Printable View
They were all able to correctly 'detect' the water in the pipes when they knew its position.As soon as its position was hidden from them, they lost this ability to detect it at any rate higher than chance.What test protocol would you suggest? Keep in mind that in test after test after test, in Australia and around the world, dowsers are unable to demonstrate results better than chance.
Stupid forum wrecking my post ....
I'm very skeptical that water divining actually works. I have however used it once to successfully locate a water trough line (I had no other option other than just digging until I found it).
Maybe I just got lucky. :?
As stated in my previous post, I would not attempt new water in plastic. I agree, the chances of success would be exactly that ....chance. My one regret is not attending the "tests" back in 1980. Just to see who showed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Splinter
To me, it makes no difference how MANY tests are carried out, more the fact WHAT the tests comprise.
You see, I wouldnt expect to be able to find a running hose in long grass. In fact, I would not expect to be able to find water of any description in a recently set up arrangement. But I'm more than happy to have a "look" for natural, old water, deep underground.
What protocol would I suggest? As above; natural,old water, deep underground. Not some man made, accelerated weather test type set up that has no similarity to the conditions in the field.
I would have thought the fact that two diviners can come up with the same spot would have been good enough but no, we have to involve some iceberg towing twit to come up with a "test" that, due to his dollar value, stands as fair and equitable. Please.
When I was a kid, there was an old Aboriginal chap in the far west of NSW who was well respected in the area as a diviner. He was blind. Born blind. As I mentioned earlier, I used to tag along with one of the local diviners. On this particular occasion, the two of them were going out together to "look for water in a particular paddock and hoping to find it in a particular corner as it would be a convenient location. I bummed along for the ride.
The sighted chap found first signal and marked the spot with a large chunk of sandstone he had brought along on the back of the ute. As the blind chap came into range, his wires swung in and he then promptly tripped over the rock! I guess we could take that as a confirmed location. On my last visit to the property, some 50 years after the event, the bore continues to supply water.
There are many things unexplained by science and many things that are difficult to test.
I totally agree. There is too much evidence to dispute it. As for pipe lines, old galv ones make the wires go nuts. Walk over one, wire turns then straightens once you have past it. PVC or poly is a bit harder. You have to walk slower or you miss it The skeptics test is easy. Find a known pipe line and get the diviner to find it. After that he can find an underground water stream. The difference between the two are significant. One is very small and sharp, the other is softer and requires a gentler approach. Any member in Adelaide? I'll show them.
If the skeptics test is so easy, then why not go and collect your $1,000,000?
Anyone who claims to be able to find water by divining, is delusional. If they charge for the 'service' then it's criminal.
Very interesting topic. I've had personal experience of what some would call paranormal abilities and while I'm a skeptic by nature, there are things that I've witnessed and that I've experienced that I cannot explain, so water divining is not something I'm prepared to discount. I also come from a family with a history in the outback and have been told by trusted family members that have personally witnessed water diviners that they can do it reliably and accurately, which inclines me to believe that this is something that can be done. I'd love to see the prize claimed.
The diviners in the Dick Smith test were all able to divine the water location in the pipes reliably and repeatably when they could see the water was there, and they all confirmed they could feel/sense/divine the water in its location with their divining skill.
But these diviners were then unable to divine the correct water location once they had find it without being able to see what pipe it was in.
How about alternative tests?
How about a test in an open field, with a number of diviners? It's been done.
"The Dale et al blindfold test took place in Maine during August 1949. A sandy field was carefully chosen where visual cues to the presence of water were absent, where water was present at depths not over 5 metres, and where the ground was soft enough for test pipes to be driven down without drilling....the diviners' estimates of depth and flow were wildly high and even the best showed no relation with reality. Worse, the diviners agreed neither with each other nor with themselves when blindfolded."
Or a comparison between divined locations and undivined locations? Done.
"Between 1918 and 1945 (the last year for which records were kept) the NSW Water Resources Commission was obliged to drill on whatever site the farmer specified. Of 1832 divined sites, 70.4% yielded ample usable water and 14.7% yielded no water. Which may seem like convincing support for divining. But 1858 undivined sites performed even better -- 83.9% yielded ample usable water and only 7.4% yielded no water."
"In the 1950s the farmers in Central Australia demanded that the government employ diviners because geologists were not finding enough water. So the government did. A subsequent check of the records showed that the geologists' success rate was 1 in 3 but the diviners' success rate was only 1 in 12."
How about a simple blind test...that's been done, too
"Let any blindfolded diviner find underground water on any flat site free of obstructions. Then see if the position can be reproduced when the blindfold is removed. Take care to avoid surface cues, onlooker feedback, and markers that can be seen by peeking down the nose. Such tests have been been reported in Victoria and South Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, involving a total of 87 diviners. None performed better than chance."
From: http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/S-divi.htm
[QUOTE=Master Splinter;1861802]The diviners in the Dick Smith test were all able to divine the water location in the pipes reliably and repeatably when they could see the water was there, and they all confirmed they could feel/sense/divine the water in its location with their divining skill.
But these diviners were then unable to divine the correct water location once they had find it without being able to see what pipe it was in.
How about alternative tests?
How about a test in an open field, with a number of diviners? It's been done.
"The Dale et al blindfold test took place in Maine during August 1949. A sandy field was carefully chosen where visual cues to the presence of water were absent, where water was present at depths not over 5 metres, and where the ground was soft enough for test pipes to be driven down without drilling....the diviners' estimates of depth and flow were wildly high and even the best showed no relation with reality. Worse, the diviners agreed neither with each other nor with themselves when blindfolded."
Or a comparison between divined locations and undivined locations? Done.
"Between 1918 and 1945 (the last year for which records were kept) theNSW Water Resources Commission was obliged to drill on whatever site thefarmer specified. Of 1832 divined sites, 70.4% yielded ample usablewater and 14.7% yielded no water. Which may seem like convincing supportfor divining. But 1858 undivined sites performed even better -- 83.9%yielded ample usable water and only 7.4% yielded no water."
"In the 1950s the farmers inCentral Australia demanded that the government employ diviners becausegeologists were not finding enough water. So the government did. Asubsequent check of the records showed that the geologists' success ratewas 1 in 3 but the diviners' success rate was only 1 in 12."
How about a simple blind test...that's been done, too
"Let any blindfolded diviner find underground water on any flat site freeof obstructions. Then see if the position can be reproduced when theblindfold is removed. Take care to avoid surface cues, onlookerfeedback, and markers that can be seen by peeking down the nose. Suchtests have been been reported Victoria and South Australia, NewZealand, and the USA, involving a total of 87 diviners. None performedbetter than chance."
From: http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/S-divi.htm
[/QUOT
There we go again, another man made water source, in soft ground so a pipe could be driven down.
That is not a field situation. I would not be surprised at wide and varied results.
I repeat, it is not the NUMBER of tests, its the NATURE or NATURAL form of the test.
How do you explain the examples I have given in previous posts? How do you explain the chap tripping over the rock? How do you explain the many cases of confirmed dual findings.
The "tests" you have mentioned all appear to be man made.
Here is how I test myself; I go out and "look" for water in an area convenient to the client. If there is no signal, I move further afield. Once I get a signal, I mark the spot. Drilling can follow and there will be water.
Now you may find this difficult to believe and I except that. The fact of the matter is, when the wires cross, there is water below. In 50 years of doing this I have been wrong once and that turned out to be an old metal water pipe 2ft underground and I got a signal from that.
Personally I think the "tests" are ridiculous and only go to show the limited knowledge on the subject.
Many times have I heard it said that the diviner allows the rods to swing. Some may. But in my case I drive my thumbs into the back of the wire as hard as I can to counter wind and canting. Once a signal is found, I will return over the site with hard thumbing and a slight outward cant on my wrists. The wires will still swing in.
So on the strength of that, I guess there is not much more I can do to make you happy.
The one fact that stands; all the bores that I have been involved with produced water. So tell me, why would I stop doing what I am doing?
There we go again, another man made water source, in soft ground so a pipe could be driven down.
- It was a natural water table, not artificial.
- The pipe they were talking about were pipes sunk where the diviner indicated, so that they could measure the amount and flow rate of any water there.
- The diviners were given two attempts over the area; on their second attempt they were blindfolded so that they could not see if they were in an area they had previously indicated on.
- None of the diviners managed to 'find' the same spots they selected on their first traverse over the field. They didn't 'find' the same spots in the field the other diviners did, either.
I repeat, it is not the NUMBER of tests, its the NATURE or NATURAL form of the test.
See above. Your definition seems to be that when a diviner can pass a test, it's a proper test, and when they fail a test, it's not a proper test. Can you explain why dowsing only works anecdotally?
How do you explain the examples I have given in previous posts?
Anecdotes are not evidence. Anecdotes are not 'created' in test circumstances where other reasons for success can be ruled out.
I can give the anecdote that my magic tiger repelling rock works really well, with my proof being that I've never seen a tiger around the house since I've had it.
This does not prove that my rock actually repels tigers, as there may be many other reasons why I haven't seen tigers around the house.
When test after test shows no correlation better than chance, and when data collected comparing divined locations vs. random or hydrographically selected locations (and not part of a formal test, just the results of a drilling program) show that the divined locations were no better than random chance... the only explanation is random chance.
You as a diviner might claim a 100% success rate, but this might be based on factors such as:
- Your divining has been done in high surface aquifer regions, where the chance of finding water by random chance is already 70-80%.
- You have a keen enough eye to read the local geography and identify physical features associated with high water table areas; this might increase your success rate to 80-90%
- Your certainty "No, it's here, just keep drilling" may keep them drilling when they would have normally abandoned it and so they hit a deeper than expected aquifer.
- You might have forgotten or 'reclassified' times when you didn't succeed.
How do you explain higher success rate for sites bored without divining?
Remember, those figures were all derived from natural, in-the-field results and were not part of a 'does divining work' test, they were just record-keeping from a NSW Water Board drilling program.
I have been wrong once and that turned out to be an old metal water pipe 2ft underground and I got a signal from that.
You were complaining just a few sentences ago that dowsing didn't work for man made pipes, just "the NATURE or NATURAL" water sources, which is why no dowsers passed any of the tests.
Personally I think the "tests" are ridiculous and only go to show the limited knowledge on the subject.
Do you want to buy my tiger repelling rock? It works really well. No tigers. None. Ever. I recon it will keep tigers well away from you when you are dowsing, and we all know how dangerous tigers are!
So tell me, why would I stop doing what I am doing?
Feel free to keep doing it if you do it for entertainment, but, like astrology, homoeopathy and religion, don't take yourself too seriously and don't bet your life on it; if you charge money for your divining services, maybe think of a more reputable career like selling real estate or writing parking tickets.
Now that tiger repelling rock sounds like a very good idea. I tell you what, how about you and I take a trip to Toronga Park. My daughter has an old school mate who is one of the head keepers in the cat section. We'll toss you and your rock in and see how you go.
Unfortunately I am limited to past experiences to draw on to give examples of incidences in the field. Be they anecdotal or not, they are occurrences that have occurred and I have been witness to.
The false reading I got from a water pipe is in no way uncommon. I never said you can not get a signal from a pipe. I said it was not reliable enough for my liking. Mind you, that pipe was metal and had been in the ground for about 100years. Probably long enough to perform like a natural aquifer. I was not aware of the tests you were quoting where pipes were driven into the ground when water was found. What I did notice was your mention of soft ground. Soft enough to sink pipes down to water level. I refer you back to my previous post regarding the Little Hartley findings. This was the site were signal was everywhere. It turned out to be a floating swamp. Nothing visible from the surface, just a normal hill top paddock.
If I am asked to look for water on soft sandy ground I always explain to the client that the chances of accuracy are much diminished. In fact, I suggest that we are probably wasting time. The harder the ground the better the signal. The rougher the ground the better the signal. Some formations signal better than others.
The comment about my failure to accept any test that is not successful for the diviner is not correct. I have given my reasons for not accepting the tests you have nominated. This has no bearing on success or failure, just purely the nature of the test.
What you fail to understand is that the wire moves of its own accord. Most skeptics assume the operator moves the wire either deliberately or subconsciously. I can assure you, for me it is quite the contrary. I do my best to make it difficult for the wires to turn. But of course you would say we only have my word for that. Many are the people I have shown how to do it who thought it was all smoke and mirrors, but you should see their faces when the wires swing in and hit them in the chest. Some are not so lucky as they dont seem to have the gift. For them I have sympathy... I understand it is even more difficult for them to come to terms with the whole concept.
I dont know which category you fall into...have never tried or not successful. Sadly we cant oblige you once you have met your maker at Toronga park.
Thanks, Master Splinter. The Ward paper was the one to which I was referring in my earlier post.Quote:
Williamson WH (1980). Water Divining: Fact or Fiuction? Pamphlet issued by the NSW Water Resources Commission. The NSW results are also cited in Ward LK (1946). The Occurrence, Composition, Testing and Utilization of Underground Water in South Australia and the Search for Future Supplies Bulletin No 23, Geological Survey of South Australia, Section 14 (pages 123-149), The unreliability of divining or dowsing in the location of water supplies.
Hummmmmm . . . .. that sounds like the arguments used by some smokers or the anti-vaccination crowd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppa
All my family were (smokers, not vaccinated) and lived to a ripe old age so in my family it appears we can smoke/avoid vaccines and it won't hurt us.
This is a true story.....
In 1954 my dear old Dad bought two adjacent blocks of land on the Mornington Peninsular. The land was near the back beach at Rye Victoria and in those days there was no water, no electricity.......just a dirt track road to this bit of bush. He built a modest holiday home on one block and we got water from a corrugated iron water tank. My mother wanted to cultivate a garden but without water this was a forlorn exercise.
Dad was told about a local guru who claimed he could X mark the spot so he arrived with a forked stick and began the long walk around the block. He duly stopped at a point and said to dig here and you will find water.
My father started the dig and my older brothers helped. After the first six feet Dad shored up the hole and then continued and after a second shore up and then a hand auger he had to admit defeat. No water, just the same sandy soil that is the Peninsular. The exercise was not entirely futile..
Never one to despair, Dad did not fill in the hole. He had a light bulb moment and just moved the outdoor Dunny over the hole and as I recall, when you went for a dump you could count to seven or eight before you heard the thud...True story.
Here's a different perspective the subject.
TT
That makes perfect sense. Sandy soil, requiring shoring at six foot intervals, would be very hard to divine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruddy
Back in the old days they didnt seem to take ground hardness into account. It was probably preferred to find a reading in soft ground as wells were dug by hand. My experience has shown that soft or loose ground
gives a very unreliable signal. Sand nearly drives me nuts. Ironstone country is probably the best, followed by granite and quartz.