Jump to content

Throw Away Those Metal Detectors And Use A Bit Of Wire Instead


Recommended Posts

Santa Clause was dowsing. i know because i saw him. i swear it is true. he gave me and my detector a big jolly laugh. boy did i feel stupid.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'll show my stuff Steve. It's anecdotal but true.

Leigh and I were ranch managers in the Dragoon mountains. The ranch well didn't produce enough water for the livestock and house so we had to haul about 1,000 gal a week from a neighbor's well.

I studied the geology and well logs for the area and determined there probably wasn't enough water under the ranch property to support a good flowing well. Sometimes it's like that. I did find that a 120 acre parcel that was for sale across the road had good access to the aquifer. I suggested the owner consider buying the property for the well and some additional needed grazing land.

The owners were into alternative stuff so they decided to try a local dowser to prove the geology was wrong. They ended up using 7 different dowsers from three different states. One from California was "famous". They drilled 6 wells based on the various dowsers different locations. The locations the different dowsers picked were pretty well distributed across the ranch.

Long (and expensive) story short. Only three of the wells produced any water at all and the best of them only flowed 1.7 ounces per minute. After a bunch of burned up pumps and a lot of money to the local driller the owner purchased the nearby 120 acres and drilled a well that flowed over 115 gallons per minute when tested. They didn't dowse that well but instead took the advice of the local driller.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GotAU? said:

“Do not underestimate the power of the human subconscious.”

Good point, Steve. I think divining has more to do with influences from the subconscious mind than anything else. It even influences our conscious decision making without us even being aware of it:


https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p086k2xk/the-strange-idea-that-we-are-not-in-control-of-our-minds

Edit: Great video GotAU, right up my alley, as you can see from my post below before i watched the video. Thanks!

I fully agree. I have studied consciousness and the mind for the last decade. Fascinating stuff. We think we are logical and make sound decisions based on examination of evidence. We are in fact almost entirely driven by instinct and emotion. We are unreliable witnesses to reality, easily swayed. Free will is an open question. We generally make snap decisions based on our cultural background and current tribal membership, and then seek the facts to confirm our up front decision. Tribal membership and the desire to conform, to not be outcast, easily overrides logic and facts.

The human mind is not designed to be rational, but to survive. We will do almost anything to “win” which in this world means “survive.” Facts are secondary to survival, and we jettison facts anytime it aids in our survival.

Changing deep seated habits is near impossible, because our logical mind knows we need to do something, but our emotional mind simply says no. If you cannot find a way to motivate your subconscious, most efforts will end in failure.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clay Diggins said:

I'll show my stuff Steve. It's anecdotal but true.

Leigh and I were ranch managers in the Dragoon mountains. The ranch well didn't produce enough water for the livestock and house so we had to haul about 1,000 gal a week from a neighbor's well.

I studied the geology and well logs for the area and determined there probably wasn't enough water under the ranch property to support a good flowing well. Sometimes it's like that. I did find that a 120 acre parcel that was for sale across the road had good access to the aquifer. I suggested the owner consider buying the property for the well and some additional needed grazing land.

The owners were into alternative stuff so they decided to try a local dowser to prove the geology was wrong. They ended up using 7 different dowsers from three different states. One from California was "famous". They drilled 6 wells based on the various dowsers different locations. The locations the different dowsers picked were pretty well distributed across the ranch.

Long (and expensive) story short. Only three of the wells produced any water at all and the best of them only flowed 1.7 ounces per minute. After a bunch of burned up pumps and a lot of money to the local driller the owner purchased the nearby 120 acres and drilled a well that flowed over 115 gallons per minute when tested. They didn't dowse that well but instead took the advice of the local driller.

Thanks Barry. That’s the part that rarely gets told because people do not like advertising they got took. The more you pay for an LRL, the more fervently you will defend it, even in the face of personal evidence to the contrary. Those that do realize they were gullible just go away silently. It’s half the problem really.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great video, Steve. I would also argue that the path to success can be made smoother by the rider learning how to better control and discipline the elephant so it stays on the path. A 6 ton advantage can melt away if the rider is able to overcome the force of gravity. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Might be the last (scientist) left though, and if so I’ll turn out the lights when I leave.

Good news, Steve.  You're wrong on that one although trying to prove it....  Well, I could kill you.  Would that be convincing?  😁

So I go away from the forum for half a day and wake up to over 50 posts on a subject I like to talk about.  (Well, maybe that doesn't narrow things down much.)  I wanted to quote 10-15 posts but that would take an hour (I'm a slow quoter) so I'll just dispense with that and apologize for not giving credit on this thread to its proper poster.

A lot has been covered, but there is one thing that needs to be cautioned -- authoritarianism.  Don't fall into the trap that an authority said something so it must be true.  That's also an easy way out.  Dig down and understand why s/he took that view.  With Wikipedia and Google we have at our fingertips something a lot of these famous people quoted and mentioned here (Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, James Randi) would have paid a fortune to have available when they were young and at their peak.  (All three stayed active in their specialties until death, though, so even Sagan who died in the late 90's was able to take advantage of it, but not to the extent we can today.)

I'm reminded of probably my favorite pseudo-science story -- Uri Geller's spoon bending.  He was making tons of money captivating audiences with what he claimed were psychic powers.  To counter, some physicists were asked to observe and refute his claims.  They observed but they couldn't come up with a scientific explanation.  Many (all proponents and some opponents) took that as evidence that he really did have special powers.  Johnny Carson invited him on The Tonight Show to demonstrate his prowess.  Turns out Carson was a magician but Geller didn't know that when he agreed to come on the show, or maybe he did but figured he'd collect his stipend anyway and then pull some other 'tricks'.  Just so happens he was having trouble that night on the show and wasn't able to show his skills....  So the old kids' cliche "it takes one to know one" was displayed to some success.

Geller was a con-man.  Dowsers and those who defend them aren't (well, maybe a few are).  But they get fooled just like the physicists did.  (BTW, I respect physics and physicists as much or more than any profession.  But they don't know everything and the wise ones realize that.)

We get taught a lot of subjects in school, and for the most part they are things worth learning.  But there are things that aren't taught that are possibly more valuable than 80% of what is taught.  Critical thinking is one that stands out.  Even PhD scientists are never taught about the philosophy of science (which may not be philosophy in the true sense of the word) -- specifically how do you determine if something is true or not.  Even using the word 'true' is bad form, IMO (and I just did it).  What science is really about is collecting evidence and then applying it to determine the more likely idea between two competing ones.  Isaac Newton revolutionized science and most of his works are still valid today, but further study has shown that as good as they are, they are actually approximations which don't always apply.  Relativity and Quantum mechanics have shown that on certain (mostly non-everyday-life) scales Newton's work fails.  And Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are themselves being revised constantly... with evidence.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Valens Legacy said:

Even the military has used dowsing for years along with several other government agencies

Article you linked mentioned (without a source) a single application; in 1967, by unspecified parties, supposedly in Vietnam. That was the same time the CIA was experimenting with LSD and remote mind control...since we lost that war I'm going to guess this little experiment was a dud as well. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ShintoSunrise said:

Article you linked mentioned (without a source) a single application; in 1967, by unspecified parties, supposedly in Vietnam. That was the same time the CIA was experimenting with LSD and remote mind control...since we lost that war I'm going to guess this little experiment was a dud as well.

I doubt that the results of these experiments had an effect on the outcome of a war.  But if your point is that not everything the USA military does is based upon solid foundations:  that holds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is what humans wants us to believe about life.. in a Human possible way. . 

This is why i dont listen to science because i could make my own point about things without the need of someone in a website telling me his point of view. 

Just cause there isnt any valuable informacion and many people wanting to use maps and put gold and all sort of things to increase there chances.

I could for a fact be eye blinded.

And a piece of gold be burried and walk over it and the rods will cross right where the gold was burried. 

Now i cant tell you out in the field 100 % what is causing the rods to cross just cause of the fact as you could see they are used to find different kinds of resourses. 

Even probably a water vein, some kind of mineralized ground or a burried water pipe. 

These are energy that happends behind the naked eye that we cant see but feel it when in use of the rods. 

I would be dredging and i like to use the rods to get a feel of what its telling me and see how i could use it as for my advantage. 

But again im still learning and still not being ignorante to the fact it amaze me a cheap piece of equipment supply me with such data. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

You can’t prove a negative so the proof either way concept is fallacious. If I claim to have a cold fusion reactor in a jar in my garage, it is not your job to prove it’s not true. It’s my job to prove it’s true. Same with dowsing.

I was thinking about a couple methods for deciding between competing hypotheses and you just gave a perfect example of one of them -- Hitchen's Razor.  The other one is way older but still today part of the first line of many investigations -- Occam's Razor.

Also, I wasn't aware that the Sagan quote you posted had it's own name:  Sagan's Standard.

Interestingly I read an article last week about an object that was detected passing through the solar system a couple years ago that behaved quite strangely (uniquely -- nothing like this ever seen before).  An astrophysicist (from a highly regarded university) proposed that it is of extraterrestrial origin.  When someone mentioned Sagan's Standard as a word of caution for the claim he poo-pooed it and countered with "It's not obvious to me why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  (Rather) extraordinary conservatism keeps us extraordinarily ignorant."  (!!)  So apparently if investigative principles cast doubt on your hypothesis you just rewrite them to agree with your hypothesis.  Oh, and it goes back to a couple points I made earlier -- 1) that philosophy of science is seldom taught even at the highest level, and 2) that (only) wise physicists understand that their thinking may be flawed.  Kind of ironic that his claim of others' ignorance exposes his own, to an international audience no less.  (The article I refer to can be found here.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...