Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Player
Hi Hippop,
I think Qiaozhi is right, in that a double-blind test is the most scientific method to test if you want accurate results. I must add, that using dowsing to verify a find seems like a way of avoiding verifying the find. The only real way to verify the find is to dig a hole and recover the target. Isn't this the way metal detectors are tested? You dig the target and see how deep it was buried to indicate the range, and also you identify the target to see if the detector showed the correct indication of what kind of target you found. But most important, recovering a target will give tangible proof that the device is useful for finding targets.
For example, if you use a treasure locator to find targets for an hour, and you find 5 places where the locator says there is a target, then you will dig 5 holes to see what you found. You should keep tract of how many holes you dug and how deep, then how many targets you found and how deep, and if the locator identified the target correctly. Also take note of how many empty holes you dug. This will be good information to tabulate to figure percentages of accuracy, even if it is not a double blind test.
Think about it.... wouldn't it be easier to believe that the locator found treasure if you dig it up and hold it in your hand, than if you verify it is there by a dowsing expert who says he got a signal?
Best wishes,
J_P
|
Hi friends and J-P.
You're right from some aspects but from other aspects I oppose as I've experienced this these recent months.
We here found some 100% real treasure locations with our unique PI (MDL 8500) I think you've read about one of our locations I wrote about here:
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14321.
the biggest one was being detected from 80-90 or maybe 100 meters and after hard work we found its' center. you see with a conventional detector we had problem to find the center, how expect of a LRL?
of course we went down up to 8 meters but some strange things(which makes some guys here laugh) happened and we had to stop (jinn that we have discussed little about it here:
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12663)
on this point our other PI which is powerful but considerably weaker than MDL also gave strong signal which was unprecedented and overloaded in signal.
After that we found 2 other places with MDL, these locations were being detected from about 40-50 meters but other PI never gave signal over these latest; entirely silent. some gurus in weird sciences approved there are also armed with jinns like first location so we didn't dig those at all until find a potential guy to settle problem.
(oh, I know again some guys here laugh again but me personally for first time of my life experienced a jinn beat and still after 1 month I've sever ache in my ankle.)
Ok results; as you know I also made one PD (thank you for Morgan favors). I took it for all of these 3 locations to test its' workability. every time I set it very far from locations; maybe 500, 600 or 700 meters from locations and started to walk toward. for all of them PD reacted and became crazy over locations.
of course first signals appeared from more than 20 meters.
I checked this in different times and conditions, results were the same.
The points I noticed were ;
1- impossible to pinpoint carefully with such device over such locations.
if do, will surely have an empty hole.
2- assumedly we find such locations first with PD ( that is very appropriate for quick search or monitoring an area)or any other kind of LRL, if have not such unique PI, is impossible to find it. this approved me 100% it works but doesn't suffices.
especially over 2nd and 3rd location where other PI was silent.