Irishman
I am getting three holidays here from 17th to 19th. I could use these free time to have the test. So if someone can send the photos by that time, it would be convenient.
RJKUgly
Scanned copy by email will be convenient and faster.
zut
Three days from today I am very busy with commitments. Let me use my holidays for this.
I have to agree. Even pictures from dead tree papers might be duplicated online. It would seem that pictures from our own collections would be best.
Want some pictures of non-famous people? I’ve got some. Maybe somebody could assemble a collection from various sources.
I’d be glad to put some groups together. If you want to email me, we could work things out.
Please work out the things early. I am absolutely free next three days.
RJKUgly
Could you get hold of some more photos?
I am waiting.
Not speaking for RJKUgly, but you’re going to have to be patient. Doing this correctly is going to take a little time, not like the quick and sloppy test we first did.
Pramanujan, while you’re waiting on pics, why don’t you go ahead and do at least a single blind test? I suppose you still haven’t done this. Might save everyone involved any future tests with you.
It’s been a week since I last wrote Jeff at James Randi, and still no word, so I doubt they are interested, or just don’t have anybody in your area.
You might look over this testing of water dowsers, and tell us why you think your fate would be any different. Notice too, many predicted 100% success, some only 80%. They only had to guess which water was going through one pipe out of 10. Despite their utter failure, they still think they had the ability to dowse. It doesn’t matter if it’s water, gold, photos, etc….
I’d just like to add that while the first test was flawed, some aspects of it were very well done including the cropping of the photos and the absence of any clues. The main shortcoming, IMHO, was revealing that most of the people were living.
Thanks RJKUgly.
Maybe a simpler intermediate test could use photos of Indian gods and goddesses mixed with photos of people known to have died. Place the photos in manila envelopes so they are facing east or west and try to distinguish the gods or goddesses from the humans.
That only works if pramanujan knows what reaction pictures of “gods” will give. You’re presuming it would be different than dead people (say dead celebrities - if the test is to put them in envelopes and not look at them during the test, then that would be fine).
This is part of the claim made in the Water Witching thread.
zut wrote:
I have tried and here are the results:-
Did you mean “photo turned downwards – i.e. back portion” ? If so, the rod does not react.
What happens when you flip the pictures over and randomly mix them so you don’t know which is which?
Does not react.
What happens when you dowse over a blank piece of paper?
No effect.
What happens if you mix a blank piece of paper in with the upside-down pictures?
Blank piece of paper and photos upside down do not have any action on the rods.
What happens if you dowse with your eyes closed?
To hold the rod steady, you need to look at them. With eyes closed, the rods cannot be held steady.
Cannot do it with closed eyes.
Dowsing rod does not react on blank paper, even if there is a photo behind it.
Cannot be done with photos covered with blank sheet of paper.
I had earlier mentioned -
This test was slightly extended by me for water divining. Instead of dowsing rod, I usually do this with a coconut too. Coconut (husk removed) is placed flat on the open palm and I just walk around. When I step on “the underground water stream”, the coconut just rises upright. It falls back to normal flat position when I cross it. On a trial basis, I tried with closed eyes. Believe me the effect was same, as when you do it with eyes opened.
Walking with closed eyes placing a coconut on the palm is possible. But not the dowsing rod, which is very sensitive.
So the conclusion here is that, in order to dowse over photos using rods, you have to actually see the image while dowsing. Or, to put it another way, whatever it is that’s happening with the rods requires that your brain process the image on the photo. Is that a fair statement?
Do you think it’s possible coconut dowse using photos?
Is negative energy (or perhaps just energy in general) blocked by the paper or the closed eyelid?
[QUOTE]
So the conclusion here is that, in order to dowse over photos using rods, you have to actually see the image while dowsing.QUOTE]
What I said was - to keep the rod steady, you need to look at it.
I do not consider that this is possible. With the coconut, the method itself is different. It is not the position, like, you hold it close to the chest or with arm fully extended. The location is determined by the place where your foot is on. Move one step forward or backward, the coconut moves.
With the rod, you hold the rods parallely, pointing to the photo from a distance of 2-3 feet and move forward closer to the photo. Nearer you go, the rods react.
razncain wrote-
I had seen these videos earlier too. Here the test was to identify the pipes through which water is flowing.
I have never claimed any such ability. Through water divining, I can identify only the natural sources of water. Many a times, there were underground pipelines and drainage pipes at the places where I had looked for bore points. But these have never interfered or have been identified as water sources.
I do not claim on gold, oil etc.
I accidently came upon the effect or to say a particular pattern on photos. My efforts are to look for any truth in this, with the help of people like you. Mind you, it is not a claim at all.
And, as a side affect, you as the dowser must be able to see the photograph. The fact that an opaque piece of paper or flipping the photograph over eliminates your ability to dowse unfortunately makes it very difficult to separate alleged ability and your need to see the photos. So we’ll have to take extreme steps to ensure that you don’t get any useful clues from the photos.
I do not see much progress in the matter. I view this page 2 times in a day. It is a waste of time. I shall now confine to looking here once in a while only.
In case somebody wants me to read any new post, please let me through email. Address is already available.
bye
So far as I can see there is no need for a test and no claim to test.
The first quoted section above contains an obvious claim which could not withstand even the most flaccid scrutiny.
The claim has evaporated and I can’t see a reason for keeping the thread open much less for actually testing a non-existent claim.