rods--be they male or female.

Still haven't gotten around to terms/standards, for what qualifies as "debunking pg. 175 of the Munich report". Been on the road a bunch for a few days. But in the meantime, a good link for your reading pleasure :

[www.theguardian.com]

Interesting article, Tom, and an interesting video linked therein...

Thanks!

Steve