Survey Techniques 2011 >
Surveying techniques in the horizontal plane underwent further improvements in 2011 such that, when a reaction was encountered (indicated by the 'Link-rod' moving steadily downwards from horizontal to vertical) the subject looked down over the instrument and thus, was able to take a vertical sightline through the link-rod to the ground below and place a marker on the spot. The method allowed a Pressure 'Pulse' or Reaction 'Dip' to be located at the point of occurrence and, by walking back and forth across this zone of reaction, fine adjustments to the marker's position could be made and distance from known points could be measured with confidence and recorded.
NOTE: throughout the investigation, no attempt was ever made to account for the possible height of the subject's receptor that might be involved in bringing about these reactions because its location was a complete unknown for a large portion of the early investigations.
The Initial Path to be walked could be consciously chosen or selected at random but, by using the '90° looping' back-and-forth survey method, if a series of reactions was found to have a direction it allowed the vector to be traced over a considerable horizontal distance (as illustrated above in fig. 1.6). In detail the 'Looping-path' method was as follows: having reacted and marked an initial point A, the subject proceeded a couple of strides or so beyond it and then circled round through 180° before returning on a path parallel to the first. On reacting a second time, this additional spot was marked as point B and thus, created the line AB. The subsequent path followed was then always made at ~90° to the line of the previous pair of reaction points accumulating thus: - AB, BC, CD and so on. Occasionally, if circumstances made it necessary, the subject could step backwards and then off to the side rather circling around, thereby avoiding any physical objects (thorn bushes etc.) blocking the route.
The Looping-path method was adaptable to varying requirements of scale: it could involve placing marks on the ground every 50 cm or so for detailed work, or expanded to them being placed approx. every 3 metres to allow the tracing of a vector over several hundred metres in a broader landscape. And in the later stages of the investigation the method was used without placing any markers - relying instead on records produced by a GPS tracker worn by the subject. A rigid adherence to this Looping method of surveying was a key feature of all work done from 2011 onwards.
By contrast, Underwood's survey method was to 'assume' the direction of a line and 'criss-cross' it diagonally.[1] Whilst undoubtedly covering a shorter distance, his method had the disadvantage (which he does acknowledge to some extent) of having a higher likelihood of confusing one line of reaction with another if their intercept was at a narrow angle. Further, if a line's direction was already 'imagined', there was a greater danger of 'conscious expectation' of a response. This undesirable situation needed to be minimised by constant vigilance, such as rechecking points already located by approaching them in the reverse direction, and also by being aware of any possible external visual stimuli in case they might be responsible for bringing about anticipatory 'ideo-sensory' movements.
To minimise this problem in the larger landscape the method was to start a series of plots in a visually neutral area, for example the middle of a field, after which the subject worked towards an obvious track or field boundary; by doing so the likelihood of being able to anticipate beforehand how a repeating series of 'pulse-dips' might resolve itself into a recognisable pattern was greatly reduced. Such strategies were maintained throughout the investigation to hinder the conscious part of the brain anticipating the 'feel' of the reflex reactions i.e., to minimise them being interpreted in advance or as they were happening.
In the later stages of the investigation the strategy adopted consisted firstly of finding and identifying a zone where reactions had a 'broadly spaced' feel or at least establishing a boundary to such a zone, before moving on to a zone of less width; only then, after these preliminaries were carried out, would a final confirmation of a narrow single 'pulse-dip' reaction position be made. At this point its path could then traced using the 'looping' method - crossing and re-crossing it with a traversing movement which extended to the edge of any slightly wider 'dip' zones accompanying it on either side.
Further, it became essential to produce detailed Vertical Plane sectional drawings with a focus on the narrow 'Pulse-Dip' reaction. Limited by available equipment, the method used in outdoor locations involved walking only a very short horizontal distance but at a series of heights; this required a 2 metre length of suitably wide planking to be supported horizontally - either between step-ladders (as shown in the photo on the Left below) or placing it on an extendable-ladder mounted on series blocks (see photo below - Right). A reaction marker could then be positioned on the plank in front of the feet, as was done at ground level and a plumb line dropped from it to the ground thus, allowing creation of a second marker - from which distance to its co-ordinate could be measured for that particular height.
NOTE: In two of the locations where these vertical sections were produced, an additional observation was made (slightly off vertical by a metre or so) by walking along the edge of a roof, thereby allowing a total sectional height of 2.6 m to be covered. (*For safety reason this is not recommended without adequate checks in place!.
The measurement and recording of reaction positions in 3-D space was made with the aim of gaining a greater understanding of the phenomenon, and thus, test the hypothesis that it might be due to an 'external' stimulus. This lead inexorably towards using data in the form of graphs to plot key aspects of any pattern that might be visible and thus create opportunities to confirm or refute more easily the source of the reactions. These graphs offered three main outcomes:
I. Either the reactions lacked a consistent pattern and the form was random.
II. Or the reactions occurrence was specifically linked to the layout of buildings, walls, roads or any other visual stimuli and thus, suggested its source was likely to be 'ideo-motor' in origin i.e., internal to the subject and being produced either unconsciously or consciously.
III. Or the reactions occurred in a regular pattern, with no obvious link to visual stimuli but with distribution characteristics indicating that stimulation was coming from an external force whose forms were already known to science; and thereby, simultaneously provide an indication of the sense organ involved.
Reference:
[1] Underwood G, 'Archaeology and Dowsing' Part II. JBDS VII No.58, 296-306, Dec 1947. See also 'Dowsing and Archaeology' An anthology from the Journal of the British Society of Dowsers. Graves T. (Ed.) Turnstone Books, 1980.