Water divination! It's real!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

For the record, I do not have contempt for you.

Okay, I will engage you a little bit here...

First off, in the examples you cited I don't have any way to know what they were doing. To me, "dowsing" is a different process. Dowsing in my mind (and perhaps incorrectly) involves the use of a forked stick or rod which is attached at the center, whereas 'witching' involves the use of two metal rods bent to right angles and then held horizontally to the surface. I don't know which process they were using in the cited quotes.

I can say, from my own personal experience, I've had no luck at all with the forked stick method (dowsing, to me), so I would agree, it's likely not realistic. However, I have had luck using the 'witch' method, and I've cited one of the examples I witnessed first hand. In that example, it would have been difficult if not impossible to fake the results I personally witnessed. Also, the example I cited was not designed as a test to prove anything, it was merely a method used to locate something which couldn't be located through other more conventional means (using some pretty sophisticated gear of the day). Had my example been solely for the purpose of a test, then we might have documented evidence it does work.

Again, just because someone can't prove how a phenomenon works doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And, as I've also noted above, some people simply cannot do it (for some reason, which would also be interesting to know). I've speculated about possible reasons why, but in the end I cannot prove it one way or the other.

Your green sock citation is an inevitable one. Someone will always make this claim. I think the missing descriptor are the words "reasonable efforts". Sure, I can hit water 100% of the time if I'm prepared to drill a 10,000 foot well. But if I'm not prepared to do that, and only intended to make a 'reasonable effort' of say 150-200 feet then my chances drop dramatically, well below 5-10% (at least in my part of the world).

Lastly, the actual process of using a witch to locate water is not a 5 minute process. It's not like someone starts witching and the first time the rods cross they drive a stake and say "Drill Here!" It's more involved than this (at least in my experience). You generally have to look for correlation by making multiple passes in different directions to see if you get the same results. Additionally, you also want to look over the general area too. So, I wouldn't start on top of the tallest sand dune in Saudi Arabia looking for water. However, just because I'm in what appears to be an ideal location, given the localized terrain, doesn't mean I can just drill a well anywhere (again, around here) because my chances will be very low and wells are expensive.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I tend to immediately disbelieve people who use anecdotes as the primary source for their beliefs. A scientific experiment may not be 100% sound, but I'll trust to that until the study can be shown to be flawed before I'll believe a collection of anecdotes saying otherwise. Anecdotes are untrustworthy and people tend to correlate things that are unrelated all the time. Then echo chambers have a tendency to reinforce those flawed correlations without adequately challenging them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And there's nothing wrong with that type of critical thinking (like yours) either. In fact, it's a good thing.

Most of the discussion here has been focused on isolating exactly what we're trying to prove, terminology, methods and theories.

I think we can all agree, even believers, that there is probably as much (if not more) BS and lore associated with this topic than there is scientific evidence. That's part and parcel of the challenge.

Of course, we could just as easily dismiss it altogether and say it's just a myth...but for the part about it working (in front of the eyes of other critical thinkers like yourself).

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So are you suggesting that "witching" as you put it only works up to a few hundred feet below ground? Otherwise how are you supposed to tell if you are getting a reading for water 10 feet underground versus 1000 feet? Also, you say that it is more complicated than it sounds. How so? What is complicated about it?

I mean it sounds to me like you are using topography details to locate water and then using your "hits" to correlate the two while discarding hits where topography doesn't suggest water should be underneath. After all, even you admit it won't work on a sand dune in the desert.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Dismissing it as a myth is the easy cop out way. The better idea is to put it to the test scientifically. And the way I see things, if the process is real then it should be testable and quantifiable. I see no reason to believe that only certain people are capable of doing it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I totally agree, hence a good portion of the discussion on this thread.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So are you suggesting that "witching" as you put it only works up to a few hundred feet below ground? Otherwise how are you supposed to tell if you are getting a reading for water 10 feet underground versus 1000 feet?

I'm not sure I have an answer for this. It's a good question though. My own personal experience seems to indicate it works to depths of roughly 50-60 feet. However, I've never really tried anything deeper.

Also, you say that it is more complicated than it sounds. How so? What is complicated about it?

Not more complicated really, just more time consuming, meaning it's not a 5 minute exercise.

I mean it sounds to me like you are using topography details to locate water and then using your "hits" to correlate the two while discarding hits where topography doesn't suggest water should be underneath. After all, even you admit it won't work on a sand dune in the desert.

You're absolutely correct. I would always want to rule out the obvious time and effort wasters, at least until efforts in more obvious places proved fruitless.

ETA...Remember though, sometimes you don't always have obvious terrain to assist you. Some places are flat as a board.

ETA II...I think (and this is just my opinion) that the depth at which this process will work is probably a function of the volume of the water. So, a greater volume could be located at a deeper depth, much the same way a metal detector works.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, you just called a lot of people liars on here. I'm guessing you're not a very popular fellow.

Keep on believing.

TheRedneck

Yep, totally real. Growing up, our water line which crossed under an irrigation canal would freeze up in the winter if we didn't insulate over it with a couple bales of straw ahead of time.

We used to use the rods every fall to locate where it crossed the canal since it was a couple blocks from our house.

It can find underground electrical cables too. It also doesn't need water running thru a pipe, I've had them indicate while crossing a dry ditch before too.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Even on flat land, if you have good topography skills you should be able to locate underground water sources. Valleys and ditches are probably going to be more water heavy than a hill or mountain. Density of vegetation is probably another giveaway here. I'm mostly spitballing here, but just thinking about how water behaves should make the process of diving unnecessary. And if you are in an area that topography will fail, I'd wager that any divining/witching tricks would fail too. Well it would probably produce results along random guessing.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, you just called a lot of people liars on here. I'm guessing you're not a very popular fellow.

Keep on believing.

TheRedneck

I don't come to ATS to participate in bandwagon fallacies. Though ultimately it's nothing personal. A human's memory is flawed and has a tendency to lie. Not everyone has top notch deductive abilities, and even if you do that doesn't mean you use them all the time. So if you get offended by what I said, then that is your problem with your skin being too thin.

Dousing Failed the Randi Challenge

Why do folks believe it when it can't be proven?

Someday when I'm bored, I will try it myself.

Of course, everything says it can't be real, but like UFO's, there's too many witness accounts to simply blow it off.
So I'm not. People have been doing this for centuries.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Dousing Failed the Randi Challenge

Why do folks believe it when it can't be proven?

Can only speak for myself when I say because I've done it myself dozens of times. It's never "not" worked for me.

What folks believe, or don't, is entirely up to them.

Personally, I believe there a science and not a paranormal reason behind it, but it does work, for me (and my dad) for whatever the reason.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

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.

I can. I gave an outline for an experiment. And there have been a number of them conducted which follow that outline as well as others. They come up empty. Results no better than chance, even with "verified" dowsers.

A lot like experiments with claims of paranormal abilities. They work great until science gets involved. So, I suggest leaving science out of it and stick with the forum in which this is posted.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not offended one bit. I sort of consider the source: the same person who typically disputes everything else I say. So your post was no surprise.

I assumed your skin was thick enough to take a little constructive criticism. Maybe I was wrong?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Are you suggesting that I'm offended or hurt by your words? Yeah. No. Me explaining my thought process is only furthering the discussion by giving a rationale on why I say the things I do. Also, how about not making little snipes at me and staying on topic?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

OK, got it.

Sorry for the offense. Enjoy.

TheRedneck

a reply to: halfoldman My wife's uncle visited us before we put in our house. I was talking to him about where we should put the well. He was 81 at the time. He reached up, snapped off some apple tree branches, and proceeds to walk around the property. He suddenly stopped, and both of the branaches practically came out of his hands, and he reached down and put a rock there.

"150 feet down, you will get at least 15 gallons a minute, and it's an underground stream, you should never run out."

Drilled the well. 160 feet, and 16 gallons a minute, and it's never ran dry even filling a 33,000 gallon pool several times.

I've witnessed it, I know it works, no idea HOW it works.

Fred..

originally posted by: halfoldman
And yeah, held those simple L-shaped wires (like an old clothes-hanger), and by Odin, they turned downwards in my hands!
It works!

I don't suppose the wires would automatically swing down and towards each other when you walk over a lower area of the ground that kind of tips forward... like an old dry creek bed or something. Where there still might be water below.