"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
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.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? I never claimed that I could
dowse water. I merely said that I have successfully used them to find
buried wires, pipes, and lines.

Sheesh. Listen up, will ya?

Steve

"Warren Block" wrote in message
. ..
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


Next you'll be telling me that my dog doesn't understand geometry and
physics.


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

I don't really see much difference between believing in ideomotor action and
believing in dowsing or witching.


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

On Jun 22, 8:57*pm, 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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Amen to that! I have found things using them and I have had them
fail. Thus I remain a 'half-skeptic'

Harry K

On Jun 22, 10:27*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps you could try reading and understanding what I have written.
I direct your attention to my repeated "half-skeptic'

Harry K

On Jun 23, 4:23*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
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.

Or perhaps you could read what I have written where I said they have
failed me?

Harry K

On Jun 23, 8:40*am, "SteveB" wrote:
"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, he is one of those "I knows what I knows and am not about to try
it" types.

Harry K

On Jun 23, 10:10*am, mike wrote:
On Jun 23, 8:44*am, "SteveB" wrote:





"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That would slightly increase the sensitivity to wind and how lousy
human hands are at holding something plumb or level.

Why not put the rods on precision bearings, under glass, and roll the
device at a constant speed on level rails over areas of question?

Otherwise, you're measuring human frailty, wind direction, incline, or
acceleration. *I don't know what people think they'd be measuring...
it can't be magnetic fields, or they'd use a compass.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The problem with that is they indicate in just one location. I can
stand in one spot, sway back and forth and they cross/uncross. Take
one step and they don't. Am I infulencing them? Not that I can tell
and I have tried to tell if I am.

Of course you _could_ take a couple coat hangars and try it yourself
but I dont' expect that to happen. You knows what you knows...

Harry K

"mike" wroteWhy not put the rods on precision
bearings, under glass, and roll the
device at a constant speed on level rails over areas of question?

Otherwise, you're measuring human frailty, wind direction, incline, or
acceleration. I don't know what people think they'd be measuring...
it can't be magnetic fields, or they'd use a compass.

reply:

http://simmonsscientificproducts.com/products.html

Something like this?

"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On Jun 23, 11:45 am, "SteveB" wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

...





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.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? I never claimed that I could
dowse water. I merely said that I have successfully used them to find
buried wires, pipes, and lines.

Sheesh. Listen up, will ya?

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I located my water main with better accuracy than the local locator
service did. I have seen Randi's web page and he assumes that dowsing
does certain things that even dowsers do not make claim to. Basically
he has built a strwman to shoot at.

Jimmie

Again, Jimmie, there seems to be two discussions here. One about locating
water aquifers and water underground. And one about locating water lines,
cables, and pipes that have been buried by humans.

I (ME) am talking about the latter, and make no statements or claims to be
able to find aquifers.

Steve

On Jun 23, 3:31*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:





On Jun 23, 4:23=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, Red wrote:

This subject is just like arguing politics or religion - neither side
will change their viewpoint. =A0Those 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.

Or perhaps you could read what I have written where I said they have
failed me?

In other words... IT DOESN'T WORK. When you "succeeded" the obvious
explanation is that you ALREADY KNEW where the item was.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My God! You finally read and _understood_ at least a few of my
posts. About damn time.

Harry K

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:
On Jun 23, 4:23=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, Red wrote:
This subject is just like arguing politics or religion - neither side
will change their viewpoint. =A0Those 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.
Or perhaps you could read what I have written where I said they have
failed me?

In other words... IT DOESN'T WORK. When you "succeeded" the obvious
explanation is that you ALREADY KNEW where the item was.

the irrigation guys i used to work with certainly did NOT know where all
the irrigation line were/are that they find regularly with this method.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:
On Jun 23, 4:23=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, Red wrote:
This subject is just like arguing politics or religion - neither side
will change their viewpoint. =A0Those 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.
Or perhaps you could read what I have written where I said they have
failed me?

In other words... IT DOESN'T WORK. When you "succeeded" the obvious
explanation is that you ALREADY KNEW where the item was.

my father in law certainly did NOT know where the 1" iron line a quarter
mile long from the spring up ontop the hill was when he had that old man
come out and 'witch' it for him. dug down to the line the first time.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:31:05 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On Jun 23, 11:45 am, "SteveB" wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

...





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.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? I never claimed that I could
dowse water. I merely said that I have successfully used them to find
buried wires, pipes, and lines.

Sheesh. Listen up, will ya?

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I located my water main with better accuracy than the local locator
service did. I have seen Randi's web page and he assumes that dowsing
does certain things that even dowsers do not make claim to. Basically
he has built a strwman to shoot at.

Jimmie

Again, Jimmie, there seems to be two discussions here. One about locating
water aquifers and water underground. And one about locating water lines,
cables, and pipes that have been buried by humans.

I (ME) am talking about the latter, and make no statements or claims to be
able to find aquifers.

Steve



If you think you can "douse" for ANYTHING and are willing to be tested
under controlled conditions you can win the prize. Randi doesn't care
if you claim you can find water, or fissures, or buried Easter bunnies
with your "witching" equipment. You're like all the others, scared
to death to have your claims tested under controlled conditions where
actual success or failure can be evaluated statistically.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:42:50 -0600, "SteveB"
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.

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



Nice cop out. Very typical of all those who claim they can "do it"
yet turn up their nose at the million dollars. Are you still trying
to get thru 5th grade?

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:13:18 -0700, "Ulysses"
wrote:


"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
.. .
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.

I would like to see a true disbeliever, such as yourself, get a couple of
bronze rods and try it. Since you expect nothing to happen then nothing
will happen, right? To be specific the rods I tried were perhaps five
inches long in the handle area, bent at 45 degrees for an inch or so, and
then bent another 45 degrees and perhaps two feet long so the overall shape
is 90 degrees and the thumbs rest gently upon the 45 degree slant. I wasn't
expecting anything to happen, but it did.



I have tried it. Maybe you saw my other post. Sure "it works" if you
mean the rods will seemingly move of their own power. The problem is,
they don't actually find water at any level above chance. It's just
like a Ouija board... or do you believe in them too?

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:40:48 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"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?


Yeah, I'm in the 100% of the population.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:45:39 -0700, "Ulysses"
wrote:


"Warren Block" wrote in message
...
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


Next you'll be telling me that my dog doesn't understand geometry and
physics.


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

I don't really see much difference between believing in ideomotor action and
believing in dowsing or witching.


Well then, I think we have identified the problem.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:17:30 -0700 (PDT), harry k
wrote:

On Jun 22, 10:27*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps you could try reading and understanding what I have written.
I direct your attention to my repeated "half-skeptic'

Harry K

So what? You seem to think they work. It costs you basically nothing
to try. So what's stopping you? Randi's had this offer out there for
nearly 20 years, not just for dousing but for ANY paranormal claim.
There have been several people who have tried. They all agree before
the test even starts that they understand what is being tested and
what will constitute success or failure and the believers all think
they can do whatever it is they do, that it's a cake walk. Yet when
they actually have to demonstrate for real that their results rise
above the level of chance they all fail. These are not hard tests if
you believe what these people claim, yet they fail consistently. And
Randi isn't the one doing the testing, so to speak, he's just
establishing the agreement, the results stand or fall on their own.

In article , harry k wrote:
On Jun 23, 3:31=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, harry k wrote:





On Jun 23, 4:23=3DA0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
ups=3D
..com, Red wrote:

This subject is just like arguing politics or religion - neither side
will change their viewpoint. =3DA0Those 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 cl=
aim=3D
your
million dollars.

Or explain why you're unwilling to be tested under controlled conditio=
ns.

Or perhaps you could read what I have written where I said they have
failed me?

In other words... IT DOESN'T WORK. When you "succeeded" the obvious
explanation is that you ALREADY KNEW where the item was.- Hide quoted tex=
t -

- Show quoted text -

My God! You finally read and _understood_ at least a few of my
posts. About damn time.

Oh, get off it, Harry. You've been saying all along that it works, and I've
been saying all along that it doesn't.

In article , Steve Barker wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article
, harry k
wrote:
On Jun 23, 4:23=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, Red wrote:
This subject is just like arguing politics or religion - neither side
will change their viewpoint. =A0Those 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.
Or perhaps you could read what I have written where I said they have
failed me?

In other words... IT DOESN'T WORK. When you "succeeded" the obvious
explanation is that you ALREADY KNEW where the item was.

the irrigation guys i used to work with certainly did NOT know where all
the irrigation line were/are that they find regularly with this method.

If you're so sure it works, why aren't you a millionaire?

In article , Steve Barker wrote:

my father in law certainly did NOT know where the 1" iron line a quarter
mile long from the spring up ontop the hill was when he had that old man
come out and 'witch' it for him. dug down to the line the first time.

There are multiple plausible explanations for that:
a) the old man who 'witched' the line is the same guy that *installed* the
line forty years before
b) dumb luck
c) get anywhere close and dig a big enough hole, and you're bound to hit it
d) somebody's lying

The fact is that when "dowsing" is tested under controlled conditions, NOBODY
has EVER demonstrated success at any rate greater than that expected by blind
chance.

If you think you can do it, go get your million dollars.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , Steve Barker
wrote:

my father in law certainly did NOT know where the 1" iron line a quarter
mile long from the spring up ontop the hill was when he had that old man
come out and 'witch' it for him. dug down to the line the first time.

There are multiple plausible explanations for that:
a) the old man who 'witched' the line is the same guy that *installed* the
line forty years before
b) dumb luck
c) get anywhere close and dig a big enough hole, and you're bound to hit it
d) somebody's lying

Or my own supposition on that story,

e) looking at the contours of the hill and other geographic clues, the
guy chose the most logical route for a water line, correctly assuming
that the installer had done the same.

In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , Steve Barker
wrote:

my father in law certainly did NOT know where the 1" iron line a quarter
mile long from the spring up ontop the hill was when he had that old man
come out and 'witch' it for him. dug down to the line the first time.

There are multiple plausible explanations for that:
a) the old man who 'witched' the line is the same guy that *installed* the
line forty years before
b) dumb luck
c) get anywhere close and dig a big enough hole, and you're bound to hit it
d) somebody's lying

Or my own supposition on that story,

e) looking at the contours of the hill and other geographic clues, the
guy chose the most logical route for a water line, correctly assuming
that the installer had done the same.

And may not even have been consciously aware of having done so, either.

So now we have five eminently plausible explanations, vs. one completely
implausible one. The true believers will, of course, insist that the latter is
the correct one.

On Jun 24, 5:58*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:





On Jun 23, 3:31=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, harry k wrote:

On Jun 23, 4:23=3DA0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
ups=3D
..com, Red wrote:

This subject is just like arguing politics or religion - neither side
will change their viewpoint. =3DA0Those 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 cl=
aim=3D
your
million dollars.

Or explain why you're unwilling to be tested under controlled conditio=
ns.

Or perhaps you could read what I have written where I said they have
failed me?

In other words... IT DOESN'T WORK. When you "succeeded" the obvious
explanation is that you ALREADY KNEW where the item was.- Hide quoted tex=
t -

- Show quoted text -

My God! *You finally read and _understood_ at least a few of my
posts. *About damn time.

Oh, get off it, Harry. You've been saying all along that it works, and I've
been saying all along that it doesn't.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BS. Try reading my posts. From the start I have said that they work
but only when there are clues to the location. I haved said that
repeatedly. That you have a reading comprehension problem ...

Harry K

On Jun 24, 5:59*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Steve Barker wrote:





Doug Miller wrote:
In article
, harry k
wrote:
On Jun 23, 4:23=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, Red wrote:
This subject is just like arguing politics or religion - neither side
will change their viewpoint. =A0Those 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.
Or perhaps you could read what I have written where I said they have
failed me?

In other words... IT DOESN'T WORK. When you "succeeded" the obvious
explanation is that you ALREADY KNEW where the item was.

the irrigation guys i used to work with certainly did NOT know where all
the irrigation line were/are that they find regularly with this method.

If you're so sure it works, why aren't you a millionaire?



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Have you a dictionary? Perhaps you could find some other words to
vary your replies?

Harry K

On Jun 23, 9:04*pm, Steve Barker wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:
On Jun 23, 4:23=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, Red wrote:
This subject is just like arguing politics or religion - neither side
will change their viewpoint. =A0Those 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.
Or perhaps you could read what I have written where I said they have
failed me?

In other words... IT DOESN'T WORK. When you "succeeded" the obvious
explanation is that you ALREADY KNEW where the item was.

my father in law certainly did NOT know where the 1" iron line a quarter
mile long from the spring up ontop the hill was when he had that old man
* come out and 'witch' it for him. *dug down to the line the first time.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I dowsed a buried water line for a neighbor. I had never been on his
place but I traced it from the spring to a stanpipe. Again there were
clues that that was where it should be.

Harry K

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ulysses" In
California, the Totalitarianism State wrote:


I would like to see a true disbeliever, such as yourself, get a couple of
bronze rods and try it. Since you expect nothing to happen then nothing
will happen, right? To be specific the rods I tried were perhaps five
inches long in the handle area, bent at 45 degrees for an inch or so, and
then bent another 45 degrees and perhaps two feet long so the overall
shape
is 90 degrees and the thumbs rest gently upon the 45 degree slant. I
wasn't
expecting anything to happen, but it did.

And I would like to see a true believer, such as yourself, attempt to
demonstrate this ability under controlled conditions. If you can do it,
you
can win a million dollars.


I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I'm a true believer. I was
a skeptic too until I tried it, got my well drilled, and got good water.
All I'm saying is the the wands move under certain conditions and that it
seems to be consistant. I have also stated that around here it's the
generally accepted way to determine where to drill a well. I have tried it
and I have not claimed any proficiency. I did not expect ANYTHING to
happen. I even tried to get the wands to NOT move. It's the darndest
thing.

On Jun 24, 7:57*am, "Ulysses" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

... In article , "Ulysses" In

California, the Totalitarianism State wrote:







I would like to see a true disbeliever, such as yourself, get a couple of
bronze rods and try it. *Since you expect nothing to happen then nothing
will happen, right? *To be specific the rods I tried were perhaps five
inches long in the handle area, bent at 45 degrees for an inch or so, and
then bent another 45 degrees and perhaps two feet long so the overall
shape
is 90 degrees and the thumbs rest gently upon the 45 degree slant. *I
wasn't
expecting anything to happen, but it did.

And I would like to see a true believer, such as yourself, attempt to
demonstrate this ability under controlled conditions. If you can do it,
you
can win a million dollars.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I'm a true believer. *I was
a skeptic too until I tried it, got my well drilled, and got good water.
All I'm saying is the the wands move under certain conditions and that it
seems to be consistant. *I have also stated that around here it's the
generally accepted way to determine where to drill a well. *I have tried it
and I have not claimed any proficiency. *I did not expect ANYTHING to
happen. *I even tried to get the wands to NOT move. *It's the darndest
thing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Same here. I find things, I don't find things, there are clues but at
the end teh rods move and one cannot detect themselves influencing
them.

Harry K

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:13:18 -0700, "Ulysses"
wrote:


"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
.. .
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.

I would like to see a true disbeliever, such as yourself, get a couple of
bronze rods and try it. Since you expect nothing to happen then nothing
will happen, right? To be specific the rods I tried were perhaps five
inches long in the handle area, bent at 45 degrees for an inch or so, and
then bent another 45 degrees and perhaps two feet long so the overall
shape
is 90 degrees and the thumbs rest gently upon the 45 degree slant. I
wasn't
expecting anything to happen, but it did.



I have tried it. Maybe you saw my other post. Sure "it works" if you
mean the rods will seemingly move of their own power. The problem is,
they don't actually find water at any level above chance. It's just
like a Ouija board... or do you believe in them too?

Somehow I missed where you said you'd tried it. I did try a Ouija board
once. It left very little impression on me. I saw an angel once. That
left very little impression on me too. I did not suddenly become religious
and become certain that there is a heaven and hell and Jesus is gonna save
me from my sins. It just makes me wonder what they are. I didn't believe
in them any more than I did leprichauns, elves, or unicorns.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , Steve Barker
wrote:

my father in law certainly did NOT know where the 1" iron line a quarter
mile long from the spring up ontop the hill was when he had that old man
come out and 'witch' it for him. dug down to the line the first time.

There are multiple plausible explanations for that:
a) the old man who 'witched' the line is the same guy that *installed* the
line forty years before
b) dumb luck
c) get anywhere close and dig a big enough hole, and you're bound to hit it
d) somebody's lying
Or my own supposition on that story,

e) looking at the contours of the hill and other geographic clues, the
guy chose the most logical route for a water line, correctly assuming
that the installer had done the same.

And may not even have been consciously aware of having done so, either.

So now we have five eminently plausible explanations, vs. one completely
implausible one. The true believers will, of course, insist that the latter is
the correct one.

I particularly like E (combined with ideomotor) and C.

I would add, to twist a phrase, "when I am right no one forgets, when I
am wrong no one remembers."

And to use another cliche, "the proof is in the pudding." If dowsing
worked someone by now would be a millionaire.

-------------
A commercial company sold a product that was a little larger than a pack
of cigarettes with a rotating rod. It had interchangeable modules, and
different modules could detect (rod would swing) marijuana, cocaine,
..... Police departments, schools, and other bought and used the
detectors and said they *worked*. Finally someone tested them with a
blind test - on one of the tv 'news magazine' programs. They didn't work
and were a scam.

--
bud--

On Jun 19, 11:54*am, "Ulysses" wrote:
"Red" wrote in message

...
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

I must be confusing witching and dowsing again. *I didn't have any pipes,
power lines, phone wires, etc. *I've never tried the willow but I remember
Walter Brennon using one on The Real McCoys quite a few years back. *What do
dowsers use if there are no willows in the area? *Buy one on eBay? *I have
some trees down by my creek that might be some kind of willow. *I guess I'd
better look up what they are so I can make a divining wand or rod or
whatever they are called. *That reminds me--I found a very strong signal
with the welding rods and was thinking of making a long drill with a 2"
arbor bit and see if I hit anything. *The bushes in that area stay very
green when there is a drought.

I had no problem locating my utilities with a pair of bent wires. The
wires crossed when I stepped over the trench they were buried in. Just
now I wa looking at a google earth photo of my lot and from above the
location of the trench is clearly visible but you wouldnt notice it
from the ground. I am wondering if what the wires are detecting is me
tipping slightly or me unconsciuosly correcting for the tip as I stept
down into a depression. Perhaps this is also the reason for the slight
tug I feel while crossing the same area while swinging a pendulum in a
circle.


Jimmie

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:31:05 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On Jun 23, 11:45 am, "SteveB" wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

...





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.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? I never claimed that I
could
dowse water. I merely said that I have successfully used them to find
buried wires, pipes, and lines.

Sheesh. Listen up, will ya?

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I located my water main with better accuracy than the local locator
service did. I have seen Randi's web page and he assumes that dowsing
does certain things that even dowsers do not make claim to. Basically
he has built a strwman to shoot at.

Jimmie

Again, Jimmie, there seems to be two discussions here. One about locating
water aquifers and water underground. And one about locating water lines,
cables, and pipes that have been buried by humans.

I (ME) am talking about the latter, and make no statements or claims to be
able to find aquifers.

Steve



If you think you can "douse" for ANYTHING and are willing to be tested
under controlled conditions you can win the prize. Randi doesn't care
if you claim you can find water, or fissures, or buried Easter bunnies
with your "witching" equipment. You're like all the others, scared
to death to have your claims tested under controlled conditions where
actual success or failure can be evaluated statistically.

Ashton, you're a ****ing faggot idiot. You're obsessed with "Randi". I
know what I can do. I know what I've done. I don't need to prove that to
you or anyone else. Apparently, you're not interested in hearing about
anything other than what is locked inside your brain, and that is causing
constant pain and pressure because the contents are greater in volume than
the capacity of the storage space.

BTW, your esp ain't for ****. I'm not scared to have my claims tested.
Spiders are another matter.

Now **** off like a good little troll.

Steve

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:42:50 -0600, "SteveB"
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.

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



Nice cop out. Very typical of all those who claim they can "do it"
yet turn up their nose at the million dollars. Are you still trying
to get thru 5th grade?

Nope. 60, and happily retired.

In article , harry k wrote:
On Jun 24, 5:58=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, harry k wrote:





On Jun 23, 3:31=3DA0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
ups=3D
..com, harry k wrote:

On Jun 23, 4:23=3D3DA0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
gro=3D
ups=3D3D
..com, Red wrote:

This subject is just like arguing politics or religion - neither s=
ide
will change their viewpoint. =3D3DA0Those of us who have had it wo=
rk on=3D
many
occasions and know it works will never convince those who will nev=
er
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=
cl=3D
aim=3D3D
your
million dollars.

Or explain why you're unwilling to be tested under controlled condi=
tio=3D
ns.

Or perhaps you could read what I have written where I said they have
failed me?

In other words... IT DOESN'T WORK. When you "succeeded" the obvious
explanation is that you ALREADY KNEW where the item was.- Hide quoted =
tex=3D
t -

- Show quoted text -

My God! =A0You finally read and _understood_ at least a few of my
posts. =A0About damn time.

Oh, get off it, Harry. You've been saying all along that it works, and I'=
ve
been saying all along that it doesn't.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BS. Try reading my posts. From the start I have said that they work
but only when there are clues to the location. I haved said that
repeatedly. That you have a reading comprehension problem ...

No, Harry, the BS is coming from you. Here's your first post:

"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."

No mention there of working only when there are clues, just the blanket
statement "they work for me ... they work for at least half of anyone who
tries it".

This was followed with a lot of "obviously you haven't tried it" directed at
the skeptics.

In another post, you wrote "I have found things using them and I have had them
fail." No mention there, either, of dowsing working only when there are clues.
Just the blanket statement "I have found things using them."

And this: "The problem with that is they indicate in just one location. I can
stand in one spot, sway back and forth and they cross/uncross. Take
one step and they don't. Am I infulencing them? Not that I can tell
and I have tried to tell if I am." No mention there of any external clues,
Harry.

In article , "Ulysses" In California, the Totalitarianism State wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Ulysses" In
California, the Totalitarianism State wrote:


I would like to see a true disbeliever, such as yourself, get a couple of
bronze rods and try it. Since you expect nothing to happen then nothing
will happen, right? To be specific the rods I tried were perhaps five
inches long in the handle area, bent at 45 degrees for an inch or so, and
then bent another 45 degrees and perhaps two feet long so the overall
shape
is 90 degrees and the thumbs rest gently upon the 45 degree slant. I
wasn't
expecting anything to happen, but it did.

And I would like to see a true believer, such as yourself, attempt to
demonstrate this ability under controlled conditions. If you can do it,
you
can win a million dollars.


I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I'm a true believer.

Your post extolling repeated dowsing successes made it pretty obvious.

I was
a skeptic too until I tried it, got my well drilled, and got good water.

This may come as a surprise to you, but there's underground water nearly
everywhere on earth.

In article , "SteveB" wrote:

BTW, your esp ain't for ****. I'm not scared to have my claims tested.

Then go do it. Win a million dollars.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "SteveB"
wrote:

BTW, your esp ain't for ****. I'm not scared to have my claims tested.

Then go do it. Win a million dollars.

I read Randi's offer this morning. Seems there are 16 rules. Rule 12
reads:

12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being
considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two
conditions: First, he/she must have a ³media presence,² which means
having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to
his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by
producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that
specifically addresses the person¹s abilities. Second, he/she must
produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed
the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these
powers or abilities have been verified.

Also of note is Rule 14:

14. This prize will continue to be offered until it is awarded or it
expires (on March 6, 2010)

Source:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/...-application.h
tml

On Jun 24, 11:28*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , harry k wrote:





On Jun 24, 5:58=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, harry k wrote:

On Jun 23, 3:31=3DA0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
ups=3D
..com, harry k wrote:

On Jun 23, 4:23=3D3DA0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
gro=3D
ups=3D3D
..com, Red wrote:

This subject is just like arguing politics or religion - neither s=
ide
will change their viewpoint. =3D3DA0Those of us who have had it wo=
rk on=3D
many
occasions and know it works will never convince those who will nev=
er
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=
cl=3D
aim=3D3D
your
million dollars.

Or explain why you're unwilling to be tested under controlled condi=
tio=3D
ns.

Or perhaps you could read what I have written where I said they have
failed me?

In other words... IT DOESN'T WORK. When you "succeeded" the obvious
explanation is that you ALREADY KNEW where the item was.- Hide quoted =
tex=3D
t -

- Show quoted text -

My God! =A0You finally read and _understood_ at least a few of my
posts. =A0About damn time.

Oh, get off it, Harry. You've been saying all along that it works, and I'=
ve
been saying all along that it doesn't.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BS. *Try reading my posts. *From the start I have said that they work
but only when there are clues to the location. *I haved said that
repeatedly. *That you have a reading comprehension problem ...

No, Harry, the BS is coming from you. Here's your first post:

"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."

No mention there of working only when there are clues, just the blanket
statement "they work for me ... they work for at least half of anyone who
tries it".

This was followed with a lot of "obviously you haven't tried it" directed at
the skeptics.

In another post, you wrote "I have found things using them and I have had them
fail." No mention there, either, of dowsing working only when there are clues.
Just the blanket statement "I have found things using them."

And this: "The problem with that is they indicate in just one location. *I can
stand in one spot, sway back and forth and they cross/uncross. *Take
one step and they don't. *Am I infulencing them? *Not that I can tell
and I have tried to tell if I am." No mention there of any external clues,
Harry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you admit you can't distinguish the difference between "working" in
thesense of actually finding things and "working" in the sense of the
rods moving? If you had actually paid attention to my posts you would
see repeated statements where any "working" I refer to is speakign
about the rods moving, not finding things.

But then you apparently are unable to understand anything that does
not agree with your admant insistance that everyone but you is wrong.

Harry K

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:27:06 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "SteveB"
wrote:

BTW, your esp ain't for ****. I'm not scared to have my claims tested.

Then go do it. Win a million dollars.

I read Randi's offer this morning. Seems there are 16 rules. Rule 12
reads:

12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being
considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two
conditions: First, he/she must have a ³media presence,² which means
having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to
his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by
producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that
specifically addresses the person¹s abilities. Second, he/she must
produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed
the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these
powers or abilities have been verified.


Yes, that's because previously anyone could come out of the woodwork
and apply and lots of lunatics did. Processing applications from
people hoping to become famous was becoming too time consuming,
particularly when NONE of them could demonstrate a shred of talent at
their claims. So the rules were changed so that applicants had to
have at least some outside indication of others believing. This keeps
everyone who has a 43 cent stamp from wasting Randi's foundations
time.

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:27:06 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "SteveB"
wrote:

BTW, your esp ain't for ****. I'm not scared to have my claims tested.

Then go do it. Win a million dollars.

I read Randi's offer this morning. Seems there are 16 rules. Rule 12
reads:

12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being
considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two
conditions: First, he/she must have a ³media presence,² which means
having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to
his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by
producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that
specifically addresses the person¹s abilities. Second, he/she must
produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed
the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these
powers or abilities have been verified.


Yes, that's because previously anyone could come out of the woodwork
and apply and lots of lunatics did. Processing applications from
people hoping to become famous was becoming too time consuming,
particularly when NONE of them could demonstrate a shred of talent at
their claims. So the rules were changed so that applicants had to
have at least some outside indication of others believing. This keeps
everyone who has a 43 cent stamp from wasting Randi's foundations
time.

My ESP tells me that postage is 44 cents, now. Yeah, I understand and
applaud the rule. Just wanted to make sure that our resident a.h.r.
dowsers knew about the pre-qual clause, as well as the impending
expiration date, so they could get busy with preparations to claim the
prize.