Want to try Dowsing?

[dowser]

Please tell me more and/or tell me where I can discover what you're talking about. I've never heard of "using" frequencies

If you go look at past topics and posts of mine, I list and discuss frequencies.
Multiple frequencies resonate the same objects. Frequencies are specific to their target.. We use our frequency to Dowse any frequency, indicated with rods and stuff..
I went through multiple dowsing tests myself, to convince myself and others.. I called them parler tricks. Someone wanted me to prove to them, just 6 months ago.. they ran and grabbed some cups..
I know what I can do, and I can Dowse!
I quit tricks..

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[signal_line]

Actually it was a tablespoon. Regardless, how much water would you suggest?

How about dripping water? Standing water not the same. Gotta be electricity there.
I read a book they did some testing experiments on dowsers “Psychical Physics” by S. W. Tromp. It’s old but there is some background info like atmospheric conditions and quite a bit other things. If you are serious about your testing you will also find a bibliography with hundreds of sources. This obviously not up-to-date but you still can learn much. I think you can get a free download online.

 

[arthur297]

Art, the test protocol you describe is the same as what I've used with dowsers. 10 locations, 10 trials, 1 target. With guessing, the probability of success in a single trial is 10%. In 2 trials, the probabilities for successful guessing are

0 correct = 81%
1 correct = 18%
2 correct = 1%

Using coefficients from Pascal's Triangle, you can calculate the odds for 10 trials:

0 correct = 34.868%
1 correct = 38.742%
2 correct = 19.371%
3 correct = 5.740%
4 correct = 1.116%
5 correct = 0.149% = 1-in-672
6 correct = 1-in-7258
7 correct = 1-in-114312
8 correct = 1-in-2743484
9 correct = 1-in-111111111
10 correct = 1-in-10,000,000,000

So a 60% success rate has a 1-in-7258 chance with random guessing. Assuming guessing, if you were to test 10 people it's unlikely any of them would hit 60%, so maybe that's a fair threshold. If you were to test 10,000 people then it's fairly likely one of them could guess 60% and you might need to increase the threshold. When I've tested dowsers for my $25,000 prize I've set 70% as the threshold for success. The best result I've ever seen from a dowser is 2 correct out of 10.

Before the dowser attempts the double-blind trials I have him do a few "full-view" trials. In a full-view trial the location is randomly selected as usual, the target is concealed as usual, but the dowser gets to watch it all happen. That is, the dowser knows where the target is located. He then attempts to dowse for it. Typically I ask for 5 full-view tests; I've never seen a dowser perform less than 100% for this phase, and the dowser is always quick and confident. But when the double-blind trials start, the dowser suddenly struggles to locate the target and is never confident. Sometimes the look on their face is priceless; they go from super-confident to completely bewildered, not understanding why their dowsing skills have suddenly vanished.

There are several reasons for the full-view trials:

1. To get the dowser familiar with the protocol and to see if he wants any last-minute adjustments.
2. To see if there are any anomalies that cause interference.
3. To provide a set of baseline results to compare with the double-blind results.
4. To minimize the post-test alibis

#3 is pretty important. You say you will only test dowsers who meet the 60% threshold in a trial run; is this full-view or double-blind? If it's DB, then you are asking dowsers to pass the test in order to take the test, which doesn't make sense. If it's FV, then that makes sense; keep a record of those results.

#4 is also important. I've never seen a dowser succeed in a reasonable test and I've allowed for some loose protocols. But what's pretty consistent is that, after failing, the alibis and excuses start rolling out. The FV trials help minimize the alibis. The dowser was perfect and confident when he knew where the target was, but could not do better than guessing when he did not. If the results of the DB trials are held until the very end, it's also very useful to follow the DB trials with another short series (maybe 5) of FV trials. Most likely, the dowser will, again, score 100% which shows that dowsing conditions (temperature, solar winds, etc etc) did not degrade. All of this is to make the DB results as transparently obvious as possible.

What you are attempting to do, I've done a lot. Keep me in the loop on your progress, I'll be happy to help.

Much appreciated! I could us all of the help I can get. As for what I'm attempting to do, my soul purpose is to get the scientific community to consider the study of dowsing to be science rather than pseudo science. As part of my effort I'm doing what I can to honor Occam's razor (i.e., doing my best to shave off indefensible explanations.
The purpose of doing a preliminary test is simply to identify a group who really can find a hidden bottle of water. Ideomotor may or may not be what makes rods turn, but knowing where the rods should be turned would, in my opinion, lead to an indefensible explanation. I'm not offering any reward to my subjects, as I'm not a skeptic looking to show that dowsing isn't something real. However, I'd like to know more about your $25,000.00 reward, as that would definitely help support the research that I want to do. Not as much as Randi's million dollar challenge but that, unfortunately, is no longer being offered.

 

[arthur297]

How about dripping water? Standing water not the same. Gotta be electricity there.
I read a book they did some testing experiments on dowsers “Psychical Physics” by S. W. Tromp. It’s old but there is some background info like atmospheric conditions and quite a bit other things. If you are serious about your testing you will also find a bibliography with hundreds of sources. This obviously not up-to-date but you still can learn much. I think you can get a free download online.

Thanks! Yes, 1949 isn't quite new, but that is still 5 years younger than me. I've sent a note off to my local library to see if they can get me a copy.
As for the dripping vs standing water, all of my experience has been with standing water. And, again to follow Occam's Razor, I don't want to add any unnecessary potentially confounding factors. I think, like they found out with the German farm experiments, overcomplicating the design is more likely to lead to failure rather than increase the likelihood of achieving the desired result.

 

[signal_line]

Thanks! Yes, 1949 isn't quite new, but that is still 5 years younger than me. I've sent a note off to my local library to see if they can get me a copy.
As for the dripping vs standing water, all of my experience has been with standing water. And, again to follow Occam's Razor, I don't want to add any unnecessary potentially confounding factors. I think, like they found out with the German farm experiments, overcomplicating the design is more likely to lead to failure rather than increase the likelihood of achieving the desired result.

I don’t know why moving water is so much easier to detect.