Tom_in_CA

thanx for allowing me to sign up. A very-respected industry voice's forum, no less ! This forum was pointed out to me , by a fellow on another forum, because he wanted me to chime in on a thread about long-range-locators. (which I have done now already). I've been md'ing since about age ~14, in the mid 1970s. Live in Monterey, CA, work in Salinas, CA.

"... Being a science nerd type I don’t believe in either dowsing or ghosts....." This is where it almost gets comical with them. Because a lot of them distance themselves from any sort of supernatural explanation, lest it get lumped into a category of spooks, occult, mystical, religion, etc.... And .... no no no, we can't go THERE, right ? Because, gee, what's next ouija boards ? seances ? Thus ... no no no, we can't go there. So what they will say is : That the explanation is totally scientific in nature. Nothing to do with spooks, or spirits, etc.... And, in the effort to show that it's scientifically based, they will even offer various explanations. With $20 high-sounding words. About the attractions of objects, etc..... If someone with a scientific background goes to try to dismantle the explanations (showing that they hold no merit), then they resort to this : That dowsing is: Un-discovered science. After all, science once thought the earth was flat. Right ? And science once said that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. Right ? Well so too is dowsing simply "Un-discovered" science. And some day, science will come along, and be able to explain how it works. But .... rest assured, it's totally scientific. But then, in the same discussion threads/blogs/forums : OTHER dowsers will start rambling on about things that .... border on the mystical and occult explanations. Ie.: that it takes "faith" and "belief", "auras" and other such buzzwords that start to sound almost new-age, or religious . And when you point out to them that their peers have said it's "totally scientific" (So as-to-point-out their internal contradictions within their camps), then they have the following wonderful compromise agreement within their ranks : "Who cares HOW it works?" It doesn't matter whether this side of the aisle (the "science" explanation camp) is right, or the other side of the aisle (the supernatural explanation camp) is right. The bottom line is: That it works. And thus they see no internal consistency problem with the multitude of conflicting explanations , that pop up within their ranks.

Hey there Steve, thanx for letting me join your site. Got prompted , from a fellow on another forum, to come read what you'd written about LRL's. Because that person know I was a rabid skeptic on that subject, haha. 😇 I Enjoyed GB-amateur's video link. To comment on what you've written on the subject, I've lifted the following quotes from you. And wonder if you could take-a-crack at the common "push-backs", that the believers offer, to what you're saying . My comments, following each of your quotes, is their typical responses . So I'm just playing the devil's advocate, to see how you'd respond : "... For me these devices have always failed the most basic test... the experience of hundreds of thousands of prospectors and treasure hunters around the world...." "Huh ? What do you mean they 'fail the tests' ? There's scores of testimonials of success. I mean, gee, haven't you see the advertisements of guys posing next to the jars of coins that they found ? Photos don't lie after all, eh ? And no, it's not random eventual luck. They will say they've found goodies without a "detector to pinpoint", thus ruling out eventual random odds. And if you point them to staged double-blind tests that have been done, they will dismiss those too. For very simple reasons: A) Those dowsing/LRL test subject persons weren't qualified or experienced enough. B) The tests were rigged to make-certain that the dowsers/LRL failed. C) Durned those sun-spots or lunar burps or EMI after all, that must've been present that day. D) You can't count an isolated singular test. I mean, after all, do MD'rs find a gold ring or gold coin every day they go out ? No, of course not. Then why the double-standard expectation for dowsing and LRL ? "... If it works, the use soon spreads to other prospectors....." IT MOST CERTAINLY HAS "spread to other prospectors". Why do you think that there is historical mentions of dowsing that goes all the way back to ancient times ? If it didn't work, then .... by golly .... they wouldn't have been doing it and spreading the word to others. And people wouldn't have continued the practice . Thus the word, and usage, did indeed "spread". There's scores of people doing it in present times. So how can you say it hasn't "spread" ? "... Except for a few obvious promotionals, the success stories of people using LRL devices are glaringly absent....." That's got a bullet proof rationale : The reason you don't hear of too many caches and treasures and riches being found by the LRL/dowser gang, is easy: Because they're after "big game". Not a few individual nuggets here and there. Not singular coins like the lowly md'rs. Heck no. They're after the big-ticket caches ! And as such, they therefore keep mum and secret about their finds. Because, since they're so big, then ... gee ... they don't want to open themselves up for the chance that thieves might target their home. And the IRS would come knocking on their door for taxes. So they keep mum and aren't boasting. Loose lips sink ships after all. But rest assured: It works, and treasures are being found. "... And just in case anyone thinks I am close-minded about something I have never tried, I have a set of dowsing rods and have tried it. ...." And you know what that means, don't you ? It simply means you weren't doing it right. And/or didn't practice long enough. For example : If you took a newbie md'r and a skilled md'r, out to an old park , who is most likely to find old silver with their detector ? Obviously the skilled md'r, who has years of experience. Right ? So why the double-standard for LRL/dowsing ? Thus the fact of someone testing /trying it, and coming away with no results ... NEVER means: "It doesn't work". Instead, it always/only means: a) You need more practice, and b) you were doing it wrong. See ?