Vincent Reddish book

media reports from the scientific and natural world, not specifically about dowsing.

How necessary is mental focusing when dowsing for physical underground targets? (drain-pipes etc)

100% (absolutely necessary)
5
56%
75% (very necessary)
1
11%
50% (quite necessary)
1
11%
25% (not very important)
0
No votes
0% (not at all necessary)
1
11%
Don't know
1
11%
 
Total votes : 9

Vincent Reddish book

Postby Ian Pegler » Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:42 pm

I've managed to obtain a copy of the book "The D-force ~ a remarkable phenomenon" by Vincent Reddish. This book was one of the references cited in the July FOCUS article by John Gribbin.

It's quite a thin book, and I've managed to read through it quite quickly.

Basically Vincent Reddish is approaching dowsing from a more-or-less clean sheet. I say more-or-less because he is an astronomer and as such he projects ideas from astronomy onto dowsing. In particular his experience of inteferometry.

There is no bibliography whatsoever in this book, and it's quite clear that he didn't do any background reading or connect with any dowsing groups before starting his research which is based on his own experiments dowsing pipes and drains around his home, which is a large property in Perthshire. This is what I mean when I say he is coming at dowsing with a more-or-less clean sheet, which has advantages and disadvantages.

The main advantage is that his research is not coloured by anyone else's work. The big disadvantage is that it becomes obvious quite quickly that he has an incredibly superficial understanding of dowsing.

As a physicist he seems to approach the problem with the notion that the mystery of dowsing must be answerable by a physics explanation. This is, to put it bluntly, an assumption. He invents the term "D-force" which is rather like the old Underwood concept of an "Earth-force" i.e. it is a hitherto undiscovered field which belongs in the realm of physics. Again, like Underwood he discovers parallel reaction bands, although they bear no resemblance to Underwood's patterns in other respects - there are no "triple bands" or spirals. Like Underwood he believes that this mysterious force behaves like a wave, and he seems to have rediscovered reminence all by himself, which he calls "hysteresis", which we've known about for a long time too.

There is no mention of mental-focusing in the book whatsoever, and yet he seems to have been successful in tracing the path of underground pipes. He made a chance discovery that dowsing an underground pipe which was directly underneath and in line with an overhead "linear" structure such as a cable, meant that he got no reaction from the pipe but instead got parallels on either side at a distance of about 2 metres. This lead to more experiments with placing other types of material under the cable and getting more parallels at different distances.

There are some ideas in this book which are definitely wrong. For example he says that it is impossible to get a reaction with only one L-rod, and that there is some kind of force which attracts the L-rods together. Wrong on both counts in my experience.

The thing that bugs me most about this book is the suggestion that it might be possible to take the human out of the equation, and build a machine which incorporates L-rods. He seems to assume that the only function of the human brain in dowsing is to hold and balance the rods. Truly a "nutty professor" moment.

Why didn't Reddish approach the British Society of Dowsers or do some background reading before commencing his experiments? Is it because dowsing has become so subsumed by "New Age" and other "nutty" ideas that we are not to be approached, even by those scientists who are sympathetic to dowsing? This society has been around for seventy years - have we nothing useful to say to scientists?


Ian
Ian Pegler
BSD member
 
Posts: 4053
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Aberystwyth, Mid Wales

Re: Vincent Reddish book

Postby Dan Wilson » Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:05 am

Ian Pegler wrote:The thing that bugs me most about this book is the suggestion that it might be possible to take the human out of the equation, and build a machine which incorporates L-rods. He seems to assume that the only function of the human brain in dowsing is to hold and balance the rods. Truly a "nutty professor" moment.

Why didn't Reddish approach the British Society of Dowsers or do some background reading before commencing his experiments? Is it because dowsing has become so subsumed by "New Age" and other "nutty" ideas that we are not to be approached, even by those scientists who are sympathetic to dowsing? This society has been around for seventy years - have we nothing useful to say to scientists?
Ian

This last question illuminates a huge mistake which pretty well everyone I've met in my own dowsing courses seems to have made when approaching the subject, which is to confuse the practice with the language used about it by practitioners. This is especially marked when they have started out with the aid of people in "spiritual dowsing", which in America seems to mean pretty well everyone except the plain water-finders. It's like you can't have dowsing unless there are "energies" and "lines" and "entities" and "grids".

I was lucky because very early on I met the 1930s concept the "ray of union" which stood out from the page as automatic self-announcing poppycock. Why ? The ray of union is supposed to be "a line joining any two similar objects" - and I thought, who or what is the arbiter of "similar" ? Similar according to an electron microscope ? But the author was talking about 18th-century manhole covers in London ! If you have two seemingly identical cream buns and slowly eat one, at what point does the ray of union between them extinguish ? Ptchah !

Obviously the arbiter is the dowser and the whole idea is a useful fancy and no more. So when I came to "adverse energy lines" I could employ the same scorn. Something is going on which might be much better expressed another way - yet we never get any discussion of this. Similar concerns apply to dowsing internal states of being in problems of healing - "being drained", "the healing crisis", "discarnate entities" and so on. Dowsing should and can be used to improve on the traditional terminology - or even adjudicate on the very idea of "improving" it - but it almost never is.
Dan Wilson
 

public's perception of dowsing

Postby Ian Pegler » Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:59 am

The subject of the validity of Earth-energy and spiritual dowsing would be an interesting topic of debate if it could be done without heckles being raised, however I think we're veering off-topic a little bit.

What concerns me here is they way the public see dowsing and dowsers. People seem to know little snippets based on what they've seen done. So for example if they've seem someone dowse for an electric cable, they seem to think that that's what dowsing is i.e. dowsing is for finding buried cables and nothing more. They seem to assume that the rods themselves are picking up on the presence of the cable. The same principle is extended to other targets, whether tangible or non-tangible, depending on what they've seen done, either from personal experience or the media. None of them will have read any books at all unless they were seriously interested themselves.

Hamish told me that the BBC had turned down The Spirit of the Serpent, which focuses entirely on Earth Energies. I find the topic of EE fascinating but on the other hand there is an argument that had the BBC accepted the idea and turned it into a series, it would have given the general public a somewhat distorted view of dowsing in toto, i.e. dowsing as a whole.

The only other time dowsing seems to get on the box is when it is referenced in these heavily edited debunking programs like Channel 5's "Psychic secrets revealed" in which they used about half a dozen rookies to dowse for bowls of water outdoors, using sleeved L-rods. Some of them were wearing woolly mittens!

We don't often get on the box, but when we do we need to ensure that the right message gets across. Television is a VISUAL medium and the public needs to SEE dowsing being used in all its forms, and not just mentioned in passing, or the message will simply not get across.

What proportion of the general public knows anything about our charitable work in Zambia? We should be shouting about this from the rooftops!
It would do dowsing a power of good for the public to SEE dowsing being used in a way that benefits the world's most needy.

Perhaps we need more dowsers to become film-makers, so we can have more control over the visual image. It may sound like propaganda, but the skeptics have more than their fair share of air-time.

I'm going to finish off with a little quote which nicely summarises the bad attitude of the skeptics:

"I think we get more bang for our buck if we focus on the media
and education - the opinion makers - instead of serious research."

- skeptic and CSICOP member Ray Hyman


Isn't it time we got a bit more bang for our buck?

Ian
Ian Pegler
BSD member
 
Posts: 4053
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Aberystwyth, Mid Wales

Physical radiesthesia

Postby Richard L. Farr » Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:13 am

Haven't read the new book which is the subject of these posts, but it sounds like an attempt by the author to objectively investigate what was once referred to as the field of "physical" (as opposed to "psychic" or "mental") radiesthesia; the significant studies in this area (eg, Mermet, Beasse, Guyon Richards, Cecil Mabey, Vernon Wethered) seem to have been all but forgotten among the modern (last 20 years) dowsers; but a great deal of work was done in this area in the past and fills much of the earlier journals of the BSD; while there can be no doubt that errors and misperceptions exist in this previous work, it seems unfortunate to me that all of this effort has been forgotten by the contemporary dowsing community in both England, the US and Canada; the discounting of the "Ray of Union" principle-which is one of the best attested to phenomena in the older physical radiesthesia literature, and which I have used with excellent effect in health-radiesthesia practice-shows just how much research-based information from the past has been forgotten.
It is not what we learn today, but what we remember tomorrow, that adds to our store of knowledge.
Richard L. Farr
 

Re: Physical radiesthesia

Postby Ian Pegler » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:59 am

Richard L. Farr wrote:It is not what we learn today, but what we remember tomorrow, that adds to our store of knowledge.


Surely it is also true that our understanding of dowsing should be allowed to evolve over time? Or do we presume to have been in possesion of perfect gnosis for the past seventy years?

My take on dowsing literature is that it is all about ideas. Surely it is possible for paradigm-shifts to happen in dowsing, just as it does in science?!

In science, some ideas get chucked out completely, some ideas get chucked out only to reincarnate in a slightly different form, other ideas get accepted and elaborated upon until they become so unwieldy that they need to be re-invented completely. What never happens, except for a handful of dogmatists, is that our understanding of the world stays static.

It seems to me that dowsing is a very difficult subject for any kind of of scientific study because no matter how hard we try, we always seem to impose our own ideas on it, even subconsciously. Like mercury it always assumes the form of the vessel in which it is contained! We are at a disadvantage in comparison to other scientific fields of study because as Dan correctly points out it is the dowser who does the dowsing not the rod. Therefore it is the dowser who is both the subject AND observer of his experiments. This is where Reddish goes wrong, because he assumes a separation which does not exist.

Many people have a problem learning a method of hand-dowsing that works for them. The problem is five-fold:

1) At they outset they don't know what will work for them.
2) They therefore try experimenting with different hand-positions (pressing the thumbs together etc.), but in the course of doing so they try to observe what their own body is doing.
3) By observing what their body is doing, they are employing the analytical intelligence of the left brain.
4) By employing their left brain, they are no longer dowsing. Therefore it doesn't work.
5) If they knew what hand position worked for them in the first place, they wouldn't need to be working things out like this, and they could then hand dowse. Instead they find themselves caught in a vicious circle until they eventually twig.

To me it seems that the advantage of the rod is that it gives your left-brain something to focus on which is external to your body. The rod acts as a distraction for the left brain so that your right brain can get on with the job of dowsing.

Left-brain inteference explains a lot of things in dowsing:

1) It explains why people get it wrong, because the rods will respond to left-brain suggestion.
2) It explains why skeptics don't believe, because they observe the left-brain inteference, label it as the "ideo-motor effect" and then assume that that's all there is to it.
3) It explains why dowsing results seem to comform to one's own theories. Scientists like Reddish are only human and it's a very human trait, even amongst scientists, to start formulating theories too soon and start to ponder. As soon as you do this your rods willingly oblige and lead you down a garden path of your own making.

When someone starts to take an interest in dowsing, what's the first thing they do? Chances are they'll have had someone show them what to do, and the chances are better than even that that mentor will talk about energies, leys, grids, triple-bands and so on. Even if that isn't the case, the second thing that the novice will do is go out and buy a book like Dennis Wheatley's "Principles of dowsing". What does he/she find? More talk about grids/leys/ transmission bands/triple bands and so on. Alternatively there's always the web. What does he/she find? More of the same with sugar and strawberries on, plus a whole welter of skepticism.

Let me make it clear that I actually don't object to the idea of Earth-Energy dowsing, in fact I do it myself. However I do object - I STRONGLY object - to the idea that our body of dowsing-knowledge should consist of seventy years of ideas of accumulated ideas which are declared to be fact, just because someone has put them in print.

It is perfecly OK for some people to reject old ideas, because if they are of any value at all then we will always rediscover them, perhaps in an altered form. Victorian science had the notion of an omnipresent "ether" which was ditched when quantum theory came along. Now, however, we have the Zero-Point Field. What was old has become new.

Ian.
Ian Pegler
BSD member
 
Posts: 4053
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Aberystwyth, Mid Wales

Historical research & experience in radiesthesia

Postby Richard L. Farr » Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:23 am

But do we chuck the old knowledge, the old experiences, the hard work of the first couple of generations of dowsers who tried to find answers? And exactly how familiar are many in the dowsing field today with the actual work done, with the testing methods used, with the experiences recorded by the pioneers? No way are we to be chest-tied to the past, and of course old opinions and conclusions-often perhaps prematurely made-need to be continually re-examined in the light of new experiences. But first the old information NEEDS TO BE KNOWN, and the fact is that most of it has been totally ignored. Personally I have found more to intrigue me from the pioneers than I have from most of the contemporary (English language) material (at least relative to my field which is health radiesthesia); my only suggestion is that modern dowsers familiarize themselves with the legacy of the pioneers (c. 1920-late 1960's), a legacy of which the BSD is the world's greatest repository.
Richard L. Farr
 

Re: Historical research & experience in radiesthesia

Postby Ian Pegler » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:43 am

Richard L. Farr wrote:my only suggestion is that modern dowsers familiarize themselves with the legacy of the pioneers (c. 1920-late 1960's), a legacy of which the BSD is the world's greatest repository.


There is much interesting stuff to be had in the early papers. Members might like to know that George Applegate mentioned at the congress that he has in his possesion not only unpublished material by Guy Underwood but also every single BSD journal since issue 1!!!!! He was going to chuck them out!

It should also be noted that the Copyright libraries in the UK will also have copies of all the journals.

Some of the old papers have, in the past, been published in book form by the BSD. One was "Dowsing and Archaeology" edited by Tom Graves, publsihed by Turnstone press in 1980. It's long out of print but I managed to get a copy from http://www.alibris.com. Beware, however, that if you get second hand books via the internet you could end up paying through the nose.

"Dowsing and Archaeology" has no less that seven papers by Guy Underwood, as well as articles by Boothby, Allender Smith, Scott Elliot and Pogson amongst others.

All good stuff, but none of it to be accepted as dogma.

Ian
Ian Pegler
BSD member
 
Posts: 4053
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Aberystwyth, Mid Wales

Retrieval of older information

Postby Richard L. Farr » Wed Oct 27, 2004 4:47 am

Another good source for older books is abebooks.com; I fully agree with the last post-"good stuff but not to be taken as dogma". Exactly! The value of the older material (as well as the latest material!) is to provide us with stimulus to new thinking, to give us hints about what we may do, or to provide us with techniques which we might not have thought of. For those of us in actual practice, the latter is of greatest importance because what we are really looking for is achieving better and ever more reliable practical RESULTS, moreso than finding the "real scientific truth" to explain why we obtain those results.
Richard L. Farr
 

Re: Retrieval of older information

Postby Dan Wilson » Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:18 am

Richard L. Farr wrote: For those of us in actual practice, the latter is of greatest importance because what we are really looking for is achieving better and ever more reliable practical RESULTS, moreso than finding the "real scientific truth" to explain why we obtain those results.

Saying things like "real scientific truth" risks launching me into my boring gramophone record routine, which is not that there is no such thing as "real" or "absolute" truth but that if there is, we have no way of knowing we are faced with it. Why ? Because there is one thing we do know for certain and that is that our grasp of concepts, and ability to generate fresh ones, is not known to be infinite, so we have no way of knowing that we would ever understand the truth should we ever be faced with it.

This is David Hume's scepticism with an extra cherry on the top (he did not doubt that there is an ultimate reality, I say it can't be proven that there is) so it is understandable that people in science do have these reach-me-down ideas that science is somehow an approach to truth, when we cannot possibly know that it is.

On top of this, there are clues in the failure of dowsing under test involving uncommitted outsiders, and the notable differences between complementary medicine in practice and under test involving uncommitted outsiders, that reality is really a state of mental affairs which we can improve to our convenience, and we don't realise it.
Dan Wilson
 

Poll - my vote

Postby Ian Pegler » Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:21 pm

I've been doing some more experiments trying to locate "linear underground structures" (drain-pipes etc.)

I decided that for the sake of experiment I would deliberately not focus at all. I was whistling a tune to deliberately distract myself.

The results were a little surprising.

Sometimes I would get a reaction, sometimes not quite over the pipe, even when I knew where it was, i.e. a parallel.

I even managed to find pipes I didn't know were there. For me the pendulum seems to want to align itself with the direction of the pipe, or the parallel.

Accordingly I now believe there is a "physical" form of dowsing which pretty much anyone can do. Its uses are somewhat limited, because when using this method there is no discrimination between different kinds of underground linear structure.

To summarise, I think Reddish may be on to something, although I don't think he's right in every detail (c.f. topic: "Aluminium Sneakers")

I have now cast my vote - 0%. However I will do more experiments and post the results on this forum.

Ian.
Ian Pegler
BSD member
 
Posts: 4053
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Aberystwyth, Mid Wales

Re: Vincent Reddish book

Postby ledgehammer » Sun Nov 06, 2011 5:23 pm

Hi

only just come across this....

interesting subject... I see it like this....

there are many possible things underground including pipes, and perhaps many possible things above ground including intangible targets such as Earth energy, the way I read the question is that where you may get a reaction for finding something, how do you quantify what it is,

could you go round with a clear head no intent and when you find something just ask is it a water pipe, is it a blind spring, e.t.c, It is probably possible but very long winded?

I have dowsed in the woods searching for energy lines, and even when not specifing what I was looking for I found the same as when specifying, I did set out on that day with the intent of finding energy lines so this may not be the same and the intent is still there I guess.

I think we have all been through a scenario where we may have been looking for something and found something else i.e dowsing for a wall (archeo) and finding a well, and normally put it down to lack of questioning or focus.

I'm inclined to believe that a memory/information field exists everywhere, each object has its individual field. When we ask for something or focus on something a line of intent appears between us and the target or perhaps the line is already there and we become aware of specific lines as we devlop our dowsing skills and askfocus on for that specific thing, it is that line we dowse. While "free-styling" if we enter the memory field of something we have dowsed before we may get a reaction, hence entering a memory field in proximity gets us a response, without the intent.

Tom
The universe is a soul, trying to understand itself.... We each have the power to look inward at its immense beauty....
User avatar
ledgehammer
 
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: Vincent Reddish book

Postby simonwheeler » Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:16 pm

Tom:
I'm inclined to believe that a memory/information field exists everywhere, each object has its individual field

Do you know about the "strange attractor" phenomenon that, I believe, has come from chaos theory?
This is not something to summarise briefly in a Forum posting..even if I could...which I can't, as I still have problems getting my head around some of the maths...but you can Google it or read a text such as "Turbulent Mirror" by Briggs and Peat.
As we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

www.simongordonwheeler.co.uk

Simon
User avatar
simonwheeler
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Wigtown, Scotland

Re: Vincent Reddish book

Postby ledgehammer » Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:21 pm

simonwheeler wrote:
Tom:
I'm inclined to believe that a memory/information field exists everywhere, each object has its individual field

Do you know about the "strange attractor" phenomenon that, I believe, has come from chaos theory?
This is not something to summarise briefly in a Forum posting..even if I could...which I can't, as I still have problems getting my head around some of the maths...but you can Google it or read a text such as "Turbulent Mirror" by Briggs and Peat.


Simon,

sounds interesting, will check it out... my understanding is not great but have dowsed a field around living objects (this was before I knew about such a thing). It also links in with some Russian ideas involving torsion fields.

Best wishes

Tom
The universe is a soul, trying to understand itself.... We each have the power to look inward at its immense beauty....
User avatar
ledgehammer
 
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: Vincent Reddish book

Postby erasmus49 » Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:46 pm

whats kept me away from other dowsers and crystal people and earth energy people (until the other day!) is there's so little 'science' in it.Sure enough and thankfully everybodies different otherwise dowsing would be so boring.i hav'nt read his book but i feel he's wrong on saying that no force makes the rods move together.i wonder if he has anything to say about 'quarks' and muons.dowsing,particulary map dowsing seems only logically to work if there's a thread or connection between the dowser and object.particle physics says that one tiny particle can affect another particle thats on the other side of the universe.Its the old conumdrum again ,we need to learn things yet at the same time we are vunerable to setting some things in stone and blocking off whats not discoverd.we tend to think and talk of 'feilds' and magnetisim ,its a good guide but obviously dowsing covers far more than the laws of electromagnetism.Colour theory and different energy states seem a rich unmined vein.the idea that a machine could be used to dowse does'nt seem that far fetched,especially as while the police and many skeptics poo poo dowsing and other 'strange' subjects the MOD and others were quite willing to spend loads of tax payers ,and iraqui tax payers money on a dowsing bomb detector!A machine that could dowse would probably be called a ultra wide frequnecy feild state anyliser.if you get an electrical test meter and set it to frequency ,then touch both the probes you should get 50 hz ,becasue one half of the mains frequency is travelling through the ground and runs through our bodies ,so with the correct electronic equipment it should be possible to dowse.I think wether we 'concentrate' or 'think' or 'visualise' when we dowse,or even if we just hold a sample in our hands and then concentrate on whats for dinner ,or who's picking the kids up from school,we are basically using our biological feild as a detector,just like tuning in the radio.some people seem to be 'passive' dowsers while others have to be active.maybe its a bit of both and works either way,like a walkie talkie,transmitting and reciveing.some people just use their hands.one woman i met can be given an object and describe where it comes from,she reads tarot and talks to 'spirit guides' and thinks dowsers are cranks!i've always found her a bit mad myself but what counts is results.
try youtube/ERASMUS320 to see how I see
erasmus49
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: manchester

Re: Vincent Reddish book

Postby arthur hamlin » Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:06 pm

Hi Erasmus 49.
I was just waiting to see if someone touched my interests even though the following is off topic - my apologies.
I happen to be deviceless and like the woman you mentioned, but strongly believe in dowsing and wish it could go forward with more steam and collect many more members.
I am of the opinion that more basic dowsing techniques and experience need to be accomplished if we are ever able to carry out successful exercises scientifically and hopefully have a proof element about it. In other words sufficient food needs to be on your plate before you can eat and enjoy.
I have spent several weeks in Gibraltar recently and have been fortunate to carry out rescue work on the earthbounds at the Moorish Castle there. I have been able to help several batches of spirit men who were mostly on the top of the tower but also those that were in the goal originally but had been starved to death hundreds of years ago. I was able to get them to come to my apartment where I was helped in healing them. A young lad who had been starved to death came back a day later to say thank you. They were all angry and were not able to move on. This was carried out with arm/hand movement only - no rods or pendulums as I used to use.
Whether you can utilise a scientific analysis here I don`t really know but it was a wonderful experience as their emotions are made known to you via the hand/arm.
Arthur
arthur hamlin
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:37 pm

Next

Return to Science & Nature

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron