I have applied for the challenge

[Peter Morris]

I have decided to apply for the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge.

People making claims are challenged by James Randi to prove them. Some of the claims are mental powers, such as telepathy. But note that some of the claims are "pseudoscience" i.e. scientific theories that Randi does not believe. An example of this may be seen here where someone claims that a magnetic clip will change the flavour of a bottle of wine. Randi does not believe the theory as stated, and issues the challenge "prove me wrong and win a million dollars." The thus challenged person does not have to show a paranormal power, they have to prove the truth of their theory, and show that Randi is wrong in his disbelief.

My claim is in the same category as the wine clip. I don't claim any mental powers. It's a theory that Randi does not believe. I state that certain geological phenomena exist. Randi does not believe me, and calls me "delusional" for believing in them. In a recent column he said "This is the most pervasive of the delusions that dowsers have and promote endlessly, that there exist vast rivers of fresh water that run deep in the ground and can be easily tapped. There are large reservoirs of water there to be accessed, it’s true, but they are certainly not “flowing”; they’re pretty well stationary." He has been making similar comments for at least 25 years.

My claim is a simple one. I say that water does in fact move underground (e pur si muove) and a few related things. James Randi does not believe my claims, he says that I am "delusional" for believing them, and has challenged me to demonstrate them. His comments and others like them put my claim into the same category of paranormal as the wine clip.

Note that I don't claim this is paranormal ... Randi does, though, and the fact that he thinks so makes my application legitimate. A successful demonstration will not prove that I have any magic powers, it will only prove that Randi is wrong. But under the terms of his challenge, that is enough.

You can follow the progress of my claim at www.proverandiwrong.net

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Have you already sent your notarized application, Peter Morris? If so, has the JREF accepted your application?

What do you mean exactly by "related things"?

How will you prove your claim?

 

[The Atheist]

10/10 for style - I like the existing website you have, but the fact that you tried a similar path 2 years ago without noticeable result doesn't auger well for your prospects.

I see that you've posted an appropriate challenge. I give you no chance of success, but full marks for trying. It all looks pretty airy-fairy to me, but James has taken a position and offered you a crack, so I'm glad you're taking it.

 

[webfusion]

Have you already sent your notarized application, Peter Morris? If so, has the JREF accepted your application?

It was sent. The linked website specifically shows that (dated 9-11).

What does "accepted" mean? According to the rules, if a conforming Application is received, then the person sending the document becomes the "Applicant" and can immediately begin to negotiate their protocol. No action on the part of JREF is required to "accept" the Application ---- only after the negotiations are concluded and the protocol is arrived at mutually, does James Randi sign ("accept") the claim letter and the Applicant officially becomes the Claimant.

I have run into this same issue with Christopher Pille ("Unbending a Spine") who seems to be stuck in limbo because he cannot easily obtain proper affidavits from medical practitioners to support his claim of being able to use psychic energy to straighten scoliotic deformity.
His Application is in the hands of Jeff Wagg, so it was "accepted" on delivery, same as the Application in this case, of P. Morris.

How will you prove your claim?

That is always the hard part!

 

[Apathia]

Well this is a educational experience!
I grew up in Florida with the unquestioned notion that there were underground steams. That is that a stream of underground water could pass along till it could surface somewhere as a spring.
Ah but then my grandmother also told us of "sinkholes" that swallowed houses and alligators caught up in hurricanes to be dropped from the sky.
Also if some dermatological condition called "shingles" encircled you body you would die. And then there's the Bible passage in Ezekiel that stops bleeding. The Titanic sank because some reporter said. "God Almighty couldn't sink her." But why did God create animals that weren't good to eat.
My father dies at age 34. My grandmother assured me I'd not live to see 35 either. I'm 55 now. I'm ready to see Silver Springs debunked.

 

[Moochie]

More to the point, have you convinced anyone else of your "delusional" beliefs?

Having done so might lend you some credibility.

But frankly, since yours isn't a paranormal claim, your chances of claiming the $1 million are zilch.


M.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

If I remember correctly, Randi has said that someone who could show that water flows in streams and rivers underground would be eligible. The reason is, geologists have been dropping cores and digging holes all over the world and never come across an underground river (excluding caves with rivers). Underground rivers such as dowsers claim would make even something so small as building a house an incredibly risky endeavor.

Water does flow underground, it's called the 'water table'. The water is not limited to streams, it spreads out throughout the ground.

 

[Moochie]

If I remember correctly, Randi has said that someone who could show that water flows in streams and rivers underground would be eligible. The reason is, geologists have been dropping cores and digging holes all over the world and never come across an underground river (excluding caves with rivers). Underground rivers such as dowsers claim would make even something so small as building a house an incredibly risky endeavor.

Water does flow underground, it's called the 'water table'. The water is not limited to streams, it spreads out throughout the ground.

For f*ck's sake, it's not a paranormal claim. Get with the plan, moron.

M.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not insult other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[geni]

Under ice streams have been reported in antartica.

 

[Moochie]

Under ice streams have been reported in antartica.

For f*ck's sake, it's not a paranormal claim. Get with the plan, moron.

M.

 

[Jekyll]

For f*ck's sake, it's not a paranormal claim. Get with the plan, moron.

M.

Wouldn't you need some kind of anti gravity thingy-majig to make these rivers run through soil without cave ins?

 

[Apathia]

If I remember correctly, Randi has said that someone who could show that water flows in streams and rivers underground would be eligible. The reason is, geologists have been dropping cores and digging holes all over the world and never come across an underground river (excluding caves with rivers). Underground rivers such as dowsers claim would make even something so small as building a house an incredibly risky endeavor.

Water does flow underground, it's called the 'water table'. The water is not limited to streams, it spreads out throughout the ground.

I'm glad you excluded caves. I was about to relate my false memories from my college days (In TN of all places!) of crawling through channels that had allegedly been dug by water flowing underground. The absurdity of it! It couldn't have really happened! You see in those days I was a student in a Christian College (Now known as Southern Adventist University) and a Creationist! So nothing I remember from that time has any validity.

Yes, kindly exclude Karst regions from this claim.

 

[Apathia]

Underground rivers such as dowsers claim would make even something so small as building a house an incredibly risky endeavor.

Sinkholes!!!!!!!

 

[quixotecoyote]

I assume these claims are what you proposed

i) Some underground water exists in channels that run many metres under the surface. There are several different types of channel, some of which can be correctly classified as "underground rivers."

ii) Water flows underground through various different structures.

iii) Underground water is hard to find. Locating a suitable spot for a well requires someone with an expert understanding of geology after making a detailed study of the area. Random drilling by someone without proper expertise is highly likely to hit a dry spot.

iv) Water supply is extremely variable over a short distance. It is perfectly possible to locate a well that produces several hundred gallons per minute (GPM) while another well just a few metres away can produce very little or nothing at all.

i) Is obviously true; look at caves.

ii) Depends on the semantic ambiguity of flow, as well as the cave possibility.

iii) Misses the point. It's hard to find good sites to wells without adequate knowledge, but you will most likely find some water anywhere (http://www.lifewater.ca/Appendix_C.htm).

iv)True, but where has andi claimed differently?

You might want to reassess what exactly you're challenging. Randi challenges dowsing, and the idea that aquifiers are exact analogs to rivers, but I don't think he would necessarily disagree with your challenge as written.

eta:I do note you've defined dry spots, but it still might require some wrangling to see if you're making a challenge of sufficient disagreement.

 

[webfusion]

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."

 

[Apathia]

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."

Or isn't in the process of a flow creating a cavity in limestone?
If the cavity is fully inundated, does or does that not count?

What about springs? Why does the water fountain up in that little spot? How does it flow there? Can you trace it back along a line of flow of water seeping through more permeable soil?
Are there better places to drill a water well? Places the water is more inclined to be seeping, flowing or something under?

Sounds to me like this could be all cleared up with a a couple of textbooks.

 

[robinson]

Hi there Peter.

Thanks for all the information. I remember the first time I heard Randi claim that there was water almost everywhere. I thought that sounded a bit unbelievable, but imagined he was using rhetoric to make a point.

As a resident of Florida, I am well aware that water flows underground, often like a river. In fact, there are underground rivers. While it was once thought they all involved caves, research has shown a lot of water is moving underground, and not through caves.

While I admire your efforts, I don't think you have a chance. The MDC is about exposing frauds, not proving something is true. It is about proving things are not true.

And I really doubt proving Randi wrong, about things he has been saying for years, is going to be accepted as a challenge.

The links you provided are interesting however. The entire thing is interesting. Now I have to go do some research and stuff. Damn you, damn you to hell!

See this for a somehow related post-http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2033158#post2033158

 

[robinson]

Well well well

Sounds to me like this could be all cleared up with a a couple of textbooks.

Believe it or not, there is a lot of information about flowing underground water in Water Rights Law. Seems flowing underground water (not in caves), is considered a real issue, as in water rights.

And Texas, for obvious reasons, has a lot of law and stuff about it. (OK I don't really know how much there is, it was just the first thing I found in a metasearch.)

Texas law subdivides groundwater into two classes: percolating groundwater and water flowing in well-defined underground streams.

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/WW/gyw1_print.html

 

[webfusion]

robinson declares:

As a resident of Florida, I am well aware that water flows underground, often like a river. In fact, there are underground rivers. While it was once thought they all involved caves, research has shown a lot of water is moving underground, and not through caves.

Evidence?

 

[robinson]

Well, since Randi says there isn't flowing water, wouldn't he have to prove that? Common knowledge says there is, and always has been, flowing water underground. (don't take my word for it, there is a crapload of law and engineering data on this).

So, since common knowledge says something is true, the person claiming it isn't true has the burden of proof. Not the other way around. res ipsa loquitur

This doesn't mean I can't link you to a thousand web pages, but do your own homework.