Frequencies secret treasure metal

[Geo]

Water dowsing only "works" because ground water is contained in underground aquifers, and does not flow in narrow streams. You could drill almost anywhere in the area and still find water .

Hi.
I saw rigs to stop on rocks at depth 140m without being able to beat the water, and with suggestion of dowser to find water some meters away (40 ... 50 meters) and at depth of only 20 meters. Maybe you should review some views you.

[Dave J.]

Geo, that's a major difference between dowsing and LRL's, isn't it?

--Dave J.

[Geo]

Sure.. there are differences between dowsing and electronic LRLs.
But i saw both methods to work (not always but under some conditions...)
Also before time you wrote that the USA army has lrl devices for distance near to 50m but it is very expensive. So there is the technology.

Regards

[Dave J.]

You're missing the point.

A year or two ago I posted that the military has radar type stuff under development that can locate stuff of interest to them at considerable distance. I have "inside dope" on this project, but not very much. Of course we're talking about real stuff that no LRL proponent could possibly be interested in, because it is based on real physics with real abilities and real limitations-- not on fairy tale fancies like LRL toys are.

You completely ignored what you yourself inadvertently pointed out: that people who locate water by dowsing don't use LRL's. That is because LRL's don't work.

Now, can you explain why it is that water can be located by ordinary dowsing methods that can't be located with an LRL, even if it's equipped with L-rods?

I can explain it, but I offer you first shot at it.

--Dave J.

[hamze2000]

Thank all friends.
The exact frequency and frequency of dental metals that cost me as I need. Following the completion of the project you want it to be.

[kaligula]

You're missing the point.

A year or two ago I posted that the military has radar type stuff under development that can locate stuff of interest to them at considerable distance. I have "inside dope" on this project, but not very much. Of course we're talking about real stuff that no LRL proponent could possibly be interested in, because it is based on real physics with real abilities and real limitations-- not on fairy tale fancies like LRL toys are.

You completely ignored what you yourself inadvertently pointed out: that people who locate water by dowsing don't use LRL's. That is because LRL's don't work.

Now, can you explain why it is that water can be located by ordinary dowsing methods that can't be located with an LRL, even if it's equipped with L-rods?

I can explain it, but I offer you first shot at it.
--Dave J.

I think you can find water and with LRL, there is no difference, but the point is that dowsing rods withaut any other equipment are natturally tuned at water frequency, and lrl not. So the ordinary dowser is using his mind to change that frequency if he want to seek for something else, what for me is not so sigure metod, but im not saying that is not working.
With lrl i suppouse you can seek anything you want, but if you have true data for that you are looking for.

[kaligula]

THE PRINCIP IS THE SAME, MONEY YOU HAVE TO PAY ARE DIFFERENT

[Geo]

You're missing the point.

A year or two ago I posted that the military has radar type stuff under development that can locate stuff of interest to them at considerable distance. I have "inside dope" on this project, but not very much. Of course we're talking about real stuff that no LRL proponent could possibly be interested in, because it is based on real physics with real abilities and real limitations-- not on fairy tale fancies like LRL toys are.

You completely ignored what you yourself inadvertently pointed out: that people who locate water by dowsing don't use LRL's. That is because LRL's don't work.

Now, can you explain why it is that water can be located by ordinary dowsing methods that can't be located with an LRL, even if it's equipped with L-rods?

I can explain it, but I offer you first shot at it.

--Dave J.

All are so simple. LRLs locates the "phenomenon" or megnetic or EM fields. Nobody knows what the dowsing locate or who is the principle of dowsing. Do you know it???, please tell it to us!!!. If science can't explain how works the dowsing don't mean that the dowsing don't work. Maybe next century the science find the working principle....
Now about """why it is that water can be located by ordinary dowsing methods that can't be located with an LRL""" make the question to the electronic engineers of Elektor who designed the Zahori to locate water. Maybe they made a fraud project.

[Qiaozhi]

Nobody knows what the dowsing locate or who is the principle of dowsing. Do you know it???, please tell it to us!!!.

If the first statement is correct, then the following question is superfluous .... unless, of course, that person is "nobody".

It's also like me asking you, "When did you stop beating your wife?".
The question makes an assumption. In this latter example, it assumes you have beaten your wife in the past.

In the question concerning dowsing, it assumes that dowsing can actually be used to locate something, rather than being a figment of the imagination.

Basically, your question is unanswerable in its current form.

[Geo]

Wrong answer from wrong person

[Qiaozhi]

Wrong answer from wrong person

Yes, wrong person, but not the wrong answer.

Anyway, what are you going to say when Dave J asks you, ""When did you stop beating your wife?".

[Dave J.]

I don't doubt that there are successful water dowsers. They don't do blinded dowsing and they learn from experience. The dowsing rods themselves do not detect water, they are ideomotor response devices. Just a convenience. No funny fizzicks, no majick, although the dowser him/her self may not understand the ideomotor nature of how dowsing works.

In many areas there is underground water everywhere, but in many other areas this is not the case. If a driller has drilled a dry hole, the best next obvious place to drill is "someplace else". The driller already guessed wrong, which tilts the odds in favor of someone more knowledgeable about the aquifer geology of the area-- whether that knowledge be acquired through formal science-based education, informal experience and insight leading to similar skill with or without dowsing, or even a combination of all that.

No funny fizzicks, no majick.


Never heard of a water dowser using an LRL. Water dowsers usually don't get paid unless the well actually produces water. Where actual results are essential, an LRL just makes the whole thing look ridiculous. After all, LRL's are obvious frauds.

--Dave J.

[EDIT] Now notice the contrast to LRL'ers. If they never find a damn thing, they're still happy as clams pretending to find stuff. Their stories are in this very forum. And, when they do find stuff, the story is almost always:

"I got my metal detector out, swung the area until I got a beep, and dug a rusty nail. Treasure!" Detectorists without LRL's usually do better because they're not wasting their time with an LRL, they're using their brains.

The story is NEVER like that of a water dowser: "Owner of the site spent $20,000 drilling where I pointed, and we got water out of the thing, I earned my $1K fee fair and square, the money was well spent!" Would you or anyone else spend tens of thousands of dollars on excavation for no reason other than that an LRL'er insisted that there was something really, really valuable buried there? No, you would not! Because we all know the same thing about LRL's-- they're toys for pretending to find treasure, they do not work for actually finding real treasure.

[Geo]

Yes, wrong person, but not the wrong answer.

Anyway, what are you going to say when Dave J asks you, ""When did you stop beating your wife?".

I think that we speak serious

[Geo]

I don't doubt that there are successful water dowsers. They don't do blinded dowsing and they learn from experience. The dowsing rods themselves do not detect water, they are ideomotor response devices. Just a convenience. No funny fizzicks, no majick, although the dowser him/her self may not understand the ideomotor nature of how dowsing works.

In many areas there is underground water everywhere, but in many other areas this is not the case. If a driller has drilled a dry hole, the best next obvious place to drill is "someplace else". The driller already guessed wrong, which tilts the odds in favor of someone more knowledgeable about the aquifer geology of the area-- whether that knowledge be acquired through formal science-based education, informal experience and insight leading to similar skill with or without dowsing, or even a combination of all that.

No funny fizzicks, no majick.


Never heard of a water dowser using an LRL. Water dowsers usually don't get paid unless the well actually produces water. Where actual results are essential, an LRL just makes the whole thing look ridiculous. After all, LRL's are obvious frauds.

--Dave J.

[EDIT] Now notice the contrast to LRL'ers. If they never find a damn thing, they're still happy as clams pretending to find stuff. Their stories are in this very forum. And, when they do find stuff, the story is almost always:

"I got my metal detector out, swung the area until I got a beep, and dug a rusty nail. Treasure!" Detectorists without LRL's usually do better because they're not wasting their time with an LRL, they're using their brains.

The story is NEVER like that of a water dowser: "Owner of the site spent $20,000 drilling where I pointed, and we got water out of the thing, I earned my $1K fee fair and square, the money was well spent!" Would you or anyone else spend tens of thousands of dollars on excavation for no reason other than that an LRL'er insisted that there was something really, really valuable buried there? No, you would not! Because we all know the same thing about LRL's-- they're toys for pretending to find treasure, they do not work for actually finding real treasure.

I have examples where me and other men found objects with LRLs and with dowsing method.
You have not same experience, but maybe you have bad experience from persons who was not able to find something.
So i believe that it is not possible to reconcile.
I am a treasure hunter and i don't sell lrls or dowsing systems, so i have no interest to write any lie.

[WM6]

I have examples where me and other men found objects with LRLs and with dowsing method.
You have not same experience, but maybe you have bad experience from persons who was not able to find something.
So i believe that it is not possible to reconcile.
I am a treasure hunter and i don't sell lrls or dowsing systems, so i have no interest to write any lie.

Geo, I believe you, that you do not wrote lie.
At least not intentionally, all you wrote is your point of view on some "phenomena".
Your problem is, that you are blind believer and you are not able to distinct between self-delusions and real physical phenomenon.
But all this already discussed and proved many times.

Par example in this thread:

http://www.longrangelocators.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17848

Main problem of self delusions is, that those not-existing "phenomenon" on which blind believers exaggerate in fact blocked real progress and real development in field of long (or middle) range detecting, cause blind believers are not able to validate his work on scientific way. They enjoy world of self-delusion and hot beliefs so much, that constantly adopt reality according his needs, as all blind believers do.

Apart from this, you are brave man and I can only support your experiments in field of long range detecting.