I am writing to say that I have in fact seen this phenomenon firsthand while I was living in arizona and in fact used it several times without fail to locate (sorry for caps but I can't seem to italicize)UNDERGROUND WATER LINES, DRAINAGE PIPES, and, mysteriously, ANY POWER LINES THAT I MIGHT BY CHANCE WALK DIRECTLY UNDER. The reason I was doing it was to help my neighbor find where the water line came into his house because he didn't know where it ran. After making several organized passes covering his entire front and side yard, I was able to map out the location and path of the line from the meter out front by the street to the house (It didn't go straight in, just in case you were wondering). I used two old welding rods with the coating on the outside knocked off of them (I think they were plain steel but I don't know much about welding rods; before the crap on the outside was knocked off they looked like metal incense sticks to me). One end of each was bent to a right angle, leaving about 1.5 inches to hold on to. I held the bent ends loosely between my thumb and forefinger, keeping the rods as parallel to the ground as possible, and starting out with the rods parallel to each other, but holding on loosely so they could move, then I started to walk at a slow pace. Any time I would walk directly over(or under) the above mentioned, the rods would cross. If I backed up, the rods would start to uncross. If I kept walking forward, the rods would cross even further. This method was shown to me by my stepfather, who does not attempt to provide an explanation, but did note that it also worked when directly over hollow pipes, whether metal or pvc. It it may be useful to know that my mother can't seem to make it work for her and she always had a problem with wind-up wristwatches running too slowly if she wears them (and NOT because she forgets to wind them, smartalecks amongst you). So I don't know about finding water deep underground, and I've never tried a wooden stick. But if anyone out there can wear wind-up wristwatches without problems and has a couple of old steel welding rods at their disposal (remember to knock the stuff on the outside off of them), please attempt to repeat this. I am a skeptic to the core about most things, but I cannot deny that this phenomenon must have some merit, since I can do it myself. Successful or not, if you try this please post your results here.
I’m glad to hear you say that you’re a skeptic; that might help you bear with the rest of us skeptics here. I’ve got a couple of questions that you didn’t address in the OP:
[ol][li]Did you know (or suspect) the position of the water pipes before you performed the “dowsing”?[/li][li]To what degree of precision were you able to find the pipes?[/li][li]Did you later verify the position of the pipes by some other, well-understood means (digging them up and looking, checking the utility company’s records, etc)?[/li][li]Did this verified position agree with the dowsing results to within that degree of precision?[/ol][/li]What I’m getting at here, is that I suspect (as will many others posting after me) that you were subconsciously causing the rods to cross whenever you thought you were crossing the pipes. Power lines would be easy, you can see those, but pipes would presumably require some sort of guesswork. One possible test would be to put on a blindfold, have someone spin you so you don’t know which way you’re facing, and repeat the test. A more controlled experiment would be to have someone bury pipes randomly, without indicating where. If you still find the pipes in these cases, I don’t know how to explain it.
As to your mom’s watch, I can come up with a couple of theories: She might commonly hold her wrist so that her skin presses against the winding stem, which might put some sort of drag on the mechanism, or she might often wave her arms vigourously, which might shake up the innards. It’s also possible that it’s just a statistical fluke: how thoroughly have you tested this?
The reason was that he needed to dig up his yard to put in another line off of the main water line, so yes, it was in fact dug up afterwards. I discovered the power line thing because I saw the rods cross when I walked in a spot known NOT to have any water lines or pipes. I was puzzled by this until my stepfather pointed up at the power line above me and explained that it worked on those too. I often closed my eyes and spun around, then looking only at the ground would walk and see these things cross and then look up to see where I was at. BTW a correction to the watch thing: It’s ELECTRONIC watches that screw up on her so she wears WINDUP watches. My mistake on that, sorry. It didn’t occur to me until a few minutes ago. I am trying to say that anyone with a little time on their hands and a couple of old welding rods layin’ around could conduct any type of experiment they want and control it to any degree they feel necessary to make the findings legitimate. I do not claim that this makes it possible to find wells underground 175 feet deep, or that this could be done with any other type of implement besides the type I described. I only say that I know that I can find power lines, drainage pipes, and water lines, presumably all near the surface, and that it is close to 100% accuracy for me. I don’t believe it’s anything special about me, as my stepdad who is (hopefully) not blood related to me can do it just as well, and my wind-up watch wearing mother can’t. I submit this info to see if anyone can be prodded into conducting a similar experiment and try to search for the same things (power lines, water mains, etc.) I was able to find. Also remember that if you back up after a cross the rods uncross, and if you continue further forward the rods will continue to turn inward and cross more. Get the picture? One last thing, both the original question guy and me saw this in Arizona. For my part, it was in late spring in Snowflake, AZ. and the air is rather dry until monsoon season later on in the summer. I have no idea whether there is a connection with that region or not, but I thought I’d mention it for you to ponder upon. Any other details you might want I will be glad to fill you in on.
The Ideomotor Effect
We are witnessing here a very powerful psychological phenomenon known as the “ideomotor effect.” This is defined as, “an involuntary body movement evoked by an idea or thought process rather than by sensory stimulation.” The dowser is unknowingly moving the device of choice, exerting a small shaking, tilt or pressure to it, enough to disturb its state of balance. This has been shown any number of times to be true, but the demonstration has meant nothing to the dowsers, who will persist in their delusion no matter how many times it is shown to them that dowsing does not work. The defensive reaction of most dowsers, following their failure, is to claim that they should not have submitted to any test, and will never do so again. And most will say that dowsing comes under special rules that deny that it can be tested, ever. The discouraging fact is that no dowser is ever convinced, as a result of proper double-blind testing, that they cannot dowse. Their need to believe is so strong and so ingrained, that they will refuse to accept any quality and/or quantity of good evidence. They have adopted a philosophy that shields them against reality.
There appears to be a feeling on the part of the dowsers that if they’ve been self-deceived, it indicates that they are therefore stupid or naive. This is certainly not the case. Any person, regardless of education, IQ, sophistication, or social position, can fall for the ideomotor phenomenon. An indication of that is that a great number of scientists mostly physicists have embraced belief in dowsing, in spite of their superior knowledge of how the world works. But this is an effect of the mind, a different matter from the workings of the common everyday objects and situations we encounter in our lives.
from James Randi Educational Foundation
I still am firmly convinced that the things I am describing are real, just like the article states. However, I have come up with a test that anyone out there who is interested can try and see what happens. This test should be enough to satisfy most people as to its validity. Just find a person to witch for the water, using the technique described in my previous post. Then take them to a location where you already know the existence of water lines or drain pipes or even power lines, but that they do not. Blindfold them and set them off on a path that will take them over these objects (or under for powerlines) and see if the rods don’t cross. Please post results here for all to read. Thank you for your time if you do so. Thank you for your time just for reading all my posts!
I don’t really care to do your test, because I’m convinced that it will be a waste of my time. However, like Kyberneticist said, if you really have this ability, you have over one million dollars waiting for you to claim. If it’s as accurate as you believe it to be, you will be able to slam-dunk Randi’s test.
Now go get your money! Please post your results here for all to read (from your luxury Carribbean villa). Sorry if that sounds sarcastic, but you’re asking that we entertain believing that dowsing is easy, when there’s been a $1M prize for the last few years for the first person who is able to demonstrate it.
Well, I can understand that some people may think I’m loopy. I e-mailed that Randini guy to give me some guidelines on what he thought a valid test would be. If I am successful, I sure as heck will take his challenge. As for the rest of you, if any of you have the extra time, say you’re retired or something, you could still try my test for kicks. I don’t believe that it should make much of a difference who holds the rods, but like I previously stated my mother can’t do it and has problems with watches. I don’t know that these factors have any connection but hey, that’s why I wanted more tests done by other people. I realize that there seems to be an extravagant amount of hype around this phenomenon, but I don’t think it’s COMPLETELY untrue. I will most definitely let all of you know what Randini says when he writes back. Anyone else ever seen anything like I’m talking about?
Prior tests included detecting when water was flowing through buried pipes (pipes turned on and off at random). The test had been agreed upon by all the dowsers as satisfactory. Another test involved locating a buried item in a series of boxes.
You can read about the test in the newsletter:
This particular test was not the 1.1 million dollar prize, but rather a seperate organization of German skeptics.
It’s interesting to note that the dowsers did no better then expected by chance, and the media became quickly disinterested with the story.
BTW, the name is Randi, James Randi - not Randini.
Of more interest than why the rods move, however, is the issue of whether dowsing works. Obviously, many people believe it does. Dowsing and other forms of divination have been around for thousands of years. There are large societies of dowsers in American and Europe. Thousands of dowsers practice their art every day in all parts of the world. There have even been scientists in recent years who have offered proof that dowsing works. There must be something to it, then, or so it seems. However, close scrutiny of the data, including the so-called scientific proofs of dowsing, reveal that there is no more evidence to support dowsing than there is to support astrology."
Another quote from the same link:
“The most common reason for believing in dowsing is based upon experiences and anecdotes of dowsers and those who observe them. The evidence is simple: dowsers find what they are dowsing for and they do this many times. What more proof of dowsing is needed? The fact that this pattern of dowsing and finding occurs repeatedly lead many dowsers and their advocates to make the causal connection between dowsing and finding water, oil, minerals, golf balls, etc. This type of fallacious reasoning is known as post hoc reasoning and is a very common basis for belief in paranormal powers. It is essentially unscientific and invalid.”
So how can it be explained that I was able to find where this neighbor guy’s water line ran through his yard? It certainly did not run straight to his house 90 degrees from the street. It rather ran sideways parallel to the street for some 11 feet, then cut left into his yard and ran along the side of the house. So, how do all of you explain how I found this with no prior knowledge of where his water line ran except where it started at the street??? The point I’m trying to make is that I WAS THE ONE WHO FOUND IT. HOW COULD I HAVE FOUND IT OTHERWISE? In my mind, despite the mounds of tests to the contrary that you kind people have referred me to, this is still a VALID phenomenon. Maybe the stuff about electronic watches and the region has something to do with it and maybe it doesn’t. As I stated, I’ll be waiting to hear from that Randi (I thought he bills himself as The Great Randini) guy as to his definition of a valid test and will attempt it. I will post this result here. If I end up miserably failing the test, I will shut up. But I’ll still post the result. By the way, I don’t think the water in the line has to be moving to find the line, as I seem to remember that he shut off the water line at the street when we began work, in anticipation of digging and cutting.
By chance or inference. I am not particularly impressed. Like I said, set yourself up a test date with JREF or some other organization that tests claims of the paranormal.
Find a test you can agree upon, repeat it several dozen times to see if there are any statistically significant results.
BTW, I was unable to find the word Randini in a search of the JREF website. Whether he uses it as a stage name, I do not know, but it does suggest you have heard of Randi and the foundation before. If so, why haven’t you set up a test with them?
We don’t. But we can offer some possibilities which I doubt you can rule out. That’s why people insist on controlled testing with detailed records and experiments designed to remove as many extraneous factors as possible.
It is possible that you knew beforehand where his water line runs without realizing that you know. Perhaps you saw his yard dug up at some point. Perhaps you saw a map. Perhaps you saw a utility worker tracing the line. All sorts of possibilities exist, and that fact that you don’t remember seeing any of those is not proof that you didn’t see any of those things. Everyone forgets things that their subconscious remembers.
It is possible that his yard or the surrounding area contains clues that you are not aware of consciously but subconsciously interpreted. Perhaps his yard is very slightly depressed over the water line. Perhaps any of many other things.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps … there are many possibilities, but only one actuality. We can’t tell from the information you have provided what that actuality is. We probably can’t tell even with all the information you can possibly provide.
With no other information, we could conclude from your description that dowsing may work, and it’s worthy of further investigation. But we have other information. We have records of a large number of people who have made claims identical or equivalent to yours and have been universally unable to perform under controlled experimental conditions. It is reasonable to conclude that you are probably in the same class.
If dowsing does indeed work, that would be fascinating and have all sorts of interesting implications. I hope you pass Randi’s test; I doubt that you will.
I have no idea. But then, I have no idea if you really did. Right now, all we have is somebody making a completely unverifiable claim on a message board. You might be telling the truth. You might believe you are telling the truth, but perhaps it didn’t happen quite that way. Etc. Jon has already gone into some detail about this, but the fact of the matter is that we can’t explain it because we don’t even know that there is anything to explain. That’s why we skeptics insist on specific testing.
What goes on in your mind may or may not have to do with what is real, I’m afraid. Lots of people are convinced that astrology is real, or psychics, or homeopathy. That doesn’t make any of them valid, though.
Well I guess I won’t speak on this anymore until I hear from The Amazing Randi. However if the test works for me, perhaps I’ll change my name to The Great Randini. Here’s the message I sent to JREF:
Here is my story about witching for water. I lived in Snowflake, AZ in Navajo County for about 3 years or so with my mother and stepfather. Somehow we got on the whole witching water subject and my stepfather took two old welding rods, sloughed the coating off of them, and bent one end of each at a right angle about 1.5 inches down. then he handed them over to me and instructed me to hold them loosely between my thumb and forefinger and start walking. When I would see them cross, it was because I was standing over a water line, or in a couple of instances, a drainage pipe. Once while walking on our driveway, the rods crossed for me. I asked him what pipes were underneath but he pointed up above me to power lines. So this means I can find pipes, and they can be metal or pvc, empty or holding water, I don't believe that they would be located if buried deep underground, although admittedly I have no scientific argument to defend why I think this. The point is, I am one of those supposedly deluded people who think there is something to this phenomenon and although I think maybe most "dowsers" and "witchers" are a bit on the unbelievable side of things, I know in my own mind that I was not in any way give the locations of these objects by anyone, except if you count the power lines which obviously I could have subconsciously remembered the location of. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to try another experiment, and if that goes well, then to take you up on that $1,000,000 deal. The test I had in mind was to get someone to take me to a strange place that has such things in its soil, the locations and paths of which are known to that someone. I would then proceed to just walk across the entire area, blindfolded if someone keeps me from breaking my neck, and just do a complete sweep. An outside observer could be there to write down where my rods cross, and the guy helping me walk could straighten them out for me again so I can continue. I am convinced that all of the locations that these suckers cross will end up being mapped to the same locations that power lines, drainpipes, and water lines run. Septic tanks I don't know, I haven't tried it around one of those. You have a better test or see any holes in this one? Thank you for your time. I really think you have a nice site hear and will be a regular reader.
BTW even though I’ve been critiqued in the most skeptic of light, that’s also the reason I like this website and read Cecil’s stuff in the first place. Excepting this one thing, which I can believe in from firsthand experience, and then only so far as to say the phenomenon EXISTS, I am really quite the hardcore skeptic who only believes in theories based on solid evidence obtained through repeatable, verifiable experimentation. Anyhooo, I find it interesting that so far only people who DON’T believe me have read this, seeing as it appears to be so commonly believed. Guess that sort of denotes the type of crowd this website generally attracts, which is fine with me.
The obvious problem I see with the test is it leaves a whole lot open to interpretation. How close do you need to be for it to “count” What about the ones you miss? You’re blindfolded. That doesn’t eliminate all other senses. Especially if someone is holding you. What about terrain differences?
The test is only done once. These things should be repeated.
Since whether liquid is flowing or not doesn’t seem to matter to you, and it seems you have to walk over it, so you can’t use the object buried in a box test (both these tests were agreed on as fair by other dowsers), I would guess Randi n crew may devise something like a large sandbox divided into squares into which PVC piping (you can detect plastic? ) is buried deeply at random, then all the squares raked over to eliminate any differences. You could then wander around and try to determine which squares contained the piping.
This is essentially the box test but on a larger scale, would probably take longer, however, and I don’t even Randi n crew who are constantly having to set up the long complex trials with well-meaning but so far exclusively deluded people.
AngstMC, your letter sounds like a fine introduction, however you should read the JREF page closely on the topic of the challenge. There is a form that must be filled out by you to become a candidate. Fill out and submit the form.
Then someone from JREF will contact you and begin the arrangements to devise an appropriate test. You can discuss with them your suggested test, and they can point out why or why not it is a good one. Since they have been involved in many tests of dowsing, I am sure they have some good ideas on how to set up a fair test.
Remember that the conditions of the test require you to make a clear statement of what it is you think you can do (i.e. locate underground pipes full of water, metal or plastic pipes okay, etc). Then a testing plan will be negotiated that is acceptable to both sides. They will cooperate in any reasonable manner to make sure you believe you can perform under the test conditions. The goal is to make sure you think the test will work, and it would be counterproductive to devise a test that you don’t accept ahead of time. Also part of the agreement will be an up-front method spelled out for determining whether you succeed or fail. This will be agreed to ahead of time too.
Hey, good luck with it all. Let us know afterwards how it turned out. I hope you will keep an open mind to the results, in case it doesn’t work for you.
Just thought I would add my two cents worth to this debate. Several years ago, I was working for a company that installs cathodic protection systems on underground piping systems. Part of our job involved locating underground utilities. One time, we were out installing a system at an old chemical plant, and the owner asked us to locate some underground utilities around an area where they planned some new construction. The area had been paved and repaved twice in the last ten years, no “settling” of soil was able to occur. The existing drawings showed all the lines that had been installed in the last ten years, but the plant was thirty years old and several lines were not shown. To locate these lines, we used a MetroTech. This device can be used by a skilled operator to locate underground lines that contain conductors, and it is very accurate. Unforunately, it does not work on non conductors. The man who I was working with waited until there was a shift change (so that no one would think we were crazy) and then quickly walked around the area with a couple of bent pieces of wire, sticking flags in the ground whenever they crossed. We then used the MetroTech to confirm the locations and depths of all the items that we found. We found two buried electrical lines that did not appear on our drawings. (We knew they were electrical, because using the MetroTech we traced them back to where they came out of the ground.) In addition we had one line that the MetroTech could not pick up. It turned out that there was a buried concrete sewer pipe 20 feet down. (This was confirmed during an excavation.)
I have absolutely NO doubt that this technique works, and I have used it myself on numerous occasions. It should be noted that I can not use this to locate underground sources of water. I have walked all around my parents well, and the rods won’t do a darn thing. I have had incredible success with man-made buried lines both conductors and non-condustors.
) is buried deeply at random, then all the squares raked over to eliminate any differences. You could then wander around and try to determine which squares contained the piping.