The so-called PHENOMENON

[Max]

Teaching dummies the difference in terminology and definition between a rifle, and a gun.

"This is my rifle, this is my gun.
My rifle is for fighting,
My gun is for fun."

Like teaching dummies the difference between Frequency Discrimination (physics) and Dowsing (meta-Physics) both applications can be metered with hand held Rod(s) Dell

Is that you John Wayne ?

Sure Gomer... ops Dell... I see ... the instructor told you everything but you eventually failed at the practice !

Kind regards,
Max

[Clondike Clad]

Snake oil MEN with a gun.

Teaching dummies the difference in terminology and definition between a rifle, and a gun.

"This is my rifle, this is my gun.
My rifle is for fighting,
My gun is for fun."

Like teaching dummies the difference between Frequency Discrimination (physics) and Dowsing (meta-Physics) both applications can be metered with hand held Rod(s) Dell

Dell you need to stop it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Name calling and junk that don't work.
PROVE THAT YOUR STUFF WORKS AND STOP IT WITH THE NAME CALLING.
WE ALL WANT TO LEARN THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY.

[Theseus]

Dell you need to stop it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Name calling and junk that don't work.
PROVE THAT YOUR STUFF WORKS AND STOP IT WITH THE NAME CALLING.
WE ALL WANT TO LEARN THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY.

I'm afraid we got everything from Dell that he is capable of communicating. He has no proof his scam junk works, so of course the only thing he can do is name-call, side-step the questions and issues, change the subject and run, run, run and hide. That's been his MO for a good many years, and as far as he's concerned it works pretty well for him.

In all actuality it is the only approach he can take now. He's stuck with it, because if he ever changed his tune and told the truth, he'd leave himself wide open for a Class Action Suit that could cost him many thousands of dollars. Probably not something he and Trudy are willing to risk at this moment.

Proof it works; he does not have. If he did, he would have offered it up 25 years ago. Also, he would be enjoying the good life with Randi's 1M$, instead of calling Randi a liar and a cheat, at every opportunity he gets.

So......... I'm afraid we got everything from Dell that he is going to provide. It's not a pretty picture; in fact it is extremely sad to think that one individual could waste an entire lifetime trying to take advantage of a few folks with some extra cash, a dream of finding treasure and a basic ignorance of grade-school science and physics.

Very Sad.....

[Max]

Dell you need to stop it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Name calling and junk that don't work.
PROVE THAT YOUR STUFF WORKS AND STOP IT WITH THE NAME CALLING.
WE ALL WANT TO LEARN THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY.

Hi,
well... yes... but...

Asking Dell to prove his stuff work is about like demonstrate that an elephant defecate diamonds or regular schedule.. seems really unlikely he will give proofs of that!

Or do you belive in the power of hi-pressure and buttocks combined ?

Kind regards,
Max

[ivconic]

Spitting arena - that's what it is!
Hey Carl! Do the "magic move"!

Dell take it easy. All others too. It supposed to go on jocular level. Even if such huge variance is present here, does not mean oposite sides supposed to act as enemies. Name calling is last thing we need here as well as bad emotions upon each others.
Imagine that once you gonna meet somewhere a member of oposide side. What is better; to shake hands and join for a beer or two (dozen of course) or to cross fists and "dish" each other instead?
If i choose - dozen boxes of beer is only solution! (on Dell's "lrl" account of course! )

[Max]

Spitting arena - that's what it is!
Hey Carl! Do the "magic move"!

Dell take it easy. All others too. It supposed to go on jocular level. Even if such huge variance is present here, does not mean oposite sides supposed to act as enemies. Name calling is last thing we need here as well as bad emotions upon each others.
Imagine that once you gonna meet somewhere a member of oposide side. What is better; to shake hands and join for a beer or two (dozen of course) or to cross fists and "dish" each other instead?
If i choose - dozen boxes of beer is only solution! (on Dell's "lrl" account of course! )

Yes... spitting arena... but spits are full of tobacco, like in good old movies...

BTW... people ask Dell but he's evasive about his "technology"... then the spitting game start, no way!

Beers... always good dozen of beers... if on Dell's account even better!

Bad guys all here in Remote Sensing... it's kind of Texas hold'em between spektics and LRL-belivers-pretenders... sure... and each raise... is by a new spit!

I think that Dell doesn't fold cause of his victimism-role-play here...

Or do you read Dell's poker-face different ?

Kind regards,
Max

[ivconic]

Long time ago i understood that am not able to understand those lrl theories and claims. Ok..i can read and try to understand. I can build some device and perform serie of tests and experiments. And i done...many times. Sorry, but as i stated earlier; none of those ever worked in my hands or in front of my eyes. So...i was unsuccessfull 100% on that field. Pitty. That's why i consider myself rather "sceptic" than "beleiver".
By this i dont mean to deny somebody's else experiences. Who knows? Maybe i live in region where those devices not working at all? Maybe something is much different in soil? Who knows?
But i will always be ready to listen and read others experiences. Ok... Dell really offered so few real infos on this subject so far. As others too. I still think that success in lrl'ing is more related to human than to apparatus.
That's why those apparatuses looks bogus. Works nothing. Usually few components wired in a trivial manner and mostly no electronics inside but empty boxes. As well as rods and simillar stuff.
Ain't no other explanation for rods to functioning than by ideomotoric (was that the term??) response.
By this i dont mean nothing bad. I understand ideomotoric response like connection with lost human senses, deeply burried in our minds and stunded due long period of evolution and progress in which human substituted constantly own natural powers with mechanical apparatuses. Also modern way of living do repress our senses more and more. The way todays youth listen the music leads to situation that in future human will loose more than 50% of todays audition abillities. So than most of population will be "deaf" for our present standards.
So...i presume it is the same situation with lrl phenomenna. I presume that back ....for example 3000 years in the past man could perceived shallow underground water deposits by own senses, same as today he can see or hear something. But today man can not. Why? That sense is stunded due many reasons.
I have seen some tv documentary about african apes. They can "feel" shallow underground water, there in desert. And using that sense they do survive rough conditions there.
Man does not need simillar sense for long time ago.
See my point?
So..those senses are stunded but those are still present here in man's genes, locked and forgoten.
So maybe is possible to "awake" some of those senses from time to time and use it. Usually that can not be done by demand or by plain wish. Usually man need certain conditions...and most possibly some apparatus.
Also same man need to have certain practice and discipline.
So..it is possible that ocassionall lrl revelations can be explained using this approach - sudden "awakeness" of some stunded sense.
But this usually leads to pseudo science and charlatanism.
Official science didnt explored this much (at least in public), therefore we dont have nothing to rely on....only assumptions.

[J_Player]

Ain't no other explanation for rods to functioning than by ideomotoric (was that the term??) response.

There have been a number of other explanations for the movement of dowsing rods which you can read in the remote sensing forums. None of the explanations posted seem suitable for testing unless you are using a double blind test to see if the dowser is able to consistently find a hidden item. But this does not test the theory or explanation. It only tests the suitability of using dowsing to locate an item. The most prominent theory of how dowsing works is "ideamotor response", which by scientific standards would reduce dowsing to the same success rate as guessing. ie: an idea (whether conscious or subliminal) from the brain of the dowser results in a twitch of the muscles which causes the rods to move. This idea is thought to be of the same quality as an idea which causes the hands to move when using a ouija board.

My opinion is that "ideamotor response" is not responsible for any dowsing that results in a higher than chance rate of locating a target.
If we separate dowsing into 3 categories to describe the results, we might find this:

1. Dowsing done by a person who gets responses that result in finding the correct location of the target significantly more times than chance guessing.
2. Dowsing done by a person who gets responses that do not result in finding the correct location of the target
3. Dowsing done by a person who gets no response at all from the rods.

I would suspect "ideamotor response" is responsible for unsuccessful dowsing that is done by most people in category 2, who find the wrong location of the target. Category 3 dowsers who get no dowsing response cannot be ascribed to ideamotor or anything else, because there was no response. But what about people who have better than chance guessing success? Sometimes their data can be shown to be false by looking closely at the data gathered. How many unsuccessful attempts were counted along with the successful when calculating the success rate, etc. After removing any skewed results, if you still have evidence of results better than chance guessing, you are focused on dowsing that is considered successful, and may be worth investigating.

Some explanations of how dowsing works have not been advanced in the remote sensing forum, and are indeed linked to the senses and physiology of the human body. Tests have been performed which seem to indicate there are sensory parts of the body that work independently or in conjunction with other senses to determine something has changed in the location where the dowser has walked over. These tests seem to support the notion that people have become less aware of their senses in modern times. They also seem to point to the direction that the ability to dowse may be dependent on inherited genetic abilities that some people have.

We see in modern times people have become less aware of their senses. But still today, there are Australian aboriginies who can find water in the desert where people from the cities cannot. We have people who live in Central and South America living off the land, who can find many things in the jungles that people from the city cannot find. These people are sometimes hired as guides to show the way for people who do not have the same abilities to hear their senses. Is it a genetic gift or something that comes with practice?

The same question applies to the ability to successfully dowse. Until people bother to research the dated materials where these tests and others were performed, I doubt there will be much new information other than "ideamotor response" and a few unsupported incredible explanations in this forum for how dowsing works.

But one thing that has been proven....
There is no person on earth willing to demonstrate dowsing working consistently in a credible live test for all who want to see.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Dell Winders]

With regard to Map, Photo, & Information (mental) Dowsing, I see your opinion is not based on any experience, or research. and therefore imaginary, and useless.


From TNET.

Yes, "Physical Dowsing", and "Mental Dowsing", are indeed terms I made up when I was conducting tests on some 5,000 friends, and volunteers, over the course of 30 years. I used the information to determine if MFD & LRL users Rod(s) and devices were reacting naturally to applied physics, or if the subjects, including myself, were forcing the Rod(s) to react with involuntary body muscle movements.

I used these terms merly to categorize the difference between those whose Rod(s) were reacting to an internal stimulus, ie; mind, muscle, ideomotor response without physics limitations, and those whose Rod(s) reacted to an external stimulus, ie; magnetic fields, with all the associated limitations of a physics application to an external stimulus.

Of the several thousand that I worked with and tested over that period of time, approximately 17% of Rod users tested were reacting to external stimulus, and experienced the associated limitations of the Rods reacting sometimes, and sometimes not, depending on the external operating conditions.

Myself, and others on this forum often use mechanical aids (physics applications) with our Rod(s), along with it's accepted limitations. For me, it's easier and faster to learn to use a mechanical discrimination tool than it is to learn to discriminate targets in the field using a mental Dowsing application.

But to each his own choice, and description. Dell

[J_Player]

More wind from Winders...

I see your opinion is not based on any experience, or research.

You are wrong Dell, It is based on experience and research.
But then I was not addressing map, photo & information (mental) dowsing, was I?

There have been a number of other explanations for the movement of dowsing rods...

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

If we separate dowsing into 3 categories to describe the results, we might find this:

1. Dowsing done by a person who gets responses that result in finding the correct location of the target significantly more times than chance guessing.
2. Dowsing done by a person who gets responses that do not result in finding the correct location of the target
3. Dowsing done by a person who gets no response at all from the rods.

I would suspect "ideamotor response" is responsible for unsuccessful dowsing that is done by most people in category 2, who find the wrong location of the target. Category 3 dowsers who get no dowsing response cannot be ascribed to ideamotor or anything else, because there was no response.

My experiments and experiences show that #3 can also be as a result of an ideomotor response. The response occurs, as in #2, but it results in a "blocked" motion rather than a visible motion. In either case, the mind is responsible for the result.

But one thing that has been proven....
There is no person on earth willing to demonstrate dowsing working consistently in a credible live test for all who want to see.

Best wishes,
J_P

No argument there.

[J_Player]

My experiments and experiences show that #3 can also be as a result of an ideomotor response. The response occurs, as in #2, but it results in a "blocked" motion rather than a visible motion. In either case, the mind is responsible for the result

Hi Theseus,
You may be right about that. If so, it would mean that ideamoter response results in not finding the target other than by occasional chance occurrences where the percent of correct locations is the same as the percent correct locations found by a person simply guessing places to dig.

The important question is about category 1 -- dowsing done by a person who gets responses that result in finding the correct location of the target significantly more times than chance guessing. If this is happening, then it cannot be caused by simple "ideamotor response", but something else that gives the dowser an advantage over simple chance guessing.

The problems in the past may be partly in the definition of "ideamotor response", which some people assign different meanings than others. I have seen descriptions that included the entire nervous system, as well as spiritual things. For the purpose of this discussion, I am referring only to the physical brain that is located in the upper portion of the cranium and the ideas that it generate, not the rest of the the attached nerves or out-of-body spirits or auras etc. The attached nerves and body parts are only concerned in the "motor response" part of "ideamotor response" in this discussion. Thus, if there is some influence on the rods derived from spirits, auras, or other parts of the body, I would consider this to be something other than pure "ideamotor response". But these other explanations of dowsing are some of the things that I have read posted in this forum and other sources to tell why dowsing rods move. These are the things we could investigate when we see a dowser who is mostly successful in finding targets with dowsing rods.

But then, before we can investigate whether any of these things are causing the dowser to find targets, we must first find a dowser who can find the correct location of the target significantly better than chance guessing.
If such a dowser does not exist, then maybe the explanations of how he does it do not exist either.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Dell Winders]

True Dowsing is a Mental application, such as Map, Photo, and Information. Meta-Physics, psychic output from the sub-conscious, via a trained (programmed) mind/muscle ideomoter response. It's triggered by an internal stimulus.

When the Rod(s) are used in a field search application, too often physics come into play. External stimulus such as Magnetics, and possibly other factors (physics) appear to have an effect on hand held Dowsing Rod(s), as well as wind, weather, rough terrain, etc, when physically searching for the emanating "field" of chemical elements.

MFD, HID, LRL, and most directional locators are used in a physics application, Not a mental Dowsing application, as some here seem to insist. In fact, most of these configurations would be difficult, and impractical tools to use for mental Dowsing.

I use a needle & thread and it's a great tool for Dowsing, but not so good for a physics application, unless of course, you use it to sew, or remove a splinter.

Certainly, there are those who don't know the distinction, who will unwittingly try to intertwine dowsing with physics. This can be confusing and cause inaccuracies for the inexperienced. The correct interpretation of the reaction of the Rod(s) is different in a mental dowsing application, than it is in a physics application.

The term "Dowsing", when associated with a physics application of the hand held rod(s) is an inaccurate misnomer. It is often mis-labeled Dowsing, when the definition is taken out of context. One terminology does not fit both.

O.K. you seem to correctly be making a distinction by not including Map, Photo, & and Information Dowsing in your categorization, so to avoid confusion among viewers I suggest leaving the term "Dowsing," and mind/muscle "ideomotor" response totally out of a discussion of physics, and their effects on Hand held L-Rod(s), lest Skeptics continue to demonstrate their ignorance of these subjects. Swallow your ego's,(don't choke) and decide to become serious about learning, and stop bashing & mocking those who do have at least some working knowledge and show them respect.

That's certainly a joke, that I will see egotists, and pretend scientist posting on Carl Morland's forum who are open minded to learning from a 6th grader? To me, It's a sad commentary for the skeptic mentality, but even if I live to be 100. I won't live long enough to see that happen. Dell

So, Continue what you know best. CUE: Mocking and bashing, please!

[J_Player]

to avoid confusion among viewers I suggest leaving the term "Dowsing," and mind/muscle "ideomotor" response totally out of a discussion of physics, and their effects on Hand held L-Rod(s), lest Skeptics continue to demonstrate their ignorance of these subjects. Swallow your ego's,(don't choke) and decide to become serious about learning, and stop bashing & mocking those who do have at least some working knowledge and show them respect.

That's certainly a joke, that I will see egotists, and pretend scientist posting on Carl Morland's forum who are open minded to learning from a 6th grade

Hmmmm... Who are you to lay claim to knowledge about dowsing?

Aren't you another self-proclaimed dowser who refuses to demonstrate dowsing that works to recover targets in front of live witnesses?
I read your previous posts where you assure us you have performed hundreds of double blind tests of dowsing. Yet you refuse to give any information about the details of those tests. Then you call people names instead of presenting the test results from the DB test proctor. Why should we have respect for that?

We read posts from a person who cannot demonstrate dowsing working to recover targets, and cannot substantiate hundreds of alleged double blind dowsing tests performed. Your only test I read about is where you failed to find the treasure. All other references to your testing showed that you refused to allow testing of your methods. Then you expect us all to believe whatever you say with nothing to back up your claims. Isn't that an egotistical expectation?
We must blindly believe all you say, or else you will brand us to be part of the "skeptic cult" and call us names?

Perhaps if you want some respect, you should earn it by backing up your claims.
Why not start by substantiating the double blind tests on dowsing you claim you performed:
Can you tell us the facts about the hundreds of double blind tests you conducted?
To start with, let's focus on a single one of the tests you conducted.

Pick out any one of your hundreds of double blind you want to use for an example:
1. Where was the test conducted?
2. Who was the proctor?
3. What was the protocal of this double blind dowsing test?
4. What was the object of the double blind test? A gold item? a silver item? something else?
5. Was the operator aware of any results before the test was fully completed?
6. What were the results?

Best wishes,
J_P

[ivconic]

"...Ain't no other explanation .." ivconic
"...There have been a number of other explanations..." J Player

Yes you are right, i made logical mistake there. I ment to say " Ain't no other acceptable (to me) explanation.."
Also i do support your division on 3 categories. Most of cases i've been seen were 2. category.The rest of your post is compatible to just what i wanted to say also, but couldn't elaborate that good due my poor managing in English language..