Ley Lines; All over the World or just in Europe?

[D'Arzhur]

Nico - What I wrote applies to all (not just dowsing)...sensing and experiencing on my own is my favorite "test"... (a concept you are more than familiar with)

about dowsing... I had the privilege to meet Hamish Miller, renown dowser, when he came to the Netherlands to share his passion about dowsing... He mentioned that government agencies regularly (& anonymously) make use of dowsers... (Don't ask me to elaborate on that because I can't, one because I don't remember and two because I did not have to be convinced...)

PS: I am just browsing but could not resist answering your statement

[Explorer]

Nico - What I wrote applies to all (not just dowsing)...sensing and experiencing on my own is my favorite "test"... (a concept you are more than familiar with)

about dowsing... I had the privilege to meet Hamish Miller, renown dowser, when he came to the Netherlands to share his passion about dowsing... He mentioned that government agencies regularly (& anonymously) make use of dowsers... (Don't ask me to elaborate on that because I can't, one because I don't remember and two because I did not have to be convinced...)

PS: I am just browsing but could not resist answering your statement

You are answering a question that I didn't ask. I didn't ask why you are dowsing.
I can give you reasons why I talk to trees also, but that doesn't say anything about whether trees can hear me, or talk back.

This is Skeptical Druid, the sword of the mind rules here.
So let me ask again, do you believe that dowsers can pick up things like flowing water? Regardless of the evidence that proves it wrong?

[Explorer]

PS: I am just browsing but could not resist answering your statement

*grin*, and I bet that you are sorry now hahaha

[D'Arzhur]

You are answering a question that I didn't ask. I didn't ask why you are dowsing.

This is Skeptical Druid, the sword of the mind rules here.
So let me ask again, do you believe that dowsers can pick up things like flowing water? Regardless of the evidence that proves it wrong?

Well I don't think my answer was "why" I am dowsing...but since I am here I will add (not an answer but a statement) that I am dowsing because it is another way to exercise my senses in the natural world.
Since this is the forum where the mind rules I will escape since I am more concerned with sensing than discussing at the moment...(but I am sure we will get back to it IRL)
Now before I leave: do I believe that dowsers can pick up things like flowing water?
Yes I do... (I don't believe it is the rods that sense but well the dowser...so some dowsers, sometimes can dowse those things...not 100% proof )

[D'Arzhur]

PS: I am just browsing but could not resist answering your statement

*grin*, and I bet that you are sorry now hahaha

[Explorer]

Now before I leave: do I believe that dowsers can pick up things like flowing water?
Yes I do... (I don't believe it is the rods that sense but well the dowser...so some dowsers, sometimes can dowse those things...not 100% proof

0% proof in fact, the experiment that I pointed at cleary shows the proof for the opposite, that they can't.
(unless they know where it is ofcourse, or there is so much of it that you can't miss it).

By which I mean, that ýou shouldn't use the words "believe" and "proof" in one sentence in Skeptical Druid, those are terms that belong to different realities. (does this mean that I don't get green pea garlic soup next week? ).

[D'Arzhur]

[quote="Nico]

0% proof in fact, the experiment that I pointed at cleary shows the proof for the opposite, that they can't.

By which I mean, that ýou shouldn't use the words "believe" and "proof" in one sentence in Skeptical Druid, those are terms that belong to different realities. (does this mean that I don't get green pea garlic soup next week? ).[/quote]

(I heard from different village folks in Brittany that it is still customary to use a "sourcier" to find water on their land... that's better "proof" to me than your test... )
{ that's correct! I want to experiment on you...you'll get cracker with cheese, garlic and banana )

[Corwen]

[quote="Nico]

0% proof in fact, the experiment that I pointed at cleary shows the proof for the opposite, that they can't.

By which I mean, that ýou shouldn't use the words "believe" and "proof" in one sentence in Skeptical Druid, those are terms that belong to different realities. (does this mean that I don't get green pea garlic soup next week? ).[/quote]

(I heard from different village folks in Brittany that it is still customary to use a "sourcier" to find water on their land... that's better "proof" to me than your test... )
{ that's correct! I want to experiment on you...you'll get cracker with cheese, garlic and banana ) [/quote]

That isn't proof, its hearsay. People remember the cases when it works and not those when it doesn't. Plus of course in most areas you'll find water everywhere if you dig deep enough, all marked up as successes for the dowser.

Loads of experiments have been done, and none have shown any evidence that water divining works more than chance.

[wolf560]

The Pagan Community that I was in a decade ago was convinced that a 'Ley Line Nexus' ran underneath their favorite place.
They dug into the front yard of that persons house and placed ten 3m x 10mm copper rods into the ground and covered it up with a concrete platform.

The Land Owner didn't really understand what it was all about and just liked having people over.

I don't know how you all feel about this, but to me the area just 'felt wrong' long before I found out about the copper rods

I asked everyone about the "Dragon Lines"....
I asked them if they planned on bringing in granite stones and/or boulders...
I asked them if they planned on "making as natural and as secluded as possible"...

Everyone eventually began asking the original 'Nexus creators' why they had not done any of these things.
The Landowner, finally realizing what these people had done, brought in a crew and had it all removed....


What do you all think of the idea of sinking these ten 3 meter copper rods into the round?

[Explorer]

What do you all think of the idea of sinking these ten 3 meter copper rods into the round?

I wonder, did you read anything I said? About the results of the experiment?

[wolf560]

Yes, I read all of what you said, and it was more pointed at 'dowsing' than 'Ley Lines'.
Although they can be related, not all Ley Lines were discovered (or affirmed) using dowsing rods were they?

Hmmmm....I wonder.... did you read what I said....???

There can be no experiment because this incident happened over a decade ago and 2,500 miles away from where I am currently.

Perhaps I should rephrase my earlier question;
Would 10x 30 foot long copper rods sunk in the ground be a channel to intensify the energies below?

For purposes of this question the concept of "discovering the point of power" is assumed to have already happened and at least one person believes that they are at a 'Nexus point'.
A larger group of 6-10 people believe in the judgement of this one person.
A far larger group of nearly 70-80 people gather without realizing anything is there, but rather because they are asked to gather with the first group.

[Explorer]

Hmmmm....I wonder.... did you read what I said....???

There can be no experiment because this incident happened over a decade ago and 2,500 miles away from where I am currently.

Perhaps I should rephrase my earlier question;
Would 10x 30 foot long copper rods sunk in the ground be a channel to intensify the energies below?

Yes, I read it.
And no, it is no channel for energies, because those 'energies' doesn't exist.
If dowsing is proved nonsense, then the idea of "energies" detected by dowsing has become irrelevant also. So why go into it further?

To answer your question, and you probably agree with me, I think that the people you mention were probably naieve hippies who didn't have too high grades for physics in high school.

[wolf560]

Yes I do agree completely

(..and yes they actually WERE naive hippies by the way)

The landowner eventually tossed them all out and took everything out.
She planted a very nice stand of oak and ash trees and had to replace some of the dirt.

What she has now is a very peaceful stand of about 25 trees that face a small pond about 10 meters in diameter

[Dendrias]

If dowsing is proved nonsense, then the idea of "energies" detected by dowsing has become irrelevant also.

That's a very nice piece of distorted logic! Or, a piece of "logic" that's ruling over one given example, only, but stated to be general.

[Explorer]

If dowsing is proved nonsense, then the idea of "energies" detected by dowsing has become irrelevant also.

That's a very nice piece of distorted logic! Or, a piece of "logic" that's ruling over one given example, only, but stated to be general.

If UFO's are proven nonsense, then abduction by UFO's can be disregarded also.
If Santa Claus is proven nonsense, then his journey from the North Pole doesn't exist either.
If god doesn't exist, then praying to him isn't direct communication.
If dowsing is proven nonsense, like it is, then it doesn't detect anything. Why is that so hard to accept?

If people have certain experiences nevertheless, then you have to look for other explanations, when your original claims are disproven.
Why are you people always so intent on staying stuck in naieve hippydom, don't you want to outgrow that and find some truth?

[Dendrias]

Believe me, dear Nico, I think dowsing is at least nonsense.

To expand Your list:
If UFO's are nonsense, then radar is nonsense.

You have to read what You wrote. Your sentence made me laugh, not dowsing or anything.
Read Your sentence again:
"If the method [dowsing] is nonsense, then the energies don't exist."
equals
"If trying to see electricity is nonsense, electricity doesn't exist."
not

If UFO's are proven nonsense, then abduction by UFO's can be disregarded also.

Don't try to distort logic and my argument any further. That doesn't suit You. As outrageous rants about hippies don't.

[Explorer]

Believe me, dear Nico, I think dowsing is at least nonsense.

To expand Your list:
If UFO's are nonsense, then radar is nonsense.

You have to read what You wrote. Your sentence made me laugh, not dowsing or anything.
Read Your sentence again:
"If the method [dowsing] is nonsense, then the energies don't exist."
equals
"If trying to see electricity is nonsense, electricity doesn't exist."
not

If UFO's are proven nonsense, then abduction by UFO's can be disregarded also.

Don't try to distort logic and my argument any further. That doesn't suit You. As outrageous rants about hippies don't.

okay, you are partly right, and because this is Skeptical Druid I should perhaps be stricter with my terms.
With UFO's I (ofcourse) meant the common interpretation of the term as extraterrestial visitors, not the litteral meaning. You got me there.

But I didn't say 'the energies don't exist', I said "energies-detected-by-dowsing".
Similarly, it would be the 'electricity-that-is-seen" that would be nonsense, not electricity itself. (you can see electricity by the way ;-)).
I think you are using what is called a 'strawman argument' now. Responding to things that I didn't say.

My rant wasn't outrageous, you haven't seen me outrageous yet *grin*. Naieve is still a rather sweet qualification.

[Dendrias]

Oh, I just wanted to apologise for the tone of my post. And there You are, grinning again!

So You think that these energies exist, but cannot be detected by dowsing? Or did You mean "detection of energies", because there's a difference in denying the existence of energies and that of detection.
But, no, sorry, this should not be a fight on words, because fight on words is plainly stupid.
So I'm just sorry.

I didn't intend to take part in the discussion as such, I didn't intend to say anything about Your arguments (no straw man intended), I did mean extraterrestial UFO's (which could be detected by radar, it they existed), and my analogy was to carry to extremes Your sentence about method and detection, not to introduce a straw man.
I was just put off by the logic of Your sentence and wanted to express my surprise.

I'll just take an exit, here, because I have not the least interest in dowsing or ley lines, at all, because my position is clear: no evidence, no existence, no interest, no talk.

But, btw, could You tell me, as I'm no scientist, how electricity can be seen. I don't mean the effects of it (I understand that), but the electricity itself. This is off-topic, but nevertheless interesting to me.

[Explorer]

Oh, I just wanted to apologise for the tone of my post. And there You are, grinning again!

No, no worries, don't apologise.
Sometimes it is important to be very specifics about meanings of words, because a whole universe of interpretation can be attached. So in that sense you had a good point.

I usually try to avoid the term 'energy', because it has such a universe of misinterpretations attached.
I only tried to say something about dowsing, not about the stuff that is supposedly detected by it. I mentioned 'energies' because Wolf used that word. In the experiment that I mentioned it was about 'flowing water', which is a safer term ;-).

Flowing water clearly exists.
But according to the experiment you cannot locate water by dowsing. So flowing-water-detected-by-dowsing doesn't exist according to that logic (according to the experiment).

But, btw, could You tell me, as I'm no scientist, how electricity can be seen. I don't mean the effects of it (I understand that), but the electricity itself. This is off-topic, but nevertheless interesting to me.

Ehm, lightning?

[wolf560]

Ok, then to be specific...

You have stated that dowsing does not work and therefore any energies 'detected by dowsing' would therefore also disappear in a "puff of logic".
Dowsing is an interesting topic in and of itself but not the original reason why I began this topic.
I placed this in the Skeptical Druid because I have been told in the past that "Ley Lines only exist in England", something I do not agree with.

Your responses however brings three questions to mind;
1. Are you saying that you believe Ley Lines were all discovered using dowsing rods?
2. Are you stating that there are no energies within, around, or flowing to-from these Ley points?
3. Are you stating that the Ley Lines do not exist?


Before you answer her are my answers to the same questions;
1. From what I can tell, the Ley Lines were first "discovered" using maps and compasses. Oxford's Dictionary describes it as "a line between two hilltops".
2. I have been to Stonehenge, Woodhenge, and Averbury rings; although I felt something I cannot verify it and therefore it remains UPG.
3. I believe that the megalithic sites were set up to interact with each other and therefore they ended up being on sighted lines ("community" connections rather than "metaphysical")

There are several stories of (for instance) the lighting of the Fires of Beltane wherein one set of fires were lit on Tara and everyone else lit their as soon as they saw the fires.
This presupposes that they would be able to see each other to begin with which is a supporting piece to why they would have each of these on "sighted lines".
A recent History International series proved that someone with a flag or fire on Silbury Hill could be seen at Avebury and West Kennet Longbarrow.
This was seen as a plausible reason for the construction of such a massive mound of limestone.

If you take a line from the Merry Maidens to the Hurler's (or King Doniert's stone) to Glastonbury Abbey to Silbury Hill a "Line" if formed; the "St. Michaels Ley Line"
I see the corollary in that if a pattern of megalithic sites form a grid of consequence you could also pinpoint all the pubs in London so that a similar pattern of "Pub Lines" would be formed.

Sources;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/content/articles/2005/06/29/ley_lines_feature.shtml
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/leylines.htm
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/england/england-map