Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "SteveB" wrote:
the landscape company i used to work for used the method several times a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. It does work.
How can that be? It has been stated here by people who are never wrong that
it doesn't work. I'm confused.

Don't think I ever said it doesn't work... but I will say that there is no
evidence that it does. Anyone who thinks otherwise has only to demonstrate it,
under controlled conditions, to become an instant millionaire.

It's been at least twenty years... and James Randi still has his million
dollars.


ya, and over on the right of the google page and the facebook page are
offers for free cameras and laptops. There's always an out for the
offer'er. I'm sure you could prove over and over to this James Randi
person, and he'd have an out for not paying. It's just a bull****
offer. Plain and simple. The method has been used for centuries, and
it does work.

s

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:03:03 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:

I regularly find water lines and electric lines with two pieces of baling
wire. You can either do it or not. If you can do it, you do it. If you
can't, you whine that it's fake and others cannot do it.

HTH

Steve


Then why don't you go get the Million Dollar prize from the Amazing
Randi's foundation? it's funny how there are SO many water witcher's
with all these success stories yet not a one of them can find water
when they have to do it under controlled conditions and when they
could make a million dollars for a few hours work.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:56:40 -0700 (PDT), harry k
wrote:

On Jun 18, 7:59*pm, windcrest wrote:
On Jun 18, 4:56*pm, Red wrote:





On Jun 18, 10:16*am, "Ulysses" wrote:

When the witcher was here I tried using the magic
wands (two bronze welding rods bent
at 90 degrees, one in each hand) and when you cross over a good spot the
wands will spread apart, then cross over each other, then spread apart again
(maybe it was vice versa--been a while) so it IS doing something.

No, no. *That method is for finding water lines, pipes, and telephone
cables. *The correct method for dowsing is to use a very limber willow
branch shaped like a long wishbone, with the point up and the 2
branches held in each hand with your palms rotated outward. *As you
walk over the correct spot, the willow point will rotate from up to
down. *Have done it many many times with the willow always indicating
the same spot and not random as one might expect. *I admit I never dug
a well to prove it was correct, but it was uncanny how the willow
always reacted to the same spot.

Red

Hmm willow trees do like very wet soil and often grow on the edges of
lakes.

In my old house my main drain line out to the street was collapsed
(clay tile old house). *It needed to be dug up and repaired. *The
plumber came out with a dowser to find the line. *He found it, dug
down by hand (6 feet deep 3 days of digging). *Repaired the line.
This was in 1984, the plumber took the job because of a bad economy
but he did not own a backhoe, I was impressed but did start to feel
pretty sorry for him digging every day in my front lawn. *He mentioned
he was an ex-convict getting back on his feet, had no problem digging
up a line by hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I often wonder if any of the skeptics have actually tried using a
couple bent wires. They work for me but I don't base any decisions on
what they inidicate without other evidence supporting them. From
tests of a few neighbors, friedns and family it seems that they work
for at least half of anyone who tries it.

Harry K


I've tried them. And of course they will do "something". The problem
is, they don't really "work". This has been show over and over again
in controlled tests. About 15 years ago there was a special on TV
where a bunch of expert dowsers were asked to simply find hidden
glasses of water. None could at a level higher then chance. They
also buried water filled pipes in one test and again all the dowsers
failed to find the water filled pipes at a level higher then chance.

Anyone who wants to have fun can cut up a metal coat hanger into two
l-shaped dowsing rods. Then take them into your bathroom and see if
they don't swing and cross when you move them over the sink or toilet.
It's just your subconscious mind making them do it because you know
the sink and toilet have water in them. Some people fool themselves
into thinking it actually works for finding water underground. Anyone
who really thinks they can do it needs to contact the James Randi
Foundation and claim their million dollar prize. Somehow all these
special skills don't work when people have to have EVIDENCE for their
skill.

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:42:10 -0700 (PDT), harry k
wrote:

On Jun 21, 6:33*am, Steve Barker wrote:
harry k wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:52 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:

I often wonder if any of the skeptics have actually tried using a
couple bent wires. *They work for me
Then contact the James Randi Educational Foundation
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
and claim your million dollars.

So have _you_ actually tried it?

Harry K

the landscape company i used to work for used the method several times a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. *It does work.

s

No amount of cases of it working is going to convince Doug. He knows
what he knows and apparently is not about to even try it.

Harry K


I'm always amazed that the people who are adamant that "it works"
somehow never have an interest in getting a million dollars for their
skill. And just to be clear, "working" doesn't mean that the rods
mysteriously move, it means that using the rods allows you to find
whatever it is you claim you can find at a level of probability higher
then chance level when the rods are all you have to go by.

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:51:45 -0500, Steve Barker
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "SteveB" wrote:
the landscape company i used to work for used the method several times a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. It does work.
How can that be? It has been stated here by people who are never wrong that
it doesn't work. I'm confused.

Don't think I ever said it doesn't work... but I will say that there is no
evidence that it does. Anyone who thinks otherwise has only to demonstrate it,
under controlled conditions, to become an instant millionaire.

It's been at least twenty years... and James Randi still has his million
dollars.


ya, and over on the right of the google page and the facebook page are
offers for free cameras and laptops. There's always an out for the
offer'er. I'm sure you could prove over and over to this James Randi
person, and he'd have an out for not paying. It's just a bull****
offer. Plain and simple. The method has been used for centuries, and
it does work.

s


It doesn't work. It's been proven that it doesn't work. No one who
thinks it works has EVER been able to demonstrate that it works when
they have to put their money where their mouth is. There is nothing
difficult about Randi's test. It's just a straight test of can you
find water (or whatever) at a level higher then chance. I've seen
people try and fail. They have ALL failed. There is nothing
mysterious or any fine print. These people all believed the test was
set up fairly and all were sure, just as you are, that "it works" and
that they would easily demonstrate it. Lots of "things" have been
done for centuries that don't work. Or do you think throwing salt
over your shoulder wards off bad luck?

In article , Steve Barker wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "SteveB"
wrote:
the landscape company i used to work for used the method several times a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. It does work.
How can that be? It has been stated here by people who are never wrong that

it doesn't work. I'm confused.

Don't think I ever said it doesn't work... but I will say that there is no
evidence that it does. Anyone who thinks otherwise has only to demonstrate
it,
under controlled conditions, to become an instant millionaire.

It's been at least twenty years... and James Randi still has his million
dollars.


ya, and over on the right of the google page and the facebook page are
offers for free cameras and laptops. There's always an out for the
offer'er. I'm sure you could prove over and over to this James Randi
person, and he'd have an out for not paying. It's just a bull****
offer. Plain and simple. The method has been used for centuries, and
it does work.

Then prove it, and collect your million dollars. I already posted the link
up-thread.

On Jun 21, 6:36*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:42:10 -0700 (PDT), harry k





wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:33*am, Steve Barker wrote:
harry k wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:52 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:

I often wonder if any of the skeptics have actually tried using a
couple bent wires. *They work for me
Then contact the James Randi Educational Foundation
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
and claim your million dollars.

So have _you_ actually tried it?

Harry K

the landscape company i used to work for used the method several times a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. *It does work.

s

No amount of cases of it working is going to convince Doug. *He knows
what he knows and apparently is not about to even try it.

Harry K

I'm always amazed that the people who are adamant that "it works"
somehow never have an interest in getting a million dollars for their
skill. *And just to be clear, "working" doesn't mean that the rods
mysteriously move, it means that using the rods allows you to find
whatever it is you claim you can find at a level of probability higher
then chance level when the rods are all you have to go by.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Years ago I read the actual challenge. Seemed to be set up so that it
would be all but impossible to find the objects even with a map. It
is set up so that it is 100 percent sucess or it is total failure. No
partial success allowed.

The true skeptics should at least try it before being so adamant that
it doesnt' work.

Harry K

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:42:00 -0700 (PDT), harry k
wrote:

On Jun 21, 6:36*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:42:10 -0700 (PDT), harry k





wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:33*am, Steve Barker wrote:
harry k wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:52 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:

I often wonder if any of the skeptics have actually tried using a
couple bent wires. *They work for me
Then contact the James Randi Educational Foundation
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
and claim your million dollars.

So have _you_ actually tried it?

Harry K

the landscape company i used to work for used the method several times a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. *It does work.

s

No amount of cases of it working is going to convince Doug. *He knows
what he knows and apparently is not about to even try it.

Harry K

I'm always amazed that the people who are adamant that "it works"
somehow never have an interest in getting a million dollars for their
skill. *And just to be clear, "working" doesn't mean that the rods
mysteriously move, it means that using the rods allows you to find
whatever it is you claim you can find at a level of probability higher
then chance level when the rods are all you have to go by.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Years ago I read the actual challenge. Seemed to be set up so that it
would be all but impossible to find the objects even with a map. It
is set up so that it is 100 percent sucess or it is total failure. No
partial success allowed.


No it's not. It's based on statistics. If there are 10 boxes and 5
of them have water under them and you can only find the ones with
water half time you are doing no better then chance.


The true skeptics should at least try it before being so adamant that
it doesnt' work.


It's been tried. It doesn't work. If you think it does, go win a
million dollars. Why are you afraid to try? What do you have to
lose? Randi sets up the tests just like any proper double blind test
whether it's for water dousing or testing a cancer drug.

No it's not. It's based on statistics. If there are 10 boxes and 5
of them have water under them and you can only find the ones with
water half time you are doing no better "then" chance.

I'm sure you must be an educated person...the word is "than"!

In article , harry k wrote:

Years ago I read the actual challenge. Seemed to be set up so that it
would be all but impossible to find the objects even with a map. It
is set up so that it is 100 percent sucess or it is total failure. No
partial success allowed.

That's not true. All the dowser needs to do to claim the prize is to have a
success rate that is significantly higher than expected by chance alone.

The true skeptics should at least try it before being so adamant that
it doesnt' work.

I think you have that backwards: the proponents should show evidence that it
works, before claiming that it does.

On Jun 21, 10:36*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:42:00 -0700 (PDT), harry k





wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:36*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:42:10 -0700 (PDT), harry k

wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:33*am, Steve Barker wrote:
harry k wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:52 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:

I often wonder if any of the skeptics have actually tried using a
couple bent wires. *They work for me
Then contact the James Randi Educational Foundation
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
and claim your million dollars.

So have _you_ actually tried it?

Harry K

the landscape company i used to work for used the method several times a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. *It does work.

s

No amount of cases of it working is going to convince Doug. *He knows
what he knows and apparently is not about to even try it.

Harry K

I'm always amazed that the people who are adamant that "it works"
somehow never have an interest in getting a million dollars for their
skill. *And just to be clear, "working" doesn't mean that the rods
mysteriously move, it means that using the rods allows you to find
whatever it is you claim you can find at a level of probability higher
then chance level when the rods are all you have to go by.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Years ago I read the actual challenge. *Seemed to be set up so that it
would be all but impossible to find the objects even with a map. *It
is set up so that it is 100 percent sucess or it is total failure. *No
partial success allowed.

No it's not. *It's based on statistics. *If there are 10 boxes and 5
of them have water under them and you can only find the ones with
water half time you are doing no better then chance. *

The true skeptics should at least try it before being so adamant that
it doesnt' work.

It's been tried. *It doesn't work. *If you think it does, go win a
million dollars. *Why are you afraid to try? *What do you have to
lose? *Randi sets up the tests just like any proper double blind test
whether it's for water dousing or testing a cancer drug.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you yourself haven't tried it either?

Harry K

On Jun 22, 4:36*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:

Years ago I read the actual challenge. *Seemed to be set up so that it
would be all but impossible to find the objects even with a map. *It
is set up so that it is 100 percent sucess or it is total failure. *No
partial success allowed.

That's not true. All the dowser needs to do to claim the prize is to have a
success rate that is significantly higher than expected by chance alone.



The true skeptics should at least try it before being so adamant that
it doesnt' work.

I think you have that backwards: the proponents should show evidence that it
works, before claiming that it does.

Thanks for the admission that you haven't.

Harry K

In article , harry k wrote:
On Jun 22, 4:36=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, harry k wrote:

Years ago I read the actual challenge. =A0Seemed to be set up so that it
would be all but impossible to find the objects even with a map. =A0It
is set up so that it is 100 percent sucess or it is total failure. =A0No
partial success allowed.

That's not true. All the dowser needs to do to claim the prize is to have a
success rate that is significantly higher than expected by chance alone.



The true skeptics should at least try it before being so adamant that
it doesnt' work.

I think you have that backwards: the proponents should show evidence that it
works, before claiming that it does.

Thanks for the admission that you haven't.

Whether I've tried it or not is beside the point. The burden of proof is on
those making the claim. So far, despite repeated attempts, *nobody* has *ever*
been able to demonstrate, under controlled conditions, that dowsing works any
better than simple guessing. If you think it does work, then all you need to
to is demonstrate it to become an instant millionaire.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:42:00 -0700 (PDT), harry k
wrote:

On Jun 21, 6:36 pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:42:10 -0700 (PDT), harry k





wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:33 am, Steve Barker wrote:
harry k wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:52 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, harry k
wrote:

I often wonder if any of the skeptics have actually tried using
a
couple bent wires. They work for me
Then contact the James Randi Educational Foundation
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
and claim your million dollars.

So have _you_ actually tried it?

Harry K

the landscape company i used to work for used the method several
times a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. It does
work.

s

No amount of cases of it working is going to convince Doug. He knows
what he knows and apparently is not about to even try it.

Harry K

I'm always amazed that the people who are adamant that "it works"
somehow never have an interest in getting a million dollars for their
skill. And just to be clear, "working" doesn't mean that the rods
mysteriously move, it means that using the rods allows you to find
whatever it is you claim you can find at a level of probability higher
then chance level when the rods are all you have to go by.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Years ago I read the actual challenge. Seemed to be set up so that it
would be all but impossible to find the objects even with a map. It
is set up so that it is 100 percent sucess or it is total failure. No
partial success allowed.


No it's not. It's based on statistics. If there are 10 boxes and 5
of them have water under them and you can only find the ones with
water half time you are doing no better then chance.


The true skeptics should at least try it before being so adamant that
it doesnt' work.


It's been tried. It doesn't work. If you think it does, go win a
million dollars. Why are you afraid to try? What do you have to
lose? Randi sets up the tests just like any proper double blind test
whether it's for water dousing or testing a cancer drug.

I'm not saying it works and I'm not saying it doesn't but the way it was
explained to me by my witcher was that it does not actually find water, it
finds the fissures underground that are likely to be carrying water. In
this is correct then it would not work on boxes of water. My driller's
attitude is basically that, given the choices, well witching is more
reliable than any current scientific methods. I held by breath, paid the
$150, and got a good well.

On Jun 21, 6:36*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:42:10 -0700 (PDT), harry k





wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:33*am, Steve Barker wrote:
harry k wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:52 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:

I often wonder if any of the skeptics have actually tried using a
couple bent wires. *They work for me
Then contact the James Randi Educational Foundation
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
and claim your million dollars.

So have _you_ actually tried it?

Harry K

the landscape company i used to work for used the method several times a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. *It does work.

s

No amount of cases of it working is going to convince Doug. *He knows
what he knows and apparently is not about to even try it.

Harry K

I'm always amazed that the people who are adamant that "it works"
somehow never have an interest in getting a million dollars for their
skill. *And just to be clear, "working" doesn't mean that the rods
mysteriously move, it means that using the rods allows you to find
whatever it is you claim you can find at a level of probability higher
then chance level when the rods are all you have to go by.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The really hilarious thing about this dowsing nonsense is that if
people really believed that it worked, they'd mount their rods under
sealed glass with precision bearings.... not HOLD THEM IN THEIR
HANDS.

That's like having cork on sandpaper for a a bearing! Of course if
they actually made such an instrument, it become blindingly obvious
how useless it'd be in about one minute.

Ulysses wrote:
....
I'm not saying it works and I'm not saying it doesn't but the way it was
explained to me by my witcher was that it does not actually find water, it
finds the fissures underground that are likely to be carrying water. ...

I have no idea whether that assertion is anything but that particular
person's opinion (that is, is that a consensus amongst "those
knowledgable in the field"?). Even if so, that assumption is dependent
again on local hydrology characteristics--there are many places that
don't have fissures as a feature of their aquifers just as there are
places where the existence of a fissure doesn't mean there's any water
to flow through it.

... My driller's
attitude is basically that, given the choices, well witching is more
reliable than any current scientific methods...

he's willing to pay for. There are certainly techniques that have
pretty good chance of determining the presence of water but they tend to
be expensive and instrumentation/equipment intensive so residential
wells can rarely justify the expense.

OTOH, bring in Schlumberger or Halliburton and they can likely tell you
what you want to know if you have deep enough pockets...

--

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:56:40 -0700 (PDT), harry k
wrote:

On Jun 18, 7:59 pm, windcrest wrote:
On Jun 18, 4:56 pm, Red wrote:





On Jun 18, 10:16 am, "Ulysses" wrote:

When the witcher was here I tried using the magic
wands (two bronze welding rods bent
at 90 degrees, one in each hand) and when you cross over a good
spot the
wands will spread apart, then cross over each other, then spread
apart again
(maybe it was vice versa--been a while) so it IS doing something.

No, no. That method is for finding water lines, pipes, and telephone
cables. The correct method for dowsing is to use a very limber willow
branch shaped like a long wishbone, with the point up and the 2
branches held in each hand with your palms rotated outward. As you
walk over the correct spot, the willow point will rotate from up to
down. Have done it many many times with the willow always indicating
the same spot and not random as one might expect. I admit I never dug
a well to prove it was correct, but it was uncanny how the willow
always reacted to the same spot.

Red

Hmm willow trees do like very wet soil and often grow on the edges of
lakes.

In my old house my main drain line out to the street was collapsed
(clay tile old house). It needed to be dug up and repaired. The
plumber came out with a dowser to find the line. He found it, dug
down by hand (6 feet deep 3 days of digging). Repaired the line.
This was in 1984, the plumber took the job because of a bad economy
but he did not own a backhoe, I was impressed but did start to feel
pretty sorry for him digging every day in my front lawn. He mentioned
he was an ex-convict getting back on his feet, had no problem digging
up a line by hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I often wonder if any of the skeptics have actually tried using a
couple bent wires. They work for me but I don't base any decisions on
what they inidicate without other evidence supporting them. From
tests of a few neighbors, friedns and family it seems that they work
for at least half of anyone who tries it.

Harry K


I've tried them. And of course they will do "something". The problem
is, they don't really "work". This has been show over and over again
in controlled tests. About 15 years ago there was a special on TV
where a bunch of expert dowsers were asked to simply find hidden
glasses of water. None could at a level higher then chance. They
also buried water filled pipes in one test and again all the dowsers
failed to find the water filled pipes at a level higher then chance.

Anyone who wants to have fun can cut up a metal coat hanger into two
l-shaped dowsing rods. Then take them into your bathroom and see if
they don't swing and cross when you move them over the sink or toilet.
It's just your subconscious mind making them do it because you know
the sink and toilet have water in them. Some people fool themselves
into thinking it actually works for finding water underground. Anyone
who really thinks they can do it needs to contact the James Randi
Foundation and claim their million dollar prize. Somehow all these
special skills don't work when people have to have EVIDENCE for their
skill.

When my well witcher was here I tried the magic wands and got definate,
strong movements of the wands in some areas and not others. I believe that
I was not subsonsciously influenced by any outside factors. The terrain and
bushes etc. all looked pretty much the same to me and, having no experience
digging wells, would not recognize any of the above-ground signs anyway. I
found that the results were very consistant. I even went back to my well,
after the witcher was gone, to test my own wands because I didn't remember
if they were supposed to swing apart or cross and was able to establish that
by using my well as reference. Like I said elsewhere, my witcher said it
finds fissures, not water. Maybe he's a little more advanced than some
other witchers. I should mention that it got strong readings where I don't
think a geologist would think there is a fissure underground. That could,
of course, mean that either there is a fissure where one might expect it to
be or it was a false reading.

When the well driller first suggested that I hire a witcher I was quite
skeptical. But since I wanted a good well I was not about to argue with the
most respected and successful driller in the county. After talking to the
witcher and trying it myself I could see that there was something to it.
Nobody told me that it is 100% reliable.

I'm late getting in on this thread, but here goes anyway. I recognize
some of the names on this thread from other newsgroups and have a
great deal of respect for them, Doug, Dan.. In any case I did not
know there was so much controversy about water dowsing, or witching or
whatever you like to call it until I read this. I read The Skeptical
Inquirer several times as an undergrad when I worked in the
library..don't recall any articles about this topic, but, if there
were, I probably skipped over them for juicier stuff like bashing Uri
Geller.

Anyway, wife & I buy a place in the "country" 10 years ago. A month
after I moved there I had to find which way the water line came to our
house. My boss, who was there one day, suggested he could find it
with two bent coat hangers. I didn't believe him and thought him to
be a dolt, but he did find it and he had never been there before.
Skip ahead 2 years and I have my back yard torn up to put in a french
drain. I needed to find where the underground power line ran to our
house. I tried the bent hangers myself just for fun. I found the
power line but I also kept coming across something separate from it,
running from what seemed to be straight out from the house then
angling off parallel, nearly exactly where I was going to dig the
drain. I dug down slowly and found a septic line that came from a
bathroom off the garage. Prior to this I thought (actually counted
on) all the plumbing being in the house (we have a full basement) and
I knew and could see in the basement where the main drain line went
out from there to the septic tank. The garage bathroom was in an area
I had to crawl under and just never looked to make sure about the
line. Since the basement ceiling is covered with drywall, I had no
idea the line did not go to the main line and was a separate line out
from the house to the septic tank.

Flash forward to 1 month ago; we're having tremendous rainstorms. My
gutters were continually overflowing, dumping water into the window
wells of the basement, then into the basement. There was a drain in
the basement that when this water finally reached it, would not
drain. The drain was clogged somewhere. I knew where the gutters
drained into a PVC pipe several dozen yards away from the house and
always thought the gutters and the basement drain all went into the
same 4" drain pipe that was visible coming out of the ground. With no
flow coming out of it, I wondered if there was a second line (and what
in the world this line went to!). I pulled out the bent wires again.
Now there is a low spot in the yard I thought might have been a drain
exit that always kept water in it. This is where it must be, and must
be clogged up with a little dirt. I'd been meaning to dig it out for
years, but never had a problem with the gutters before so I was lazy
and didn't. I used the wires, criss-crossed and back and forth
looking for the line that led to this low spot. Nothing. I was so
convinced the line was there and the wires were wrong I dug down about
4' in a about a 5' length. Still nothing.

I went back to the house and started using the wires again walking
around the house in a circle. I kept coming across not one, but 3
separate "lines" from the house. Remember now the ground is saturated
with several days of rain giving no clue to the location of the drain
exits (and I only thought there was 1). I located the exit points of
two of the three lines (the third being the one I thought was the one
for all previously), covered with years of dirt. Turns out there was
one drain line for the gutters, one drain line for the basement, and a
third for a drain at the bottom of a basement stairwell. I never knew
these lines existed up until then.

Now I don't claim anything at all, but I know it worked in these
cases. I have degrees in math and computer science, was raised in the
"city" and moved out to the country at the young age of 35 so I'm not
a country boy that has lifelong tales of relatives like Aunt Lurleen
or Cousin Booger doing this stuff. If you have a better explanation
of how this worked in these cases, let me know. Why don't I write Mr.
Randi? Well I might, but I'd prefer he or someone in his circle just
come out to my place and explain how this works, and how it happens.
For fun today and (mainly) because this whole thread made me question
everything I had seen, I had my wife walk me around in the yard while
it was hot as hell, blindfolded. Walked around & around and the wires
did their thing again. Same place. The skeptics claim it "doesn't
work", yet I know that it did in these cases. I didn't know where the
lines were, I didn't even know the lines existed. I do not claim any
super-powers or religious intervention. Nothing of the sort. It just
is what it is. Sorry, Randi.

Cheers

Ulysses wrote:

When my well witcher was here I tried the magic wands and got definate,
strong movements of the wands in some areas and not others. I believe that
I was not subsonsciously influenced by any outside factors. The terrain and
bushes etc. all looked pretty much the same to me and, having no experience
digging wells, would not recognize any of the above-ground signs anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_hans

I found that the results were very consistant. I even went back to my
well, after the witcher was gone, to test my own wands because I
didn't remember if they were supposed to swing apart or cross and was
able to establish that by using my well as reference.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...ideomotor.html

--
Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA

In article , "Ulysses" In California, the Totalitarianism State wrote:
When my well witcher was here I tried the magic wands and got definate,
strong movements of the wands in some areas and not others. I believe that
I was not subsonsciously influenced by any outside factors.

snort

Obviously if you were aware of any influence, it wouldn't be SUBconscious.

In article , " wrote:
I'm late getting in on this thread, but here goes anyway. I recognize
some of the names on this thread from other newsgroups and have a
great deal of respect for them, Doug, Dan.. In any case I did not
know there was so much controversy about water dowsing, or witching or
whatever you like to call it until I read this. I read The Skeptical
Inquirer several times as an undergrad when I worked in the
library..don't recall any articles about this topic, but, if there
were, I probably skipped over them for juicier stuff like bashing Uri
Geller.

Anyway, wife & I buy a place in the "country" 10 years ago.

[snip long (and possibly tall) tale]

If you're convinced you can do it, just contact the James Randi Educational
Foundation, and demonstrate your ability under controlled conditions. You'll
become an instant millionaire.

On Jun 22, 4:55*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
Anyway, wife & I buy a place in the "country" 10 years ago. *

[snip long (and possibly tall) tale]

Yes, Doug, I said it was a long post in the subject line.

So, having written such a long post, what would I gain from making it
up (what you meant by "tall tale"), walking around in the 95 degree
heat at noon today seeing if I was crazy? I'll ask again, what is the
explanation for finding things I didn't know were there? I want to
know for my own benefit, since I cannot find an explanation other than
"it just is". Just like lots of other things science hasn't explained
yet. Not "can't",..just "hasn't yet". And the invitation stands for
anyone.

I'll exit here since this is already degenerating to what sounds like
"I don't need to know or see you to know you're lying" and going back
to the homebrewing and ww'ing groups.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:26:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

I want to
know for my own benefit, since I cannot find an explanation other than
"it just is". Just like lots of other things science hasn't explained
yet. Not "can't",..just "hasn't yet". And the invitation stands for
anyone.

Some things are just tradition and "just is". No need for an
"explanation".

On Jun 22, 3:26*pm, " wrote:
On Jun 22, 4:55*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Anyway, wife & I buy a place in the "country" 10 years ago. *

[snip long (and possibly tall) tale]

Yes, Doug, I said it was a long post in the subject line.

So, having written such a long post, what would I gain from making it
up (what you meant by "tall tale"), walking around in the 95 degree
heat at noon today seeing if I was crazy? *I'll ask again, what is the
explanation for finding things I didn't know were there? *I want to
know for my own benefit, since I cannot find an explanation other than
"it just is". *Just like lots of other things science hasn't explained
yet. *Not "can't",..just "hasn't yet". *And the invitation stands for
anyone.

I can explain it: It's like drinking Pepsi and flipping a coin and
having it come up heads 5 times in a row and concluding that Pepsi-
drinking causes heads to come up more than pure chance.

The logical test of this would to do it a lot more and see if it
holds. It has been tried with dowsing (the "best" dowsers) and it
does _not_ hold. You are one of those people who have not done the
testing yet beyond your initial hypothesis

In article , " wrote:
On Jun 22, 4:55=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
Anyway, wife & I buy a place in the "country" 10 years ago. =A0

[snip long (and possibly tall) tale]

Yes, Doug, I said it was a long post in the subject line.

So, having written such a long post, what would I gain from making it
up (what you meant by "tall tale"), walking around in the 95 degree
heat at noon today seeing if I was crazy? I'll ask again, what is the
explanation for finding things I didn't know were there?

The most obvious explanation is that -- by your own description -- you were
out there _looking_for_something_. It's hardly surprising that you found
something.

Again -- if you really believe in this stuff, just demonstrate it under
controlled conditions, and you're an instant millionaire.

On Jun 22, 8:25*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:





On Jun 22, 4:36=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, harry k wrote:

Years ago I read the actual challenge. =A0Seemed to be set up so that it
would be all but impossible to find the objects even with a map. =A0It
is set up so that it is 100 percent sucess or it is total failure. =A0No
partial success allowed.

That's not true. All the dowser needs to do to claim the prize is to have a
success rate that is significantly higher than expected by chance alone.

The true skeptics should at least try it before being so adamant that
it doesnt' work.

I think you have that backwards: the proponents should show evidence that it
works, before claiming that it does.

Thanks for the admission that you haven't.

Whether I've tried it or not is beside the point. The burden of proof is on
those making the claim. So far, despite repeated attempts, *nobody* has *ever*
been able to demonstrate, under controlled conditions, that dowsing works any
better than simple guessing. If you think it does work, then all you need to
to is demonstrate it to become an instant millionaire.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obviouslyh you aren't bothering to _read_ what I wrote. Note the bit
about being a 'semiskeptic'.

I guarantee you that if you try it and you are one for whom it works
it will scare the hell out of you the first time. You will also spend
a lot of time trying to figure out just how _you_ are making the rods
move. I have never been able to do it.

Harry K

On Jun 22, 9:17*am, mike wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:36*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:





On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:42:10 -0700 (PDT), harry k

wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:33*am, Steve Barker wrote:
harry k wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:52 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:

I often wonder if any of the skeptics have actually tried using a
couple bent wires. *They work for me
Then contact the James Randi Educational Foundation
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
and claim your million dollars.

So have _you_ actually tried it?

Harry K

the landscape company i used to work for used the method several times a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. *It does work.

s

No amount of cases of it working is going to convince Doug. *He knows
what he knows and apparently is not about to even try it.

Harry K

I'm always amazed that the people who are adamant that "it works"
somehow never have an interest in getting a million dollars for their
skill. *And just to be clear, "working" doesn't mean that the rods
mysteriously move, it means that using the rods allows you to find
whatever it is you claim you can find at a level of probability higher
then chance level when the rods are all you have to go by.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The really hilarious thing about this dowsing nonsense is that if
people really believed that it worked, they'd mount their rods under
sealed glass with precision bearings.... not HOLD THEM IN THEIR
HANDS.

That's like having cork on sandpaper for a a bearing! *Of course if
they actually made such an instrument, it become blindingly obvious
how useless it'd be in about one minute.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I vaguely recall reading some experiments way back when where people
tried building them to remove any possibility of the operator
influencing them. Don't recall any of the details or what the results
were.
Harry K

On Jun 22, 4:00*pm, mike wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:26*pm, " wrote:





On Jun 22, 4:55*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Anyway, wife & I buy a place in the "country" 10 years ago. *

[snip long (and possibly tall) tale]

Yes, Doug, I said it was a long post in the subject line.

So, having written such a long post, what would I gain from making it
up (what you meant by "tall tale"), walking around in the 95 degree
heat at noon today seeing if I was crazy? *I'll ask again, what is the
explanation for finding things I didn't know were there? *I want to
know for my own benefit, since I cannot find an explanation other than
"it just is". *Just like lots of other things science hasn't explained
yet. *Not "can't",..just "hasn't yet". *And the invitation stands for
anyone.

I can explain it: *It's like drinking Pepsi and flipping a coin and
having it come up heads 5 times in a row and concluding that Pepsi-
drinking causes heads to come up more than pure chance.

The logical test of this would to do it a lot more and see if it
holds. *It has been tried with dowsing (the "best" dowsers) and it
does _not_ hold. *You are one of those people who have not done the
testing yet beyond your initial hypothesis- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you sound like anohter of those who won't even try it.

Harry K

On Jun 22, 10:39*pm, harry k wrote:
On Jun 22, 4:00*pm, mike wrote:





On Jun 22, 3:26*pm, " wrote:

On Jun 22, 4:55*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Anyway, wife & I buy a place in the "country" 10 years ago. *

[snip long (and possibly tall) tale]

Yes, Doug, I said it was a long post in the subject line.

So, having written such a long post, what would I gain from making it
up (what you meant by "tall tale"), walking around in the 95 degree
heat at noon today seeing if I was crazy? *I'll ask again, what is the
explanation for finding things I didn't know were there? *I want to
know for my own benefit, since I cannot find an explanation other than
"it just is". *Just like lots of other things science hasn't explained
yet. *Not "can't",..just "hasn't yet". *And the invitation stands for
anyone.

I can explain it: *It's like drinking Pepsi and flipping a coin and
having it come up heads 5 times in a row and concluding that Pepsi-
drinking causes heads to come up more than pure chance.

The logical test of this would to do it a lot more and see if it
holds. *It has been tried with dowsing (the "best" dowsers) and it
does _not_ hold. *You are one of those people who have not done the
testing yet beyond your initial hypothesis- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you sound like anohter of those who won't even try it.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This subject is just like arguing politics or religion - neither side
will change their viewpoint. Those of us who have had it work on many
occasions and know it works will never convince those who will never
get off their dead asses and try it. We're falling to level of the
alt.hvac or sci.geo.geology groups in arguing this subject.

Red

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:01:41 -0700, "Ulysses"
wrote:


"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:42:00 -0700 (PDT), harry k
wrote:

On Jun 21, 6:36 pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:42:10 -0700 (PDT), harry k





wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:33 am, Steve Barker wrote:
harry k wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:52 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, harry k
wrote:

I often wonder if any of the skeptics have actually tried using
a
couple bent wires. They work for me
Then contact the James Randi Educational Foundation
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
and claim your million dollars.

So have _you_ actually tried it?

Harry K

the landscape company i used to work for used the method several
times a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. It does
work.

s

No amount of cases of it working is going to convince Doug. He knows
what he knows and apparently is not about to even try it.

Harry K

I'm always amazed that the people who are adamant that "it works"
somehow never have an interest in getting a million dollars for their
skill. And just to be clear, "working" doesn't mean that the rods
mysteriously move, it means that using the rods allows you to find
whatever it is you claim you can find at a level of probability higher
then chance level when the rods are all you have to go by.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Years ago I read the actual challenge. Seemed to be set up so that it
would be all but impossible to find the objects even with a map. It
is set up so that it is 100 percent sucess or it is total failure. No
partial success allowed.


No it's not. It's based on statistics. If there are 10 boxes and 5
of them have water under them and you can only find the ones with
water half time you are doing no better then chance.


The true skeptics should at least try it before being so adamant that
it doesnt' work.


It's been tried. It doesn't work. If you think it does, go win a
million dollars. Why are you afraid to try? What do you have to
lose? Randi sets up the tests just like any proper double blind test
whether it's for water dousing or testing a cancer drug.

I'm not saying it works and I'm not saying it doesn't but the way it was
explained to me by my witcher was that it does not actually find water, it
finds the fissures underground that are likely to be carrying water. In
this is correct then it would not work on boxes of water. My driller's
attitude is basically that, given the choices, well witching is more
reliable than any current scientific methods. I held by breath, paid the
$150, and got a good well.


That's the typical cop out - can't say for sure how it works or
anything else factual about it but somehow "they" just KNOW it works
and no amount of failure will change their mind. So how does it
"find" these fissures? What's the physics involved? And I can
guarantee that if your witcher thinks it's fissures that Randi would
be happen to create a test of fissures. Just dig some trenches and
then put plywood over the whole thing. But wait, I can hear the
objections now,... it will work for "fissures" that are hundreds of
feet below the surface and covered by 100 feet of dirt, but somehow it
won't work for surface fissures covered by plywood. You really should
go read Randis' book "Flim-Flam". This same nonsense is trotted out
by every deluded "expert" in dousing, mind reading, psychic healing,
etc and they ALL fail when tested under conditions that don't allow
them to just ignore their failures, i.e. controlled conditions.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:27:24 -0700 (PDT), harry k
wrote:

On Jun 22, 8:25*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:





On Jun 22, 4:36=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, harry k wrote:

Years ago I read the actual challenge. =A0Seemed to be set up so that it
would be all but impossible to find the objects even with a map. =A0It
is set up so that it is 100 percent sucess or it is total failure. =A0No
partial success allowed.

That's not true. All the dowser needs to do to claim the prize is to have a
success rate that is significantly higher than expected by chance alone.

The true skeptics should at least try it before being so adamant that
it doesnt' work.

I think you have that backwards: the proponents should show evidence that it
works, before claiming that it does.

Thanks for the admission that you haven't.

Whether I've tried it or not is beside the point. The burden of proof is on
those making the claim. So far, despite repeated attempts, *nobody* has *ever*
been able to demonstrate, under controlled conditions, that dowsing works any
better than simple guessing. If you think it does work, then all you need to
to is demonstrate it to become an instant millionaire.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obviouslyh you aren't bothering to _read_ what I wrote. Note the bit
about being a 'semiskeptic'.

I guarantee you that if you try it and you are one for whom it works
it will scare the hell out of you the first time. You will also spend
a lot of time trying to figure out just how _you_ are making the rods
move. I have never been able to do it.

Harry K


If you can't make them move you are holding them too tightly. Anyone
can "witch". Just cut up a coat hanger and make your two L's. Then
go play with it. Aim it at the dogs water dish, the rods will cross.
It's elementary... if you start out with the requirement that you need
to maintain them pointing forward and parallel to each other (and you
don't hold them too tight), then the slightest movement of your hands
will cause them to swing one way or the other. The amount of hand
movement is almost imperceptible. It is VERY easy to delude yourself
that you are not doing it. I've played with them and found that IF
you are just playing around that it will SEEM like it finds water when
you KNOW where the water is. It's very eerie on one level. But it
won't actually find water when you don't know where it is. It's been
tested over and over and the "experts" always fail.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:29:17 -0700 (PDT), harry k
wrote:

On Jun 22, 9:17*am, mike wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:36*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:





On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:42:10 -0700 (PDT), harry k

wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:33*am, Steve Barker wrote:
harry k wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:52 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:

I often wonder if any of the skeptics have actually tried using a
couple bent wires. *They work for me
Then contact the James Randi Educational Foundation
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
and claim your million dollars.

So have _you_ actually tried it?

Harry K

the landscape company i used to work for used the method several times a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. *It does work.

s

No amount of cases of it working is going to convince Doug. *He knows
what he knows and apparently is not about to even try it.

Harry K

I'm always amazed that the people who are adamant that "it works"
somehow never have an interest in getting a million dollars for their
skill. *And just to be clear, "working" doesn't mean that the rods
mysteriously move, it means that using the rods allows you to find
whatever it is you claim you can find at a level of probability higher
then chance level when the rods are all you have to go by.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The really hilarious thing about this dowsing nonsense is that if
people really believed that it worked, they'd mount their rods under
sealed glass with precision bearings.... not HOLD THEM IN THEIR
HANDS.

That's like having cork on sandpaper for a a bearing! *Of course if
they actually made such an instrument, it become blindingly obvious
how useless it'd be in about one minute.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I vaguely recall reading some experiments way back when where people
tried building them to remove any possibility of the operator
influencing them. Don't recall any of the details or what the results
were.
Harry K


I can predict what the results would be. On one level the results
would be that it didn't work. On the other level the "expert" would
start talking about how "of course it doesn't work, it HAS to be held
in the persons hands because it's not just the rods, it's the PERSON
too and the mysterious unknown force has to go thru both the rods AND
the person to work." It's cop out #6 in the cop out hit parade of
reasons why these powers never work if someone actually try's to test
them.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:28:41 -0700, "Ulysses"
wrote:


"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:56:40 -0700 (PDT), harry k
wrote:

On Jun 18, 7:59 pm, windcrest wrote:
On Jun 18, 4:56 pm, Red wrote:





On Jun 18, 10:16 am, "Ulysses" wrote:

When the witcher was here I tried using the magic
wands (two bronze welding rods bent
at 90 degrees, one in each hand) and when you cross over a good
spot the
wands will spread apart, then cross over each other, then spread
apart again
(maybe it was vice versa--been a while) so it IS doing something.

No, no. That method is for finding water lines, pipes, and telephone
cables. The correct method for dowsing is to use a very limber willow
branch shaped like a long wishbone, with the point up and the 2
branches held in each hand with your palms rotated outward. As you
walk over the correct spot, the willow point will rotate from up to
down. Have done it many many times with the willow always indicating
the same spot and not random as one might expect. I admit I never dug
a well to prove it was correct, but it was uncanny how the willow
always reacted to the same spot.

Red

Hmm willow trees do like very wet soil and often grow on the edges of
lakes.

In my old house my main drain line out to the street was collapsed
(clay tile old house). It needed to be dug up and repaired. The
plumber came out with a dowser to find the line. He found it, dug
down by hand (6 feet deep 3 days of digging). Repaired the line.
This was in 1984, the plumber took the job because of a bad economy
but he did not own a backhoe, I was impressed but did start to feel
pretty sorry for him digging every day in my front lawn. He mentioned
he was an ex-convict getting back on his feet, had no problem digging
up a line by hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I often wonder if any of the skeptics have actually tried using a
couple bent wires. They work for me but I don't base any decisions on
what they inidicate without other evidence supporting them. From
tests of a few neighbors, friedns and family it seems that they work
for at least half of anyone who tries it.

Harry K


I've tried them. And of course they will do "something". The problem
is, they don't really "work". This has been show over and over again
in controlled tests. About 15 years ago there was a special on TV
where a bunch of expert dowsers were asked to simply find hidden
glasses of water. None could at a level higher then chance. They
also buried water filled pipes in one test and again all the dowsers
failed to find the water filled pipes at a level higher then chance.

Anyone who wants to have fun can cut up a metal coat hanger into two
l-shaped dowsing rods. Then take them into your bathroom and see if
they don't swing and cross when you move them over the sink or toilet.
It's just your subconscious mind making them do it because you know
the sink and toilet have water in them. Some people fool themselves
into thinking it actually works for finding water underground. Anyone
who really thinks they can do it needs to contact the James Randi
Foundation and claim their million dollar prize. Somehow all these
special skills don't work when people have to have EVIDENCE for their
skill.

When my well witcher was here I tried the magic wands and got definate,
strong movements of the wands in some areas and not others. I believe that
I was not subsonsciously influenced by any outside factors. The terrain and
bushes etc. all looked pretty much the same to me and, having no experience
digging wells, would not recognize any of the above-ground signs anyway. I
found that the results were very consistant. I even went back to my well,
after the witcher was gone, to test my own wands because I didn't remember
if they were supposed to swing apart or cross and was able to establish that
by using my well as reference. Like I said elsewhere, my witcher said it
finds fissures, not water. Maybe he's a little more advanced than some
other witchers. I should mention that it got strong readings where I don't
think a geologist would think there is a fissure underground. That could,
of course, mean that either there is a fissure where one might expect it to
be or it was a false reading.

When the well driller first suggested that I hire a witcher I was quite
skeptical. But since I wanted a good well I was not about to argue with the
most respected and successful driller in the county. After talking to the
witcher and trying it myself I could see that there was something to it.
Nobody told me that it is 100% reliable.



I wonder how much kickback he gets from the witchers....

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:26:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 22, 4:55*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
Anyway, wife & I buy a place in the "country" 10 years ago. *

[snip long (and possibly tall) tale]

Yes, Doug, I said it was a long post in the subject line.

So, having written such a long post, what would I gain from making it
up (what you meant by "tall tale"), walking around in the 95 degree
heat at noon today seeing if I was crazy? I'll ask again, what is the
explanation for finding things I didn't know were there? I want to
know for my own benefit, since I cannot find an explanation other than
"it just is". Just like lots of other things science hasn't explained
yet. Not "can't",..just "hasn't yet". And the invitation stands for
anyone.

I'll exit here since this is already degenerating to what sounds like
"I don't need to know or see you to know you're lying" and going back
to the homebrewing and ww'ing groups.



Once again, someone who 100% successful in their witching just walks
away from a million dollars. That's the reason I can't take your
story seriously - you might be lying, deluded, or just lucky.

If someone told you that they had been playing 21 at the church
Casino nights for the last 10 years and that they won virtually EVERY
time wouldn't you find it strange that they refused to go to Las Vegas
and clean up.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:57:48 -0700 (PDT), Red
wrote:

On Jun 22, 10:39*pm, harry k wrote:
On Jun 22, 4:00*pm, mike wrote:





On Jun 22, 3:26*pm, " wrote:

On Jun 22, 4:55*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Anyway, wife & I buy a place in the "country" 10 years ago. *

[snip long (and possibly tall) tale]

Yes, Doug, I said it was a long post in the subject line.

So, having written such a long post, what would I gain from making it
up (what you meant by "tall tale"), walking around in the 95 degree
heat at noon today seeing if I was crazy? *I'll ask again, what is the
explanation for finding things I didn't know were there? *I want to
know for my own benefit, since I cannot find an explanation other than
"it just is". *Just like lots of other things science hasn't explained
yet. *Not "can't",..just "hasn't yet". *And the invitation stands for
anyone.

I can explain it: *It's like drinking Pepsi and flipping a coin and
having it come up heads 5 times in a row and concluding that Pepsi-
drinking causes heads to come up more than pure chance.

The logical test of this would to do it a lot more and see if it
holds. *It has been tried with dowsing (the "best" dowsers) and it
does _not_ hold. *You are one of those people who have not done the
testing yet beyond your initial hypothesis- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you sound like anohter of those who won't even try it.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This subject is just like arguing politics or religion - neither side
will change their viewpoint. Those of us who have had it work on many
occasions and know it works will never convince those who will never
get off their dead asses and try it. We're falling to level of the
alt.hvac or sci.geo.geology groups in arguing this subject.

Red


Why don't you go win the million dollars?

In article , harry k wrote:

Obviouslyh you aren't bothering to _read_ what I wrote.

Quite obviously I *have*. You keep writing things like "I often wonder if any
of the skeptics have actually tried using a couple bent wires. They work for
me ... they work for at least half of anyone who tries it." and "Have I found
stuff using the rods? Yes" and "the RODS WILL MOVE".

Note the bit
about being a 'semiskeptic'.

The phrases above are not those of even a partial skeptic. They are those of a
true believer, one who's swallowed the entire pitcher of Koolaid.

Once again: you claimed you can find things using dowsing rods. Prove that,
and you're an instant millionaire. Why are you unwilling to take the test?

In article , Red wrote:

This subject is just like arguing politics or religion - neither side
will change their viewpoint. Those of us who have had it work on many
occasions and know it works will never convince those who will never
get off their dead asses and try it.

I'll be convinced as soon as I see it demonstrated under controlled
conditions. You claim to "have had it work on many occasions" -- go claim your
million dollars.

Or explain why you're unwilling to be tested under controlled conditions.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:51:45 -0500, Steve Barker
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "SteveB"
wrote:
the landscape company i used to work for used the method several times
a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. It does
work.
How can that be? It has been stated here by people who are never wrong
that
it doesn't work. I'm confused.

Don't think I ever said it doesn't work... but I will say that there is
no
evidence that it does. Anyone who thinks otherwise has only to
demonstrate it,
under controlled conditions, to become an instant millionaire.

It's been at least twenty years... and James Randi still has his million
dollars.


ya, and over on the right of the google page and the facebook page are
offers for free cameras and laptops. There's always an out for the
offer'er. I'm sure you could prove over and over to this James Randi
person, and he'd have an out for not paying. It's just a bull****
offer. Plain and simple. The method has been used for centuries, and
it does work.

s


It doesn't work. It's been proven that it doesn't work. No one who
thinks it works has EVER been able to demonstrate that it works when
they have to put their money where their mouth is. There is nothing
difficult about Randi's test. It's just a straight test of can you
find water (or whatever) at a level higher then chance. I've seen
people try and fail. They have ALL failed. There is nothing
mysterious or any fine print. These people all believed the test was
set up fairly and all were sure, just as you are, that "it works" and
that they would easily demonstrate it. Lots of "things" have been
done for centuries that don't work. Or do you think throwing salt
over your shoulder wards off bad luck?

You one of the ones that can't do it, huh?

Steve

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:42:00 -0700 (PDT), harry k
wrote:

On Jun 21, 6:36 pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:42:10 -0700 (PDT), harry k





wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:33 am, Steve Barker wrote:
harry k wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:52 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
,
harry k wrote:

I often wonder if any of the skeptics have actually tried using a
couple bent wires. They work for me
Then contact the James Randi Educational Foundation
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
and claim your million dollars.

So have _you_ actually tried it?

Harry K

the landscape company i used to work for used the method several
times a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. It does
work.

s

No amount of cases of it working is going to convince Doug. He knows
what he knows and apparently is not about to even try it.

Harry K

I'm always amazed that the people who are adamant that "it works"
somehow never have an interest in getting a million dollars for their
skill. And just to be clear, "working" doesn't mean that the rods
mysteriously move, it means that using the rods allows you to find
whatever it is you claim you can find at a level of probability higher
then chance level when the rods are all you have to go by.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Years ago I read the actual challenge. Seemed to be set up so that it
would be all but impossible to find the objects even with a map. It
is set up so that it is 100 percent sucess or it is total failure. No
partial success allowed.


No it's not. It's based on statistics. If there are 10 boxes and 5
of them have water under them and you can only find the ones with
water half time you are doing no better then chance.


The true skeptics should at least try it before being so adamant that
it doesnt' work.


It's been tried. It doesn't work. If you think it does, go win a
million dollars. Why are you afraid to try? What do you have to
lose? Randi sets up the tests just like any proper double blind test
whether it's for water dousing or testing a cancer drug.

Well, I don't give anyone who spells their name with an "i" at the end any
credibility. Are you two dating again?

"mike" wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 6:36 pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:42:10 -0700 (PDT), harry k





wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:33 am, Steve Barker wrote:
harry k wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:52 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
,
harry k wrote:

I often wonder if any of the skeptics have actually tried using a
couple bent wires. They work for me
Then contact the James Randi Educational Foundation
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
and claim your million dollars.

So have _you_ actually tried it?

Harry K

the landscape company i used to work for used the method several times
a
week to find irrigation lines when no plan was available. It does work.

s

No amount of cases of it working is going to convince Doug. He knows
what he knows and apparently is not about to even try it.

Harry K

I'm always amazed that the people who are adamant that "it works"
somehow never have an interest in getting a million dollars for their
skill. And just to be clear, "working" doesn't mean that the rods
mysteriously move, it means that using the rods allows you to find
whatever it is you claim you can find at a level of probability higher
then chance level when the rods are all you have to go by.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

The really hilarious thing about this dowsing nonsense is that if
people really believed that it worked, they'd mount their rods under
sealed glass with precision bearings.... not HOLD THEM IN THEIR
HANDS.

That's like having cork on sandpaper for a a bearing! Of course if
they actually made such an instrument, it become blindingly obvious
how useless it'd be in about one minute.

Reply

Actually, the two bent baling wire rods work better when held in two Tabasco
bottles.

Steve