In my research into the paranormal, I always take the stance that I don’t believe in anything but possibility. I was in over 20 different states last year alone researching and investigating reports of paranormal phenomena. I have worked with dowsing rods many times for many years (only becuase I take the approach of since we don’t have all the answers yet I will remain open to any possibility, HOWEVER I do not hold any information gathered by dowsing as objective, or quantitative [have yet to find it very useful either]). Some of your visitors might enjoy reading all about my crazy real life supernatural adventures in my free Legend Trippers Journal
(http://www.w-files.com/legendtrippersjournal.html).

For those of you who are a bit more scientifically minded, I just released
some level headed scientific method op eds on http://www.GetGhostGear.com with
links right on the home page. I think this crowd might really enjoy (and have plenty to comment on) my new op eds. I always love constructive feedback!

Keep up the good work!
Noah Voss

@Donovan Colbert – the makers of this device, and any one who uses it in the face of all recommendations that it is ineffective, are guilty of negligent homicide, at the least. The bombers are of course guilty of a higher crime, but to say that no blame falls to the makers of this device flies in the face of reason and of the law.

If this device were used in the U.S. and failed to detect a bomb that killed hundreds of people, I guarantee you that the manufacturers and those who selected the device would be prosecuted in criminal court and sued in civil court, successfully.

I’m not saying that dowsing works 100% of the time, but it does work more often than it should if there were nothing to it (i.e. it is more accurate than chance).

Please cite the appropriate double-blind trials that have demonstrated this.

Part of the problem is that Thought influences Outcome, as demonstrated by the Heisenberg Principle.
Belief is a type of thought.
Skepticism taints the experiment.
If it were done in an environment of enthusiasm instead of skepticism, you would find that dowsing totally works.

And you will find that no experiment can produce a reliable result unless one approaches it with scepticism. Experiments must be performed in such a way that they convince sceptics, but you seem to require a priori belief in an outcome before you start your experiment.

BTW, you have not understood the Uncertainty Principle.

Look no further than the experiments of Tom Lethbridge, archaeologist & former curator of Anglo-Saxon antiquities exhibit at the Archaeological Museum in Cambridge. He was a famous archaeologist, and made many of his best discoveries using “pendulum dowsing”.

I find myself feeling sceptical about this.

That being said, I probably wouldn’t want to bet my life on it.

Whereas I would bet my life on scientifically-proven methods (e.g. I do it every time I get into an aircraft). Case closed.

Better get Jennifer Oulette to teach you all how to un-wad your panties. Umm,let’s see $millions to irobot who produced…..uh, how’s bout Foster-Miller’s little robbie that took hundreds of millions, 4 years to get to Iraq and then turned its guns on US troops. Or the $billions on GPR/metal detectors which work great if NO water (so forget fields and waterways)is present or plastic mines are buried in dry sand. Oh yeah can’t be any Al cans around either. Oh, what happened to DOE’s melt ‘em all ray gun of 2004?
And all those airborne platforms that were to find everything?

Any officer that tries to save my kids’ lives has my vote.

But you are confusing those things that don’t work yet (but are founded on genuine science) with something that will never work because it is founded on fantasy (dowsing). The two categories are qualitatively different.