Here is the content of a talk entitled “Dowsing is not just for water”.

http://www.dowsing-research.net/blog_extracts/BSD_No237_1992_p113.pdf

It was given by Chris Hinsley, to the BSD annual conference of 1991. It’s a nice illustration of applying dowsing to three unusual ‘practical’ problems. Namely:

• Identifying certain genes in sheep.
• Identifying the origin of a plant disease.
• Locating the prior positions of stones removed from a stone circle.

The interest in the article is not so much about whether the dowsing results were right or wrong. In fact, feedback was only obtained for the first application, and in that case the dowsing failed. Rather, it is how the dowser goes about the task, the steps involved, the questions asked and his analysis of why his dowsing failed.

He says, “The better the understanding of the request the better and more accurate the dowsing results” and stresses the need to establish a clear mental witness. This was easier for the second task, then the first.

When the subject of the quest cannot be easily visualised, a physical witness might suffice.

It seems necessary to know just enough to, but to be careful of preconceived ideas.

Repeating the dowsing question with the same subject, to get better “odds”, and therefore a more reliable result, seems not to work for dowsing.

Map dowsing can be a helpful first step if the search area is large, but site dowsing is necessary for precision.