I have applied for the challenge

[The Atheist]

And welcome to the nuthouse. Have fun.

But have you yet given us your percentage of people who knew about the JREF challenge?

I'd be very interested to know, because we're too far from the action over here and I never see it mentioned anywhere else on the net.

FESS UP!

 

[robinson]

OK but there is a large gathering thursday night, and I want to finish up with that. People I don't see often, and a very diverse crowd. I'm still hoping for more positive data. Yeah, I know, but its not scientific, it is sort of, but I guess I am also spreading the word as well.

Is that wrong?

 

[The Atheist]

OK but there is a large gathering thursday night, and I want to finish up with that. People I don't see often, and a very diverse crowd. I'm still hoping for more positive data. Yeah, I know, but its not scientific, it is sort of, but I guess I am also spreading the word as well.

Is that wrong?

Science, schmience!

If you want to do it scientifically, you'd really need to spend a whole lot of money doing it professionally. Anecdotal evidence on this one's fine. Make sure you post it here so I don't miss it though!

cheers

(Like your new avatar much better)

 

[politas]

I doubt that Mr Morris is ever going to get rich thanks to the JREF. From the Preliminary discussion page on his site, it is clear that he discussed his definition of "dry spot", and Randi almost completely disagreed.

Peter's discussion of underground streams is nothing like the descriptions of dowsers. From the talk of dowsers, the entire planet is cris-crossed by abundant underground streams, travelling in fairly arbitrary directions, and often passing each other on different levels underground. When Randi talks about "vast underground rivers of fresh water", it is _entirely_ in response to dowsers, and his challenge to find a "dry spot" is a challenge made to dowsers.There is not the slightest hope that this challenge will be accepted.

 

[Apathia]

I appreciate the vote of confidence. Too bad it was a misfire, eh?

You weren't far off the mark. Mr. Randi's first remarks could easily be taken as a denial of water moving underground. Subsequent statements somewhat qualified the matter. But it really doesn't make a bit of difference at all for three reasons:

One: It's not what Mr. Randi said then but what he says today that Mr. Morris would have to dispute in the context of the MDC.

Two: It's not of a matter of what Mr. Randi said or says, but of a claim that, if not paranormal, is psudoscientific, unscientific, or fringe-scientific.

Three: What Mr. Randi said or says about moving groundwater is irrelevant to the MDC. That's a different playing field from the Foundation's MDC.

So, it's still possible for a claim by Mr. Morris to be accepted for the MDC. But it has to be an unscientific one. (One that he is almost certain to lose).

But having read the histories of various MDC claims wrecking upon the rocks of quibble, I can easily see this breaking apart into a quibble over the definition of a "dry spot." or an "underground river."

I could be wrong. Mr. Randi could encourage the Foundation to take up a Mr. Morris on a quest for the dry spot. Though I wonder if Mr. Morris would be able to afford all that drilling? Especially if it's a relatively dry in comparison to others in the vicinity spot he's looking for. And Gosh, maybe Mr. Morris could find a relatively speaking dry spot or drier spot.

In the meantime, we'll just keep beating this dead horse till it sings.

 

[Sherman Bay]

In the meantime, we'll just keep beating this dead horse till it sings.

We might have better luck with a fat lady.

 

[Cuddles]

Allow me. I grew up in Florida. The Sinkhole was one of the monsters of my childhood. My grandmother often told us our house could any day be dragged down into the gaping maul of a sinkhole.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/geologictopics/sinkhole.htm

http://kyclim.wku.edu/BRADD/sinkholes/sinkholes.html

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/slideset/39/39_789_slide.shtml

http://www.phillyblast.com/Allentown/sinkhole.htm

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ozsvath/images/winter_park_sinkhole.htm

http://www.ncwater.org/Education_and_Technical_Assistance/Ground_Water/Sinkholes/

Scary!

Fair enough. I'm just glad I don't live there.

We might have better luck with a fat lady.

Aren't there laws against beating fat ladies?

 

[Major Billy]

Yes, underground rivers exist. Wekiwa Springs, in Orange County, Florida, has a flow of 62.6 cubic feet per second.

It seems a stretch to call Wekiwa Springs/Swamp/River an 'underground river'. It looks more like an ordinary river that occasionally drains into a cave.

Are there any 'underground rivers' that run a substantial distance entirely underground?

 

[webfusion]

It seems a stretch to call Wekiwa Springs/Swamp/River an 'underground river'. It looks more like an ordinary river that occasionally drains into a cave.

Are there any 'underground rivers' that run a substantial distance entirely underground?

No.

As was already acknowledged by Samnite, in post #135, when I called his attention to this exact matter, he says:

"Yeah, you're right. I went off half cocked."

Which is a close relative of cock and bull.

 

[robinson]

It seems a stretch to call Wekiwa Springs/Swamp/River an 'underground river'.

Are there any 'underground rivers' that run a substantial distance entirely underground?

I'm going to try to not get into any more silly arguments over this. Really I am. Because when you know something is real, and people don't believe it, or want to argue semantics, it gets silly.

The area in question is a very very public area, and there is huge controversy over it, due to development and a beltway around Orlando that is going to be built. It is probably one of the most studied and documented underground river systems in the world.

Both Wekiva, Rock Springs and the Blue Sink have been mapped. The underground river system is well understood there. The underground rivers are not disputed by anyone. What is disputed is the effects upon them.

In fact, all 20 underground streams that feed the Wekiva river have been mapped. It is an extensive underground stream/river area, and has been scientifically studied, mapped, documented and fought over for many years.

It is one of the reasons I laugh when I hear people say that no underground river or stream has ever been found!

 

[MortFurd]

No.

How about this one?
9 million gallons per hour, just flows out of the ground without making a previous appearance anywhere (that I know of.)

That area is all limestone, so underground streams and sink holes are to be expected.

Still a far cry from "underground rivers and streams every where" and "wasseradern."

 

[Samnite]

No.

As was already acknowledged by Samnite, ... when I called his attention to this exact matter, he says:

"Yeah, you're right. I went off half cocked."

Which is a close relative of cock and bull.
...

No. You're misinterpreting me. I went off half-cocked in regards to Randi's particular statement about a freshwater stream between France and England. I was wrong about that, because he was talking about a very specific (and preposterous) case.

However, you can bet your last dollar that underground rivers exist. Most of the Florida peninsula (and the Yucatan, icidentally, which is geologically similar to Florida) is underlain by miles upon miles of freshwater-bearing cave, most of which, because of plentiful rainfall and low-lying topography, is completely filled with water. This is absolutely undeniable. It is an empirical fact. Denying that underground rivers exist ANYWHERE is exactly analogous to denying that the Matterhorn exists. It's utterly ridiculous.

I also fail to understand why some people seem to be contending that if one of these streams reaches the surface at some point, then it's not an underground river. Bwuh? They flow for most of their lengths underground. Just because they emerge at some point does not mean that they're not an underground stream.

Now, I'm in the middle of a lecture on molecular genetics, so I'll be back later.

 

[robinson]

Denying that underground rivers exist ANYWHERE is exactly analogous to denying that the Matterhorn exists. It's utterly ridiculous.

Thank you Samnite! Early on, in another thread, I thought I was the subject of some joking when people insisted on such nonsense. Your rational scientific voice is much appreciated.

 

[Apathia]

Thank you Samnite! Early on, in another thread, I thought I was the subject of some joking when people insisted on such nonsense. Your rational scientific voice is much appreciated.

As for myself, I never doubted you, Robinson. I'm just disappointed that you took away my favorite avatar. It reminded me so much of my old friend, Edgar.

 

[PeterB]

There are some things i just love about the "applicant's" web site. (The quotes are there because he hasn't actually applied as far as I can see, but has just said "I can do this. Send me the money". Fond memories of John Benneth.)

The first is in the very first paragraph on his site, where he misrepresents the way the challenge works. I would accuse him of being mistaken, except that he claims to have been pursuing this for many years so the reality must be that he is lying.

Another lovely part is where he defines success and failure:

Success in the test shall be demonstrating any ONE or more of the applicant's statements to be correct. Failure shall be if all four of the applicant’s statements are proved wrong.

Think about that - he isn't prepared to make a definite statement of what he is talking about, but if one of his four guesses is correct he wins.

Whatta maroon!

It also seems that he is claiming that if he digs and finds a lot of water then he wins because there is a river, but if he digs and doesn't find water he wins because Randi said that 6% of the time water won't be found.

It's probably too late to get delusional moronicity included in the next Olympics, but Peter Morris should be writing to the IOC to ask for it to be added for the following games. The only problem he might have is with the anti-doping authorities. There are two possible meanings of the word "dope" and he would be hard pressed to argue that he wasn't a very large bag of the non-medicinal kind of it.

 

[Quinn]

I've swam through underground rivers. I have PHOTOS of underground rivers. I've done years' worth of work in underground rivers.

"And you, sir, are no underground river!" -- Lloyd Benson, 1992

Samnite, welcome aboard!

 

[Major Billy]

The University of Florida seems to agree with Randi:

Rivers and streams in north Florida have a curious habit of disappearing into the ground, only to reemerge elsewhere, a result of the porous rock formations that lie not far beneath the ground.

But ongoing studies by a University of Florida geologist offer new evidence that much of the water that feeds the springs in the region flows through tiny pores in the rocks, not large underwater conduits. The research has a couple of important implications, said Jon Martin, a UF assistant professor of geology. One is that much of the water may come from a large area around the springs, meaning it could carry pollution that had been in the groundwater for some time or originated from another region, he said. The findings apply not only in Florida, but also in other states in the Southeast, he said.

 

[Samnite]

The University of Florida seems to agree with Randi:

Sure, but I could similarly say that most water in any given terrestrial environment does not flow through rivers, but is transported through tiny pores in the rocks, soil, etc. It's a true statement, but does not change the fact that there are rivers in the terrestrial environment. There are underground rivers in karst regions. Cave divers swim through them all the time, for miles at a time. No amount of linguistic gymnastics is going to change that. I'm conducting a water quality study right now in north Alabama in a watershed which is entirely drained by an underground stream network. I've walked/swam the entire main trunk. It's there. There's simply no way around it.

Check h t t p://cavesurvey.com/long_underwater_caves.htm for some underground stream lengths. Keep in mind, also, that underground streams are very poorly known, and some of these could run for many more miles.

Now, we can quibble about the volume, flow rate, length, width, or depth of what constitutes a "river," but frankly that's really a tomayto/tomahto argument, and pretty nonproductive.

 

[NiallM]

The linguistic quibble sources from Morris. Randi has an easy pedantic escape by claiming that there are no underground rivers. Despite what you say, they are paleochannels, or indeed, as you describe them, underground streams. Point is, I've absolutely no dount that Randi knows that there are many watercourses underground - but not as many as are claimed, and quite simply, there is no way that a dowser can pinppoint their location in the manner that they claim. His claim that there is water underground in the vast majority of spots drilled is quite correct too; that it isn't of use as a source is entirely irrelevant to the question. Indeed, the north-east of Australia, despite being largely desert, has a stable and enormous underground lake.

The claim, in yhem meantime, is no more than an irrelevance and an attempt to win a mill through pedantry - and through a level of pedantry that the claimant cannot survive when it is applied to his own words. As can be seen from the DNA example which he refuses to address.

 

[Samnite]

The linguistic quibble sources from Morris. Randi has an easy pedantic escape by claiming that there are no underground rivers. Despite what you say, they are paleochannels, or indeed, as you describe them, underground streams. Point is, I've absolutely no dount that Randi knows that there are many watercourses underground - but not as many as are claimed, and quite simply, there is no way that a dowser can pinppoint their location in the manner that they claim. His claim that there is water underground in the vast majority of spots drilled is quite correct too; that it isn't of use as a source is entirely irrelevant to the question. Indeed, the north-east of Australia, despite being largely desert, has a stable and enormous underground lake.

The claim, in yhem meantime, is no more than an irrelevance and an attempt to win a mill through pedantry - and through a level of pedantry that the claimant cannot survive when it is applied to his own words. As can be seen from the DNA example which he refuses to address.

Clearly, this is true, as I've already acknowledged. I am in no way endorsing Peter Morris's rather lunkheaded challenge. I am merely addressing the very confusing assertions by a few posters on this forum who, for some unaccountable reason, seem to believe that no underground streams exist at all. And I'm certainly not endorsing any dowsers' claims.