It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Water divination! It's real!

page: 8
31
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2018 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Phage, I get where you're coming from on this, but how do you really conduct a scientific test where so much human intervention is involved?

I truly do understand your doubt, and from a scientific perspective it is warranted, but I honestly can't figure out a way to test it truly objectively in, as you say, a double blind study. I just can't.

That said, we can just say it's impossible, it's witchcraft or some such...but I, along with many others, have actually seen it work. It's not a joke. I was a skeptic too (and still am), and I have no explanation, but it does work.

I'm not arguing here, but as impossible as it seems, there's something to it.

Now, I don't believe all the tales, and this is likely part of the problem. For example; I don't believe wood will work, and I don't believe witching will find voids and empty pipes, etc. However, I've seen it work to find water in fairly large quantities underground.

I can't explain it, and I'd like to find an explanation, but just laughing it off isn't realistic either.




posted on May, 13 2018 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I've never heard of witching an empty pipe either.

As to the corrosion/degradation thing, I have seen old enough PVC become brittle even with water in it. It seems to be just a consequence of having water, and it might be an issue where water form one side tends to leach in one direction only; the pipes I am thinking of were above-ground. The exact reverse would of course be underground empty pipes.

It's an interesting theory, to be sure. The chemistry is starting to get a little involved for me to work out in my head, though. I'm electrical; chemical is more of a hobby. It sounds like you are more adept at the chemical analysis, so I'm just going to listen to you on that for now.


TheRedneck



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You backing out Phage? Science too hard for you?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It wouldn't be hard to design an experiment, but it would be a little expensive to carry out.

Take an acre (or a little less) plot of land, that has been verified by several witchers to not have underground water deposits. Remove the top foot of soil and grade what's left. Install water pipes running from one side to the other on, say 3 foot centers and cover and regrade it so there is no visual indication of where those lines are.

Place a water reservoir on one end of the pipes, with valves and pumps to fill or allow the pipes to drain on command. On the other end, place a common drain below the pipe so water can pump into the pipe or drain out from the first end. Now set up a simple control system that can randomly choose lines to be filled and drain the rest (a Teensy LC would probably do that; a Teensy 3.0 or Arduino Uno if needed).

You have volunteers attempt to witch the acre by walking across it while being videotaped. An operator chooses to run a control (no water in any pipes) or a random selection; in the random selection only the computer knows which lines have water. That can then be revealed after each run before another volunteer attempts to witch and recorded. If you want to get fancy, have it automatically recorded to file so no one knows even after the trial, until the data is analyzed.

With maybe 20 volunteers, each one walking the plot several times, not knowing if their walk is a control or an actual test, that would yield verifiable, quantifiable results. It would be quite sufficient for publication.

The thing is, I already know it works. You know it works. Phage does not. I'd like to see scientific proof, yes, but I cannot afford to buy the pipes and valves and hire a backhoe to dig out and then recover the plot, all just to satisfy Phage's curiosity. So I'm not going to. Phage seems to be very interested in gathering peer-reviewable data, so it's on him to bear the burdens. I have already agreed to get him access to a peer-review journal; this could even be applicable in IEEE, and I am a member with full publication rights. I know people with additional journal accesses.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I work closely with someone who tried to have a well drilled recently, in Bradley, California. 3, actually. All with no water. Expensive holes.

For the first one, they had two geologists and a witcher come out and all picked the same spot. Sadly they were wrong. My only experience with witching.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: eManym
I experimented with dosing rods. My setup was two wire clothes hangers bent into 'L' shapes. I cut a plastic straw in half and inserted the straws in the short part of the bend so they would move freely. What I discovered was when my hands were moved very slightly downward from the horizonal the dowsing rods would cross. When my hands moved very slightly upward from the horizontal the rods separated. I am not convinced that dowsing works any different from random or chance.


You being convinced is utterly irrelevant. It works and is in no way "chance" or "luck". What a ridiculous thing to believe with all the real world evidence of this working. I've seen it done many times and so have most people i know.

There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck

You're an engineer. You should know better.


Show me a double blind study with controls, not anecdotal evidence.


Don't need any of that. I've seen the "science" with my own eyes. There is no debate on this at all.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky

Controlled.

Double blind.

Those words mean something and are important.

Can I design the experiment?


What's to design? Did the person find water, Yes or no?

This is something that has been probably been done millions of times throughout human history. That carry's far more weight than your pointless demands.


edit on 14-5-2018 by Carcharadon because: Posted before finishing



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
That would be one way, but as you say, pretty expensive to set it all up. There are also problems with reducing variables, but I say more on that below.

There's also the problem of using dowsers to check the ground before starting. Reviewers could argue it's not possible to be certain that any dowsers employed would give totally reliable and consistent results. That is, assuming they'd readily accept the concept of using people to set up the (literal) ground work for an experiment, when it's to test for what they actually do.

So, after reading your post, I got to thinking about how to obviate any need for dowsers to begin with. One way might be to use an unfinished high-rise building -- like a multi-story apartment block or car parking facility -- and set up a piping system along the lines you described beneath the top concrete floor. The upper side of the concrete floor itself would be marked out.

Marking out a grid on a bare concrete floor is simple and cheap. Just plain painted lines in a highly visible color, with the grid squares numbered. Another advantage of this method is that the consistency of the floor itself (thickness and composition) is already known, whereas even if a field has a topsoil layer removed and then replaced with graded soil, it could be argued that the ground beneath that layer does not have the same known consistency and introduces unquantifiable variables.

There's also the useful factor that it won't matter much if it rains.

I'm making an assumption here by suggesting an upper floor in a new high-rise. Namely, there might be some kind of inverse-square effect in respect of any energy detection/interaction that hypothetically causes the dowsing rods to react. Ergo, if we have an uninhabited building that's being constructed and inspected according to detailed plans, but which does not yet have its "official" water supply connected (to exclude that variable), then several floors above ground level should be enough to at least significantly reduce the detection of any ground water/old or other water pipes/sewers etc that are beneath the building's foundations. At least, relative to conducting such a test at ground level.

In any case, if underground water was located when the foundations and basement of the building were dug out, that would doubtless have been noted, if only because ground water creates additional engineering issues which add to the costs of doing a major concrete pour.

To the practicilities: if the dowsing test subjects and test coordinators are taken up to that floor so they cannot even see the pipe layout below it, then they are "blind" to what's there. And if the piping array and water supply system is set up by a separate group, who do not even know who the test coordinators and subjects will be, they can't pass on any details to them. Obviously, it will be better to have varying distances between the sets of pipes so no test subject can "predict" their intervals. Having some pipes that follow a curve (rather than just run straight) could be helpful as well. Even have some that "snake" beneath the floor, if possible. Or create some spirals. Whatever.

Then (as you suggested), as each test run starts, use a random program to open and close various valves, with neither the subjects or coordinators knowing which pipes have water in them (or when) and which don't. Record the subjects both with a fixed system of cameras, and also perhaps a "Go Pro" or similar worn by the subjects. The recording is "blind" as well, because no-one involved in the test knows where the water is beneath the floor.

Using a regular grid pattern on a level floor will make it easier to design a program to display on a screen the water's location (and direction of flow) square-by-square, coordinated in real time with each test subject's location and the reactions of the rods (if any). Again, this display would not be available to anyone directly involved in the experiment. It would greatly add to the credibility of the process if the data (with displays and video) are reviewed later by a panel, who were not involved in any aspect of the planning, design or tests themselves.

If the funds and materials are available, a second array of randomly-operated pipes could be set up beneath eg the next floor down, meaning two concrete floors below the test subjects. Experiments could also be run either using the second array only, or in combination with the sub-top-floor array. This could be helpful in determining if any inverse-square kind of factor is involved. The second floor would also have a grid marked out, so that the movements/actions of test subjects two floors above could be referenced by the software.

But how to pay for all this?

I would guess it might be possible to find a building developer who would be willing to make their unfinished building available for such an experiment, especially if the approach is made by eg a qualified engineer. They could even get some publicity out of it. Besides acknowledgements for their kind and generous support in any journals, etc, they could get media coverage (complete with the obligatory “X Files” music at the start of the news reports on TV ; ) ).

Assuming it's a building that doesn't yet have its plumbing installed, the developer might even agree to supply much of the needed hardware. A lot of the piping, main valves etc could still be used afterwards.

Anyway, just my rather large 2 cents.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Right, but in order to instruct one of the volunteers how to properly conduct the experiment we'd have to essentially explain the process of 'witching'. Wouldn't this then remove the 'blind' element?

I can't speak for everyone, but I know when I first tried it myself it took a few times to get the hang of it...just to understand the subtleties of movement and holding the witch. It was kind of like one of those, "Oh, NOW I get it!", moments.

Otherwise, looks like you've laid out a great test. Aside from satisfying Phage (and some others) though, we'd be right back to this same point... 'okay it works, but why does it work?'.




posted on May, 14 2018 @ 07:16 AM
link   
A simple google search produced this:
How does water dowsing work?

In the sense that it finds underground water, water dowsing does not work. Water dowsing involves the claim that a person can locate underground sources of water without using any scientific instruments. Typically, the person that is dowsing holds sticks or rods and walks around a property in the hopes that the rods will dip, twitch, or cross when he walks over the underground water. The dowsing rods do indeed move, but not in response to anything underground. They are simply responding to the random movements of the person holding the rods. The rods are typically held in a position of unstable equilibrium, so that a small movement gets amplified into a big movement. The movements of the rods do not seem like they are coming from the small vibrations in the dowser's arms, since these vibrations are so small and the rod's movements are so large. From the false assumption that the movements of the rods are not coming from the small random vibrations of the dowser's arms, people then make the illogical leap that the movements must therefore be caused by something powerful that is out of sight, i.e. underground water. Since successfully locating underground water can save a farmer the trouble of digging several wells that end up dry, and since scientific approaches can be expensive, there is a strong incentive for people to want water dowsing to work.

continued

In many areas of the world, water dowsing seems to really work. In such areas, the location that the dowser points out indeed leads to a productive well. However, such areas of the world have so much groundwater close to the surface that any location will yield a productive well. The situation is like filling a box with only green socks and then asking a magician to close his eyes and use his magic powers to find a green sock in the box. If a system is secretly rigged for 100% success from the start, any method we use will seem successful. The U.S. Geological Survey states, "The natural explanation of ‘successful' water dowsing is that in many areas underground water is so prevalent close to the land surface that it would be hard to drill a well and not find water. In a region of adequate rainfall and favorable geology, it is difficult not to drill and find water!"

finally

Various controlled scientific studies over the last hundred years have repeatedly found that water dowsing does not work. For instance, 30 "expert" dowsers were invited to Kassel, Germany in 1990 to have their abilities tested in a study organized by James Randi. Pipes carrying flowing water were buried underground at known locations and the dowsers were tested as to their ability to determine if water was flowing through the pipes. All failed to do better than random guessing.

edit on 14-5-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, there we have it, KS hath spoken.

It's rubbish. Case closed. No further action required. None. Nada.

Next?

P.S. Whatever shall I do now with all these damn green socks?

/sarcasm



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Why are you so pissed off? I just pulled that off of a google search. Instead of acting like an angsty teenager, how about showing some counter evidence to say I'm wrong?



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Carcharadon
You being convinced is utterly irrelevant. It works and is in no way "chance" or "luck". What a ridiculous thing to believe with all the real world evidence of this working. I've seen it done many times and so have most people i know.

There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

Well, when I was there to experience it, we had the unrealistically low "chance" of finding water by using a witcher, and as "luck" would have it, he was wrong. To be fair so were geologists, who basically just walked around without sticks, lol. So it is 100% luck and chance based, as is anything dealing with fresh water. Never guaranteed to find it.
edit on 14-5-2018 by smashdem because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2018 by smashdem because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not mad. I was just being sarcastic.

Oh, and I already have.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Sarcasm is just a tool to hide contempt, but regardless I'm not reading 8 pages of responses for whatever anecdote you posted that supposedly trumps my source. Especially since my original post wasn't addressed to you originally. If you feel like you've countered my point then expend some effort and repost it.
edit on 14-5-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think a new 'ism' has been created here on ATS of late...

It's called...'repostit-ism'

Additionally, just because something hasn't been proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Because...ATS.



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whenever I am confronted by a source that directly contradicts personal experience, claiming to use scientific reasoning to do so, I begin to discount the source. I have seen straw driven into tree trunks by tornadoes as well, with my own eyes. Mythbusters 'disproved' that was possible. I began to lose interest in Mythbusters.

The issue with that episode was that they were unable to create the chaotic conditions in a tornado in a controlled environment.

That's why the design of the experiment is so vital. Minor deviations from 'normal' conditions may be all that is required to skew the results. In the case of witching, I am seeing a lot of claims that not everyone can witch. I only know I can. I cannot say someone else can, although it appears that Hammaraxx and his father can as well. FlyingClayDisk knows people who have successfully witched, and seagull has reported successful witching. As have others.

Then we have smashdem claiming the opposite, that a 'professional' witcher failed as did two geologists.

I cannot explain the study you found; I do not have all the information as to how the experiment was performed. My initial thoughts were that perhaps there was a previously unknown natural water deposit underneath, or perhaps the flow rate of the water was the problem (there was no flow rate in the lines I found; the water was stationary).

TheRedneck



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: JustMike

I knew someone was going to point out that I was using witchers to determine if underground water was available.


An acceptable substitute would be to use ground-penetrating sonar to verify the lack of natural underground water sources. Of course, that adds to the expense.

If FlyingClayDisk is right (and his explanation sounds reasonable to me), the fact that the water is in the ground may itself be a prerequisite for success. Indeed, the composition of the ground may itself be important if the boundary conditions between water and soil are the root source of the energy detected, which would also make soil composition a necessary component. Removing the soil may skew the tests. Indeed, even removing the soil and replacing it, as in my suggestion, may skew the tests for a few years, until the soil has had time to naturally compact back to a relatively undisturbed condition.

That is the inherent difficulty of designing an accurate experiment; replicating all conditions necessary while removing anything that could create observer bias, is quite difficult at times.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 14 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The one thing that is impossible to control in any experiment is human thought. So yes, we would have to instruct (at least some of) the participants on how to witch. However, as someone pointed out above, I don't think that would invalidate the tests. It either works or it doesn't. The key would be to writing down the instructions instead of having them instructed personally, just to ensure constancy.

If it were successful with one set of instructions and unsuccessful with another, that would indicate not a lack of people's ability to witch, but rather a lack of proper instruction. We are attempting to prove witching is possible, not determine whether one would need to know how to be successful.


Aside from satisfying Phage (and some others) though, we'd be right back to this same point... 'okay it works, but why does it work?'.

Well, obviously if we were able to successfully prove that yes, some people can water witch, then we could examine the conditions that change between having a pipe with water and a pipe without water. Are there any electrical or magnetic fields that exist when water is present, does the permeability or voltage gradients change, is the condition static or dynamic, etc.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
31
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join