???????????????

Hi Af. Hope you're doing ok these days.

Art, treasure hunters do not dig "dry holes". Everytime a detector beeps, there's metal there. Sure, it may be junk, but the "beep" can be demonstrated over and over, each time you swing the coil, by anyone and everyone who cares to swing over it. For example: I can prop up my metal detector in my living room and turn it on. Then I take 100 random people from off-the-street, and line them up. Each one comes by and waves an item in front of the coil. For each of them, they will all hear the "beep". It is a repeatable scientific test, that works no matter who waves the object. Likewise, if they wave their empty hand, it will NOT give a signal, even if all 100 of them wave an empty hand as part of the test, they too will get no signal.

So in that sense, no ... md'rs do not get dry-holes.

But for dowsers, I read all the time that a dowser follows a signal and get nada, or determine that the signal came from a nearby car or sheet of tin, or something. For example: One time our metal detecting club was out at an organized hunt at a park. A few of the hunters took time off from the planted hunt, to go play horse-shoes. One player accidentally through his horseshoe SO far, that it went down a slope or cliff that was next to the horseshoe pit. They went to look for it, but couldn't find it. So one guy, who was into dowsing says "no problem! I'll just dowse for it". The rest of us looked on .... as he wandered around in the tall grass looking for the horseshoe. No luck. So the guy looks around, and announces that the nearby cars in the parking lot were messing up his signal.

Don't you get it? You deny that dowsers get dry holes. How can you get away with saying that despite all the days you get nothing? Same as the dowser example in the paragraph above: merely write off any lack of success to disturbances, spooks, sun-spots, minerals etc.... and "presto! No dry holes! The rod is working perfectly". It's circular logic. I mean, ANYWHERE the rod leads you, is likely to be metal. And all the rod-user needs to do once he arrives at the destination, is to simply find something metal nearby, and "presto, the rod was working". Think of it: If you go anywhere that people have congregated, lived, etc... there's bound to be metal scrap, cans, tabs, tin, etc... right? So once you put the rod down, when you've arrived at ruins or wherever, and turn on the metal detector, of course you will eventually find something metal. Then in your mind, the "rod led you to that", thus the "rod is working perfectly"

I've done research before on homestead sites, that ... unfortunately, the historical data was only good enough to lead us to a certain valley or field. From there, it would require lots of walking around and sampling, to eventually find the exact spot where the habitation was (which will be evidenced by the ultimate sounds of iron, etc...). But what interests me, is that while I'm wandering around portions that eventually turn out to not be anywhere NEAR the habitation, is that no soil, that has even been remotely close to the influence of mankind, is ever sterile. I mean, it seems that no matter how far into the boondocks a person goes, you'll still get a random nail, or piece of bailing wire, or bullet shell, etc .... You'd have to be pretty far into where no man has ever set foot before, to find an area where there is simply zero metal.

So to apply that to dowsing, the same thing applies: No matter where you walk, if you are within the sphere of influence of modern man, there will .... with enough coil swinging, eventually be some metal object. Cow pastures, row crops, vineyards, etc... Even if no homes were ever there, there will gauranteed be some metal items to be found. So when your rod leads you to one such dead-end, you merely find a few scraps of whatever, and you think "the rod worked"
 

Hi Af. Hope you're doing ok these days.

Art, treasure hunters do not dig "dry holes". Everytime a detector beeps, there's metal there. Sure, it may be junk, but the "beep" can be demonstrated over and over, each time you swing the coil, by anyone and everyone who cares to swing over it. For example: I can prop up my metal detector in my living room and turn it on. Then I take 100 random people from off-the-street, and line them up. Each one comes by and waves an item in front of the coil. For each of them, they will all hear the "beep". It is a repeatable scientific test, that works no matter who waves the object. Likewise, if they wave their empty hand, it will NOT give a signal, even if all 100 of them wave an empty hand as part of the test, they too will get no signal.

So in that sense, no ... md'rs do not get dry-holes.

Gee Tom…Is it not funny that the only ones that talk about dry holes are people who are not Dowsers. The only dowsers I can speak for are ones that I have worked with. We use baited rods and the only thing that will turn the rods is a like metal. I don’t dig a hundred pull tabs for every piece of gold I find. Pull tabs ,nails, random pieces of iron will not make my rods turn. If you are locating things that you are not looking for you are wasting your hunting time.

I have been seeking Meteorites for a few months. I am using Iron and Nickel in this process. Yes, I am getting signals that I don’t want. I have not learned how to block those plain old rocks that have that content. I may find out how to do this today or maybe in a year or two, But I will learn….Art
 

aarthrj3811 said:
Hi Af. Hope you're doing ok these days.

Art, treasure hunters do not dig "dry holes". Everytime a detector beeps, there's metal there. Sure, it may be junk, but the "beep" can be demonstrated over and over, each time you swing the coil, by anyone and everyone who cares to swing over it. For example: I can prop up my metal detector in my living room and turn it on. Then I take 100 random people from off-the-street, and line them up. Each one comes by and waves an item in front of the coil. For each of them, they will all hear the "beep". It is a repeatable scientific test, that works no matter who waves the object. Likewise, if they wave their empty hand, it will NOT give a signal, even if all 100 of them wave an empty hand as part of the test, they too will get no signal.

So in that sense, no ... md'rs do not get dry-holes.

Gee Tom…Is it not funny that the only ones that talk about dry holes are people who are not Dowsers. The only dowsers I can speak for are ones that I have worked with. We use baited rods and the only thing that will turn the rods is a like metal. I don’t dig a hundred pull tabs for every piece of gold I find. Pull tabs ,nails, random pieces of iron will not make my rods turn. If you are locating things that you are not looking for you are wasting your hunting time.

I have been seeking Meteorites for a few months. I am using Iron and Nickel in this process. Yes, I am getting signals that I don’t want. I have not learned how to block those plain old rocks that have that content. I may find out how to do this today or maybe in a year or two, But I will learn….Art
Hold up, Art. Did you just say that metal detectors are a waste of time? That's sure what it sounds like.

Also, why do you feel you can ignore the rest of Tom's post? I know for a fact that dowsers are not always able to locate their intended targets through instances very similar to Tom's horseshoe example. How do you account for these?
 

Hold up, Art. Did you just say that metal detectors are a waste of time? That's sure what it sounds like.

Also, why do you feel you can ignore the rest of Tom's post? I know for a fact that dowsers are not always able to locate their intended targets through instances very similar to Tom's horseshoe example. How do you account for these?

Before I put you back on IGNORE I thought I would answer your question.

Did you just say that metal detectors are a waste of time? That's sure what it sounds like.

Twist and spin…I said….

If you are locating things that you are not looking for you are wasting your hunting time. The key word is time.

I have had a few times when I didn’t find what I was looking for. We all know that it can happen but that doesn’t mean that dowsing doesn’t work. Why….I don’t know and don’t care.

If I buried 100 pull tabs on a lot each being 4 inches deep and one gold nugget being 2 foot deep I know that the standard metal detector would only locate the pull tabs. Each piece of equipment has it’s own use. What’s wrong with that???????Art
 

Let's see, Art....

Dry holes are part of the skeptic view.

We use baited rods and the only thing that will turn the rods is a like metal.

Pull tabs ,nails, random pieces of iron will not make my rods turn.

I have had a few times when I didn’t find what I was looking for. :o :o :tard:

Sounds like you do indeed dig dry holes, Art. Why have you been lying to us all this time? For shame, Art!!! ::)

Oh and by the way,

aarthrj3811 said:
Before I put you back on IGNORE I thought I would answer your question.

Did you just say that metal detectors are a waste of time? That's sure what it sounds like.

Twist and spinÂ…I saidÂ….

If you are locating things that you are not looking for you are wasting your hunting time. The key word is time.

Sure sounds we're talking about the same thing here, Art. We're both saying that you said metal detectors are a waste of time. How often do you dig yourself into a hole when you're out in a field, Art? Because you sure do it an awful lot in this forum.
 

Some people are so dense that they understand nothing. When you encounter these types it is best to hit the IGNORE BUTTON…Art
 

aarthrj3811 said:
Some people are so dense that they understand nothing. When you encounter these types it is best to hit the IGNORE BUTTON…Art
Oh NOOOO!!!! Art is going to ignore me!!!! :'( :'(

Way to keep an open mind there, buddy...... :thumbsup: :tard:
 

:coffee2: :thumbsup: "High-Test" Coffee time (Regular...); VERY interesting "thread", with LOTS of "posting"; add me to the PROS "camp", if we are gonna be "polarizing". Did "water-witching" when I was younger, got into Parapsychology, with a MINOR in Religion, B.S. in Psychology, M.ED. in Counseling; Near Death Experience during 2 1/2 months in "locked-in-state" coma... seeing "dead" kin, Jesus, et. al. NONE of which can be explained by SCIENCE; HA! Well... "BLUE SENSE" is used by cops, to "see"/sense danger (intuition, ESP?); parapsychological research DOES utilize "science" now-a-days; Psi-Spies of US Army Intelligence was utilized, NOW taken over as REMOTE-VIEWING by the CIA, with VERY scientific training & equipment being utilized. Try REMOTE VIEWING BURIED TREASURE(S). Tom MAY be upset, because he is in the "NEW AGE" state of California, and has seen LOTS of "fakes" & "frauds"... DUNNO. :wink:
 

Rebel KGC: If you are serious about all that, thankyou for putting a correct face on the true nature of dowsing: Strictly in the realm of the supernatural. Nothing that is scientifically known or explainable (despite the techno-babble some here try to use). Your post says it all. Only reinforces this. Thanx!
 

:coffee2: :thumbsup: Actually Tom, I AM very serious about all this... the "problem" is ... the word "supernatural"; I use METANATURAL or SUPRAnatural... which means BEYOND the natural realm of sensing/understanding. You see... on the SPECTRUM of colors, we can only see @ 7 colors BUT! at least two are seen by scientific means, going up to ultraviolet, etc. A dog can hear, what is BEYOND human hearing... see BEYOND human seeing, etc. I can even debunk the old saying... "I'll believe it, when I SEE it..." by taking a pencil in my hand, and shaking that arm (making the pencil appear like RUBBER); explaining the difference between REALITY & ACTUALITY. AND! The WHITE/YELLOW light of the SUN/SON, is "broken" into the colors of a RAINBOW, which was NOT there before "scientific intervention" of the PRISM. I do NOT worry about whether SCIENCE has an explanation for MY experiences... It happened/happens, and I'll just go by that... :D :wink:
 

Hi Rebel, thanx for the reply. The old "undiscovered science" fall-back. When dowsers sense the stigma of "supernatural" (ie.: bordering on occult, spiritual, etc...), they understandibly want to distance themselves from that. It's much more socially palatable to say it's scientific. But since that can't be proven, they have to fall on "undiscovered science". And the wonderful thing about "undiscovered sciense" is that it requires no proof ::) I mean, absolute witchcraft could just as easily say their stuff is also not spiritually or supernaturally based too, right? How could you deny them the same response line? Afterall, they "get results" too, right?
 

Snowdragon,
Is it your belief that anything, no matter how absurd, can not be denied the possibility that "future science" will explain it? Since we would both agree that present science hasn't explained everything, you would agree then that anything that's therefore not presently explainable MUST be scientific, right? Would you extend this courtesy to all practioners of the paranormal? They do things that defy explanation, right? If you don't allow them the "future science" courtesy, why not?

If I tell you that I have a tennis shoe that finds treasure (naturally I use my detector to "pinpoint" the treasure, coins, etc...) would you believe it, or call that absurd? I simply spread peanut butter and birdseed on the tennis shoe, squint reeeall hard, stand on one foot, and throw the tennis shoe in the air. Whichever direction the tennis shoe ends up pointing when it hits the ground, is the direction a treasure or coin is in! If you call that absurd, I merely tell you that future science will explain it. How can you be so close-minded as to deny me this explanation? Afterall, the shoe WILL provide results.

If I did this at any beach or park, and walked in the direction the shoe pointed in, eventually I will find treasures or a coins (and if it didn't ..... durn those sun spots anyhow! :icon_scratch: ). And if I did find a coin in the line the shoe pointed, well WHAT'Ya know! My dowsing shoe worked! (future science will of course prove how it worked). Unless you can link me to something that says all science has been discovered, you can not deny my dowsing tennis shoe works, right? :-*
 

Snowdragon, you say: "If you are willing to prove it to me i'll keep an opened mind" Do you mean to tell me, that if I performed the afore-mentioned stunt (with a shoe, peanut butter, etc...) at a chosen beach near me, and if I did end up finding a coin (or ring or whatever), that you would accept that it is all scientific? (albeit, as yet un-known science)? My "finding something" would be proof to you that it must have some rational scientific explanation, as yet unknown, right?

Great! Glad you are consistent with yourself, and not close-minded! I will do just such a test with my dowsing shoe, and get back to you with the results. You can not write it off to random chance of course, that my detector was bound to find something if I took it to promising enough regions, right? And if I don't find something, I reserve the right to repeat my test later on, at different locations. Afterall, you never know when ground minerals, sun spots, magnets held in the pockets of nearby observers, wrong brand of peanut butter, etc... might interfere with the results of the shoe.

Then once I come back on to the forum with the ...... eventual positive results, you will keep an open mind and concede that it is totally scientific, but as yet unknown science, right? Glad you are consistent. If it "works for me", then it "must have a scientific explanation", right? random chance, paranormal, etc... are all not acceptible answers. Only science. Glad you will be on the same page with me :)
 

Tom_in_CA said:
Snowdragon, you say: "If you are willing to prove it to me i'll keep an opened mind" Do you mean to tell me, that if I performed the afore-mentioned stunt (with a shoe, peanut butter, etc...) at a chosen beach near me, and if I did end up finding a coin (or ring or whatever), that you would accept that it is all scientific? (albeit, as yet un-known science)? My "finding something" would be proof to you that it must have some rational scientific explanation, as yet unknown, right?

Great! Glad you are consistent with yourself, and not close-minded! I will do just such a test with my dowsing shoe, and get back to you with the results. You can not write it off to random chance of course, that my detector was bound to find something if I took it to promising enough regions, right? And if I don't find something, I reserve the right to repeat my test later on, at different locations. Afterall, you never know when ground minerals, sun spots, magnets held in the pockets of nearby observers, wrong brand of peanut butter, etc... might interfere with the results of the shoe.

Then once I come back on to the forum with the ...... eventual positive results, you will keep an open mind and concede that it is totally scientific, but as yet unknown science, right? Glad you are consistent. If it "works for me", then it "must have a scientific explanation", right? random chance, paranormal, etc... are all not acceptible answers. Only science. Glad you will be on the same page with me :)

One thing you forgot to touch on, Tom.

Snowdragon said:
I won't believe anything you say simply because you say it. If you are willing to prove it to me i'll keep an opened mind. Until then I'm not going to disrespect your beliefs just because I think it sounds crazy.

If you are open-minded, you wouldn't need Tom to prove anything, you should automatically believe him just like you believe in dowsing.

It's really funny how people who claim to have open minds don't realize the door swings two ways.
 

Snowdragon said:
Apparently , a couple of you just want to play games. Must be really boring for you. For the record, I said I have an opened mind, I will only believe my results not something you just make up. I do my own experiments, I don't rely on heresay. Like I said before, I don't believe something just because someone says it. Personally, I think everything is science related. I'm not going to put stock in anything that anyone says unless I prove it to myself to my satisfaction. You can do all the tests you want, unless I'm there and participate in those tests, it's just your word and your game. And yes I do believe there is something to dowsing. If you don't believe in it , thats your choice and it probably wouldn't work for you anyway.

If this "And yes I do believe there is something to dowsing. If you don't believe in it , thats your choice and it probably wouldn't work for you anyway" is something you truly believe, then this "Personally, I think everything is science related" cannot be true.

How'd you miss that one? :tongue3:

A scientific theory is one that can be tested by different individuals and, assuming the tests are performed correctly, should yield the same outcome. However, if I have to believe that dowsing is real in order for it to work, then it cannot be related to science in any fashion.

Oh, I do see you're a relative newb, so I can understand if you haven't read through the history of the dowsing forum. Give it a shot before you start to make assumptions about anyone here. :thumbsup:
 

Hi Rebel, thanx for the reply. The old "undiscovered science" fall-back. When dowsers sense the stigma of "supernatural" (ie.: bordering on occult, spiritual, etc...), they understandibly want to distance themselves from that. It's much more socially palatable to say it's scientific. But since that can't be proven, they have to fall on "undiscovered science". And the wonderful thing about "undiscovered sciense" is that it requires no proof I mean, absolute witchcraft could just as easily say their stuff is also not spiritually or supernaturally based too, right? How could you deny them the same response line? Afterall, they "get results" too, right?

And you Have what kind of proof?? Ooh I forgot …Skeptics are not required to have one iota of proof…Art
 

aarthrj3811 said:
Hi Rebel, thanx for the reply. The old "undiscovered science" fall-back. When dowsers sense the stigma of "supernatural" (ie.: bordering on occult, spiritual, etc...), they understandibly want to distance themselves from that. It's much more socially palatable to say it's scientific. But since that can't be proven, they have to fall on "undiscovered science". And the wonderful thing about "undiscovered sciense" is that it requires no proof I mean, absolute witchcraft could just as easily say their stuff is also not spiritually or supernaturally based too, right? How could you deny them the same response line? Afterall, they "get results" too, right?

And you Have what kind of proof?? Ooh I forgot …Skeptics are not required to have one iota of proof…Art
Did Tom make some statement in this post that requires proof, Art?
 

:coffee2: :thumbsup: (STILL early...): Once upon a time... "SCIENTIFIC FACTS"... the Earth was the CENTER of the universe... the Earth was FLAT... FURTURE SCIENCE is NOW! :D :wink:
 

Yes, once upon a time, people thought the earth was flat. ERGO, that means you can't deny 1) I have an invisible dog, 2) my peanut butter covered tennis shoe can find coins, and 3) can't deny a bent coat hanger finds treasure.

WOW, I never realized how much of an end the un-discovered science puts to any conversation. No matter how absurd a claim, no matter how un-substantiated, the proponent merely needs to remind the hearer's that people once thought the earth was flat. That earth statement, by neccessity, proves anything, no matter how absurd, right? Everything is therefore, by definition, "scientific". Nothing is absurd, random chance, etc...

Try this next time you come to a red-light in traffic: squint real hard and mumble over and over "turn ... turn ... turn ... turn...". And PRESTO! the light will turn green. See how that magic works? All because of your "turn" mantra. Future science will prove how it worked someday, but in the meantime, you can't say it's not scientific, because afterall .... it worked! And people thought the world was flat once!
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top