It looks like Gaudere’s Law strikes again. I didn’t say what you say I said…yet…but it looks like I may have misattributed or mixed up quotes from some posters at some time in this thread. I assure you that it was not intentional, and I offer my sincere apologies to all parties.
I’ll prepare the photos later today and email them to you. I’ll also post on here to let you and others know I’ve sent them.
Once you make your determination, you can simply post the ones you think are dead and I’ll assume you think the rest are alive. I’ll even give you a hint and tell you that the majority are still alive. Or you can email me the results, but I will also post the results here in any event, so everyone who cares to check can see the results.
I appreciate your concern, but I’ll take the chance.
I would like to thank you for doing this. Although this is not a rigorous test by any means, it is still an interesting subject to me. And so many people who claim such talents will not subject themselves to any public test, no matter how informal.
I look forward to seeing the results!
Please send them soon.
You just admitted that it is allowed as evidence. Of course such evidence can be thrown out, just like anything else, if there is enough evidence to the contrary That’s a far cry from "the least accurate evidence.
I must say I am offended by your comment saying that I’m “wrong on all levels.” To be that wrong, there would have to be absolutely nobody who was ever convicted on eye witness testimony alone. I offer this link as a counter. Otherwise I can only offer my own experience, where forensic evidence is rare, and eyewitness testimony is enough to convict someone I knew of rape.
This is your original quote, and it is indeed wrong. I never said “the least accurate evidence” so I’m not sure what you’re responding to. While juries may indeed put weight on any piece of evidence they choose, your statement made it sound like eye witness testimony automatically trumps anything else. I know it has happened, but it’s not the norm nor is it supported by the law.
Ok, I’ve just sent the email with the pictures.
There are 50 pictures, some of people alive, some of people dead.
After you make you determination, you can email me or post the results here. You can just tell me which ones you think are dead. You can refer to the pictures by their names.
Then I’ll notify you how many you got correct and post the results here.
I look forward to your results.
Just posting again to subscribe to the thread.
RJKUgly, a few thoughts:
-
you might want to send a copy of the results to someone else (a moderator or a poster to this thread), to confirm that you are not biased (I have no reason to doubt you, but I’m sure you know this is how scientific testing works)
-
you should not have said anything about how many are dead or alive (you’ve guaranteed at least one of each category - and probably more)
-
you should have asked pramanujan how accurate he is before sending the pictures, so the two of you could agree what a significant result was (obviously 50% is expected by chance) - also what about the significance of a really low result?
-
are your photos biased by age (i.e. are the dead people older? can you tell by anything roughly when they were taken?)
Oh yes, I understandperfectly.
My extended family owns property in Oregon that has been passed down for 7 generations from original homestead property. One branch of my relatives have a large number of ‘dowsers’ in it. Almost all of my kin have respect for a proven dowser, even if they don’t outright believe in it. (Even my 2nd cousin who worked for the U.S. Dept of Mines as a geologist.) Some believe it is a gift from God and some a work of the devil. (grin).
<p>Through the generations, we have had many opportunities to compare what a well-digging professional says vs a dowser as family conflict brought both to the problem. It isn’t whether or not they find water since our homestead properties are in a well-watered valley, but an aquifer doesn’t just go in a flat, level layer - it has hills and valleys underground just like there are above ground and having to dig another 500’ because you hit a ‘valley’ where the upper aquifer was a lot lower could mean thousands of dollars a farmer can’t afford.</p>
<p>My relatives say my mom would be able to “witch wells” because she ‘kills’ watches and can tell when an appliance isn’t grounded, but she’s never tried it and doesn’t have any need to. (Something to do with static electricity and high resistance.)</p>
<p>Personally, I believe there are LOTS of dynamics out there that we haven’t discovered yet and whether you believe or disbelieve in something doesn’t really matter. </p>
<p>I have rheumatoid arthritis. About 10 years ago, I read a book called, “The Arthritis Breakthrough” that tells the scientific and political journey a Quaker medical doctor, then head of the rheumatology subcommittee for the AMA, took in finding that RA is an infectious disease and what he found to treat it successfully - curing many people in his practice. He wasn’t even using an experimental drug but standard antibiotics just used in a unique dosage schedule. (I believe in the 1940’s or 50’s.) Dr. Brown was kicked off the Rheumatology committee and blackballed by the AMA who, with the backing of the pharmaceutical companies, was pushing the development and use of Prednisone at the time, saying it was a miracle drug. </p>
<p> Dr. Brown was convinced the Prednisone was dangerous (and since then it has caused the death of thousands of people). He said that the ‘germ’ that caused RA was smaller than a virus and had a lifecycle similar to that of a parasite. That the typical symptoms (the ‘autoimmune’ symptoms) were from the body reacting to the toxins this ‘germ’ excreted during its active cycle. The AMA did such a good job of ridiculing Dr. Brown’s theories that he couldn’t get funding for proper testing, and of course the pharmaceutical companies weren’t interested in proving him right either. So only a small number of people clung to his theories and were able to take advantage of them. </p>
<p>The whole book made so much more sense to me than what the ‘well educated medical community’ was telling me about RA that I told my rheumatologists that I wanted to try it since I didn’t risk anything to do so. She pointed to her wall where she posts superstitions and home remedies for RA and laughed at me. I had another doctor oversee the protocol and I did 2 of the 3 recommended years based on “anecdotal evidence” and the logic presented in the book. I have been in remission ever since, btw, but the damage caused by having the disease and the side effects of the meds I took since I was young will never go away. How different my life could have been.</p>
<p> NOW there are microscopes strong enough to see these tiny viruses and they are the same TYPE of ‘germ’ that causes some types of cancer and HIV. Also, there have been numerous double-blind studies even published in the JAMA proving the late Dr. Brown’s theories to be true. DESPITE the multitude of scientific evidence, you will find very few doctors following Dr. Brown’s protocol. The prejudices drilled into the current medical community are just too ingrained.</p>
<p>The point is that people are going to believe what they want to believe no matter what ‘evidence’ you have to the contrary. Period. Scientific methodology is now just a way to thumb your nose at something you don’t understand. That isn’t what it was originally developed for, you know. It was supposed to be a method to standardize the exploration of new ideas and theories, not a way to shut people up and put them down in a snooty, “I’m-a-scientist-and-even-if-I’m-not-I-know-how-to-use-science-so-I-have-the-right-to-discount-any-opinion-you-have” sort of attitude. There are open and closed minds on both sides of this and every other issue. And some scientists can be the most egocentric, overeducated, closed-minded people around. </p>
<p>You all have probably heard of the fellow who ran a patent office in, I think it was the 1700’s or 1800’s, can’t remember which. He closed it down saying everything that could be invented had been invented. He had a very closed mind. grin. Especially when you think of what has been invented since then regardless of which date it was.</p>
<p>I don’t know what I think of dowsing, and reading through this thread and people’s comments about the skeptics dictionary, etc., I still don’t know what I think. I hear some talk about these studies done and people not being able to reproduce the same results and I think about all the possible reasons that could happen that would have caused the testing to fail. The people who are able to dowse don’t know how it works and neither do the people who don’t believe in it. Since they don’t know how it works, how can they really control all the variables or put in the constants that are necessary to make it work? </p>
<p> I think the science teacher’s lesson with the dowsing and the ouija board were very good lessons and I believe that some people who do dowsing are doing what he said with the muscles (can’t remember the word) especially if you have someone who doesn’t have the ability to do it. But that doesn’t negate the fact that there just MIGHT be legitimate dowsers out there. Have we fully explored the limits of the energy spectrum? Do we truly understand how electricity works - exactly? Or how the orbitals in an atom behave the way they do? </p>
<p>I don’t know if I believe dowsing is real - the jury is still out on that and may never come in with a verdict before I die. But I am not a skeptic and I’m proud of it because the universe has so many wonders yet to explore and I want to have an open mind to see them all when they come and the only way to do that is never to come to the conclusion that I’ve got anything so all figured out that I don’t need to learn anything more about it. Let alone put someone down who believes something in which I don’t think I believe.</p>
Gravity has been proven. Dowsing has failed every time it is tested. It’s hard to see how this makes it ‘proven’.
It’s bad enough having a bunch of anecdotes masquerading as scientific proof. Now we have a claim that someone can dowse - even though she’s never tried to! :smack:
Scientists also believe there are LOTS of dynamics out there that we haven’t discovered yet and whether you believe or disbelieve in something doesn’t really matter.
They do however ask for SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE before they accept something.
Since all claims for dowsing fail when tested, no scientist believes in it.
I believe in gravity.
I believe in evolution.
I believe that the Earth orbits the Sun.
I believe I can levitate hundreds of feet in the air (unless anyone is watching me). :rolleyes:
Why it’s just the same as my levitation! As soon as anyone tests me I fail.
BUT I KNOW I CAN LEVITATE!!!
Thank you for the photos. I have already done a preliminary trial. Let me take a little more time to finalize the result. I shall post the results soon. Thanks a lot for the support.
I actually suggested sending the “answer key” as it were to a third party prior to pramanujan giving his answers to rule out the possibility that I changed my answers after the fact. pramanujan declined, but I’m still willing to do so. However it really has little bearing on whether I’m lying or not, as I could still simply lie about who is alive or dead. But I am more than willing to send the answers now. Would you be willing to act as a third party?
As for the other questions, I know I gave a clue, but not a big one. And pramanujan in this thread has said that only one time did the rods show a negative reaction for a living person, and apparently never have shown a neutral or positive reaction for a dead person. Of course this may not be the case, we will see.
If pramanujan comes back with a good score then a more rigorous test can be entertained. I won’t respond directly to the other point here as I don’t want give any more clues.
You should also send your list to someone who doesn’t claim to have any abilities who picks by random chance. We need a baseline.
Good thought! You want to give it a try? Anyone else?
I didn’t want to have any clue. I would not rely on any clue. I depend on the dowsing rods. I have already formed by decision, based on the photos as seen on the monitor. I wish to take printouts and confirm. The is the first time I am attempting on photos of total strangers, that too from a different country.
In the meantime, I suggest that the answer key may be given to a third person. I shall come back with my answers tomorrow.
Yes why not let us try that too. I can withhold my results till then.
Let me inform you certain related observations.
- The computer system, also monitor, radiates negative energy; i.e., the rods swing inwards.
- This is true for the monitor, without any photos. But when a photo is seen, preferably enlarged, the rods stay neutral indicating the person is alive or the rods swing inwards, indicating that he/she may not be alive. But you doubt whether this is due to the negative energy from the monitor.
- To test this I tried once again, keeping the monitor facing south direction. Then, as expected the rods moved outwardly when shown against photos of persons doubted as dead. A blank screen continued to show negative energy and of photo of living persons stayed neutral.
You need to see to believe these.
I didn’t want to have any clue. I would not rely on any clue. I depend on the dowsing rods. I have already formed by decision, based on the photos as seen on the monitor. I wish to take printouts and confirm. The is the first time I am attempting on photos of total strangers, that too from a different country.
In the meantime, I suggest that the answer key may be given to a third person. I shall come back with my answers tomorrow.
Yes why not let us try that too. I can withhold my results till then.
Let me inform you certain related observations.
- The computer system, also monitor, radiates negative energy; i.e., the rods swing inwards.
- This is true for the monitor, without any photos. But when a photo is seen, preferably enlarged, the rods stay neutral indicating the person is alive or the rods swing inwards, indicating that he/she may not be alive. But you doubt whether this is due to the negative energy from the monitor.
- To test this I tried once again, keeping the monitor facing south direction. Then, as expected the rods moved outwardly when shown against photos of persons doubted as dead. A blank screen continued to show negative energy and of photo of living persons stayed neutral.
You need to see to believe these.
You keep more photos ready. Also send the photos to others with answer keys. No clues please.
Sure, send me a PM.
PM Sent