I have applied for the challenge

trandallt said:
So if he were to challenge me to name all the fifty states in alphabetical order, I could win the prize by doing so?
Click to expand...

It's unlikely that he would do so. He's foolish, but not that foolish.

However, if he put in Swift some comment to the fact that it is impossible to name all 50 states in alphabetical order, and anyone who claims that ability is either lying or delusional, if he did that you would be within your rights to apply.
 
For what foolish means, go look at a dictionary.

As for evidence that Randi is a fool, he's been saying "Find me a dry spot" for 25 years. That is very foolish. He's an idiot, who couldn't run a proper test to save his life.

If you think his comment isn't foolish, then by all means, encourage him to actually conduct the test he proposed.
 
Peter Morris said:
He's an idiot, who couldn't run a proper test to save his life.
Click to expand...

Now that is insulting, and simply not true. While I am as guilty of throwing about the word idiot as anyone can be, Randi is no idiot. Nor a fool. Insults don't do anything but make the insulter look bad.


















Unless they are true.
 
All of this moralising and judgmental crap comes from somneone who refused to acknowledge his ignorance of DNA when challenged to back up his (mis)understanding of it.
 
steenkh said:
I guess so, but I doubt that he would do it.
Click to expand...
Please believe that I am not trying to be a pedant, or hoping for a "gotcha." Are you contending that any time he uses the word "challenge," even in casual conversation, that it must necessarily refer to the MDC?
 
trandallt said:
Please believe that I am not trying to be a pedant, or hoping for a "gotcha." Are you contending that any time he uses the word "challenge," even in casual conversation, that it must necessarily refer to the MDC?
Click to expand...
Even though you do not try to be a pedant, you certainly seem to fail!

Of course, Randi is able to issue challenges that do not involve the MDC. In fact, in a recent issue of his newsletter Swift, he challenged readers to spot the errors in a picture of a watch.

But still, Randi is more or less synonymous with the MDC, and I have not seen him issue (serious) challenges that did not involve the million dollars. He is free to waive any and all rules of the challenge, and he does so if it suits him.
 
Peter Morris said:
For what foolish means, go look at a dictionary.

As for evidence that Randi is a fool, he's been saying "Find me a dry spot" for 25 years. That is very foolish. He's an idiot, who couldn't run a proper test to save his life.

If you think his comment isn't foolish, then by all means, encourage him to actually conduct the test he proposed.
Click to expand...

You still seem unclear on some concepts. The mission is yours to construct and offer an acceptable protocol. That you believe you have done so, does not make it so.

You appear to wish to make your challenge on academic grounds, having a panel of geologists declare you winner or consulting some geological survey to somehow declare a spot wet or dry. The inescapable fact is that declaring a spot wet or dry is ultimately going to be performed by actually drilling for water, and the success or failure of that endeavor within the established parameters will determine the outcome. That you have chosen to challenge him on something that is expensive to test is not the fault of the MDC, it is yours.

Since you believe him to be wrong on a good many topics, perhaps you could select something that is more easily tested?

But then, that you would simultaneously use an admission of human fallibility as evidence of general unreliablity and then make claim that the same person would never admit to being wrong (after having done so and been quoted by you) demonstrates quite clearly that it is your simply your wish to attack in any way you find interesting at the time, and never make any productive measure to actually achieve your noble goal of proving Randi wrong.

It is still my hope that you will prove ME wrong in this, and refocus your efforts.
 
steenkh said:
Even though you do not try to be a pedant, you certainly seem to fail!
Click to expand...
This is my point. Mr. Morris is equivocating when he refers to Mr. Randi as having "challenged' him. Whatever challenge he imagines was issued, it was not to him, and not an invitation to apply.
 
Peter Morris said:
For what foolish means, go look at a dictionary.
Click to expand...

I am uninterested in a dictionary definition since I have learned in many discussions with you that you sometimes have your own unique definition for the words you use.

So to avoid any confusion I again ask you to define "foolish" as you use it.

Peter Morris said:
As for evidence that Randi is a fool, he's been saying "Find me a dry spot" for 25 years.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

Peter Morris said:
That is very foolish.
Click to expand...

Until you provide evidence for your claim there is no reason to even consider what you conclude from your claim.

Peter Morris said:
He's an idiot, who couldn't run a proper test to save his life.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

Peter Morris said:
If you think his comment isn't foolish, then by all means, encourage him to actually conduct the test he proposed.
Click to expand...

All I am doing is asking you to support your claims.
 
webfusion said:
No caves.

from the Application:
"To demonstrate his claim successfully, Applicant merely has to show ONE example of water naturally flowing underground, that isn’t in a cave."
Click to expand...

Ahhh... I get it. A "cave" would imply an inlet and outlet openings, meaning that surface water is part of the flow cycle. To NOT be in a cave means the entire body and flow cycle must be a subterranean closed loop or network. This does raise one interesting point: how do you define the gray area between "flowing" and "circulation?" Imagine a donut-shaped void with a single stalagtite/stalagmite "pole" occupying the center. Since the Earth spins and water circulates, even slightly, would this be considered a "flow" cycle?

This has turned into an interesting thread, and food for thought. I don't know (and won't even guess) who's right or wrong based on what criteria. But I'd venture out enough to say, whatever the outcome, I'll definitely end up learning something. That's always a good thing (and what the E stands for in JREF:) )

Respectfully,
Brian Jackson
 
Last edited:
webfusion said:
NOTE: Randi clearly is not talking about minor streams or springs or underground caverns or fissures. He most specifically described the case of "George Langlois... Armed only with a forked twig, he proclaimed that (the British Isle of) Jersey did not have a water crisis at all. The island’s water, he insisted, originates from France. It is, er, pulled by the moons gravity via wide streams which run beneath the English Channel."
---- From the linked Commentary in the OP which formed your basis for claiming Randi is wrong.
Click to expand...
BTW, results from the investigation have been issued in an interim report: there's a press release on the States of Jersey website.
The well drillers and water diviners identified two sites on the Island where they had divined underground streams entering Jersey. The sites were on the east coast, at La Rocque and at St Catherine’s with stream depths divined at 45.7m and 76.3m respectively.

When the boreholes were drilled to depths of 55.5 metres and 79.5 metres respectively no major flows were found at these depths.

...

The isotope analyses were all within the normal range for Jersey waters and showed no significant difference between water at the surface and water at depth.
Click to expand...
 
Brian Jackson said:
Ahhh... I get it. A "cave" would imply an inlet and outlet openings, meaning that surface water is part of the flow cycle. To NOT be in a cave means the entire body and flow cycle must be a subterranean closed loop or network. This does raise one interesting point: how do you define the gray area between "flowing" and "circulation?" Imagine a donut-shaped void with a single stalagtite/stalagmite "pole" occupying the center. Since the Earth spins and water circulates, even slightly, would this be considered a "flow" cycle?

This has turned into an interesting thread, and food for thought. I don't know (and won't even guess) who's right or wrong based on what criteria. But I'd venture out enough to say, whatever the outcome, I'll definitely end up learning something. That's always a good thing (and what the E stands for in JREF:) )

Respectfully,
Brian Jackson
Click to expand...
This PDF document on dowsing from the US Geological Survey is a pretty good summary of both the "dowsers" misconception of the mechanisms involved with groundwater and where James Randi may have referred to for some of his (correct) information on same.

Note that it is exactly *this* misconception by dowsers of the existence of underground rivers and the relative abundance of subsurface water that Randi has commented upon.

Page is here http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/water_dowsing/html/pdf.html
PDF of the document is 1.23Mb and worth a read in the context of this thread. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/water_dowsing/pdf/water_dowsing.pdf
 
I call for independent arbitration

As many people on this forum know, I have applied for Randi's challenge.

Randi has for at least 25 years been issuing a specific challenge. In his lectures on dowsing Randi tells his audience that there is water to be found almost everywhere, states that dowsers will always find water, and challenges anyone to find a dry spot instead.

I have accepted the challenge exactly as Randi described it, following his description to the letter.

James Randi has told me that my application has been rejected. He will not give a reason. He has refused to discuss the matter. I have attempted to correspond with him, he only replied to tell me that he won't discuss it.


Under the challenge rules I call for independent arbitration. My right to call for this is set out by Randi himself:

http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html

<< Nonsense. I will not, and do not, "formulate" any rules without the cooperation and participation of the applicant. If there's any objection, we call in a person we both agree should be properly qualified to decide about the rules. It's always been this way, despite the statements — such as this one — made to the contrary. >>

I want to call in such a person to decide whether my application is acceptable under Randi's rules. I am perfectly confident that any fair minded person will agree that I have followed Randi's rules to the letter.



Who should this independent arbitrator be? Possibly the people listed here :

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/042007todd.html#i9

<<A committee composed of a physicist, a social scientist, a physician, and a very senior member of the staff of Scientific American magazine >>

It sounds like they would make a fair decision. I state, provisionally, that I would accept their decision. I would of course need their names before I say for sure.
 
Peter Morris said:
In his lectures on dowsing Randi tells his audience that there is water to be found almost everywhere, states that dowsers will always find water, and challenges anyone to find a dry spot instead.
Click to expand...

Your paranormal claim is that you can find a dry spot? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom