Scientific Test of Dowsing [Archive] - LongRangeLocators Forums

hung

03-24-2007, 02:15 PM

I changed my mind a little.
Although I really don't have the time to go into this subject in depth, I must say, the depth that it deserves, I gathered some scientific 'detaches' which are in line 100% with my line of tought.
Dowsing is a minifestation of electromagnetic and scalar factors which will NEVER be understood if one does not get free of the limitations of classical physics. First those must be revised and understood. Some related to unified fields.

Bellow are some of the statements I mentioned. I am sorry but don't have the time to daily discuss the dowsing topic here. But some 'seeds' are left.

Do you agree with the statements presented next?

It is now realized that the source of electromagnetic energy from spacetime is the scalar curvature R, all forms of energy and curvature being interconvertible.

The fatal flaws in the standard model and string theory are by now very well known and also widely accepted by reasonable thinkers, i.e. those who base their thinking on objective scientific reality and not subjective preconception or received ideas floated by small elitist communities.

The electromagnetic, weak and strong sectors are not generally covariant, violating the principles of relativity and equivalence of Einstein and Mach.
The U(1) group cannot be the gauge group of the e/m sector.
String theory is flawed in many ways, and according to one eminent physicist, Mendel Sachs, has not produced a single original result.
Electrodynamics is not a linear theory, as asserted in the standard model.
The tangent space of generally relativity is a physical space, while the fiber bundle of gauge theory is regarded as just an abstract space.

Carl-NC

03-24-2007, 03:33 PM

Dowsing is a minifestation of electromagnetic and scalar factors which will NEVER be understood if one does not get free of the limitations of classical physics.

It doesn't matter whether dowsing can be understood. The question is, can dowsing be demonstrated, under scientific observation? My experience is an overwhelming NO. Dowsing is a self-deception that does not hold up in testing.

Do you agree with the statements presented next?

It is now realized that the source of electromagnetic energy from spacetime is the scalar curvature R, all forms of energy and curvature being interconvertible.

The fatal flaws in the standard model and string theory are by now very well known and also widely accepted by reasonable thinkers, i.e. those who base their thinking on objective scientific reality and not subjective preconception or received ideas floated by small elitist communities.
The electromagnetic, weak and strong sectors are not generally covariant, violating the principles of relativity and equivalence of Einstein and Mach.
The U(1) group cannot be the gauge group of the e/m sector.
String theory is flawed in many ways, and according to one eminent physicist, Mendel Sachs, has not produced a single original result.
Electrodynamics is not a linear theory, as asserted in the standard model.
The tangent space of generally relativity is a physical space, while the fiber bundle of gauge theory is regarded as just an abstract space.If these came from Tom Bearden's web site, then I would simply dismiss them out-of-hand. He is a quack and a fruitcake that NO ONE in science takes seriously. Your "REAL science to back it up" is just made-up. Fabricated. Fake.

- Carl

hung

03-24-2007, 03:54 PM

It doesn't matter whether dowsing can be understood. The question is, can dowsing be demonstrated, under scientific observation? My experience is an overwhelming NO. Dowsing is a self-deception that does not hold up in testing.

Carl. That's not true. Dowsing can easily be studied scientifically under the RIGHT procedures. But all the methods you have been proposed in other forums in the past is more a 'game' than a scientific study. Besides a real scientist never states his tendencies and pre-thoughts before final conclusions. You don't act like this.

If these came from Tom Bearden's web site, then I would simply dismiss them out-of-hand. He is a quack and a fruitcake that NO ONE in science takes seriously. Your "REAL science to back it up" is just made-up. Fabricated. Fake.

- Carl

It's not from Bearden's website.
But see? You rather criticize the person than analyse the message. It comes from a scientist who is deeply involved on the organization of the unified field theory and the flaws in classicial science he discovered along the way.
That's fact. Not guess.

J_Player

03-24-2007, 04:55 PM

It is now realized that the source of electromagnetic energy from spacetime is the scalar curvature R, all forms of energy and curvature being interconvertible.

The fatal flaws in the standard model and string theory are by now very well known and also widely accepted by reasonable thinkers, i.e. those who base their thinking on objective scientific reality and not subjective preconception or received ideas floated by small elitist communities.
The electromagnetic, weak and strong sectors are not generally covariant, violating the principles of relativity and equivalence of Einstein and Mach.
The U(1) group cannot be the gauge group of the e/m sector.
String theory is flawed in many ways, and according to one eminent physicist, Mendel Sachs, has not produced a single original result.
Electrodynamics is not a linear theory, as asserted in the standard model.
The tangent space of generally relativity is a physical space, while the fiber bundle of gauge theory is regarded as just an abstract space.

Everything in your quote is on this page of Bearden's website, in his notes for his correspondence with Myron Evans: http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/062503.htm

If Tom Bearden or Myron Evans did not write those words, then who did?
Do you have some secret reason for concealing the author of these words?

Bearden and Evans are associated with theories about paranormal phenomena, parapsychology, psychotronics, Tesla technology, unified field theory, antigravity machines, and free engergy from a vacum. You can read a short biography of Bearden here: http://hsv.com/writers/bearden/tommenu.htm

I have nothing to say for or against these people. If they claim to have a "free energy from a vacum" machine, let them sell their free energy and become rich. You want me to believe the science of these men is the real science that backs up dowsing? Then use their "real science" to dowse and claim Carl's $25,000.

My science says Bearden and Evans will never sell any energy from their "free energy from a vacum" machine, nor will you ever collect Carl's $25,000 reward using their science or not.

Prove me wrong.

hung

03-24-2007, 05:02 PM

Dr. Myron Evan is not Tom Bearden, alhtough I respect him a lot.

The words above are from Evans who is a great scientist. There's no way you can deny this fact.

Free energy machines are other things. I am focusing on the flaws found in classical science.
Again, that's fact not guess.
I ran on similar flaws 12 years a go when joining a scientific project team.

Carl-NC

03-24-2007, 05:13 PM

Carl. That's not true. Dowsing can easily be studied scientifically under the RIGHT procedures. But all the methods you have been proposed in other forums in the past is more a 'game' than a scientific study. Besides a real scientist never states his tendencies and pre-thoughts before final conclusions. You don't act like this.

Yes, real scientists are biased. That's why it's so important to design tests that eliminate bias. Unfortunately, unbiased scientific testing is not the "right procedure" that dowsers want to operate under.

If you know of any Right Procedure that will scientifically demonstrate the efficacy of dowsing, I'd like to hear it.

It's not from Bearden's website.Really? Are you sure about that? Can you show me where it came from if not from Bearden's web site?

But see? You rather criticize the person than analyse the message. It comes from a scientist who is deeply involved on the organization of the unified field theory and the flaws in classicial science he discovered along the way.
That's fact. Not guess.Anything on Bearden's website starts out, right off the bat, in the Utterly Bogus category. That's how useless he is. If you want me to consider anything there as having any scientific credibility whatsoever, you will have to point me to RealScience references produced by RealScientists, not hacks.

- Carl

Carl-NC

03-24-2007, 05:30 PM

hung

03-24-2007, 06:12 PM

Really? Are you sure about that? Can you show me where it came from if not from Bearden's web site?

- Carl

Although I found out that there's a link on Bearden's website to Evans' essay, that only means Bearden agrees with his point of view so much so he provided the link. Nothing else. Evans is one person. Bearden another. You sound as calling 'crackpots' everybody Bearden points out. His claims are not doctrines unlike most of what I see in 'classical science'. Be out of it and you pay the price.

hung

03-24-2007, 06:24 PM

I just did a quick check on Myron Evans. Turns out he is considered a crackpot as well. At least he has a formal education, unlike Bearden, who bought his PhD from a diploma mill.

Myron Evans' GCUFT
(http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/%7Ebruhn/GCUFT.html)How to become a bad theoretical physicist (http://www.phys.uu.nl/%7Ethooft/theoristbad.html) (aimed at Evans)

Inrteresting.

All names that I refered in the past such as Tom Bearden, Bruce Cathie, John Hutchinson, should I include Tesla on it too? And now Dr. Myron Evans are considered 'crackpots' by you.
It's starting to be an evidence that you become prisoner of your own dogmas.
Before acting such, you should prove them wrong or disprove what they claim, discovered, performed and experimented.
If you ever get this acomplished, only then you may say they are mistaken. Never call researchers 'crackpots', because by doing this, it may evidence a natural reaction to broken pride if truth appears unconfortable.

Estabilishment in all levels are set in a way that is much confortable and 'profitable' to choose to never question it or collide against it.

J_Player

03-24-2007, 06:35 PM

Dr. Myron Evan is not Tom Bearden, alhtough I respect him a lot.

The words above are from Evans who is a great scientist. There's no way you can deny this fact.

There's no way I can deny this fact? Of course I can deny it because it is not a fact. It is only an opinion that you typed in the forum.

Free energy machines are other things. I am focusing on the flaws found in classical science.
Again, that's fact not guess.
I ran on similar flaws 12 years a go when joining a scientific project team.

What is the name of this "scientific project team" you joined? What project did the team complete? Where can I see their web site? Were you ever really on a scientific team? Are you sure this is a fact, or are you guessing?

You are focusing on the flaws in classical science? I have never heard of a flaw in classical science that is the basis for the "real science" that backs up dowsing. Can you name the flaws and the correct "real science" principle that proves dowsing works?

It seems that you are quick to boldly expound your "so-called" facts as long as you don't have to demonstrate any substance behind them them. Are your facts just BS that you made up and pray that we will all believe you? Or are they real facts that you can demonstrate? Let's see you use these "real science" "facts" to show us how well dowsing works.

Prove that your dowsing is not a guess and is really a fact by claiming Car l's $25,000.

hung

03-24-2007, 06:40 PM

You want me to believe the science of these men is the real science that backs up dowsing?

Not exactly, Dowsing is an interaction of EM and scalar potentials with human biofields and its EM matrixes.
But you could start by admiting that EM might be indeed extracted from the 'scalar curvature'.
From that, you are on your own...

hung

03-24-2007, 06:53 PM

There's no way I can deny this fact? Of course I can deny it because it is not a fact. It is only an opinion that you typed in the forum.
I stand correct. In the sentence 'great scientist', remove the word 'great' which is an opinion indication and leave 'scientist'.
So we are even. He is indeed a scientist and whoever you think might be a great one, does not means I will agree with you, although there are some we will.

What is the name of this "scientific project team" you joined? What project did the team complete? Where can I see their web site? Were you ever really on a scientific team? Are you sure this is a fact, or are you guessing?

Sorry. As I said a few times before, I cannot tell you that. I used it here just as a reference for my claims above.

Are your facts just BS that you made up and pray that we will all believe you? Or are they real facts that you can demonstrate?

Believe me? Far from that. I'm not asking you to be a believer. You are the only one who you should believe in the first place.
The facts are not mine. The discoveries belong to some of the scientists mentioned above. Thank God I have a diminute inteligence which is enough to recognize their feats.

Prove that your dowsing is not a guess and is really a fact by claiming Car l's $25,000.

I'm not a dowser. I only research it.
But I'm thinking about becoming one...

J_Player

03-24-2007, 06:57 PM

Not exactly, Dowsing is an interaction of EM and scalar potentials with human biofields and its EM matrixes.
But you could start by admiting that EM might be indeed extracted from the 'scalar curvature'.
From that, you are on your own...

You just asked me to admit that I agree to an unproven theory that proves nothing about dowsing. Why should I do that?

As I said:

It seems that you are quick to boldly expound your "so-called" facts as long as you don't have to demonstrate any substance behind them them. Are your facts just BS that you made up and pray that we will all believe you? Or are they real facts that you can demonstrate? Let's see you use these "real science" "facts" to show us how well dowsing works.

Looks like it's all BS to me. :rolleyes:

hung

03-24-2007, 07:04 PM

You just asked me to admit that I agree to an unproven theory that proves nothing about dowsing. Why should I do that?

As I said:

It seems that you are quick to boldly expound your "so-called" facts as long as you don't have to demonstrate any substance behind them them. Are your facts just BS that you made up and pray that we will all believe you? Or are they real facts that you can demonstrate? Let's see you use these "real science" "facts" to show us how well dowsing works.

Prove that dowsing is not a guess and is really a fact by claiming Car l's $25,000.

Looks like it's all BS to me. :rolleyes:

Have I ever said I pocess the undisputed truth about 'dowsing'?
If this was the case I would never be here discussing this in this forum in the first place. I would know it all.
What I think is that in order to discuss it and understand it, one should start looking on the essays above already mentioned by me.
It's my point of view. You may or may not agree.

J_Player

03-24-2007, 07:21 PM

What I think is that in order to discuss it and understand it, one should start looking on the essays above already mentioned by me.
It's my point of view. You may or may not agree.

You finally got it right. Your opinions are not facts, only opinions. The theories in the essays you quoted are theories, not facts. Facts are provable things such as historical events that actually took place, or principles that can be demonstrated to repeatedly work time after time, like the tide coming in, or taxes being collected, or electricity flowing from a battery.

As long as you don't come around saying things to try to make us accept these opinions and theories as facts, You won't get so much flack from those who know better. :cool:

hung

03-24-2007, 07:35 PM

You finally got it right. Your opinions are not facts, only opinions. The theories in the essays you quoted are theories, not facts.

Mistake number 1.

As long as you don't come around saying things to try to make us accept these opinions and theories as facts, You won't get so much flack from those who know better. :cool:

Mistake number 2.

I should point I was refering to DOWSING. The works of people like JOHN HUTCHINSON above HAS BEEN DONE and IT'S A FACT. Your 'poor classical science' is trying to explain it to this date like a stammering poor soul.

So please don't start to get ridiculous at this.
Also, flack from 'the ones who know better ' ... You mean, skeptics ?
About dowsing??:lol: :lol: :lol:

hung

03-24-2007, 07:50 PM

Here's what Myron Evans has to say about Physics current status.
Hmmm..Why I'm not surprised?

Physics is more abstract and complicated than ever before, but really new ideas such as ECE theory are rare. Physics is more closely controlled than ever before, but the only effect is that scientists follow the developments on www.aias.us (http://www.aias.us) from natural curiosity. The actual peer use (APU) system I have advocated on the blog this morning indicates with accuracy the extent to which a new theory or new experimental discovery is actually being used. The "controllers" of physics now use bureaucrats to censor new ideas (as the IoP episode on the blog shows). So I think that modern establishment physics has fallen right into the trap warned against by Francis Bacon: "The Idols of the Cave". This means that the human mind often hides the truth with abstractions. What could be a better description of establishment physics today? I have just posted a few quotes from Bacon on the blog. This attempted control of human thought was also warned against by Orwell and many others. The emergence of feedback software makes all the difference, we all know that ECE is driving the APU index nuts. The only people who don't read and use ECE are the IoP bureaucrats. This has led physics into a deep crisis, because the controllers lack credibility. The adoption of the APU index is the only logical way out of this crisis.

**********
More on: http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de09215

Carl-NC

03-24-2007, 08:37 PM

Ah, yes, the inevitable "conspiracy theory." From the Crackpot Index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html), he gets a whopping 40 points!

Hung, if you associate yourself with the likes of Bearden and other flakes, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Bearden is a joke.

The title of this thread is "Scientific Test of Dowsing"...

So here's my request, again...

If you know of any Right Procedure that will scientifically demonstrate the efficacy of dowsing, I'd like to hear it.

Please refrain from posting links to pure nonsense. A simple, replicable test will do just fine.

- Carl

J_Player

03-24-2007, 08:47 PM

I should point I was refering to DOWSING. The works of people like JOHN HUTCHINSON above HAS BEEN DONE and IT'S A FACT. Your 'poor classical science' is trying to explain it to this date like a stammering poor soul.

So please don't start to get ridiculous at this.
Also, flack from 'the ones who know better ' ... You mean, skeptics ?
About dowsing??

It is not a fact. Are you completely wrong again? What works did John Hutchinson ever do to prove that dowsing works? Show some evidence that John hutchinson worked in a scientific study of dowsing. Are you sure this is not more of your BS?

Yes we are skeptics when some idiot tries to make us believe their opinion is a fact, and puts false references of people who never worked in the dowsing field to prove that dowsing works.

Neither John Hutchinson nor Myron Evans ever did any experiments to demonstrate dowsing that I know of. All you proved is that you have no proof from anywhere that backs dowsing. You also proved you are willing to post irrelevant controversial names to fill the void where you failed to demonstrate anything to support dowsing. Am I wrong? Is there some secret dowsing experiments these people did that I missed? Or is this more of the same BS you been shoveling from the start? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

hung

03-24-2007, 09:23 PM

Hung, if you associate yourself with the likes of Bearden and other flakes, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Bearden is a joke.

It's a lot easy state the above.
Prove some of EM claims by Evans is wrong. Prove it.
Carl, you obvously don't have the competence for that and you know that. No hurt feelings.
Here's the link if you like: http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/062503.htm

If you know of any Right Procedure that will scientifically demonstrate the efficacy of dowsing, I'd like to hear it.

What for? For you?

Please refrain from posting links to pure nonsense.

- Carl

Better. I quit. There's absolutely no way to start a discussion on this subject with minds here still imature for that.
I apologize. It's really naive and stupid from my part expect such. My first post was correct.

Carl-NC

03-24-2007, 10:41 PM

Hung, I posted a link to Nobel Laureate's page where he completely dissintigrates Evans. You can read it, or ignore it. Makes no difference to me.

Again, the title of this thread is "Scientific Test of Dowsing"...

My request was...

If you know of any Right Procedure that will scientifically demonstrate the efficacy of dowsing, I'd like to hear it.

Every time dowsing proponents complain about my challenge, they fall completely silent when I ask for a procedure that they think will work. If you don't know, then don't make excuses, just say, "I don't know."

- Carl

Qiaozhi

03-25-2007, 12:15 AM

Not exactly, Dowsing is an interaction of EM and scalar potentials with human biofields and its EM matrixes.
But you could start by admiting that EM might be indeed extracted from the 'scalar curvature'.
From that, you are on your own...
Pseudoscientific gobbledygook...
What utter stuff and nonsense. Perhaps you should study some real physics, before trying to invent your own. :frown:

hung

03-25-2007, 01:36 PM

This will be my final input on this thread as I won’t waste my prescious time when I’m not in the field beating a dead horse.

The skeptics in this forum first of all should learn that physics is not The Constitution, which pocesses the ‘clausula petrea’ which cannot be changed. In physics, although there are laws which can be pretty much be stated as this, they may only hold true to our limited dimension realms or in the newtonian concept.

My intention in the first place was to try to demonstrate that the knowledge about dowsing , lies in the physics that goes beyond that, towards new revisions in ‘quantum mechanics and quantum physics. Did I make this up? Of course not!! They are real!!

I already stated that in 1994. That’s 13 years ago this year, I had a research team which was developing a project which completely have ‘blown’ some accepted standards of quantum mechanics. I will never tell this because besides the fact I’m not allowed to, it’s too much, incredibly dangerous. I believe the others who were in that project think the same. The nuclear physicists in that team knew imediately what had been achieved and the possibilities. But no one of us had any ambitions in terms of power of money, thank God all went fine and stoped in time.

What purpose served this? To demonstrate EXACTLY what Evans states in his speech above regarding the ‘estabilishment’. Scientific society is too envious, egocentric , full of preconceptions and resistant to changes which would make the same ones who rule the ‘academia’ have to revise some concepts which most of their egos don’t permit. I’m not the one who stated this. This was stated by a nuclear physicist in the project WHO BELONGS TO THIS SAME ACADEMIA!

Classical Science cannot and will never be able to explain certain phenomena. I understand classical science as a branch of physics which won’t consider new concepts in quantum mechanics. But my definition of it can be different to many people, as science is AND SHOULD be only one! But the ‘estabilishment’ tends to limit this for military purposes which means power, and monetary reasons, which means profits!

There are inumerous, countless phenomena happening everyday which if looked through ‘classical physics’(concept given above) it JUST CAN'T BE EXPLAINED! So what has to be done? Research and see that there are also several ‘flaws’ in physics which have to be revised in order to absorb those phenomena so that it’s understood. There are tons of examples such as resonating gravity, unified field theory, elctromagnetic anomalies ( I can attest this), existence and comunication of spirits which leads to the corroboration of dimension interaction and torsion fields.

Take spiritism for instance. It’s hilarious to witness, when one chooses to research the non sense methods and absurd conclusions science of the late 19th, early 20th century chose to pubish. It’s also terrible and sadly shocking seeing persons such as Florence Cook, Eusapia Palladino, Mirabelli, etc. being put to discredit!
Alhtough there were a lot of frauds at this time because the ‘talk of the day’ was spiritism and (as always) such phenomena tends to be put as ‘spectacles’ producing cheap acts, there were TRUE phenomena which serious researchers corroborated, but in the end ‘the science estabilishment’ acted to twist and erode conclusions when not adequate to them.

But some, they tried desperately to hide, ‘locking it in the wardrobe’ as they simply ‘could not explain’. Take Mirabelli for instace, this ‘medium’ could literally walk out of building windows and dematerialize in front of everybody at daylight! And before any skeptic here might suggest that there are magicians nowadays who do the same, I tell you: You don’t have the SLIGHTEST idea of what you are saying!! The feats of Mirabelli, was not to prove he was unique, but to call attention for a phenomena which HAD to be accepted and considered. Because it was a fact and science and physics could and can explain. True science. Which new knowledges are conquered everyday.

So, going back to this thread, regarding dowsing, I tried to first discuss the science behind the phenomena and only after this, discuss the phenomena itself. The lattter cannot be understood without the first. But by now it’s comon sense that it’s impossible to discuss this here or in any other forum, because there’s a clear evidence most of the people really does not wish to discuss or learn anything. What they want is to impose their truths as undisputable so the egos rise. If you think I’m wrong, prove me wrong. Prove Hutchinson is a fraud, or prove Cathie’s harmonics don’t explain anything. Prove there’s no spirits which could lead to accept another form of matter. And finally prove Evans is wrong.
Although unlikely, you may find slight inconsistencies in the work of the names above. Which does not invalidate their acomplishments.

Calling someone ‘nuts’ or a ‘crackpot’ is a direspectful way and also shows a lack of objectiveness in dismissing a possible evidence which faces you that it sounds like a ‘scape’.
And worse, seeing the administrator of this forum , the one who should keep respect and politeness do the same. This unfortunately indicates there’s no hope for a healthy discussion.

Who among the skeptics here, has a full time duty as a physicist??? Who here has any published papers regardin scientific works??? Who here is involved in lab experiemtns to try to replicate data collecting in the field??? I think none as you would be too busy to join forum like this.
SO WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU HAVE TO QUESTION EVANS, HUTCHINSON, CATHIE, FLAMARION, TT BROWN, ETC.???!
It’s meaningless having a ‘Nobel Laureate’ to discredit somebody, when another ‘Nobel Laureate’ might as well discredit the first. You should be the one who should investigate and corroborate or not. Besides, do you really think you will find everything in the internet? If so, you are awfully naïve, as the true papers regarding all of what I said above will never make it through it.

How can skeptics state that dowsing is ideomotor and dowsers fail to replicate in ‘serious’ scientific conditions? Do you really thik that offering contest prizes to anybody will help to come to a conclusion? Come on, gimme a break!! This will only help enhance self promotion and it’s all they seek!!
How many stupids out there?!! Reminds me of late 19th century research methods regarding spiritsm.
In twenty years from now, Carl Moreland will still be offering his 25k reward so will James Randi.
Honestly, what did you learn so far? That dowsing does not work and dowsers use ideomotor and guess? Really?

This won’t change the fact that many LRL users will keep on finding gold and dowsers will keep on having success as ALWAYS IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY and the most part of them
don’t give a sh…about forums. If you really think a reward is all there is to prove dowsing works , man, I don’t want to imagine your other scientific methods of seeking evidence.
No offense tough.

Finally, discussing dowsing in forums tends to become a waste of time in my opinion due to that. There will always be skeptics who in reality never did wish to discuss it. Only to defend a cause which does not admit the possibility of this to happen. So where will it be investigated? Everywhere that allows serious and exempt research. Usually far from the internet to avoid the problems seen to date. Want to research it seriously? Then take several volunteer dowsers and isolate yourself with them about a year and do your homework.
But you know you can’t do that, besides the fact it will be hard to get volunteers for you due to your notorious reputation and pre-judgement tendencies fataly leaked in the internet.
I do hope healthy discussion return to forums, but all there is for now is what I stated above. So most of us have chosen not to ‘watch the film’ as we know the end.

http://www.stargazettenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070321/COLUMNIST36/703210312

chemelec

03-25-2007, 11:01 PM

Thank Goodness, Thats your FINAL INPUT!:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This will be my final input on this thread as I won’t waste my prescious time when I’m not in the field beating a dead horse.

The skeptics in this forum first of all should learn that physics is not The Constitution, which pocesses the ‘clausula petrea’ which cannot be changed. In physics, although there are laws which can be pretty much be stated as this, they may only hold true to our limited dimension realms or in the newtonian concept.

My intention in the first place was to try to demonstrate that the knowledge about dowsing , lies in the physics that goes beyond that, towards new revisions in ‘quantum mechanics and quantum physics. Did I make this up? Of course not!! They are real!!

I already stated that in 1994. That’s 13 years ago this year, I had a research team which was developing a project which completely have ‘blown’ some accepted standards of quantum mechanics. I will never tell this because besides the fact I’m not allowed to, it’s too much, incredibly dangerous. I believe the others who were in that project think the same. The nuclear physicists in that team knew imediately what had been achieved and the possibilities. But no one of us had any ambitions in terms of power of money, thank God all went fine and stoped in time.

What purpose served this? To demonstrate EXACTLY what Evans states in his speech above regarding the ‘estabilishment’. Scientific society is too envious, egocentric , full of preconceptions and resistant to changes which would make the same ones who rule the ‘academia’ have to revise some concepts which most of their egos don’t permit. I’m not the one who stated this. This was stated by a nuclear physicist in the project WHO BELONGS TO THIS SAME ACADEMIA!

Classical Science cannot and will never be able to explain certain phenomena. I understand classical science as a branch of physics which won’t consider new concepts in quantum mechanics. But my definition of it can be different to many people, as science is AND SHOULD be only one! But the ‘estabilishment’ tends to limit this for military purposes which means power, and monetary reasons, which means profits!

There are inumerous, countless phenomena happening everyday which if looked through ‘classical physics’(concept given above) it JUST CAN'T BE EXPLAINED! So what has to be done? Research and see that there are also several ‘flaws’ in physics which have to be revised in order to absorb those phenomena so that it’s understood. There are tons of examples such as resonating gravity, unified field theory, elctromagnetic anomalies ( I can attest this), existence and comunication of spirits which leads to the corroboration of dimension interaction and torsion fields.

Take spiritism for instance. It’s hilarious to witness, when one chooses to research the non sense methods and absurd conclusions science of the late 19th, early 20th century chose to pubish. It’s also terrible and sadly shocking seeing persons such as Florence Cook, Eusapia Palladino, Mirabelli, etc. being put to discredit!
Alhtough there were a lot of frauds at this time because the ‘talk of the day’ was spiritism and (as always) such phenomena tends to be put as ‘spectacles’ producing cheap acts, there were TRUE phenomena which serious researchers corroborated, but in the end ‘the science estabilishment’ acted to twist and erode conclusions when not adequate to them.

But some, they tried desperately to hide, ‘locking it in the wardrobe’ as they simply ‘could not explain’. Take Mirabelli for instace, this ‘medium’ could literally walk out of building windows and dematerialize in front of everybody at daylight! And before any skeptic here might suggest that there are magicians nowadays who do the same, I tell you: You don’t have the SLIGHTEST idea of what you are saying!! The feats of Mirabelli, was not to prove he was unique, but to call attention for a phenomena which HAD to be accepted and considered. Because it was a fact and science and physics could and can explain. True science. Which new knowledges are conquered everyday.

So, going back to this thread, regarding dowsing, I tried to first discuss the science behind the phenomena and only after this, discuss the phenomena itself. The lattter cannot be understood without the first. But by now it’s comon sense that it’s impossible to discuss this here or in any other forum, because there’s a clear evidence most of the people really does not wish to discuss or learn anything. What they want is to impose their truths as undisputable so the egos rise. If you think I’m wrong, prove me wrong. Prove Hutchinson is a fraud, or prove Cathie’s harmonics don’t explain anything. Prove there’s no spirits which could lead to accept another form of matter. And finally prove Evans is wrong.
Although unlikely, you may find slight inconsistencies in the work of the names above. Which does not invalidate their acomplishments.

Calling someone ‘nuts’ or a ‘crackpot’ is a direspectful way and also shows a lack of objectiveness in dismissing a possible evidence which faces you that it sounds like a ‘scape’.
And worse, seeing the administrator of this forum , the one who should keep respect and politeness do the same. This unfortunately indicates there’s no hope for a healthy discussion.

Who among the skeptics here, has a full time duty as a physicist??? Who here has any published papers regardin scientific works??? Who here is involved in lab experiemtns to try to replicate data collecting in the field??? I think none as you would be too busy to join forum like this.
SO WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU HAVE TO QUESTION EVANS, HUTCHINSON, CATHIE, FLAMARION, TT BROWN, ETC.???!
It’s meaningless having a ‘Nobel Laureate’ to discredit somebody, when another ‘Nobel Laureate’ might as well discredit the first. You should be the one who should investigate and corroborate or not. Besides, do you really think you will find everything in the internet? If so, you are awfully naïve, as the true papers regarding all of what I said above will never make it through it.

How can skeptics state that dowsing is ideomotor and dowsers fail to replicate in ‘serious’ scientific conditions? Do you really thik that offering contest prizes to anybody will help to come to a conclusion? Come on, gimme a break!! This will only help enhance self promotion and it’s all they seek!!
How many stupids out there?!! Reminds me of late 19th century research methods regarding spiritsm.
In twenty years from now, Carl Moreland will still be offering his 25k reward so will James Randi.
Honestly, what did you learn so far? That dowsing does not work and dowsers use ideomotor and guess? Really?

This won’t change the fact that many LRL users will keep on finding gold and dowsers will keep on having success as ALWAYS IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY and the most part of them
don’t give a sh…about forums. If you really think a reward is all there is to prove dowsing works , man, I don’t want to imagine your other scientific methods of seeking evidence.
No offense tough.

Finally, discussing dowsing in forums tends to become a waste of time in my opinion due to that. There will always be skeptics who in reality never did wish to discuss it. Only to defend a cause which does not admit the possibility of this to happen. So where will it be investigated? Everywhere that allows serious and exempt research. Usually far from the internet to avoid the problems seen to date. Want to research it seriously? Then take several volunteer dowsers and isolate yourself with them about a year and do your homework.
But you know you can’t do that, besides the fact it will be hard to get volunteers for you due to your notorious reputation and pre-judgement tendencies fataly leaked in the internet.
I do hope healthy discussion return to forums, but all there is for now is what I stated above. So most of us have chosen not to ‘watch the film’ as we know the end.

http://www.stargazettenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070321/COLUMNIST36/703210312

Qiaozhi

03-26-2007, 12:01 AM

http://www.stargazettenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070321/COLUMNIST36/703210312

Let me see ... a woman goes to a graveyard with a couple of bent coat hangers, and miraculously is able to sense the location of a grave. :???:
Blimey! Is that convincing or what?

Thank Goodness, Thats your FINAL INPUT!:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I think that should have been: Thank Goodness. That's your final OUTPUT! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Carl-NC

03-26-2007, 01:31 AM

Thank you, Hung, for your long defense of pseudoscience. I'll add up the points when I get a chance.

But in all that, you have still failed to address my request...

If you know of any Right Procedure that will scientifically demonstrate the efficacy of dowsing, I'd like to hear it.

I'll take your latest diatribe as a great big "cain't do it."

I'm not the least big concerned with "theories" of dowsing. Those are a dime-a-dozen. My question is: Is dowsing REAL, and can it be DEMONSTRATED? If it cannot, all those theories are meaningless.

- Carl

Clondike Clad

03-26-2007, 01:59 AM

It's a lot easy state the above.
Prove some of EM claims by Evans is wrong. Prove it.
Carl, you obvously don't have the competence for that and you know that. No hurt feelings.
Here's the link if you like: http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/062503.htm

What for? For you?

Better. I quit. There's absolutely no way to start a discussion on this subject with minds here still imature for that.
I apologize. It's really naive and stupid from my part expect such. My first post was correct.

Did you at one time said money talk and BS walks Go and take Carl's $25,000
Or Help me to learn to take his money:razz: You know how to do it ,Or do you:razz:
Come on Show us by taking Carl's money.
But just like the LRL you can't take his money so:nono: on you .
Or if you don't want to take it teach me so I can take his money:D

hung

03-26-2007, 01:30 PM

If you know of any Right Procedure that will scientifically demonstrate the efficacy of dowsing, I'd like to hear it.

If you cannot accept what I stated above, then it's more than likely you won't accept my procedure. They are conected.

If you can't accept what I stated above, then you won't accept my procedure either. They're conected.

I'm not the least big concerned with "theories" of dowsing. Those are a dime-a-dozen. My question is: Is dowsing REAL, and can it be DEMONSTRATED? If it cannot, all those theories are meaningless.

- Carl

You are the one who are still in the 'theory' stage.
When you ask the question to whether dowsing is real and if it can be demonstrated, you only implicit the bold words to someone who cannot answer it. Yourself.

I said this would be my final input. But in consideration to you I made an exception. I already gave enough reasons to my points. Hope you trail another road which might lead to the answers you seek.
It's all up to you.

J_Player

03-26-2007, 05:49 PM

It appears Hung would find much better acceptance in Myron Evan's website forums at AIAS and atomicprecision, where everyone would agree with his physics theories and conspiracy theories. But most of us in this forum have day jobs that require using real science that can be built, tested, and demonstrate results.

This thread is about "A Scientific Test of Dowsing".

I'm not the least big concerned with "theories" of dowsing. Those are a dime-a-dozen. My question is: Is dowsing REAL, and can it be DEMONSTRATED? If it cannot, all those theories are meaningless.

The only answer to Carl's question in this thread was posted by Qiaozhi in his original post. Read this report where 43 dowsers actually demonstrated dowsing and decide for yourself: http://www.csicop.org/si/9901/dowsing.html

Is there any doubt why no dowser is willing to demonstrate dowsing, or even to suggest a "Right Procedure" that will scientifically demonstrate the efficacy of dowsing? :cool:

Carl-NC

03-26-2007, 07:18 PM

If you cannot accept what I stated above, then it's more than likely you won't accept my procedure. They are conected.

Why? Either you can scientifically test dowsing, or you can't. If you can't, then all the theories in the world won't do any good. Scientific theories absolutely MUST be testable and falsifiable to be worth a crap*.

You are the one who are still in the 'theory' stage.
When you ask the question to whether dowsing is real and if it can be demonstrated, you only implicit the bold words to someone who cannot answer it. Yourself.That doesn't even make sense.

My challenge involves a randomized blind protocol that is well-known and well-used in RealScience to test all sorts of subjective phenomena in which bias and sloppiness can skew results. It is a fair test that should be easy to pass if dowsing really works, and nearly impossible if dowing does not work.

Like other dowsing proponents, you have recognized that my challenge is impossible for dowsers. And, like others in denial, you offer up a heaping helping of criticism of an established scientific protocol in an attempt to prop up your beliefs. But, not surprisingly, you can't offer any alternative. That's mighty weak, and mighty predictable.

- Carl

*That's one of the hallmarks of crackpot science... untestable "theories".

hung

03-26-2007, 08:10 PM

Why? Either you can scientifically test dowsing, or you can't. If you can't, then all the theories in the world won't do any good. Scientific theories absolutely MUST be testable and falsifiable to be worth a crap*.

You can scientifically test dowsing if you use scientifically methods to do so.
When I say you are still in the theory stage I mean you don't have any basis whatsoever to even start to analyze it, without having to rely on what you and others here refer pejoratively as 'pseudo science'.
There's nothing like that, as science is one and only. In your case and theirs, like a drawer still waiting to be open. How can you start to understand dowsing if you don't even know and consider the interactions of earth's EM patterns and the human byological system which lies in between the limits of a total chaotic state and a highly ordered and organized one? The day you study foton emissions and the consequences in living organisms realizing that the frequency of these fotons are much higher than that you can reproduce on a test tube, you will know that your methods if there's any, are meaningless, almost a complete joke. Sorry.
If it could be taken to another level, it would be liketrying to heal psychological pathologies with electrcial shocks!

My challenge involves a randomized blind protocol that is well-known and well-used in RealScience to test all sorts of subjective phenomena in which bias and sloppiness can skew results. It is a fair test that should be easy to pass if dowsing really works, and nearly impossible if dowing does not work.

Like other dowsing proponents, you have recognized that my challenge is impossible for dowsers. And, like others in denial, you offer up a heaping helping of criticism of an established scientific protocol in an attempt to prop up your beliefs. But, not surprisingly, you can't offer any alternative. That's mighty weak, and mighty predictable.

- Carl

*That's one of the hallmarks of crackpot science... untestable "theories".

See? You used the word yourself: CHALLENGE
You think this is all a game and you try to gain attention as an ordinary TV Show. You sound not having a minimum interest in understand dowsing under scientific research. Again, it's all there in science already. Just chose your tools of research and do it right.
Like the fotons and frequencies in biological systems that I stated above, which you can verify checking Boltzmann aproxmation for higher frequencies and Bose-Einstein statiscs for lower ones.

Take it from there Carl, I told you I don't have time to discuss this besides the fact that regarding this topic, I already been there and came back.
If you really want to discuss dowsing, do exactly this, study. Don't gamble.
And please, I chose not to discuss this here. Thanks.

Carl-NC

03-26-2007, 10:24 PM

You can scientifically test dowsing if you use scientifically methods to do so.

My challenge protocol uses scientific methods. If you disagree, please explicitly state why. Then, propose an alternate scientific test method. Please keep in mind that I am asking for a test to demonstrate the existence of dowsing, not a test for some particular theory of dowsing.

...you don't have any basis whatsoever to even start to analyze it ... How can you start to understand dowsing... What difference does it make if I "understand" dowsing, or can "analyze" it? All I'm asking for is a demonstration of dowsing under scientific conditions. A test that verifies, "Yup, that feller sure can dowse." No, I won't accept anecdotal evidence... met too many dowsers who said they could, but couldn't when I was watching. Same thing with Randi, Betz, Smith, and others.

If you know of any Right Procedure that will scientifically demonstrate the efficacy of dowsing, I'd like to hear it.

So tell me, Hung... why is this so difficult for you? Why do you continue to post irrelevant chatter, instead of answering my request? Again, if you can't do it, just say, "I can't do it." I'll understand.

- Carl

Qiaozhi

03-26-2007, 11:22 PM

If dowsing was software it would be known as vapour-ware (or vapor-ware in the U.S.) and most likely would only run under PowerPoint. :lol:

If the $25,000 dollar challenge was aimed at PI Detectors (for example) then anyone could easily pass the double-blind test, and Carl and his money would have parted company a long long time ago. You don't need to know why a metal detector works to find treasure, only how to use it. In fact, the majority of detectorists have no idea what's in the box, and many don't even care.

So why is dowsing (or LRLing for that matter) not subject to the same rules? By her own admission the little old lady, in one of Hung's previous posts, has no idea how dowsing works. She most likely has never heard of the ideomotor effect, or that it's simply a trick of the mind. But so what? As long as you know how to hold the dowsing rods, etc., etc., you should be able to locate the treasure as part of a double-blind test, without knowing the pseudoscientific witchcraft used to explain an already clearly understood phenomenon. If dowsing really worked, then Carl would be minus $25,000 dollars. He isn't ... so the conclusion is ... it doesn't. End of story.

Carl-NC

03-27-2007, 02:58 AM

If the $25,000 dollar challenge was aimed at PI Detectors (for example) then anyone could easily pass the double-blind test, and Carl and his money would have parted company a long long time ago.

Geophysical techniques that would easily pass a randomized blind test:
Metal detector (any), ability to detect metal
Magnetometer, ability to detect a magnetic field
Gradiometer, ability to detect a magnetic field gradient
Side Scan Sonar, ability to image sunken structures
Ground Resistivity, ability to detect resistivity gradients
Induced Polarization, ability to detect permittivity gradients
Ground Penetrating Radar, ability to detect subsurface anomalies
Infrared, ability to distinguish soil density
Thermography, ability to image thermal radiation
Geiger Counter, ability to detect radioactivitySo-called treasure hunting techniques that cannot pass a randomized blind test:
Dowsing
Map dowsing
LRLs that involve any form of dowsing
Ionic detection LRLs
Any other LRLs that claim to detect buried treasure from 100's of feet away
Polaroid auras
Treasure psychicsOf the two groups, which one is overwhelmingly successful in bringing home the gold, and which is overwhelmingly successful in bringing home fanciful stories of massive treasures that couldn't quite be recovered?

It's pretty darned clear what works, and what doesn't.

- Carl

hung

03-27-2007, 07:44 PM

Let's do this. I will chime in every time I find relevant to coment on relevant topics you might raise on the subject. Otherwise not.
In this case however to correct things I find not right. Personal view.

My challenge protocol uses scientific methods.

What scientific methods? The ones you seed throughout forums are silly probability games which don't show, indicate or prove anyting.

If you disagree, please explicitly state why.

Yes I disagree. See above.

Then, propose an alternate scientific test method. Please keep in mind that I am asking for a test to demonstrate the existence of dowsing, not a test for some particular theory of dowsing.

Carl, hundreds of scientific tests have already been performed even before you were born. Tests that involved lots of money, financial backing and superstructure, which you will never be able to replicate in this magnitude.
Despite of that your direction is totally wrong and will remain like that until you convince yourself litle games are not tests.

And it's always the same. Tests done by skeptics and tests done by proponents. The Kassel test you discussed here in the past is a skeptic test. So as you are a spoken skeptic, which results 'your audience' will expect to see?
For this, you don't even need to do it. Just stick with the skeptic test you like most.

All I'm asking for is a demonstration of dowsing under scientific conditions. A test that verifies, "Yup, that feller sure can dowse." No, I won't accept anecdotal evidence... met too many dowsers who said they could, but couldn't when I was watching. Same thing with Randi, Betz, Smith, and others.

First, are you saying you have not met one single person who could dowse so far? Wow. That's not surprising you don't know what dowsing is.
I thought you were in phase 1, where you know the phenomena but you are not sure about its consistency. But you show me you still did not reach that point.
So, I can point you one serious test of hundreds that have already been taken, which clearly shows a 96% rate of sucess for dowsers who could find water, when a sucess rate of 30-50% should be expected using conventional techiniques.

http://twm.co.nz/dowsing_jse_com.html

As you can see, an honest test. That's all.
Although it shows it's still in phase 1 in my opinion, as most of tests done so far. It's a test. Not an explanation. Not little games with rewards a la 'family feud'.
Phase 2 would explain the phenomena due to acess of knowledge which represents the basis for conclusions.

If you know of any Right Procedure that will scientifically demonstrate the efficacy of dowsing, I'd like to hear it.

You keep insisting on the same question which I already answered. The efficacy of dowsing has already been demonstrated in minor or major conditions in tests as the one above. What you have to understand is that you have to acess areas of physics and biophysical matters before attempting to perform a phase 2 test.

See this report here. http://www.connect.ab.ca/~tylosky/
Much more objective than everything you tried to say up to now. Convince yourself that your tests will prove nothing the way they are done. Nothing. It will just expose the dowser you test to ridicule and corrode even more your reputation among proponents through the net.

me, Hung... why is this so difficult for you? Why do you continue to post irrelevant chatter, instead of answering my request? Again, if you can't do it, just say, "I can't do it." I'll understand.

Irrelevant chatter... I see.
Honestly, you don't know what you're saying. Probably irrelevant to you now as you still did not reach this stage yet. When you do we might talk.
I grant you you will have everything to gain if you check Earth's EM and biological interactions in human beings using the models I pointed out.

I'll probably return to this thread in 1 or 2 weeks.

hung

03-27-2007, 08:18 PM

This is the email Myron Evan has sent me after my querie about the rebuttal of his calculations in the link Carl provided.
Interesting to see there's a brazilian involved in bad campaigns against him...Ouch.
Truth is Dr. Evans gave and still gives enormous contributions to physics. As I said, envy is a darn bad quality...
***********

Dear Dr Hung:

Many thanks indeed for your kind comments. There is a series of rebuttals on www.aias.us (http://www.aias.us/) of these grossly defamatory Wikipedia comments, if this is the forum to which you refer. The moderator "Science Guy" has been identified as a habitual abuser and harasser called Akhlesh Lakhtakia of the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Science of Penn State University at University Park - he is the real crackpot - and some of his gutter abuse (e.g. of the Welsh People) is reproduced on www.aias.us (http://www.aias.us/). I have several times called for his dismissal for misconduct. We have managed to modify his original censorious conduct on Wikipedia by a combined effort and Wikipedia itself is now coming under severe criticism for several blunders and misrepresentations. Gerhard Bruhn is an aggravating harasser and retired individual from TU Darmstadt who has disseminated thousands of e mails in a personal campaign against the British Civil List Scientist. I have shredded him matehmatically many times, so there is only ticker tape left of his "comments". These have been found to be deliberately contrived mathematical falsehoods. The British Government will not tolerate being dictated to by these individuals and aggravated harassment is a felony, i.e. a matter for the police. If you look up the rebuttals on www.aias.us (http://www.aias.us/) you will see a long series of carefully argued refutations of these personal remarks. The Nobel Laureate is G. 't Hooft of Utrecht Univ, whose credibility is very much on the line because of his regrettable personal remarks concerning the British Civil List Scientist. The award of a British Civil List Pension is a high honour and appoinmtment, rarely given, generally considered to be as meritorious as any Nobel Prize, and much more democratic in nature (see www.aias.us (http://www.aias.us/)). You are welcome to post your remarks on www.aias.us (http://www.aias.us/) if you wish. This campaign of harassment was started in Brazil by a retired individual called Waldyr Rodigues of CAMPINAS. It has been a vicious assault on fellow scientists, and has resulted in the destruction of the journals "Foundations of Physics" and "Foundations of Physics Letters", formerly edited by the universally respected Prof. Alwyn van der Merwe. In my opinion these harassers are the opposite of real scientists, and their continued assaults could lead to diplomatic protest.

Prof. Myron W. Evans
The British and Commonwealth Civil List Scientist

Esteban

03-27-2007, 10:34 PM

Anyone can explain me:

1. Why in all war scenarios are involved dowsers of US Army for to find caves or tunnels? They are wrong?

2. Is dowsing a skill?

In my personal case, I see men who uses last generation detectors and I, with my homemade instruments, obtain more results in the same terrain.

The most of the time my ears are more accuracy than his instruments!

I think if this is OK for you, use it!

Carl-NC

03-27-2007, 11:08 PM

Well, Hung, you've done it yet again. In all you wrote, you still failed to explain why my challenge protocol is not a valid, scientific way to test dowsing. All you said, basically, is you don't like it, and it's silly. That says a whole bunch of nothing.

Also, you continue to avoid my request...

Please explain a Right Procedure that will scientifically demonstrate the efficacy of dowsing.

All you've managed to do is say that skeptic tests are bad, and believer tests are good. That, again, is a whole bunch of nothing.

Sounds like Evans is a real whiner. If there were anything to his theories, he sure wouldn't bother rebutting his critics on his web site... he would just proceed to prove them wrong with outstanding scientific achievements. Reminds me of dowsers who constantly whine about skeptics, instead of going out and digging up all that gold they say they can find. In any case, except for your embracementEvans is irrelevant to dowsing, so I hope you don't waste any more time here trying to defend him.

I hope that next time you post, you can offer us a detailed, scientific protocol of how I might test someone who claims they can dowse for gold. I've found this is always a stumper question for dowsing proponents... all I ever hear are excuses and alibis, like your excuse that I must first believe in some kind of hokey pseudoscience before I can move to the next "stage". A dowser can either dowse, or he can't, regardless of my beliefs.

- Carl

Qiaozhi

03-27-2007, 11:15 PM

Let's do this. I will chime in every time I find relevant to coment on relevant topics you might raise on the subject. Otherwise not.
In this case however to correct things I find not right. Personal view.

What scientific methods? The ones you seed throughout forums are silly probability games which don't show, indicate or prove anyting.

Yes I disagree. See above.

Carl, hundreds of scientific tests have already been performed even before you were born. Tests that involved lots of money, financial backing and superstructure, which you will never be able to replicate in this magnitude.
Despite of that your direction is totally wrong and will remain like that until you convince yourself litle games are not tests.

And it's always the same. Tests done by skeptics and tests done by proponents. The Kassel test you discussed here in the past is a skeptic test. So as you are a spoken skeptic, which results 'your audience' will expect to see?
For this, you don't even need to do it. Just stick with the skeptic test you like most.

First, are you saying you have not met one single person who could dowse so far? Wow. That's not surprising you don't know what dowsing is.
I thought you were in phase 1, where you know the phenomena but you are not sure about its consistency. But you show me you still did not reach that point.
So, I can point you one serious test of hundreds that have already been taken, which clearly shows a 96% rate of sucess for dowsers who could find water, when a sucess rate of 30-50% should be expected using conventional techiniques.

http://twm.co.nz/dowsing_jse_com.html

As you can see, an honest test. That's all.
Although it shows it's still in phase 1 in my opinion, as most of tests done so far. It's a test. Not an explanation. Not little games with rewards a la 'family feud'.
Phase 2 would explain the phenomena due to acess of knowledge which represents the basis for conclusions.

You keep insisting on the same question which I already answered. The efficacy of dowsing has already been demonstrated in minor or major conditions in tests as the one above. What you have to understand is that you have to acess areas of physics and biophysical matters before attempting to perform a phase 2 test.

See this report here. http://www.connect.ab.ca/~tylosky/
Much more objective than everything you tried to say up to now. Convince yourself that your tests will prove nothing the way they are done. Nothing. It will just expose the dowser you test to ridicule and corrode even more your reputation among proponents through the net.

Irrelevant chatter... I see.
Honestly, you don't know what you're saying. Probably irrelevant to you now as you still did not reach this stage yet. When you do we might talk.
I grant you you will have everything to gain if you check Earth's EM and biological interactions in human beings using the models I pointed out.

I'll probably return to this thread in 1 or 2 weeks.
In the whole of this long post you have completely failed to say anything remotely sensible. :frown:

Carl-NC

03-27-2007, 11:15 PM

Anyone can explain me:

1. Why in all war scenarios are involved dowsers of US Army for to find caves or tunnels? They are wrong?

I'm not aware that the Army employs dowsers to find tunnels... if they do, it's a mighty poor way to find them.

2. Is dowsing a skill?

In my personal case, I see men who uses last generation detectors and I, with my homemade instruments, obtain more results in the same terrain.

The most of the time my ears are more accuracy than his instruments!

I think if this is OK for you, use it!I agree, if dowsing "works" for you, then use it! Why in the world would you waste a single minute trying to convince someone, unless it's not really working?

- Carl

Esteban

03-27-2007, 11:43 PM

Carl, there are Government reports about his use. Of course, this is not convenient for to manufacturers of any kind of detection system!!!

In wich war the enemy of USA built a tunnels system? In Vietnam. Army uses the skill of men for to find it:

It was this the Marines used to great effect in Viet Nam. The Army's Corps of Engineers brought in a seismic tunnel locator, which involved boring holes in the ground, setting charges in the holes, and measuring the ground echoes from the blasts to determine the location of tunnels. The instrument, which cost about half a million dollars, was about 50% effective in locating tunnels, but could not map them from the surface. The Marines' coathanger wires were 95% effective in locating tunnels, and could map them from the surface by indicating subterranean turns.

http://www.texasescapes.com/CFEckhardt/Ancient-Art-of-Dowsing.htm

* * * * * * * * *

The long list of users of dowsing may be surprising to some readers:

Engineering Companies (e.g. the Bio-Physical Method (BPM) was used in 1971 in the former USSR to detect water filtering through a dam (Bird 1979))
Water Companies (a pair of dowsing rods is carried inside the doors of Water Board vans)
Mining Companies (e.g. documented use for finding ore and petroleum in the USSR (Bakirov 1973))
Laundries (for water supply)
Breweries (for water supply)
Building Contractors (to locate unknown service pipes on building sites)
Farmers (for water supply)
Government Departments
Police (location of buried items and, it is rumoured, bodies)
Armed Forces (dowsing used by the British Army since Colonial times); dowsing appeared in USSR army manuals in 1930 for the finding of water in remote areas; dowsing used by the First and Third US Marine Divisions in Vietnam, 1967, as a simple, low-cost method for locating Vietcong tunnels, which were used for communication, storage depots, supply network, command posts, training centres, hospitals and sally ports for over twenty years (Bossart 1968 in the Project Poorboy Annual Progress Report; Bird 1979, Chapter 11)).In 1952 a team of electrical engineers tested the famous dowser Henry Gross, and found that his skin potential changed by up to 200mV over subterranean water, compared with a change of 10mV for non-dowsers.

Abstract: The use of dowsing for the location of caves, with some results from the first Royal Forest of Dean Caving Symposium, June 1994

http://www-sop.inria.fr/agos-sophia/sis/dowsing/dowsdean.html

* * * * * * * * *

Maybe there are able for it and others no.

* * * * * * * * *

if they do, it's a mighty poor way to find them

Is not a skeptical position.

Carl-NC

03-28-2007, 01:46 AM

The Marines' coathanger wires were 95% effective in locating tunnels, and could map them from the surface by indicating subterranean turns.

I've read this before, but never seen any data to support it. The use of dowsing by Marines originated with Louis Matacia, and I already know that some aspects of this story have been stretched. Also, Matacia and his partner are in a Youtube dowsing video, and were caught cheating.

That's why, for scientific testing, you absolutely cannot rely on anecdotal accounts.

- Carl

Qiaozhi

03-28-2007, 10:21 PM

Learn Dowsing and Remote Viewing - featuring Louis Matacia:
http://www.learndowsing.com/
No comment ... :nono:

Qiaozhi

03-28-2007, 10:28 PM

Hung - watch and learn ->
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnF3XtQAlYE

Qiaozhi

03-28-2007, 10:37 PM

I've read this before, but never seen any data to support it. The use of dowsing by Marines originated with Louis Matacia, and I already know that some aspects of this story have been stretched. Also, Matacia and his partner are in a Youtube dowsing video, and were caught cheating.

That's why, for scientific testing, you absolutely cannot rely on anecdotal accounts.

- Carl
And here it is -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8BxmXHRaBI

hung

04-01-2007, 02:47 PM

Hung - watch and learn ->
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnF3XtQAlYE

Learn what?
How to fake a video?

Qiaozhi

04-01-2007, 09:51 PM

Learn what?
How to fake a video?
That's one thing you don't need to learn. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Clondike Clad

04-03-2007, 04:08 PM

Anyone open an FG80 to take photo of inside.
I would like to see the circuit board.

Qiaozhi

04-03-2007, 09:32 PM

Anyone open an FG80 to take photo of inside.
I would like to see the circuit board.
If you look further down this forum for the posts by Alexismex. he has completely dismantled the Mineoro FG80, and posted the sad findings here. :)

hung

04-03-2007, 09:54 PM

If you look further down this forum for the posts by Alexismex. he has completely dismantled the Mineoro FG80, and posted the sad findings here. :)

A CD210 is not a FG80.
So, don't complain later when Dell states about skeptics misleading tactics. Although in your case it was plain ignorance.

PS: What sad findings? Oh yes...Ripping off an expensive detector to see if he could find his brains inside.. I almost forgot.

Qiaozhi

04-04-2007, 09:31 PM

A CD210 is not a FG80.
So, don't complain later when Dell states about skeptics misleading tactics. Although in your case it was plain ignorance.

PS: What sad findings? Oh yes...Ripping off an expensive detector to see if he could find his brains inside.. I almost forgot.
Oh - I forgot. The previous scam always seem to have a problem that is cured by the "latest and greatest" model. CD210, FG80, PDC(whatever), they're all boxes of nonsense electronics only suitable for one thing - wallet mining.
Yes - they were sad findings. Especially for those who wasted their money on this expensive junk.

"What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence."

hung

04-04-2007, 10:05 PM

cured by the "latest and greatest" model. CD210, FG80, PDC(whatever)

They all work, buddy.

Clondike Clad

04-05-2007, 02:47 AM

If all of them works---now that is pure bull:angry:
The FG80 is in Carl's hands if he can't get it to work.
ALL OF THIS TYPE OF JUNK IS PURE BULL
by telling us that all of them works........PURE BULL
gO AND TAKE CARL'S MONEY

Clondike Clad

04-05-2007, 02:56 AM

Any new test on this stuff.:p

Esteban

04-18-2007, 07:03 PM

The LRL rod is pure silver. A friend of mine (Omar Hassan, son of a Sirian) use this for several years (in the photo), and is the unique metal (silver) wich "attract" at high distance. And maybe this is the unique scientific "fact" (the best electricity conductor = silver).

Limit is 300 meters for coin size (30 mm) object, copper-bronze, gold or silver. I only make the "registration", let the scientists and skepticals what can do they for to explain, I can't do. This was in the property of my friend Marcel Augereau (son of French). So we walk because the antenna signalize a site and girate in a point near a mango tree. I put on the Mineoro PDC 205 double sens. control and obtain short beeps exactly in the place. This I call "to contrast".

So, we decide to dig. Here the bronze 1945 coin at the depth you can see:

Jim

04-19-2007, 10:36 AM

Marcel and Omar aren’t the smartest kids on the block, digging that huge crater.

Esteban

04-19-2007, 08:00 PM

This is not the theme:

Marcel and Omar aren’t the smartest kids on the block, digging that huge crater.

We contract other persons for to dig, we are detectorists.

They have not beachs for to find easily than you! Not a very huge crater, only I want to know with wich "normal" MD you can find at 50-60 cm depth! I think your pre-independent and early independent USA coins are near this depth and more and are very valious! :lol:

J_Player

04-19-2007, 08:29 PM

http://thunting.com/geotech/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2080&stc=1&d=1176919171

We contract other persons for to dig, we are detectorists.

Was the digging done with a backhoe or by hand?

hung

04-19-2007, 08:37 PM

Marcel and Omar aren’t the smartest kids on the block, digging that huge crater.

Esteban, I was going to answer him but you were faster.

Actually Jim shows evidence he's not familiar with digging.
This is a technique employed to reach higher depths. You need to open a large hole to have area for backhoe manuevering or whatever.

I know because I'm not only the detectorist. Many times I'm the one who digs too.

Esteban

04-19-2007, 09:52 PM

Hi Hung.

Yes, you need space for to maneuver well inside the hole.

J_Player:

Was digging by hand for 2 men, mainly curious persons of the place make the job, they want to know what happens! :lol:

Jim

04-19-2007, 09:55 PM

Actually Jim shows evidence he's not familiar with digging.

Actually, Jim knows BS...and, b'rudder youse guise iz fool oft :nono:

Clondike Clad

04-19-2007, 10:05 PM

I seen it all scammer will work hard at lying.:angry:
diggng a big ***** hole for one coin????????????????????????????????
I DON'T THANKS SO.:nono:
PLEASE WHY THE BIG HOLE FOR ONE COIN.:lol:
A FOOL IS A FOOL BUT I HOPE NOT ON THIS SITE.
JUST LOOK AT THAT HOLE??????????????????????????????????:nono:

Esteban

04-19-2007, 11:09 PM

One more time: THIS IS NOT THE POINT!!!:

I seen it all scammer will work hard at lying.:angry:
diggng a big ***** hole for one coin????????????????????????????????
I DON'T THANKS SO.:nono:
PLEASE WHY THE BIG HOLE FOR ONE COIN.:lol:
A FOOL IS A FOOL BUT I HOPE NOT ON THIS SITE.
JUST LOOK AT THAT HOLE??????????????????????????????????:nono:

diggng a big ***** hole

This is not true. Curious digging for sport.

Is a big hole FOR YOU???? You know if a single coin can be valious or not before check??? You're the real divining who knows at first hand if a coin is valious or not??? You need to dig for to comprobe what happens.

Esteban

04-19-2007, 11:59 PM

Esteban

04-20-2007, 12:25 AM

See the year. Maybe I'm divining and all are tricks prepared for this forum with years of anticipation... This was gold, found by old serious men:

Clondike Clad

04-20-2007, 03:21 AM

Why don't someone take Carl's money:D
LRL AT THIS TIME DON'T WORK.:nono:
BUT PEOPLE CAN BE TAKEN AND PAY FOR A SCAM.:angry:

ALL SOMEONE HAVE TO DO IS TAKE CARL'S MONEY.
BS WALKS AND MONEY TALKS
SCAMMER YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.:angry:
REAL LRL PLEASE TAKE CARL'S MONEY AS A TEST FOR US.:shocked:

Clondike Clad

04-20-2007, 05:25 AM

I seen it all scammer will work hard at lying

AND TAKE CARE WITH YOUR WORDS :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

:nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:

WAS I TALKING ABOUT YOU
I AN TALKING about scammers
SO WHAT AREYOU TALKING ABOUT??????????
TAKE CARE WITH YOUR WORDS
I WILL TELL SCAMMERS WHAT I THANK. WHY ALL OF THIS:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: FROM YOU.
SCAMMERS KNOW I AM TALKING TO THEM ONLY.

okantex

04-20-2007, 05:59 AM

hi Esteban
I wondered Omar's rods.
are they just L rods without any electronic parts.
and does not he touch to silver by naked hand.there is something like plastic handling there.

hung

04-20-2007, 11:12 AM

Okantex, you will find that there's a ton of information on how dowsing works and why it works.
Several and several aproaches which make up 'the whole'. If you do a serious research you will know. It took me years to comprehend it.
In the case you mention, the plastic handle works as an electrostatic charges concentrator. It works fine although this is not the only reason alone for the dowsing process.
In fact Damasio built the DIAS and IGD ionic dowsing rods (with ionic chambers) and he's been 100% sucessful with it. I have seen him using them.

Qiaozhi

04-20-2007, 08:20 PM

Okantex, you will find that there's a ton of information on how dowsing works and why it works.
There's also a ton of information on why dowsing doesn't work.
It's all a mind trick, which in itself is a very interesting subject. The ability of human beings to deceive themselves that something is true when it is not, never ceases to amaze me.

Esteban

04-20-2007, 09:27 PM

One more time, Mr. Clad, this isn't the point:nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono::

TAKE CARL'S MONEY
Why don't someone take Carl's money:D
LRL AT THIS TIME DON'T WORK.:nono:
BUT PEOPLE CAN BE TAKEN AND PAY FOR A SCAM.:angry:

ALL SOMEONE HAVE TO DO IS TAKE CARL'S MONEY.
BS WALKS AND MONEY TALKS
SCAMMER YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.:angry:
REAL LRL PLEASE TAKE CARL'S MONEY AS A TEST FOR US.:shocked:

Only I can think that you don't have interest in investigations. If I post all this, is because my interest is investigate and study all this. In all MD fields. If I am a scammer as you think I am, sorry, yo'ure very wrong. Scammers as me don't investigate. I'm not dealer, MD seller, manufacturer, etc. I don't have interest in the money of anybody.

YOUR BIG LETTERS DOESN'T CONVINCE ANYBODY.

Clondike Clad

04-20-2007, 09:57 PM

I will let other take up the talk about this LRL stuff.
To me it is a big scam at this time.
So I will sit back and lurk.
I really like to have a working LRL.
I will lay low at this time.

Qiaozhi

04-20-2007, 10:43 PM

I will let other take up the talk about this LRL stuff.
To me it is a big scam at this time.
So I will sit back and lurk.
I really like to have a working LRL.
I will lay low at this time.
Hi Condike Clad,

Esteban is not the bad guy here with regard to LRLs. :) He is an investigator, and I appreciate his efforts. We agree to disagree on whether LRLs are real working devices, and (as ever) I am the big skeptic in this area. ;) But at least he's not masquerading as the Marketing Department for any LRL manufacturer, and doesn't spout forth with psuedoscientific rubbish like certain others here. Esteban builds his own devices, and even believes that they work. Not everyone involved in this LRL debacle are scammers. Some are just self-deluded. :shocked:
Personally I think you will wait a very very long time before having a working LRL. Most likely the universe will cease to exist before that happens.

hung

04-20-2007, 11:56 PM

Hi Condike Clad,

Esteban is not the bad guy here with regard to LRLs.

No he's not. You gave plenty of evidence it's you.
doesn't spout forth with psuedoscientific rubbish like certain others here.

You already proved you don't have the sufficient scientific knowledge or the competence to debate those matters. If you noticed I quit discussing this with you a long tme ago.

Esteban builds his own devices, and even believes that they work. Not everyone involved in this LRL debacle are scammers. Some are just self-deluded. :shocked:

Esteban, I, and others already gave plenty of evidence about LRLs. If you still are not convinced it's either because you have a bad intention or a sick mind. Maybe both.

Personally I think you will wait a very very long time before having a working LRL. Most likely the universe will cease to exist before that happens.

This is one of the greates BS I've come to read in this forum from a skeptic.. Ouch... Mirror Rudy. At least he's got class.

Esteban

04-21-2007, 12:19 AM

Hi friends, thanks very much!!!:) :) :) My wishes every day will be better for all us.

Qiaozhi

04-22-2007, 11:23 PM

No he's not. You gave plenty of evidence it's you.
This is a peculiar remark to come from someone who is a self-proclaimed evangelist for LRLs. Your ability to spout forth with unending pseudoscientific gobbledygook is truly amazing, and clearly shows a total lack of scientific knowledge or practical design ability.

You already proved you don't have the sufficient scientific knowledge or the competence to debate those matters. If you noticed I quit discussing this with you a long tme ago.
Despite your protestations earlier concerning everyone else's tendency to make assumptions, you are making a huge presumption here. In fact, my academic background is in physics, whereas your own is firmly rooted in the fairytale land of Bearden et al. An often used protest against skeptics is that they do not have an open mind, whereas it's actually the "believers" that have an inflexible mindset and lack the ability to see outside their pseudoscientific box. An elementary knowledge of psychology is all that's required to demonstrate how human beings are able to deceive themselves into believing the most utter tripe.

Esteban, I, and others already gave plenty of evidence about LRLs. If you still are not convinced it's either because you have a bad intention or a sick mind. Maybe both.
So far you have not presented any convincing evidence, and many other skeptics here will back me on this statement. Your "evidence" is subjective at best, and falls apart under rigorous examination. You are also unwilling to submit to double-blind testing, which is a clear indication that the claimed phenomenon is untestable in controlled conditions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, this evidence is completely lacking. The real answer is quite clear. Both dowsing and LRLs have been tested on numerous occassions, and the result have always been negative. Random testing in the field could be subject to either intentional (conscious) or unintentional (unconscious) interference. Double-blind testing is the only way to eliminate the human element.

This is one of the greates BS I've come to read in this forum from a skeptic.. Ouch... Mirror Rudy. At least he's got class.
You obviously do not read your own posts. :razz: