none wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote:


"Tony Polson" wrote in message
. ..

...


The point he is making is that it doesn't work.


So what experience do *you* have?

Or do you just take at face value one man's blandishments "that it
doesn't work"?

Quite. That would be just the same as taking at face value one man's
blandishments that it DOES work.


I'm not making blandishments. I have no need to prove anything to
anyone, whether for free or for some large sum of money. Whether it
works to someone else's satisfaction, or not, is immaterial here.

All I know is that, even as a sceptic, I have successfully found
underground services with the technique, with a surprising degree of
accuracy.

Perhaps I was just lucky.

;-)

I also have done this on sites, after initally being sceptical, then having
it demonstarted and having a go myself with success, unsuprsingly upon
retrying under controlled conditions with no visual clues it did not work.
This does not lessen its usefulness but I suggest it does not nothing but
tap into a number of visual and other clues that you may not consider
directly. Be interested to hear if anyone has researched this. That is my
hyopthesis anyway, if anyone has anything beyond 'it is magic and therefore
cannot be tested' i would be interested.

This I think is almost certainly the explanation.

Tests done where all other clues are carefully removed *and* the
dowser has no previous knowledge of the site show the results of the
dowser are the same as a random guesser would get. If, on the other
hand, the dowser knows the site and/or there are lots of visual clues
then someone with experience who can (consciously or subconsciously)
use those cluse will do better than chance.

--
Chris Green