Is dowsing a reliable technique for finding well sites?

[Ivan Seeking]

tsunami sez:

So is your word usage and sentence structure.

Now, here we have someone who must have stayed up half the night thinking up this lame remark. Of course, it’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It’s also extremely poor netiquette to complain about syntax, especially when the one complaining needs to learn a thing or two on the subject. It’s off topic and adds absolutely nothing to the conversation. And it’s a flame.

All in all a post written in very poor taste indeed.

And the author is supposed to be a PF contributor – what a joke!

Hey tsunami, have you nothing to say? Could you possible see fit to squeeze a thought or two out of that gray matter you keep upstairs?

Tsunami: 8 words
Q: 130+ something

Now, here we have someone who must have stayed up half the night

 

[(Q)]

Tsunami: 8 words
Q: 130+ something

It all makes sense now - pseudoscientists don't look for content when qualifying written matter - instead, they count the number of words.

 

[JohnDubYa]

During trial runs, have the researcher place the dowsing stick in a holder so that the dowser cannot manipulate it with his fingers.

 

[Arctic Fox]

JohnDubYa: That’s not going to work. There is no “magick” working on the dowsing rods themselves - it is the dowsers' fingers/hands moving the rods.


(q): what I feel? I don’t know you, but from your presented attitude on nearly every one of your posts makes me feel like stuffing your eyeball sockets with overcooked spaghetti. Like I’ve said before; you don’t believe in dowsing, that’s fine, we heard you already... can you please move on now?

 

[FZ+]

Control yourself, (Q). An inflexible attitude is unhelpful. Chances are, the various dowsers are no lying. But that does not mean it is true. We need repeatability, and we need to take all evidence into account. On the weight of evidence, no conclusion can yet be made. Singular stories mean nothing.

We do know that humans have a slight capacity for sensing magnetic fields, though. I remember some studies, some time ago. It's probably a remnant from animals which navigated by magnetism. But I doubt it is so sensitive.

The challenge to dowsers is to show falsifiability, reliability, and of course, to do the trials. Onus of proof is on the claimant.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On the hunt for grave sites

CATLIN – Stan Pentecost doesn't believe in ghosts, or UFOs, because he's the kind of guy who needs to see something to believe it. So, when he read that dowsing – using two rods to find underground water – could also be used to locate graves as well as determine the size and gender of the deceased, he had to try it.

"I still can't explain it, but it works," said Pentecost, a member of the Illiana Genealogical and Historical Society, and resident expert on Vermilion County's 138 cemeteries. Dowsing is a centuries-old practice of using wooden sticks or metal rods to locate underground sources of water, metal and graves. More commonly used for and associated with locating water sources, also referred to as "water witching," members of the Illiana historical society decided to test the practice Sunday afternoon northeast of Catlin at Pate Cemetery, an old plot where the perimeters are uncertain and headstones have been destroyed or removed.

After a brief orientation on the technique for the 20 people – some skeptical, but all curious – who gathered at the cemetery, Pentecost demonstrated dowsing, and then passed out pairs of rods for everyone to try. To dowse, a person holds lightly, by the short ends, two L-shaped metal rods in front of them with arms at a 90-degree angle, elbows at the waist and forearms extended parallel to the ground. When crossing a grave, or water, the two rods will move from their parallel position to a crossed position, and back to parallel when moving away from the grave.

Pentecost's own words, "I can't explain it, but it works," were heard over and over again Sunday as people walked around the cemetery and watched the rods cross in front of their own eyes. [continued]

http://www.news-gazette.com/story.cfm?Number=16350

 

[zoobyshoe]

Trouble with that story is that, although the rods mysteriously crossed for anyone who tried "dowsing" there is no mention in the story of any of the sites having been actually dug up to see if any bodies were where the rods indicated. I hope they aren't just going to take it on faith without checking.

 

[JohnDubYa]

When the rods cross, do they find graves, or water, or minerals? Is there a setting, such as on a dial, that you use to zero in on a particular target?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Is there a setting, such as on a dial, that you use to zero in on a particular target?

John, I guess you didn't read the whole article Tt's somewhat worse than that: in this group of dowsers they can tell if the bodies are male or female. Read it. Check it out.

 

[Arctic Fox]

When the rods cross, do they find graves, or water, or minerals? Is there a setting, such as on a dial, that you use to zero in on a particular target?

I just depends on what it is you’re looking for. For me, I just try and get an image in my mind of what I’m wanting to find, and then go walking around (usually with eyes closed) until I find it.

I can't explain it, but it works.

That one line sums it up.

I think one could dowse for anything.

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "I think one could dowse for anything."

Dirt? If so, do the rods go completely wild?

 

[kcballer21]

"Pendulum dowsing: Shop and compare..."

I love the advertisements on the top of these specific forum pages. There is a lot of money to be made over something that captures the imagination, even if it only exists in the imagination.

 

[Arctic Fox]

RE: "I think one could dowse for anything."

Dirt? If so, do the rods go completely wild?

They wouldn’t move.

Funny thing is, if you try to find something that’s everywhere or doesn’t exist, nothing happens. If you are trying to find a lost tool, and you're searching for it in your yard, but you left it at your son's house 3 states away... the rods usually won’t point to anywhere. If by some strange chance that they do, you’ll have a long walk to get your tool. :)

Seems like it also works on a system of logic; I found a stolen truck in a city of 800,000 people... but someone was driving me around the city. If I had been on foot (the truck being 11 miles away), the rods would never have moved. ie: It would be logical to say that I’m not going to walk 11 miles to find this truck.

If I try to find dirt or air... that would be illogical. :D

 

[poolwin2001]

If dowsing is real,Then we need not depend on the Arabs for Oil OR Invade Iraq.

 

[Arctic Fox]

That is correct.

I've never thought of dowsing for oil, but I don’t see why a Geophysicist trained to dowse, couldn’t have a better chance of finding successful reserves...

 

[Chronos]

Why geophysicists? Their scientific training would not make them good dowsers. They would waste too much time looking for promising geological formations.

 

[Arctic Fox]

I can dowse for water because I know what water does and its locations underground (3'-1200').

If I try to find oil, the problem is that I've no idea where it could be. In my mind, I might try to imagine finding oil at 4 miles deep... I have no idea if oil is down that far, or if it's closer to the surface. I may be searching all over the place until I actually find oil at 4 miles down.

If a geophysicists knows that oil only hides at .5 miles down, s/he would have a better chance at finding it - especially if there is absolutely no way oil could be down 4 miles. (I don't know this)


Another thought is that water is everywhere. I can find water with no problem. But what if the people digging the well don't want to go more than 400'? In my mind I think of looking for water with the idea that it has to be 400' or closer to the surface.

Or, if I'm looking for waterlines, I can try and find a pipe 15' down, but I know that's not going to happen. If I'm dowsing for a pipe 3-5' in the ground, I can make the search a lot easier - because I already know the pipe's approximate depth.

Does any of this make sense?

 

[Xybot]

Discussion is futile

...Until a proper double blind experiment has been performed and peer reviewed. That said my Grandfather was a very good dowser and from my own experience at finding groundwater I could almost gaurentee I'd hit water 3-4 metres down from any low spot on the land I own. Basically that was where the water table lay, I'm sure this doesn't necessarily hold true for all spots, but I think you'd be surprised at how much water there is under there.

Just as a side note I seem to recall that one of the worlds largest fresh water rivers runs below the Sahara desert, can anyone else confirm this?