Featured Title:
Redhead, the new thriller by Ian Cook 'a compulsive read' |
 |
| Stone Worlds: Narrative and Reflexivity in Landscape Archaeology |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 157 guests and 2 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : davidmorgan , TimPrevett , Andy B , Klingon , MickM , bat400 , sem , Runemage , TheCaptain
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Sacred Sites and Megalithic Mysteries >> Divining disputes ?
|
 |
| Page 1 of 8 ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 ) |
| Author |
Divining disputes ? |
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2706
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 23-02-2013 at 15:09
Do dowsers challenge or debate the claims of other dowsers ?
George
 Profile
 Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5598
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-02-2013 at 19:25
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-23 15:09, tiompan wrote:
Do dowsers challenge or debate the claims of other dowsers ?
George
|
|
I for one can hardly understand most dowsers.
When I meet them I can normally soon puzzle out which part of the puzzle they are almost fixated upon.
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1722
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-02-2013 at 20:10
Hi George
Following our recent PMs, I still haven't managed to download Google Earth (it is a dowsing "proof" after all).
Can anyone give me a work-around for GE when using Windows8 as it doesn't want to download? Thanks.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2706
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-02-2013 at 20:17
No rush Sem .
"Flash Earth "might be worth a look .
George
Profile
Reply
|
Dowser
Joined:
06-12-2008
Messages: 999
from North-East Poland
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-02-2013 at 22:30
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-23 15:09, tiompan wrote:
Do dowsers challenge or debate the claims of other dowsers ?
George
|
|
Very interesting question...
Profile
Reply
|
davep
Joined:
05-07-2009
Messages: 28
from Exeter
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-02-2013 at 02:46
Sem,
I just downloaded and succesfully installed Google Earth on Windows 8 (64-bit).
I would suggest trying again via this page:
Installing and uninstalling Google Earth
There is a direct installer there for Pcs.
Might be worth ensuring all Windows updates are installed first and rebooting the system. If the install fails check the Installation errors section on that link above. If it shows as being installed within Control Panel (Programs) try uninstalling and rebooting and try again.
If all that fails - try researching the issue using Google! Is your anti-virus or security software blocking it and so on.
good luck!
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2425
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-02-2013 at 10:07
Do dowsers challenge or debate the claims of other dowsers ?
I've posted before about confirming the 90 degree deflection of the Michael and/or Mary Line at the font in Lostwithiel. It's an unusual occurrence and because I was there, I went for it but otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.
Dowsing's such a subjective art, people look for different things and in the more esoteric aspects which seem to attract the most comment, no-one can prove they find or don't find what someone else dowsed.
It's like having a million radio stations broadcasting and just picking up one. In the same location, someone can find the pattern at 98.6 on the medium wave and someone else can find find the pattern at 129.8 FM. That doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong. Thousands of patterns could exist at the same place, the dowser will only find what they personally tune into. If one dowser can't tune into what another has found, then corroboration won't happen, but it doesn't mean they are both wrong.
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2706
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-02-2013 at 13:42
There is no way of telling that previous knowledge of a shift in direction reported by dowser A would not influence dowser B and if the results proved different it could then be argued that both dowsers were concentrating on different things , or that the the “flows/influences” are not necessarily constant as they may be affected by a multitude of environmental and personal variables from the time of day , phases of the moon ,temperature , precipitation , telluric current etc .
The million radio station analogy : We know that the stations are broadcasting , they can picked up , and different receivers , whether two or two billion , of the same signal can confirm that the information received was identical . If someone claims they were listening to to a Peruvian recipe broadcast at a particular time on a particular wavelength this can be corroborated or shown to be wrong .
With so much choice and the fact that nobody can be wrong or prove that they have found anything how can anybody be considered expert or even more valid than anyone else ?
Everything that I have read suggests that dowsing is ultimately , as you said , subjective ( although I don't see art as being appropriate ) and could be just as easily be considered as “impressions “ .
If you feel a sense of dread in a cathedral , joy at a battle site , or imagine that there was a sacrifice made at a megalithic monument that is merely your impression others may have different impressions neither are right or wrong . These are subjective feelings and there is and can be no debate about them .
The problem is that dowsers make claims that are more than just impressions .They claim to find stuff “which is otherwise hidden from view or knowledge “ .That is where they can be shown to be wrong and why I asked “Do dowsers challenge or debate the claims of other dowsers ? “ .
George
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2425
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-02-2013 at 17:35
Everything that I have read suggests that dowsing is ultimately , as you said , subjective ( although I don't see art as being appropriate ) and could be just as easily be considered as “impressions “ .
In the case of 'earth energy' it's more than an impression as a pattern or line can be followed and traced on the ground, some are straight, others meander, others are known geometrical shapes and some are quite abstract. I think dowsing's an art because it's quite a creative pastime, like music or painting, anyone can do the very basics but only the ones with a natural talent will be good at it.
The problem is that dowsers make claims that are more than just impressions . They claim to find stuff “which is otherwise hidden from view or knowledge “
Well, if people claim to find invisible things or things that don't show up on any form of detector or indeed things that are outside your (not their) balance of probabilities, then I don't see how they can be proved or not. To reiterate from other threads, I only know that both Angie and I independently found the three 'respect openings' on approach to the same site in the same place at different times. As that's happened to me, then it leads me to believe I've found something "energetic" there and so has Angie, although neither of us knew the other had found something, so one wasn't testing or checking the other. Maybe other dowsers find the same thing, I have no idea as I'm not in touch with any outwith this forum.
.That is where they can be shown to be wrong and why I asked “Do dowsers challenge or debate the claims of other dowsers ? “ .
I've previously mentioned the Michael/Mary line being diverted by 90 degrees by the odd carving on Lostwithiel font as dowsed by Hamish Miller and years later I found the same to be true.
On a proof scale, that would rate a zero, on my balance of probabilities scale, it's a positive and on yours it's not. I find it interesting when people record what they have found at different sites, one day there may be a way of measuring whatever it is. However, until then I think all invisible/undetectable by today's equipment findings have to be accepted as one person's experience at a particular site at a particular time. Whether they hold any relevance outside personal experience is yet to be established.
I don't think there is any way to prove that sort of experience is right or wrong. How could it be challenged, shall we ask any dowsers reading this forum to pop down to Lostwithiel and report what they pick up if they focus on the Michael/Mary line near the odd carving on the font? If we get 20 independent new people posting and saying they all found the same thing when they tried it, it doesn't prove anything.
Not that I'm any authority on the subject, but, I've not known any instances of one dowser setting out to deliberately dispute what another has found, I don't see how they could. What could they say, "Your invisible lines don't exist but mine do"
I don't think so 
Rune
[ This message was edited by: Runemage on 2013-02-24 17:58 ]
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2706
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-02-2013 at 18:37
The reason for me not viewing dowsing as an art , is that art , by definition requires a level of craft or skill which is not apparent in dowsing as anyone can dowse straight away , and there is no way to tell from any of the findings/drawings whether one is from a first timer or someone who has been doing it for years . As mentioned earlier if there is no right or wrong and the findings of “earth energies “ can be straight ,winding ,zig zag , looped , folded , at any scale etc . How do tell when someone is any good or being deluded ?
“but only the ones with a natural talent will be good at it.”
I asked earlier “With so much choice and the fact that nobody can be wrong or prove that they have found anything how can anybody be considered expert or even more valid than anyone else ?
Finding the same pattern of movement at particular sites is no different from having the same impressions at at these sites and is a classic ideomotor response . Why should the response be considered due to environmental factors when someone might get a totally different yet , from a dowsing perspective , equally credible response ?
The Lostwithiel comment was covered in the previous post i.e. “There is no way of telling that previous knowledge of a shift in direction reported by dowser A would not influence dowser B and if the results proved different it could then be argued that both dowsers were concentrating on different things “ .
“Whether they hold any relevance outside personal experience is yet to be established. “ Agree .
It is not only invisible, unrecordable "lines " that are mentioned . As noted earlier you can't debate subjective impressions .
Dowsers claim to find to stuff ,real stuff, that is where the debate ,among themselves might be found .
George
George
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5598
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-02-2013 at 18:59
Tiompan,
I cannot comment about a painters abilities, as I cannot paint.
I cannot comment about a horse riders abilities, as I cannot ride a horse.
I cannot comment about a brain surgeons methods.
How come You can comment so about dowsing?????
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2706
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-02-2013 at 19:10
You continually make comment about subjects which you clearly know nothing about and when asked to clarify fail to do so .
Anyone can dowse , there is no right or wrong , most of what is dowsed cannot be recorded and when it is recordable dowsers fail to find it .
If there is anything in my comments that you can show to be wrong or wish to discuss , feel free .
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5598
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-02-2013 at 20:07
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-24 19:10, tiompan wrote:
You continually make comment about subjects which you clearly know nothing about and when asked to clarify fail to do so .
Anyone can dowse , there is no right or wrong , most of what is dowsed cannot be recorded and when it is recordable dowsers fail to find it .
If there is anything in my comments that you can show to be wrong or wish to discuss , feel free .
|
|
How do You know what I know about "subjects"????
Have You dowsed Me and My knowledge????
Are You claiming to be all knowing about the subjects You clain I clearly know nothing about???
You are stating in a fact like manner untruths, many dowsers confirm each others findings, but many dowsers as I alluded to in My first post tend to become fixated upon whatever they recognise best, or have most interest in.
Are You been paid to be so ultra skeptical at every opportunity???
cropredy
Are You claining to be a dowser????
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
Dowser
Joined:
06-12-2008
Messages: 999
from North-East Poland
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-02-2013 at 20:14
Maybe we should make an idependent test,using the same method of searching?
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2706
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-02-2013 at 20:33
As I said , you make comments on subjects that you clearly know nothing about then link to some pseudoscientific web site which you don't understand either . Would you like me to list some examples . ?
Being sceptical about dowsing is hardly ultrascepticism , any more than accepting it is being ultra gullible .
You haven't answered any of the questions or problems posed , or addressed any of comments .
“Are you claiming to be a dowser ?”
What is a dowser ?
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5598
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-02-2013 at 23:53
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-24 20:33, tiompan wrote:
As I said , you make comments on subjects that you clearly know nothing about then link to some pseudoscientific web site which you don't understand either . Would you like me to list some examples . ?
Being sceptical about dowsing is hardly ultrascepticism , any more than accepting it is being ultra gullible .
You haven't answered any of the questions or problems posed , or addressed any of comments .
“Are you claiming to be a dowser ?”
What is a dowser ?
|
|
Here's another pseudoscientific link, includes Newgrange.
I am the very model of a modern dualistic magnetic dowser.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI
I have made it My business to puzzle out that which I detect.
I don't need to know out of date and redundant garbage, I trust to My senses , and do not lie to Myself.
cropredy
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2706
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-02-2013 at 09:55
The thread is about dowsing , there have been quite a few comments and questions which you have avoided , instead we get yet another link to a dodgy geezer / pseudoscientific link to a site that has it's comments disabled , I wonder why .
We know you don't you understand basic physics (or the stuff you link to ) and trust your senses , that explains why you unquestioningly accept that stuff . Ignorance and trust are exactly what snake oil merchants rely on .
Can we get back on topic ?
Some earlier questions
What is a dowser ?
Do dowsers challenge or debate the claims of other dowsers ?
How can you differentiate between a dowser and a charlatan ?
How do tell when someone can dowse or is being deluded ?
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5598
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-02-2013 at 13:31
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-25 09:55, tiompan wrote:
The thread is about dowsing , there have been quite a few comments and questions which you have avoided , instead we get yet another link to a dodgy geezer / pseudoscientific link to a site that has it's comments disabled , I wonder why .
We know you don't you understand basic physics (or the stuff you link to ) and trust your senses , that explains why you unquestioningly accept that stuff . Ignorance and trust are exactly what snake oil merchants rely on .
Can we get back on topic ?
Some earlier questions
What is a dowser ?
Do dowsers challenge or debate the claims of other dowsers ?
How can you differentiate between a dowser and a charlatan ?
How do tell when someone can dowse or is being deluded ?
|
|
"We( who is We?) know You don't You understand"
That is correct, I do not understand the above gobylydook.
Where are those earlier questions??I can see the first two, which I for one posted a reply to, but the second two ???/
You are constantly inserting words such as Charlatan..deluded etc etc etc etc etc etc which is obviously a reflection of your ultra biased skeptical thinking.
I find it highly offensive and continuously attempting to assign such descriptions towards dowsers.
You will therefore recieve no response to such garbage from Me.
I could continuously insert such offense when You are debating about the solar system and positions of such in time, which I find equally deluded and all part of a veil that has been bought hook line and sinker by the vast majority.
Or the notion that light travels at a fixed speed, which I contend there is no movement full stop.
You feel totally free to thus offensively assign anything that does not FIT into Your and the current accepted as been pseudoscientific....because it does not agree with Your assumed mastery of such.
I for one can pass any test set that is to do with the matrix and duality of magnetic flows that travel about on such, and that is quite simple to bring into the visual and checkable 3D physical reality.
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2425
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-02-2013 at 14:24
Guys, we're getting into ad hom territory here, insinuating certain posters or even dowsers in general are charlatans and/or are deluded isn't the way to get any serious answers to any questions, nor will it encourage anyone to reply, except perhaps in an aggressive or defensive way that would soon require post removal etc.
In order to lighten the tone, and in view of Andy's comment about ad hom on another board, I was tempted to answer the charlatan question by saying I'd never seen a politician dowse
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
AngieLake
Joined:
12-03-2004
Messages: 551
from Newton Abbot, Devon
OFF-Line
|  Posted 25-02-2013 at 16:27
When it started I didn't want to get into this discussion as I knew how it was likely to develop.
Rune kindly spoke for me (thanks Rune), but I *will* add that I've always enjoyed my dowsing (though I don't do very much these days); I was taught early on to record all my findings, therefore have a large collection of evidence from many sites in Britain; and always felt that what I was doing was useful.
Ok, so there may be no way to prove what I'm finding (esp. ritual movement concurrent with the monument's most important prehistoric phase), but the resulting pattern often shows up hidden parts* of a monument (two stones in line with the Pipers at the Hurlers spring to mind, or the two possible missing stones at Ballymeanoch - see this link http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=55060 )
; or focusses on one particular stone (the anvil-shaped one in the E arc of Grey Wethers' southern circle); or proceeds towards a certain landscape feature which may have been important.
*(The possible 'portal stones' en route to Y Pigwn, while walking along Sem's 'Avenue', also; - Oh, and the circle with the tall stones at Machrie Moor 2 on Arran which might have had a horseshoe setting of posts in the centre - see: http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=42526 ; the ox burial area at Bryn Celli Ddu: http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=44394&orderby=dateD , and the invisible oval shrine at Maiden Castle: http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=40189&orderby=dateD are more examples).
In years to come there may be scientific ways to prove how dowsing could result in these findings, but if they're not recorded while doing the exercise (too 'stiff' a word for the good experience enjoyed!), and not promoted, future investigators won't even look there.
The study of the laser scanning of the stones at Stonehenge might yet also prove that Stone 16 [with the inverted fat V mark on its inner face] is as important as I dowsed it to be in 2003 and 2006. (The stone, and the area between it and the Great Trilithon's outer face, dowsed as 'most important' on those two private access dawns, not the V mark, which I noticed in my photos later. However, the V mark may have been a focal point of ceremonies.)
It just depresses me to hear tiompan constantly setting up a question on dowsing only to revel in knocking down the opinions of those who reply, so I shan't add any more to this thread, except to answer his question!
"Yes, occasionally dowsers do query the findings of other dowsers, but that might happen while one is dowsing a different time-scale to the other. A building might not be there in a certain period, or it might be a different shape or style, for instance. (Round Iron age hut, or rectangular hut, or Roman buildings in different phases.)
As well as my solo ritual movement dowsing, I was part of a small team of dowsers that worked on many projects over the years between 1997 and 2010, doing archaeological dowsing, and we often cross-checked our findings.
I remember on one occasion dowsing a double stone row only to have another member say that he dowsed a triple row in that place. I wasn't absolutely sure the extra row existed, but it didn't mean to say there had not been one extra at some period. No excavation was done on that site to my knowledge to prove this either way.
He did like his 'triple rows', as at another place where I dowsed a zig-zag setting down over a hill slope, he believed it began as a triple row. Others believed it to be a double row, where I was picking up alternate sides of the row while descending the slope."
(...... All I recall for now.)
[ This message was edited by: AngieLake on 2013-02-25 16:41 ]
Profile
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use.
If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
Articles, photographs and comments are the property of their respective authors or contributors, please contact them for permission to reproduce. Site design ©1997-2012 Andy Burnham.
|
Main News