On 2012-03-06 21:41, Runemage wrote:
Hi Kevin,

I do not appreciate My name used upon here been associated with some pub info.

It wasn't.

Is this a thread about spirals, or *** is it about???

Please, no profanities on here, there's no need.

Currently, we are discussing downward spiralling forum topics and how to avoid them. How to give everyone an opportunity to voice their opinion whilst sorting out what's valid and what's not without falling into the usual predictable vortex.

Rune

Surely the important thing is the data, interpretation of data can lead to a wide array of possibilities, but this shouldn't invalidate the data. Furthermore is the data is ignored how can it be tested or even validated.

On 2012-03-06 21:35, ledgehammer wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-03-06 20:57, cropredy wrote: Quote: On 2012-03-06 20:09, tiompan wrote: As an example of how long it takes , even in relation to something simple like the meaning of two words . When first asked by Sem about the meaning of the oxymoron “ Lunar Solstice “ Cropredy took 7 posts trying to talk himself out of an impossible situation before finally saying “I do not buy the accepted, thus I cannot give a reference to something I see as fake. “ . If it takes all that for two words clearly oxmoronic a concept could take much longer . One bloke here argued for much longer about one point before finally admitting that it was all due to getting the wrong info in a pub . Does that mean we should ignore and not question such nonsense ? George I do not appreciate My name used upon here been associated with some pub info. Is this a thread about spirals, or WTF is it about??? cropredy

Kevin,

Back onto spirals then chap, The spiral shape which I dowsed relating to the center point, incidently I was asking for nodes to see just how frequent they are following a valid point from George.

I find it difficult to accept via my dowsing that it was a configuration of straight lines, purely as I was dowsing from a singluar point, in order for the spiral to be a straight line configuration I would have had to be switching from more than one point i.e other nodes. This did not seem the case and the spiral seemed distinguished from any other points, and directly relating to the center point of the node.

Incidently I found the spirals to be larger based on their connection to wider lines, so no consistant grid. There may be a ratio present, but this is going to require extensive mapping with the strings and pegs.

How does this translate to you. Next question, how does this spiral transend vertically, in simplistic terms and relative to the one point and not others.

It will be difficult but this is possible to map on a simplistic level, and I suspect we should strive to do so.

Tom



[ This message was edited by: ledgehammer on 2012-03-06 21:36 ]

On 2012-03-07 08:36, jonm wrote:
Hi Tom

Quote:

Surely the important thing is the data, interpretation of data can lead to a wide array of possibilities, but this shouldn't invalidate the data. Furthermore is the data is ignored how can it be tested or even validated.

Not sure what you mean: Do you have an example?

Jon

On 2012-03-07 09:10, cropredy wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-03-06 21:35, ledgehammer wrote: Quote: On 2012-03-06 20:57, cropredy wrote: [quote] On 2012-03-06 20:09, tiompan wrote: As an example of how long it takes , even in relation to something simple like the meaning of two words . When first asked by Sem about the meaning of the oxymoron “ Lunar Solstice “ Cropredy took 7 posts trying to talk himself out of an impossible situation before finally saying “I do not buy the accepted, thus I cannot give a reference to something I see as fake. “ . If it takes all that for two words clearly oxmoronic a concept could take much longer . One bloke here argued for much longer about one point before finally admitting that it was all due to getting the wrong info in a pub . Does that mean we should ignore and not question such nonsense ? George I do not appreciate My name used upon here been associated with some pub info. Is this a thread about spirals, or WTF is it about??? cropredy

Kevin,

Back onto spirals then chap, The spiral shape which I dowsed relating to the center point, incidently I was asking for nodes to see just how frequent they are following a valid point from George.

I find it difficult to accept via my dowsing that it was a configuration of straight lines, purely as I was dowsing from a singluar point, in order for the spiral to be a straight line configuration I would have had to be switching from more than one point i.e other nodes. This did not seem the case and the spiral seemed distinguished from any other points, and directly relating to the center point of the node.

Incidently I found the spirals to be larger based on their connection to wider lines, so no consistant grid. There may be a ratio present, but this is going to require extensive mapping with the strings and pegs.

How does this translate to you. Next question, how does this spiral transend vertically, in simplistic terms and relative to the one point and not others.

It will be difficult but this is possible to map on a simplistic level, and I suspect we should strive to do so.

Tom



[ This message was edited by: ledgehammer on 2012-03-06 21:36 ]

This data was arrived at via the method of dowsing, but netherless is still data, which upon quantifiable via another dowser should be treated as such. The formation of an idea does not reflect this data, but an idea may be based on the data - but in my opinion not the same thing.

On 2012-03-07 19:20, jonm wrote:

Quote:

This data was arrived at via the method of dowsing, but netherless is still data, which upon quantifiable via another dowser should be treated as such. The formation of an idea does not reflect this data, but an idea may be based on the data - but in my opinion not the same thing.

I think I understand: Trying to re-word to see if I have understood: You have something you can detect, which is verifiable by other dowsers as having the same pattern of variation relative to a datum (eg the sun)?

. But my point is that the measurements and findings from the dowsing is data, irrespective of its source, it may be verified or found to be false i.e under conditions which lead to the results, rather than discovering, but is still data.


Tom

On 2012-03-08 12:30, tiompan wrote:
Tom , how can the findings be found to be false ?

George

Quote:

. But my point is that the measurements and findings from the dowsing is data, irrespective of its source, it may be verified or found to be false i.e under conditions which lead to the results, rather than discovering, but is still data. Tom

On 2012-03-08 13:29, ledgehammer wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-03-08 12:30, tiompan wrote: Tom , how can the findings be found to be false ? George Quote: . But my point is that the measurements and findings from the dowsing is data, irrespective of its source, it may be verified or found to be false i.e under conditions which lead to the results, rather than discovering, but is still data. Tom

George,

I am unaware based on the way in which I have followed the process, I could be missing something which is why currently I am trying to get others involved. I stress that the process should not be directed at whether dowsing works or does not work, as dowsing is clearly influenced by the mind of the dowser, but the dowser(s) data should be cross referenced to establish a confirmation of the results, and this should be repeated at different locations of different types using the variable of previous human occupation.

Best wishes

Tom

On 2012-03-08 22:58, sem wrote:
Tom
Given the questions and comments from Jon and George, do you think that if dowsers A,B,C and D get different results from dowser E, would you consider dowser E to be wrong?
Or maybe all are human?

On 2012-03-08 22:58, sem wrote:
Tom
Given the questions and comments from Jon and George, do you think that if dowsers A,B,C and D get different results from dowser E, would you consider dowser E to be wrong?
Or maybe all are human

On 2012-03-09 13:48, LittleEnki wrote:

Its simple, and hard all at once, and Tom and Cropredy have found their niche, so maybe you should try to find your's Tiompan, and get out there, and SEE what these things are that you cant seem to wrap your head around.

Any dowser will tell you(and I am a newbie) that if you believe in what you are looking for, and why youre looking for it, it will be there.
LE

On 2012-03-08 22:58, sem wrote:
Tom
Given the questions and comments from Jon and George, do you think that if dowsers A,B,C and D get different results from dowser E, would you consider dowser E to be wrong?
Or maybe all are human?

On 2012-03-09 16:06, frogcottage42 wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-03-08 22:58, sem wrote: Tom Given the questions and comments from Jon and George, do you think that if dowsers A,B,C and D get different results from dowser E, would you consider dowser E to be wrong? Or maybe all are human?

It seems logical that if dowser A, B, C and D get one result and dowser E gets another then the first four must be tuned in to a similar criteria where dowser E is picking up something else.
Surely all 5 results must be considered part of the whole?
It's a bit like colour blindness, people can look at the same thing and see it differently whilst both observing the same subject and both reporting accurately, their descriptions can be entirely different.
I can't help thinking that Cropredy would usually be dowser E!
and I suspect he will return shortly to dismiss that opinion