Caitlin A. Connor 1,2,3, , DAOM, AMP, PGDip(pending), EHP-C, Melinda H. Connor4,2,5 , D.D., Ph.D., AMP, FAM, EHP-C Geneviev Tau2, BA
1. Health Sciences Research, Rewley House, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
2. Earth Songs Holistic Consulting, Tucson, AZ, USA
3. Vice-Chairman of the Board, National Certification Center of Energy Practitioners, Marana, AZ, USA
4. Research Professor, Akamai University, Hilo Hawaii, USA
5. Chairman of the Board, National Alliance of Energy Practitioners, Marana, AZ, USA
To determine if 10 long term map dowsers could perceive water more accurately than 10 age and sex matched controls
Ten map dowsers who had more than 20 years individual experience from a local dowsing club and ten age and sex matched controls from the local area general population were recruited. Participants were consented and baseline questionnaires were administered. Computer generated placement of water buckets was run for each of the subjects trials. The one bucket containing water was placed with nine other matching buckets under a tarp which had numbers on the top representing the placement of each bucket and was moved each trial. Each subject did two practice and ten real trials. Participants were asked to mark the bucket placement on a score sheet. Experimenter was positioned 15 feet from the buckets to reduce field interactions. Dowsers were able to use any type of dowsing equipment that they wished. Control subjects were provided with a choice of wooden or stone pendulum, wooden stick, or copper rods. Controls were given no training on the dowsing tools. Based on anecdotal reports of difficulty, selected buckets were made of a inch acrylic and plastic mix, considered the most difficult material through which to perceive a substance.
Original analysis showed 100% failure in the dowsing group and 30% success in the control. As this was a statistical surprise, the data were reviewed. Based on information from Betz (1995), the next subjects placement was reviewed. It was determined that participants had accurately predicted the placement which was run for the next person and not for themselves. Further, they had completed their testing prior to the randomization being run. The final subjects randomization was run after this reanalysis process was suggested by the data and it too matched the results. The results suggest that in order for subject 1 to perceive subject 2 bucket placement, some change in the awareness of time or level of precognition may have been engaged.
Table 1: Control vs. Active analysis of next subject’s bucket placements.
MEAN 1.8 5.9
STDEV 0.63246 3.478505
MEDIAN 2 6
Results of p< 0.0004 for the active group vs. p< 0.3173 for the control group when analysis was done on the next subjects trial suggest that a larger pilot study should be done. A possible precognitive process may be involved. A three-arm trial that included standard dowsers, map dowsers, and control subjects would help to clarify if the movement forward in time or precognition is specific to map dowsers. In addition, sub-groupings could be done with less experienced dowsers to discover if this is a skill developed over time.