$1,000,000 for anyone who can dowse.

[Gluk]

"Touched a nerve, didn't I?
Here's the problem with your line of thinking. I am able to produce test results, verifiable test results, in which the tests utilized a double-blind criteria in reference to dowsing. These test results show that dowsing, in those situations, did not work better than chance. You know of these tests as well.
You claimed to know of test results, or studies, that cannot be verified since they cannot be found and you refuse to produce them. This lends no credence to your argument. Were you able to produce these studies and test results, then I would happily read and consider them.
Why on Earth would I go out of my way to find a test that supports your argument, when you don't have the time to find it yourself?"

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

In responce to af :

Af, I understand that I can design the testing protocol and if you would have read my post you would know that it was my uncle and that due to my inexperience I can not yet dowse under the conditions of a test.

...but there wasn't a true skeptic there, and even in the ones that there was this is coming from me so it isn't credible.

MY POINT! Again…is not attacking the test, I am not saying that you will fail no matter what. You put those words in my mouth.

But you are almost to my point when you say,
"Your only flaw is this rather childish and self-service scenario is......drumroll please.......regardless of whether the teacher thinks I will fail, if I know the information, I will pass."

"Remember what I said about not having skeptics around? This is one of the problems skeptics have with dowsers."
-Af
I can understand that critisim. It is perfectly jutisfied. But my case is if I were one of those fancy skaters that can do those jumping...spinning things. And I've never been able to do that before, and once by myself I was able to do one. I quickly told some friends that I had done it, they didn't believe me. So now I am to prove to them that I can. But the time that I did it it was kind of luck and I haven't built that up that confidence that I can do it again around others. And so I try and fail out of this lack of confidence.

"My challenge is primarily for commercial LRL devices, and is really targeted at the manufacturers of those devices..."
-Carl
You've said many more times than this, the purpose of your challenge is to prove that LRL or LLAD products don't work. You want to keep these manufacturers from conning people.

how's that? should i find a few more?
i might later, but i'm kinda busy now.

Okay....
Sandy mentioned that he understood that a test performed in front of his friends or when he was alone doesn't offer any credible proof. But this has nothing to do with what we were speaking about.

Sandy has told skeptics that we have to investigate both sides of an issue.

Then he tells me that he can only perform with like-minded individuals and friends around.

How can a skeptic witness this performance, if he says he will fail when a "negative influence" is around?

So he posts a reference to a study that seems to confirm dowsing works, but no one can find this study, and he refuses to post it.

We're trying to investigate both sides, but Sandy won't let us read his evidence, and he won't let us witness his tests.

And then you step in and say he already has investigated both sides of the issue and you insult me.

Did I get that right?

 

[ClonedSIM]

"Touched a nerve, didn't I?
Here's the problem with your line of thinking. I am able to produce test results, verifiable test results, in which the tests utilized a double-blind criteria in reference to dowsing. These test results show that dowsing, in those situations, did not work better than chance. You know of these tests as well.
You claimed to know of test results, or studies, that cannot be verified since they cannot be found and you refuse to produce them. This lends no credence to your argument. Were you able to produce these studies and test results, then I would happily read and consider them.
Why on Earth would I go out of my way to find a test that supports your argument, when you don't have the time to find it yourself?"

I'm going to assume that you quoted me without a response on purpose, to give an example of a well-written and carefully worded post?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Welcome aboard Gluk...Always nice to get a fresh point of view....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

I guess I missed it. Did Gluk present a point of view at all? Because it seems to me like he came in, trolled around, and left. He certainly didn't present any information I found helpful.

 

[Gluk]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well technically af, no one can ever really "leave" the forum. it's a site... not a conference hall or a classroom.

and regarding your question: I believe i did present a point of view... though not one corresponding to dowsing.

But! Now that somone cares (thank you af) I will tell of my recent dowsing escapades. (i hope i spelled that right)

I've been trying to use a pendulum for a couple of weeks, and, quite frankly, i suck. i have a friend that has told me that pendulums will only confirm what you already know, and i am becoming more and more inclined to believe him. However, i have another friend named jim, who is an experienced dowser, and he believes that i just need to practice, and stop trying to impress myself.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Gluk]

Quote from: Gluk on Today at 12:59:49 PM
"Touched a nerve, didn't I?
Here's the problem with your line of thinking. I am able to produce test results, verifiable test results, in which the tests utilized a double-blind criteria in reference to dowsing. These test results show that dowsing, in those situations, did not work better than chance. You know of these tests as well.
You claimed to know of test results, or studies, that cannot be verified since they cannot be found and you refuse to produce them. This lends no credence to your argument. Were you able to produce these studies and test results, then I would happily read and consider them.
Why on Earth would I go out of my way to find a test that supports your argument, when you don't have the time to find it yourself?"

I'm going to assume that you quoted me without a response on purpose, to give an example of a well-written and carefully worded post?

actually if you had a visual memory, you would notice that i bolded the word 'ABLE' simply because you have yet to produce valid, unbaised evidence.

 

[Gluk]

And thank you A. Arthur. I hope i can produce helpful evidence and conclusions for you and other members of this forum.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Quote from: Gluk on Today at 12:59:49 PM
"Touched a nerve, didn't I?
Here's the problem with your line of thinking. I am able to produce test results, verifiable test results, in which the tests utilized a double-blind criteria in reference to dowsing. These test results show that dowsing, in those situations, did not work better than chance. You know of these tests as well.
You claimed to know of test results, or studies, that cannot be verified since they cannot be found and you refuse to produce them. This lends no credence to your argument. Were you able to produce these studies and test results, then I would happily read and consider them.
Why on Earth would I go out of my way to find a test that supports your argument, when you don't have the time to find it yourself?"

I'm going to assume that you quoted me without a response on purpose, to give an example of a well-written and carefully worded post?

actually if you had a visual memory, you would notice that i bolded the word 'ABLE' simply because you have yet to produce valid, unbaised evidence.

And this is a result of your trolling rather than reading and familiarizing yourself with my other posts.

These tests and trials have been posted to the dowsing forum by myself and others, and Sandy should be quite aware of what I was referring to.

But, since you chose to speak without arming yourself with knowledge, you obviously missed this.

Also, changing another person's post does not present a point of view, only an inability to generate one.

 

[Gluk]

"So......you came to a dowsing forum without the intention of presenting anything regarding dowsing?

But you luckily thought of something having to do with dowsing and decided to grace us with another of your thought-provoking posts.

And......you can leave the forum. It's easy. Scroll to the bottom of this page, click on LOG OFF, and go to another site. POOF, and you won't be visiting here anymore.

Although I do have to compliment your first friend and his views regarding map dowsing."


Why would you think i would come to a dowsing site without the intent of discussing dowsing?

Actually, both friends were the same person. My friend has a sociophobia and uses a different persona to hide behind. If you would like to hear about it you are welcome to ask.


and SWR, you are right. I already said that. I am sorry if i offended you.

 

[Sandsted]

"Nice tap dance..."

"So......you came to a dowsing forum without the intention of presenting anything regarding dowsing?"

I came to this dowsing forum to perhaps speak with other dowsers and maybe learn something about dowsing...which I have a little bit. But as you may have noticed almost all of the dowsers have left because of things like you have done above.

Concerning your next statment, you suggest I leave? You tap dance around everything in my post and reply that I should log off? This is an interesting change for you.

"Although I do have to compliment your first friend and his views regarding map dowsing."

I'm sorry, but I do not understand this statement.

 

[ClonedSIM]

So many replies, so little time. Here we go!

"Nice tap dance..."

"So......you came to a dowsing forum without the intention of presenting anything regarding dowsing?"

I came to this dowsing forum to perhaps speak with other dowsers and maybe learn something about dowsing...which I have a little bit. But as you may have noticed almost all of the dowsers have left because of things like you have done above.

Concerning your next statment, you suggest I leave? You tap dance around everything in my post and reply that I should log off? This is an interesting change for you.

"Although I do have to compliment your first friend and his views regarding map dowsing."

I'm sorry, but I do not understand this statement.

None of this was directed at you, Sandy. This was re: Gluk's post:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well technically af, no one can ever really "leave" the forum. it's a site... not a conference hall or a classroom.

and regarding your question: I believe i did present a point of view... though not one corresponding to dowsing.

But! Now that somone cares (thank you af) I will tell of my recent dowsing escapades. (i hope i spelled that right)

I've been trying to use a pendulum for a couple of weeks, and, quite frankly, i suck. i have a friend that has told me that pendulums will only confirm what you already know, and i am becoming more and more inclined to believe him. However, i have another friend named jim, who is an experienced dowser, and he believes that i just need to practice, and stop trying to impress myself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

which was deleted because I told him how easily he could leave, when he made is sound implausible.

Although I do have to compliment your first friend and his views regarding map dowsing." -af1733

Actually, both friends were the same person. My friend has a sociophobia and uses a different persona to hide behind. If you would like to hear about it you are welcome to ask.

I don't want to hear about your ill friend. All I want to know is why you think his views, if conflicting, are relevant here.

 

[jeff of pa]

Nobody should be told to leave.


Everyone has a right to be here as long as they Give their opinion
with at least an attempt at respect.

 

[Sandsted]

"None of this was directed at you, Sandy. This was re: Gluk's post:"

Oh...well, then I'm sorry for responding to your response to Gluk.

"The results you have achieved dowsing, are the same as others who have dowsed for 20 years or better. Nice little novelty item, but it just does not work."

I assume you are excluding me from the group of "others" since I have much more then a novelty item and because of this must conclude that the statement, "...it just does not work."

 

[Gluk]

SWR

i have used other dowsing methods and they seem to work well enough... but i haven't "excelled past" the physical level of dowsing in any form.

forms of dowsing i have been sucessful with are 1-rod dowsing, 2-rod dowsing, and i have developed a water sense with hand dowsing so that i can sense waater veins and pipes below me.

But i will definently not attribute any of this to" magic" and it may very-well be my body sensing the lack of a positive charge below me.

 

[jeff of pa]

Nobody should be told to leave.


Everyone has a right to be here as long as they Give their opinion
with at least an attempt at respect.

Remember…debate the issue and not the poster, eh?

EXACTLY 8)

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee Guy's... I am confused...Some think we are having a Debate. According to the Debating Rules, as being on the opposing side ( or am I ) I am not required to propose any alternative solutions. It seems to make no difference about the facts as long as the judge is impressed by the presentation. Is this the right way to discuss a subject.

Hey Gluk…I to have been learning to Map Dowse. I have had little success. I will keep working on this until I get it right. If you want to know where a hot rock is I will give you the cord.….Art

 

[Gluk]

"If you want to know where a hot rock is I will give you the cord.….Art"

well thanks. but i don't have a clue what the above statement means. no offence intended, but could you explain it to me?

 

[ClonedSIM]

Sandy, Sandy, Sandy....

"...there is an example of a double-blind controlled experiment performed on dowsers that came to the conclusion that dowsing regularly produces results greater than that of guessing, then I have yet to find/see it."

You've also yet to look for it.

I've seen dozens of unscientific and badly-executed dowsing tests performed by dowsers for dowsers, but I've never seen one like I described. I'm looking for just one dowsing test that fits this criteria that shows dowsers getting results that are better than guessing.

"You claimed to know of test results, or studies, that cannot be verified since they cannot be found and you refuse to produce them. This lends no credence to your argument."

The fact that you won't look into something yourself, "lends no credence to" you as a debater on this subject.

Again, I've seen plenty of tests both for and against dowsing, but only the tests resulting in guessing-equivalant dowsers were performed in such a way that the dowsing environments are controlled and were performed double-blind.

"Why on Earth would I go out of my way to find a test that supports your argument, when you don't have the time to find it yourself?"

See, here you make a false assumption about myself again...you assume I haven't found anything since I won't post it. But I've looked at things, but why waste my time on you if you so clearly don't care to learn anything anyway. And a answer to your question, "Why on Earth would I go out of my way to find a test that supports your argument..." because perhaps you care to study something you obviously enjoy arguing about.

Oh, you've "looked at things." Well, that's good.

"Were you able to produce these studies and test results, then I would happily read and consider them."

Of course, if everyone does everything for you then you'd be happy.

Allow me to translate: "I can't find the study I talked about, but I can't tell them that.... Hmmm...I'll just act huffy like they're wasting my time." Try again, Sandy...

"Then he tells me that he can only perform with like-minded individuals and friends around."

Of course my memory might be fogged...but I believe you are once again, lying about me. Why is this such a dominent characteristic of you? I believe it was Captain that said the difference between dowsers and skeptics (or nonbelievers) is that you guys keep your stories straight. Yet you so obviously fail at this. If I am wrong I dare you to show me where I said I "can only perform with like-minded individuals."

You dare me? How old are you, anyway, 9? Your excuse for the longest time is that having skeptics around usurps your dowsing ability. Now you dare me to disprove something you said? Fine, take Randi's challenge. You can have Carl's $100 for travel expenses and my $10 for your lunch. I double dare you...

"...there is an example of a double-blind controlled experiment performed on dowsers that came to the conclusion that dowsing regularly produces results greater than that of guessing, then I have yet to find/see it."

You've also yet to look for it.

"You claimed to know of test results, or studies, that cannot be verified since they cannot be found and you refuse to produce them. This lends no credence to your argument."

The fact that you won't look into something yourself, "lends no credence to" you as a debater on this subject.

"Why on Earth would I go out of my way to find a test that supports your argument, when you don't have the time to find it yourself?"

See, here you make a false assumption about myself again...you assume I haven't found anything since I won't post it. But I've looked at things, but why waste my time on you if you so clearly don't care to learn anything anyway. And a answer to your question, "Why on Earth would I go out of my way to find a test that supports your argument..." because perhaps you care to study something you obviously enjoy arguing about.


"Were you able to produce these studies and test results, then I would happily read and consider them."

Of course, if everyone does everything for you then you'd be happy.

"Then he tells me that he can only perform with like-minded individuals and friends around."

Of course my memory might be fogged...but I believe you are once again, lying about me. Why is this such a dominent characteristic of you? I believe it was Captain that said the difference between dowsers and skeptics (or nonbelievers) is that you guys keep your stories straight. Yet you so obviously fail at this. If I am wrong I dare you to show me where I said I "can only perform with like-minded individuals."

"How can a skeptic witness this performance, if he says he will fail when a 'negative influence' is around?"

It was explained to me before that a skeptic is an open minded individual that cares to learn about a subject that he naturally doubts but is willing to learn about. You, Carl, Randi, and Trips do not fit into this category...it is the people like you that I find it impossible to dowse around. Skeptics are not a negative influence, people like yourself are...people that don't care to learn, people that have made premature conclusions that due to their attitudes will never change, people that instead of debating a subject sink to lying about people, insulting them, and make false accusations along with all of this. I would not even like to be around such people, much less dowse with them.

Af, your calumniatory statements are worn out and irritating. I shall ask once more that you refrain from such idiocy as you have displayed in previous statements.

I'm sorry to sound rude, but you still follow up with statements like this,

"So he posts a reference to a study that seems to confirm dowsing works, but no one can find this study, and he refuses to post it."

But no one can find this study? Besides myself, no one has yet cared enough to look for them! I've proved this! The reason I refuse to post them is because if you don't care enough to look for them you are not questioning dowsing. You have formed your conclusion and it will not change.

"The point is, if you really care to find the answer of whether dowsing works or not...you will study both sides of the controversy. If you don't care to find the answer, you will (in ignorance) just join the side that fits your unsupported judgments and ignore anything else because no one will do the work for you."

Even when faced with this statement you still choose ignorance, therefore...prove that you don't care to find the answer. THEREFORE prove that you have just joined the side that fits your unsupported judgments and premade conclusions based on mere skeptisism.

I will not waste my time posting these studies for you. You'd rather ignore their existence then do anything for yourself.

And remember this?

"If you won't look them up, don't talk to me about them...your problems are of no concern to me."

You obviously don't read the replies to your posts and you obviously can't follow simple directions.

"Man, you're pretty awful about following directions, aren't you?"

-Af

"Again, this post seems to affirm that you either don't read other's responses, or don't understand them."

-Af

Af, it seems that in just these two points, you are by definition a hypocrite.

The rest of this word-vomit is just you angry that the world isn't beating a path to your door to ask you dowsing advice.
I've looked for your study as has Carl, and he stated this in an earlier post, which I can only assume you overlooked.
You may have read about the studies, but you are not in possession of them, and you cannot post them.
Ahem....good day, sir.

 

[Gluk]

Oh. and i am no longer a, quote, tenderfoot.