We’re not in a rush, it may take a while. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
**SiXSwordS ** said:
Say what? pranamujan has clearly stated a pattern he has observed. That the claim seems inconsistent (why does direction matter?) is irrelevant. It is a claim that can be tested. Though for best results it should have a third party observer to conduct the test, but we are still establishing the limits of what he says can be done.
Nonsense. The claim still exists. pranamujan has not withdrawn that he thinks this pattern occurs. He chooses not to call it a “claim” because of some sense of pejorativeness by the use of that word, but it is his statement that the observed results consistently occur and he wishes to explore why. If we are to explore why, first we need to establish is does, indeed, occur consistently the way he says, and is not an error in data collection.
His remaining complaint is that it takes time, and he would like things to move faster.
Just for clarity’s sake, my point is that the scrutiny that this claim has received thus far, though it has been lacking in rigor, has already taken us from “I can show this to anyone” to “I’m interested to see what happens too.”
Nonsense right back atcha; did you climb inside of his head or did you use some other method to divine his thoughts?
The claim was:
Correlating that ability with the negative energy qualities he noticed in photos, he claimed to be able to distinguish pictures of living persons from pictures of the dead.
In this thread he states:
Let me once again say “I am not paranormal”. I do not claim to have any special abilities. Dowsing on the photos happened by accident. Consistent pattern was seen during the observations.
(Oops, I accidentally dowsed a photo, sorry)
I’ll admit that I am not able to find the first instance of “I am not paranormal” but I’d call— “I am in a position to identify the positive and negative energies at a place or of an object”— a special ability. (And a paranormal one at that.)
Likewise— “The dowsing rod by itself does not have any power. It works with select few people. I am one such person who has been using the dowsing rod.” would seem to indicate a special ability.
To dismiss that with a pshaw and a cry of “nonsense” is sticking your head in the sand. If this were another situation I would expect accusations of moving the goalposts.
If there is going to be a definitive test, there needs to be specific claim to test. Anyone can hold their rod over some photos and see what happens.
SiXSwordS - You are quoting part of a sentence. Please read the full post.
SiXSwordS said:
For clarity, are you asserting that pranamujan has changed his essential position? I do not believe he has. I believe he has asserted that whenever he uses the rods with photos, he sees the pattern of positive/negative energy corresponding to alive/dead. He is looking to understand why. We have offered a test to help determine if the pattern is really an indicator of alive/dead, or some other effect that is not mysterious, just misunderstood. He has stated being interested in the results precisely because he thinks he knows what they will be and wants to see under our attempt at controls. But I do not think that pranamunjan has become any less convinced of the effect, nor do I think he is any less convinced that dowsing works.
Yes, I used another method, it’s called “reading his words”. You should try it sometime.
pranamujan has avoided describing his observation as a claim. He appears to think that word conveys something untrustworthy. He chooses to state that he has observed a certain condition that is consistent in behavior related to his use of the rods. For our purposes, that constitutes a claim on his part - that using the rods he can determine positive or negative energies from photos in such a way to establish if the person depicted is currently alive or dead.
What? What is it I’m apparently dismissing with a cry of “nonsense”?
There is a specific claim to test – that using the rods he can determine positive or negative energies from photos in such a way to establish if the person depicted is currently alive or dead.
But only if the testee can see the photos. I think this is an important requirement, since it eliminates many easy ways to test the alleged phenomenon. It ONLY works if he can see the photos. As far as I can tell that is part of the claim.
Yes.
I’d be happy to, but I can’t find where he used the term “perjorativeness.”
What words of his do you interpret to mean that he takes offense at the use of the term “claim”?
I’m not challenging your eloquence. In fact, you’ve done better than any of my attempts to state the claim explicitly.
Better yet is:
With a little:
I’d also like to see a statement of presumed accuracy. As long as I’m listing my druthers, I’d also like to see some description of negative energy as pranamujan understands it.
I don’t expect to see that and I don’t think it is imperative to the test.
And, I understand that he is only reporting what he has observed in regards to the photos so he has an out.
But if one were claiming the ability to find a good place to dig a well (as opposed to being able to find water) I would think that part of the claim would entail defining what a good well is.
Negative energy is the sine qua non in this claim. Detecting it is a special ability (other people can’t do it even using the same tools) and it is a paranormal ability (there is no scientific basis for the idea of negative energy).
If the term “claim” is too hurtful, is there some less offensive word we can all agree on or is there some way we can erase the pejorative connotations in the word so that pranamujan can state, clearly and explicitly what his claim is?
Telemark said:
Yes, I think it has become an essential component that pramanunjan can see the face of the photo. That strongly limits some of the controls we can put in place.
SiXSwordS said:
I will concede that I am interpreting his remarks rather than relying on a literal statement. I do wonder if language issues are partially at play.
For example, ranzcain posted:
to which pramanujan replied:
Now this is puzzling. He refutes have a technique, but to me, a technique is as bland as “he places the photo in front of him with the face oriented south, passes the rods above it, and notices whether the rods move outward or inward.” So why is he objecting to the word “technique”?
Upon rereading the thread, I guess I see your point. Even at the beginning of this thread, pramanujan is less than adamant about what is going on. He describes it as seeing a pattern and wanting to discuss why it is occurring. We have gone off trying to develop a test protocol to demonstrate to him that there is, in face, nothing to explain, but since the photo behavior is not a strong claim on his part (as water dowsing is), then the results may not really have much affect on his belief in dowsing (of course that’s true for most dowsers, no matter what the test).
I still feel there is some value in continuing, though we haven’t seen much progress, so this is getting tiring.
Please read the threads carefully. I had stated that the power to find water sources is in a few people only. I can do that. But as far as photos are concerned, anybody who can hold the rods steady, can do it. This was observed by me during various trials. Why don’t you try on your own?
Yes. Irishman has read my words correctly. I do have some prejudice in using the word “claim” on dowsing on the photos. It had just been seen by accident. The word “claim” cannot be attributed to this literarily.
Reading the threads carefully isn’t sufficient. I need to be sure that my interpretation of what I’ve read matches the interpretations of others, including yours.
In this case, I would like to see an explicitly stated claim as to what is being tested. I would also like to hear some description of the nature of negative energy, but that is not necessary for a decent test whereas I think an exact statement of the claim being tested is.
I have and I will try again. Please explain to me how I will distinguish positive energy from negative energy and what materials block or interfere with these types of energy.
Don’t worry, you’ll catch on. 
In thinking about it more, I’ve realized that I was not thinking of this as a test to demonstrate something to pramanujan.
You’re right. I forget how much beaker washing there is in this process.
I have a hard time accepting the idea that you might accidentally dowse something that just happens to be facing South. Even so, at some point you experimented with other photos as well as pictures of Gods and other religious accouterments.
So, despite the accidental nature of your discovery of photo dowsing, you have investigated the issue and made statements regarding your abilities.
Perhaps you can find a word on this list that you feel appropriately describe this situation.
First, my apologies again for neglecting this thread for over a week. I thought I had a situation at work under control, but found myself buried in a further extension of it all this week. I’ve had time for a couple of very quick posts here and there, but nowhere near enough time for the thought this thread takes.
Now, if we still want to proceed with a test, over a week ago Hilarity N. Suze was kind enough to send me some pictures that we could use. But I’ve been so busy I haven’t had the chance to do anything with them.
The pictures vary in size quite a bit: from about 130x180 up to 1900x2500. A couple of them appear to have had some manipulation done for artistic reasons.
But I think this may actually be good, at least to start with. It gives a range to work with so pramanujan can tell us which, if any, are not acceptable. We can then try to find pictures that will fit his requirements.
Before proceeding, however, I would like to ask pramanujan a question to address one of the points being raised.
pramanujan, you are saying this isn’t a claim of any ability, just something you noticed about the dowsing rods and pictures. However, without a clear guideline of what you think this phenomenon shows a test cannot be designed that will tell us anything meaningful about it.
So can you give us a percentage? For example: in 98% of cases an indication by the rods of negative energy means the person is dead, or only in 70%, or whatever.
And for the statisticians still watching, I assume that for any given percentage pramanujan states we can determine how many pictures and/or trials would be needed to get us acceptably above the possibility of chance, assuming the percentage isn’t so low as to be in fact indistinguishable from chance.
Fer cryinoutloud, the guy is willing to be tested. Just determine what results chance would give, and see if he can beat chance. it’s not the JRF test, let’s just enjoy the show!!
RJK, let me know if some of them had a problem. I know the program I used to open them had a weird setting for awhile, but it’s fixed now, so maybe I could resend them. Any manipulation was accidental.
I’ve only skimmed over the thread, but I’m certainly curious as to how this is going to work out. I’ve got two questions (sorry if they’ve been answered somewhere already):
-
Is this going to work with a control, i.e. someone (or even better, a group of someones) who is given the exact same task as pramanujan, but who professes no supernatural abilities? They’d have to use all conventionally available resources, including the internet, their own intuition, clues gleaned from the pictures themselves, etc., to try and tell the dead from the living ones. I think that’s a good way to determine how well one would be expected to score in the absence of paranormal abilities – it might well be that contextual clues plus a bit of research gives results better than chance in a completely non-supernatural way.
-
How are the pictures going to be prepared – are they going to be checked against reverse image search engines, such as TinEye, for instance? How about EXIF data, which could provide additional clues? Is there a way to tell pictures shot with a digital camera from pictures shot with an old-fashioned one and then scanned, analysing colour curves, checking for film grain, etc.? A digital camera might place a picture within the last decade or so, giving away some information about the likelihood with which the person is still alive. What other information, additional to its motive, is transported via an image file?
Again, I’m sorry if this has already been discussed, I don’t have the time to slog through the whole thread right now, but I’d appreciate some info.
Yeah, I’m up for that.
Maybe we could take the test anyway…
I had earlier mentioned that dowsing on photos can be done by ANYONE. But water divining is seen restricted to a few persons.
Why don’t someone try it for themselves?
I did try on the first batch. I got one out of fifty. (I thought that nine had died, but I had seen a posting that said that the majority were alive.)
I think I was having trouble distinguishing negative energy from positive energy. What is the best way to do that?