Anticipated Solar activity

[Qiaozhi]

What Excuse? Solar activity cycles are a Scientific fact. Randi stated there was no Solar activity at that time. Scientist reported there was. One of them was lieing.

I agree that solar activity cycles are a scientific (with a lower-case "s") fact. However, their claimed interference with anyone's so-called dowsing abilities is complete hogwash, since (of course) dowsing has been scientifically proven to also be complete hogwash.

My scientific background, and ability or otherwise to carry out double-blind testing, has absolutely nothing to do with your fantasy belief system or the topic of this thread. But you can rest assured that the amount of double-blind testing that's been performed here far exceeds anything double-blind testing done at your end. Especially since you still need to understand that the DB protocol does not require you to where a blindfold, and involves more than one very biased person doing their own tests to "confirm" something they've already decided is a "fact". Which is why you will always fail Randi's test, and will never achieve a result better than guessing.

[Fred]

What Excuse? Solar activity cycles are a Scientific fact.

Dell, why are you giving so much importance to a scientific fact, (and to the fact that it is scientific), if it affects something totally "un-scientific" and that nobody ever could scientifically demonstrate?

[Mike(Mont)]

Dell, you gotta know that guy is trying to push the phony skeptic propaganda. He knows but he's hiding from the truth. There's a lot of suckers out there who eat that crap.

[Dell Winders]

What Excuse? Solar activity cycles are a Scientific fact. Randi stated there was no Solar activity at that time. Scientist reported there was. One of them was lieing.

What agenda? What problems? I don't know of any. Are you hearing voices in your head telling you this?

Again,you are NOT asked to prove a negative. Just answers about any kind of DB tests you have ever conducted, and what is your Scientific back ground? Is this what you regard as a negative that can't be proved?

Why are you evading the questions? Dell

Qiaozhi, you are still evading two simple questions. Also, you conveniently forgot to add that Randi, did not make the posts you referenced until after I made public the video footage proving that Randi, was lieing about the test. Rather than apologize for his attempted Con, he tried to cover up his lies by adding more lies and publicly calling me the liar to distract attention from himself. A common Skeptic ploy, and a probable, although immoral strategy, given that Randi, had money, attorneys, national recognition and a support group and I am a hillbilly nobody with none of those assets

Of course, Any one with enough interest to know the truth can research the time line. Apparently Qiaozhi, has no interest in truth, or facts, that do not support his illusions of scientific pretense, or mis-guided loyalty to a habitual Liar and the Skeptic agenda.

I don't hear anything from Randi, anymore since he got busted. Yep, you guessed it, he was caught lieing and trying to deceive the US Government.

Carl Morland, and the once loyal hard core Skeptic supporters of Randi, appear to have deserted and quickly backed tracked away from the Randi Con game and save their own skins. The Domino effect is in motion and Carl's, fall from grace is imminent if he continues to follow, and try to cover up his part in the Skeptic agenda Con game.

Justice is sweet. Dell

[Dell Winders]

I agree that solar activity cycles are a scientific (with a lower-case "s") fact. However, their claimed interference with anyone's so-called dowsing abilities is complete hogwash, since (of course) dowsing has been scientifically proven to also be complete hogwash.

My scientific background, and ability or otherwise to carry out double-blind testing, has absolutely nothing to do with your fantasy belief system or the topic of this thread. But you can rest assured that the amount of double-blind testing that's been performed here far exceeds anything double-blind testing done at your end. Especially since you still need to understand that the DB protocol does not require you to where a blindfold, and involves more than one very biased person doing their own tests to "confirm" something they've already decided is a "fact". Which is why you will always fail Randi's test, and will never achieve a result better than guessing.

Qiaozhi, Your background has everything to do with your knowledge and ability to truthfully and factually question, criticize, or comment on what others are doing that you don't know anything about. Because you maliciously claim others are not using Scientific protocol, you need establish your own credibility by actually having scientific credentials to support your knowledge of what you say to us, otherwise you may be pretending you are scientist which would support your need to lie about others to Carl's forum viewers.

The logic you insist on mis-applying to me, and this subject, is born out of your ignorance and a total lack of Scientific scrutiny. Your delusions are a reality only in your own mind.

There are many applications in which an L- shaped Rod can be used which are NOT Dowsing. Do you agree?

Regarding the Randi test, I was asked by the producer to demonstrate the MFD, which I did, and the difference between it and Dowsing was acknowledged. Randi, was the one that changed the demonstration in to a test. Not me. Although I never asked for the results of Randi's tests, they were voluntarily given to me by the producer with Randi, standing right beside us. Randi, acknowledged the results and stated " more tests would have to be done before any conclusion could be made". The producer is a witness to that fact.

Dowsing is an entirely different subject, and a different application and different interpretation. One is physics, the other is meta-physics. There is a physical distinction in the two applications.

I've acknowledge all along that Randi's million dollar challenge cannot be won with any of the LRL products I have used, or make. In fact, no one has ever won his challenge, because no one has ever passed his preliminary tests to taker his challenge in the past 23 years. The only way I can see any one could win his challenge would be through dumb luck chance guessing, Yet, in spite of my acknowledgement, Randi, and his supporters have pursued me for years trying to beg, badger, threaten, calling names and challenge me to take Randi's test again. Why, for what reason? I am an uneducated nobody from the hills of Kentucky, so why would a wealthy, well known TV personality with with an entire organization of supporters, single me out attack, saying they are going to "ruin" and discredit me for being honest? What harm have I done to them that brings out the vengeful wrath and public ridicule, and slanderous lies from Randi's hard core Skeptics? Dell

[Dell Winders]

I agree that solar activity cycles are a scientific (with a lower-case "s") fact. However, their claimed interference with anyone's so-called dowsing abilities is complete hogwash, since (of course) dowsing has been scientifically proven to also be complete hogwash.

My scientific background, and ability or otherwise to carry out double-blind testing, has absolutely nothing to do with your fantasy belief system or the topic of this thread. But you can rest assured that the amount of double-blind testing that's been performed here far exceeds anything double-blind testing done at your end. Especially since you still need to understand that the DB protocol does not require you to where a blindfold, and involves more than one very biased person doing their own tests to "confirm" something they've already decided is a "fact". Which is why you will always fail Randi's test, and will never achieve a result better than guessing.

I honestly acknowledged the fact that I could never pass Randi, or Carl's tests, years ago. Why do you bring it up?

Maybe you should be the one writing Randi's tests. At least you acknowledge that Solar activity is present and has effects on earth. Randi, denied the existence

If your background and ability to conduct double blind testing using Scientific Protocol is irrelevant to this thread, then so is mine. Why bring it up?

That's funny! I don't know if Blindfolds were ever used in Scientific DB tests, but I imagine it could be possible. If the objective is to conceal a test prop from the view of the participant, or observers a blindfold, or blind might serve that purpose.

In the field, or on a map your guessing vs. my dowsing wouldn't stand a chance. In fact, I'll post a follow up and give you a test example. Dell

[Qiaozhi]

Also, you conveniently forgot to add that Randi, did not make the posts you referenced until after I made public the video footage proving that Randi, was lieing about the test.

From this statement it sounds like you are claiming you actually passed Randi's test?

There are many applications in which an L- shaped Rod can be used which are NOT Dowsing. Do you agree?

???
If I bend the L-shaped rod back into a coat hanger, then I can hang my coat up. Or I could use it to poke something out of a hole. Is that what you mean?

Randi, acknowledged the results and stated " more tests would have to be done before any conclusion could be made". The producer is a witness to that fact.

And your point is?

Dowsing is an entirely different subject, and a different application and different interpretation. One is physics, the other is meta-physics. There is a physical distinction in the two applications.

They are exactly the same. Both involve the use of L-shaped rods, and they both involve the ideomotor effect, which is essentially a trick of the mind.

I've acknowledge all along that Randi's million dollar challenge cannot be won with any of the LRL products I have used, or make.

At least that part of your rant is true.

Randi, and his supporters have pursued me for years trying to beg, badger, threaten, calling names and challenge me to take Randi's test again.

That's because they want to see you fail miserably, and then see you claim that you actually passed the test, or (if that's not possible) that Randi performed some dirty tricks to make you fail ... or one of a hundred other excuses, the latest being increased solar activity.

I am an uneducated nobody from the hills of Kentucky.

Yes, we already know that. You've told us many times before. Do you think that's important, or is it just a "get out" in case everything goes horribly wrong. "Sorry your honor, I'm a poor uneducated hillbilly that didn't know any better."

I honestly acknowledged the fact that I could never pass Randi, or Carl's tests, years ago.

Aha! There's the answer to my first question. But we knew that all along.

Maybe you should be the one writing Randi's tests. At least you acknowledge that Solar activity is present and has effects on earth. Randi, denied the existence

But it has no effect whatsoever on dowsing, unless you believe that it does.

That's funny! I don't know if Blindfolds were ever used in Scientific DB tests, but I imagine it could be possible. If the objective is to conceal a test prop from the view of the participant, or observers a blindfold, or blind might serve that purpose.

Thus proving that you have absolutely no idea what is involved in a double-blind test, and utterly refuse to find out. So your claims of having performed numerous double-blind tests in the past is total nonsense.

In the field, or on a map your guessing vs. my dowsing wouldn't stand a chance.

Yeh, right!

Actually that last quote is quite funny if it's read using your punctuation.
Especially the last bit, where its says "my dowsing wouldn't stand a chance".

"What doesn't work, cannot be made to work!".

[Dell Winders]

Qiaozhi, Sitting at my desk in Florida, dowsing from a Google Earth photo of a 110 acre farm, that I had never seen, or ever been to, hundreds of miles from me,

I dowsed the location a stone marker, and it's description which I E-mailed to the property owner whom I had never met. Although the property had been in the family for 70 years, they had never seen it and didn't know it existed. They found the stone marker covered with leaves at the Dowsed location I had made from Florida, and had witnesses and documented the event.

Can you guess what is the nearest town to the dowsed location? O.K. I'll give you a hint. It's in the State of Kentucky. Now, you know more about it than when I dowsed for an unknown. Dell

[Qiaozhi]

Qiaozhi, Sitting at my desk in Florida, dowsing from a Google Earth photo of a 110 acre farm, that I had never seen, or ever been to, hundreds of miles from me,

This is classic anecdotal evidence. Because of the extremely small sample size (in this case, one) it cannot be treated as reliable evidence. Like a magical illusion, it's not what you see that counts, but what you don't see. This could be a single instance of hundreds of map dowsing tests, where the "dowsed" object matched something at the location for this particular test, but all the others were failures. There would need to be many such tests, which must then be statistically analyzed to determine whether the results exceed those obtained by chance.

I already know what the answer would be. Do you?

[TH'r]

Qiaozhi, Sitting at my desk in Florida, dowsing from a Google Earth photo of a 110 acre farm, that I had never seen, or ever been to, hundreds of miles from me,

I dowsed the location a stone marker, and it's description which I E-mailed to the property owner whom I had never met. Although the property had been in the family for 70 years, they had never seen it and didn't know it existed. They found the stone marker covered with leaves at the Dowsed location I had made from Florida, and had witnesses and documented the event.

Can you guess what is the nearest town to the dowsed location? O.K. I'll give you a hint. It's in the State of Kentucky. Now, you know more about it than when I dowsed for an unknown. Dell

This is obiviously an old property marker. I can look at the google photo of my own farm and see the old fence rows and where an old stagecoach road was. Anyone can see these features and surmize where the corners of my property and lines might be. The land owner could have done this himself if he was skilled in the art of map and satellite photo reading, which I am sure that you are. This is no big deal!

[Fred]

This is obiviously an old property marker. I can look at the google photo of my own farm and see the old fence rows and where an old stagecoach road was. Anyone can see these features and surmize where the corners of my property and lines might be. The land owner could have done this himself if he was skilled in the art of map and satellite photo reading, which I am sure that you are. This is no big deal!

And even if not done on purpose, this could have been done unconsciously.
Just like dowsers may find underground water by seeing imperceptible depressions on the ground or greener vegetation, but not being aware of that...

[Mike(Mont)]

Thanks Dell for sharing your info on the EM Meter. I was monitoring the solar activity last evening (Kp index in the yellow) and did find when it went up about double that the signal line moved off the target several degrees. The meter was moving around quite a bit. I never realized how much fluctuation can occur although it shouldn't take much imagination when looking at the Northern Lights how they dance across the sky. I've learned a lot already. I know you've talked about this for years, but seeing it sure makes things a lot clearer.

[Qiaozhi]

Thanks Dell for sharing your info on the EM Meter. I was monitoring the solar activity last evening (Kp index in the yellow) and did find when it went up about double that the signal line moved off the target several degrees. The meter was moving around quite a bit. I never realized how much fluctuation can occur although it shouldn't take much imagination when looking at the Northern Lights how they dance across the sky. I've learned a lot already. I know you've talked about this for years, but seeing it sure makes things a lot clearer.

Interestingly, if Dell had stated that increased solar activity actually enhanced the signal line, you would have found the opposite. It's marvellous how one person's suggestion can influence self-deception in another.

[Mike(Mont)]

Well Q, I guess Miss Cleo better start looking for a new career since you have taken over her mind reading job. On second thought she has absolutely nothing to worry about because you failed again. But keep trying. Even a broken clock tells the accurate time now and then. I guess you can't comprehend what I mean when I say I seek the truth. What do you think that means? You think I want to deceive myself? You must be just pulling this crap to get a response. That's why you skeptics can never learn to use L-rods because you know so well you are the deceiver and you try to project it on LRL users. That's why you can't comprehend that some people know how to use the rods. Like I said it is the negativity that blinds you skeptics from the truth. You know they say pride is the worst sin. There is a thin line between righteousness and self-righteousness.

[Qiaozhi]

Well Q, I guess Miss Cleo better start looking for a new career since you have taken over her mind reading job. On second thought she has absolutely nothing to worry about because you failed again. But keep trying. Even a broken clock tells the accurate time now and then. I guess you can't comprehend what I mean when I say I seek the truth. What do you think that means? You think I want to deceive myself? You must be just pulling this crap to get a response. That's why you skeptics can never learn to use L-rods because you know so well you are the deceiver and you try to project it on LRL users. That's why you can't comprehend that some people know how to use the rods. Like I said it is the negativity that blinds you skeptics from the truth. You know they say pride is the worst sin. There is a thin line between righteousness and self-righteousness.

http://magnificentbull****.com/category/dowsing/
Read it carefully ... don't just skim through superficially ... actually read it.
Then read it again.

P.S. Our efficient censor software removed one word from the link.
Hint: It begins with an "s" and ends in "t", with a short greeting in between.

"If it's real, prove it."