Scientific Studies
One of the most often-made challenges to dowsing comes from scientists and archeologists who do not accept the results, because they say there are many scientific studies which say that dowsing does not work, and few or none that give positive results. I understand that.
I also know that because of this, until I can demonstrate scientifically that it does work, I will fall short of acceptance in the academic community. That is why I am in conversation with two geophysicists who are studying results I have found, and have done geophysical scans on land I have dowsed. We are awaiting their results, and will have more conversations.
Most all of these studies (I should say “controlled” studies) are set up to look for what I think is the wrong thing. You begin with a hypothesis, a question to ask. Water dowsers believe their tools respond to water, so they help set up their requirements for a test, such as water moving through a pipe. The tests always fail. But I would point out that if you ask the wrong question to begin with, hypothesis, you think the whole question fails. I am suggesting that dowsing may have more to do with disrupted earth. Not being a geologist, it is my suggestion that what they’re really finding is deposits of sand or earth with different densities. Another very promising area of study involves MAGNETIC MICROBES (see below).
In order to gain scientific acceptance, traditionally we must follow the “SCIENTIFIC METHOD.” That is, results that are:
I also know that because of this, until I can demonstrate scientifically that it does work, I will fall short of acceptance in the academic community. That is why I am in conversation with two geophysicists who are studying results I have found, and have done geophysical scans on land I have dowsed. We are awaiting their results, and will have more conversations.
Most all of these studies (I should say “controlled” studies) are set up to look for what I think is the wrong thing. You begin with a hypothesis, a question to ask. Water dowsers believe their tools respond to water, so they help set up their requirements for a test, such as water moving through a pipe. The tests always fail. But I would point out that if you ask the wrong question to begin with, hypothesis, you think the whole question fails. I am suggesting that dowsing may have more to do with disrupted earth. Not being a geologist, it is my suggestion that what they’re really finding is deposits of sand or earth with different densities. Another very promising area of study involves MAGNETIC MICROBES (see below).
In order to gain scientific acceptance, traditionally we must follow the “SCIENTIFIC METHOD.” That is, results that are:
- 1.OBSERVABLE. I have no problem with observable. When I begin to dowse and set out surveyor’s flags, and patterns appear, such as a trail pattern, the observers’ mouths usually fall open. One cemetery where I found 8 child and 8 adult unmarked graves, exactly the number the person was looking for, he could only repeat, “Oh, my---oh, my.” At Indian sites finding cache pits and post holes, some giggle with excitement. So, I have no problem with observable.
2. MEASURABLE. I am seeking a physicist that will be able to measure either the increased gravitational pull over target sites, or can measure the amount of torque when my copper pipe rotates downward. If you are such a scientist, give me a call.
- 3.TESTABLE. I already have run two scientific tests of my markings.
A.) At the Pawnee Indian Village site in northern Kansas, in 2008 I dowsed the area before an archeological dig by the Kansas State Historical Society. I mapped a pattern of inner and outer rings of post holes around a center hearth. The results of the dig were focused on more accurately dating the site by microscopic items, and not to try to find post holes. Thus, the dig did not go down deep enough to find the post holes, except for the center hearth, which was in approximately the same location where I found. Thus, the results were “inconclusive” as described by the State Archeologist.
B) In December 2009, I dowsed a pattern of 14 child graves in the Catlin Community Cemetery north of Peabody, KS. Other documentation identified certain immigrant children as having been buried there. On January 2, 2010, I acquired the services of a geophysicist to do a scan of the cemetery using Ground Penetrating Radar, and Electromagnetic Resistivity Meter. There were four areas scanned, three of those were requested by the cemetery committee. The result was that my area, area 4, had several variables in the soil which made the scientific results unclear. In other areas, particularly area 1, there were signals that were more clear, in the written report.
C. The Pawnee Village, unbeknownst to me, was already previously scanned with geophysical instruments in 2007 by a Minnesota firm, a full year before the dig. My dowsing results map has been sent to Minnesota, to compare. At this point I have not heard a response. So, what other dowser has subjected himself to tests like this?
- 4.REPEATABLE. I have no problem with repeatable. I have many times gone to the same spot where I dowsed before, with the same results.
- A) In the case of the Alexanderwohl Immigrant Houses in section 33, Menno Township of Marion County, in 1994 I dowsed the house locations after a historic marker was placed by an ad hoc historical committee. I was thoughtful enough to mark the outlines on a grid map. Twelve years later, I returned to the site. I found the same outlines, within six inches. I’d say that’s repeatable.
- B) Another aspect of repeatability is to have another dowser find what I’ve found. I have yet to do that live. I have, however, used the field notes of A.J. Frey of Newton, KS in hunting the Chisholm Trail between Newton and Wichita in 1967. I have had “hits” on 10 out of 10 of his spots he described, and 43 years later. How’s that for repeatable? However, 9 of the 10 marks he thought were wagon tracks were actually Indian trails. Unfortunately, A.J. Frey couldn’t tell the difference between wagon tracks, as I find as pairs of marks 4 feet apart, and Indian trails, a pattern of 7 single marks 12-15 feet apart. Fortunately, I can, and it is very helpful.
Bruce Funk/Harley Stucky Chisholm Trail ruts, northwest side of Newton, KS. Wagon tracks are flagged by author. Also confirmed by dowser Vince Marshall.
So, at this time, I am continuing to seek testable results that the scientific community will accept. When that happens, I will gain acceptance in the academic community.
But to be clear, my attitude in using dowsing at historical sites is as only one tool: to first use the existing documented historical resources; maps, GLO survey maps and notes, other local documents or diaries, and physical evidence. I will use dowsing only to fill in the gaps of knowledge when the whole story is not known. I am not out to “show up” the professional historians and archeologists, but to help them, and point them toward possibly new discoveries.
NEW INFORMATION: MAGNETIC BACTERIA
Yes, yes, I know. Sounds like something out of science fiction. But apparently, scientists have known for quite a while that human occupation of land can and does change the magnetic susceptibility of the land. What is new to me is, if it is detectable by sensitive magnetometers, could dowsing be a crude form of a magnetometer? That is the $64,000 question.
From the book “Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology” by Anthony Clark (1990),
“Man’s activities in the past have redistributed some of these (chemical) compounds and changed others into more magnetic forms, creating tell-tale patterns of anomalies in the Earth’s magnetic field, invisible to a compass but detectable with sensitive magnetometers.” (p. 64)
“the magnetism of baked clay is relatively strong and has long been appreciated.”(p. 64) “A pottery kiln can sometimes give a signal as great as 500 nT near ground level, whereas some archaeological anomalies are less than 1 nT.”(p. 65)
Yes, yes, I know. Sounds like something out of science fiction. But apparently, scientists have known for quite a while that human occupation of land can and does change the magnetic susceptibility of the land. What is new to me is, if it is detectable by sensitive magnetometers, could dowsing be a crude form of a magnetometer? That is the $64,000 question.
From the book “Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology” by Anthony Clark (1990),
“Man’s activities in the past have redistributed some of these (chemical) compounds and changed others into more magnetic forms, creating tell-tale patterns of anomalies in the Earth’s magnetic field, invisible to a compass but detectable with sensitive magnetometers.” (p. 64)
“the magnetism of baked clay is relatively strong and has long been appreciated.”(p. 64) “A pottery kiln can sometimes give a signal as great as 500 nT near ground level, whereas some archaeological anomalies are less than 1 nT.”(p. 65)
Now would be a good time to discuss magnetism. For a person like myself not well versed in physics, it appears magnetism is often measured in units called Gauss, for such things as an electromagnetic field meter that might measure an electric fan. Less that Gauss units are "Tesla units”. The designation nT is nano Tesla, which is even less than a Tesla. Even less is a pico Tesla (pT). To detect such weak magnetism would take an extremely sensitive metering device. What is debatable but doubtful is if a dowser can detect the same very weak magnetism as such a metering device. So, I’m open to such testing. As I’ve said above, in science, if you ask the wrong question and get a negative answer, you think the test fails. But if you ask the right question, it gets interesting very quickly. Now back to the scholarly books and articles.
In “Seeing beneath the Soil” it continues: “Variations in magnetic susceptibility between topsoils, subsoils, and rocks also affect the Earth’s field locally, making it possible to detect ditches, pits, and other silted-up excavated features, and even buried walls; it has produced some of the most subtle effects in magnetic prospecting . . . First, toposil is normally more magnetic than the underlying subsoil or bedrock, so that excavated features silted or backfilled with topsoil will produce a positive magnetic signal; conversely, less magnetic material intruding into the topsoil, including many kinds of masonry, can be detectable by a subtractive effect which gives a negative signal. Second, magnetic susceptibility is particularly subject to enhancement by human activities, so that magnetic prospecting in its different forms has the great power of being selectively sensitive to the former presence of human occupation.” (pp. 65, 66)
My comment is: Imagine that. This is exactly what I have been talking about in this website: that it appears that I can by dowsing detect human presence in the form of wagon tracks, Indian trails, graves, outlines (foundations or footings) of lost buildings, and Indian sites. All of these have to do with disrupted earth.
Now on the subject of magnetic bacteria, which holds extremely interesting promise to the dowser, we move to an article in Archeological Prospection (Vol. 2, 1995) titled, “From Nanotesla to Picotesla--a New Window for Magnetic Prospecting in Archeology” by Helmut Becker. It reads:
“Recent investigations concerning the magnetic properties of archaeological soils have shown a magnetization process due to magnetic bacteria, which contain single domain magnetite crystals acting in the soil forming process by the decomposition of organic material. Under different conditions biogenic greigite is formed which could be the explanation for magnetic anomalies within archaeological contexts.” (p. 217).
“The identification of extremely weak magnetic anomalies of archaeological structures, such as palisades or single post-holes, is achieved only by digital image processing.” (p. 220)
In discussing the comparison between the nanotesla and the more sensitive picotesla systems, “The magnetization, especially of the double palisades, is due to biogenic magnetite only, which causes anomalies in the range of several 0.01 to 0.3 nT. . . . .For the picotesla magnetometry a content of biogenic magnetite of less than 10 -6 per cent may be sufficient, which causes no change at all in colour of the soils. This means that there may be a wide range of archaeological structures detectable only by magnetic prospection.” (p. 224,225)
So, what do we really have here? The existence of magnetic bacteria at archaeological sites, although weak, still measurable, found along various structures, and even in sites where there is no change at all in color of soils, such as in a grave shaft. However, graves with bodies long decomposed and soils amalgamated through time still yield a magnetic pattern. And, the last line, “there may be a wide range of archaeological structures detectable only by magnetic prospection.”
Wow. Sounds like exciting hope for a dowser trying to see if there is any real scientific cause-and-effect. Sounds like all those other dowsers, who might sense a glimmer of such magnetism, but with unstable and inconsistent tools, do not yield consistent results. And, since since the sub-surface structures and geology that the “witcher” occasionally detects, but all scientific equipment usually cannot detect (with the exception of the newest, most extremely sensitive equipment), it might have nudged amateur practitioners to conclude that there was some spiritual cause, because they had no other scientific explanation----until now.
Stay tuned.