# James Randi and Dry Spots **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 13, 2004, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926 "2004-10-13T01:46:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/221 "2004-10-21T10:08:32Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Fact is, you’ve been exposed as a liar yet again. What lie? My lie that you didn’t mention the comment you didn’t mention? I’m confused. The whole of Randi’s relevant quote is: > [@](#): > > One of the more common claims by dowsers, he said, is that they can locate rivers of water underground. > > “There are no streams of water flowing underground,” he said. “There are large deposits of water that may seep through sandstone and move at the rate of 200 feet per year. There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. These people have delusions about underground rivers.” So he starts with what dowsers claim concerning underground rivers. He then contradict that claim by saying there are no underground rivers, although he then appropriately qualifies that by reference to caves and seepage. Now let’s have that Missouri quote again: > [@](#): > > Diviners believe it is stored in veins, domes, and underground rivers. Actually groundwater seeps through the soil after rainfall and fills pores, cracks, and crevices in the rocks underground So they start with what dowsers claim concerning (amongst other things) underground rivers. They then contradict that claim by saying that actually groundwater seeps through soil (ie not in underground rivers). The Missouri DNR don’t even see fit to qualify their answer by saying that there are some underground rivers albeit not as dowsers suggest. They just flat out say that actually groundwater is not in veins, domes or underground rivers. No qualifications. But strangely, Randi’s wrong but you don’t suggest the Missouri DNR’s wrong. Surely a fierce email in Missouri DNR’s direction calling them frauds and liars and telling them they have an insufficient grasp of the relevant facts to be fit to govern is in order, Peter? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/222 "2004-10-21T10:33:50Z")
The key point is that you are determined to strip Randi’s comment about underground rivers being fictional of all context. You ignore the fact it was preceded by a statement about what dowsers believe. You ignore the fact that Randi qualifies by reference to caves. You ignore the fact that on other occasions Randi has made what he means more clear by saying “the notion of underground rivers that dowsers maintain etc”. You just want to find a sentence that stripped of all context and qualification you can describe as wrong. Of course a bare sentence that “underground rivers are fictional” is wrong. Any sane person knows that you read things in context. Do you actually, in any other context but Randi, take each sentence you hear or read in total isolation, ignoring nuances about what the speaker or writer is likely to mean going by the topic at hand and other contextual clues? Are you actually such a crashingly tedious and pedantic bore that in a discussion about Scotland you would call a speaker a liar if he said “Ben Nevis is the highest mountain” because Everest is higher? Would you tell him that his “direct statement and unambiguous statement” was that Ben Nevis was the highest mountain, and that he should stop trying to make excuses? Perhaps you would. Perhaps it wouldn’t surprise me if you did. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/223 "2004-10-21T11:02:29Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > And the usual hate from the obsessed Randi fanatic. > Once again, I tell things the way they happened. The facts don’t fit in with the fantasy world that Miskatonic lives in. He denies that any such words were ever spoken. Smugly, he challenges me to produce them, totally sure that they never existed. > > As usual, I speak the truth. Yet again, Misko end up looking like a fool. > > Two pathetic Randi-worshipping morons said those words, which Misko denies exist. > > The first of them was possibly the saddest, most pathetic clown that ever drew breath. Beyond doubt, he was the biggest butt-wipe ever to disgrace these boards. This pathetic wretch spake thus : > > \*\* " For the record, there are no “underground rivers”. The occassional creek in a large cavern complex is about it. Water sits in aquifers. " \*\* OK, so when you say "my first post, you didn’t mean your first post. Gotcha. > [@](#): > > Get that, Misko? THERE ARE NO UNDERGROUND RIVERS. That is what the randi-obsessed moron said. > > You can see the post of this sad, pathetic clown [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3291691&postcount=111) Your frothing Peter. I made the proper qualifications regarding caves. Karst is hardly more than a cave river than hasn’t been cut yet (ask a geologist!). I didn’t list sshifting of water in aquifers either, but I really didn’t feel like typing a whole paragraph of qualifications. And I wasn’t quoting Randi. > [@](#): > > [Here’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=3294042&highlight=fictional#post3294042) the second idiot who took Randi’s word over logic and common sense. > > \*\* "I can’t find where he says that. He does, however, say that underground rivers are fictional, and so pretty hard to find in the first place. "\*\* > > Note the words UNDERGROUND RIVERS ARE FICTIONAL. > > And here’s Miskatonik’s usual pathetic attempt to brand me a liar. I recount the facts, exactly as they happened. Poor Miskatonik cannot believe any facts that don’t support his fantasy world. To Miskatonic, the facts disagree with his Randi worship, but the universe is lying, Randi is the only truth. > > Lets watch as Misko spews out more hate. Look as he tries to excuse himself. Observe his inability to admit error. See how he cannot admit that his god is less than perfect. > > See as he tries to claim that the words THERE ARE NO UNDERGROUND RIVERS. and UNDERGROUND RIVERS ARE FICTIONAL do not mean that underground rivers are fictional. > > What a buffoon. Pete, you might want to wipe off the froth and spittle. Seriously, you are off the deep end here. Those posts were well after your first post and there’s really nothing that wrong with what I said. In fact you have to truncate my line in a desperate effort to make me look bad. Typical of your out-of-context quoting. ---
**Author:** ![SpaceDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spacedog/32/9932_2.png) [@SpaceDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpaceDog)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/224 "2004-10-21T11:23:13Z")
Gah, is this thread still going ? OK, couple of things … > [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > What if all mention of “The Amazing Randi” were to be banned from the board - made eqivalent to quoting Sun Myung Moon? What would we lose? > > (Well we’d lose “easy outs” like “Why don’t you apply for the million dollar challenge?”) It’s not an easy out. Why shouldn’t skeptics request a controlled demonstration of a power. Unless you can give us a good reason why a paranormal effect can’t be demonstrated under controlled conditions. Or is it just because it’s Randi ? In that case do we need to establish a new prize ? What if the X prize people put up a million for proof of Dowsing, Remote Viewing, Telepathy, or Telekinesis ? Would that be OK ? Or would you immediately distrust them ? What if the parapsychology department at Edinburgh University (a highly respected dept. from what I hear) did the same ? What if I, SpaceDog, offered the money ? Is it that you don’t believe the Randi challenge is fair ? Or you don’t believe any skepticly organised challenge is fair ? > [@](#): > > I, too, am skeptical of Randi’s claims. His seeming hypnotic control of some members of this board is frightening. > > Oh, I think I found a dry spot! (Between Randi’s shoulders). Oh come on. Yes there’s been a bit of rushing to defend Randi here and there but it’s not ‘hypnotic control’ it’s people arguing what they believe. In any case it doesn’t matter because Randi could be wrong about dry spots, underground rivers, whatever. I don’t really care, the fact that he can make mistakes in no way invalidates the challenge. People taking the JREF challenge agree with the JREF on the rules and what constitutes a win – they do this fully confident of walking away with the million. They never do ! If you can show where you (or someone else) has approached the JREF and said ‘I have this paranormal ability where I can do X’ and they’ve turned round and said ‘Well we’re not going to test you for it’ then do so and we can talk about it. SD ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/225 "2004-10-21T12:12:03Z")
Actually Spacedog you will find that JREF will not test certain things. Breatharians for a start. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/226 "2004-10-21T14:12:40Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > The key point is that you are determined to strip Randi’s comment about underground rivers being fictional of all context. You ignore the fact it was preceded by a statement about what dowsers believe. You ignore the fact that Randi qualifies by reference to caves. You ignore the fact that on other occasions Randi has made what he means more clear by saying “the notion of underground rivers that dowsers maintain etc”. You just want to find a sentence that stripped of all context and qualification you can describe as wrong. The key point is that you cannopt bear the thought of Randi being wrong. You feel compelled to excuse him any damn way you can. Desperately you search for alternative meanings other than the obvious one. Before you came up with your twisted theories, two Randi fans had already posted on the subject. They interpreted the words as meaning “underground rivers are fictional” You saw no reason to oppose such meaning then, when it was the Randi fans saying it. Only after I posted information showing that Randi’s error, only then did you try to see what else it might mean. And the plain fact is that the only people to agree with you are desperate Randi fanatics. Everyone else but you looking at that sentence sees the same meaning as supplied by Miskatonic and Priceguy : underground rivers are fictional. I posted it to the geologists, asked what they thought the sentence meant. They all thought it meant underground rivers are fictional. On invitation to be as generous to Randi as possible, to see any plausible meaning to those words that would make them correct, the geologists were unable to find one. And this comes from the one person you claim agreed with Randi. Also, if you look at Randi’s other writings, he makes the same statement without any ambiguity at all. He says DIRECTLY that there are no underground streams AT ALL. He claims flatly that underground water ONLY flows in caves. See Randi’s words here [http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2001/may/29/511883160.html](http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2001/may/29/511883160.html) \*\* “There are no streams of water flowing underground,” he said. “There are large deposits of water that may seep through sandstone and move at the rate of 200 feet per year. There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. These people have delusions about underground rivers.” \*\* So there’s the evidence: 1. Randi has on other occasions flatly denied the existence of underground rivers. No other interpretation is possible. 2. several Randi fans quoted randi as saying “underground rivers are fictional” and used that fact to attack dowsers claims. 3. Even Princhester saw fit to question that interpretation only AFTER I had proved underground rivers are a reality. 4. Geologists looking at Randi’s essay though he was saying “underground rivers are fictional” ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/227 "2004-10-21T14:37:15Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Are you actually such a crashingly tedious and pedantic bore that in a discussion about Scotland you would call a speaker a liar if he said “Ben Nevis is the highest mountain” because Everest is higher? Would you tell him that his “direct statement and unambiguous statement” was that Ben Nevis was the highest mountain, and that he should stop trying to make excuses? > > Perhaps you would. Perhaps it wouldn’t surprise me if you did. Here we see Princhester’s favourite debating tactic. First, he invents a crazy hypothetical situation. Then he speculates upon what I WOULD say in such a situation. Oooooh look, he cries, this thing I have made up that Peter _would_ say is so silly. The things he says about Randi must be equally silly. I can’t quite find what’s wrong with them, but I don’t need to. Speculating about what he _would_ say is just as good. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/228 "2004-10-21T14:44:47Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Randi talks bollock all the fricken time What does that mean? That every word he says is “bollock?” (I’ve never heard of just talking a single bollock, but whatever floats your boat.) Or that he always lies? Does that mean that every word is a lie? Or that only most of what he says is a lie? Ah, it doesn’t matter. But any standard, your assertion was patently false. That makes you a LIAR. And I’m willing to bet you’re too yellow to admit it without weaselling. And that makes you a COWARD. ---
**Author:** ![ElectricZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/58f4c7/32.png) [@ElectricZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElectricZ)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/229 "2004-10-21T14:50:03Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > So there’s the evidence: > > 1. Randi has on other occasions flatly denied the existence of underground rivers. No other interpretation is possible. > > 2. several Randi fans quoted randi as saying “underground rivers are fictional” and used that fact to attack dowsers claims. > > 3. Even Princhester saw fit to question that interpretation only AFTER I had proved underground rivers are a reality. > > 4. Geologists looking at Randi’s essay though he was saying “underground rivers are fictional” Where you’ve “proven” anything? I’ve read through this whole topic from front to back, and I’ve yet to see any actual proof or reliable cites come from you. Maybe I missed them – if I did, please correct me. (It’s a big thread!) But what are the qualifications of your geologist? Is he with a university? What degrees does he hold, and from where? How much time has he had in the field, and what is his background? Without this information, you’re just posting what “some guy” said. Again, [using the USGS as a source:](http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/wsp/wsp2220/) > [@](#): > > Surprisingly, for a resource that is so widely used and so important to the health and to the economy of the country, the occurrence of ground water is not only poorly understood but is also, in fact, the subject of many widespread misconceptions. **Common misconceptions include the belief that ground water occurs in underground rivers resembling surface streams whose presence can be detected by certain individuals.** These misconceptions and others have hampered the development and conservation of ground water and have adversely affected the protection of its quality. When you read something like that coming from an organization that exists purely to study what’s under the ground, it carries a lot of credibility and it flies in the face of what you’re saying. Forget Randi. Why should I believe your anonymous geologist over the USGS? Do you have more than one geologist that agrees, and if your geologists are right, why the heck aren’t they trying to set the USGS straight? EZ ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/230 "2004-10-21T14:59:54Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > OK, so when you say "my first post, you didn’t mean your first post. Gotcha. WTF are you on about? What did I say about my first post? I don’t recall metioning it. YOU were the one that posted a link to my first post. > [@](#): > > Your frothing Peter. I made the proper qualifications regarding caves. Karst is hardly more than a cave river than hasn’t been cut yet (ask a geologist!). I didn’t list sshifting of water in aquifers either, but I really didn’t feel like typing a whole paragraph of qualifications. And the fact is, you got it wrong. > [@](#): > > And I wasn’t quoting Randi. yeah, right. > [@](#): > > Pete, you might want to wipe off the froth and spittle. Seriously, you are off the deep end here. Those posts were well after your first post and there’s really nothing that wrong with what I said. In fact you have to truncate my line in a desperate effort to make me look bad. Typical of your out-of-context quoting. As usual, you have been proved a liar. You claimed that UNDERGROUND RIVERS DONT EXIST. You then tried to deny that anyone had said that. However you twist it, you got the facts wrong, then lied about saying what you said. You spew out hate because I expose your dishonbesty, but you have no reason logic or honesty. You are even more of a joke than Princhester is, and that’s saying something. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/231 "2004-10-21T15:09:45Z")
Can we settle things this way? Randi has ocasionally overstated his point: while underground rivers aren’t fictional, the underground rivers described by many dowsers are fictional. Underground rivers themselves are just extremely rare. Some people have misunderstood this point, and have misparaphrased Randi. Does anyone disagree with either of these points? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/232 "2004-10-21T15:14:55Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > WTF are you on about? > > What did I say about my first post? I don’t recall metioning it. YOU were the one that posted a link to my first post. NB I’m not DENYING that I said something about my first post. I just don’t recall saying any such thing. I’m inviting you to show what you mean. You are implying that I’m lying. Can you back it up? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/233 "2004-10-21T15:36:30Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Can we settle things this way? > > Randi has ocasionally overstated his point: while underground rivers aren’t fictional, the underground rivers described by many dowsers are fictional. Underground rivers themselves are just extremely rare. > > Some people have misunderstood this point, and have misparaphrased Randi. > > Does anyone disagree with either of these points? > Daniel Yes. You are wrong on both counts. 1. Randi has often denied that underground rivers exist at all. [http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2001/may/29/511883160.html](http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2001/may/29/511883160.html) \*\* “There are no streams of water flowing underground … There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. These people have delusions about underground rivers.” \*\* 2 ) And underground rivers are not at all rare. They are extremely common. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/234 "2004-10-21T15:53:30Z")
**Peter** , until you can explain why any of us should disbelieve the information provided by the USGS in **ElectricZ’s** post (#229, above), you are in no position to keep arguing. Your position has no support from any reputable source, at least none that you’ve been able to cite. Asserting the same falsehoods over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn’t make them any more true. They’re still false. (Is anyone else here thinking Asperger Syndrome?) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/235 "2004-10-21T15:55:12Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Yes. You are wrong on both counts. > > 1. Randi has often denied that underground rivers exist at all. > > [http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2001/may/29/511883160.html](http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2001/may/29/511883160.html) “Often” imlies to me that he’s denied that, I dunno, **often**. Can you give me four other cites where he’s denied that, instead of the same cite you’ve given repeatedly? > [@](#): > > 2 ) And underground rivers are not at all rare. They are extremely common. If you’ve given a cite to this effect, I’ve missed it. Please don’t cite a conversation you had with someone on a messageboard: please give a link to a website devoted to geology or hydrogeology. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/236 "2004-10-21T16:11:21Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > Just so you know, Peter, although I don’t necessarily agree with all you say, or with your methods. I do agree with you about Randi. Ah, at last someone who agrees with Peter Morris. Perhaps you could provide your reason(s) for agreeing with him. Here is what you agreed with: > [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > 1. Randi talks a load of hogwash. “Scientific” information he gives is likely to be wrong. He tells of offering tests to dowsers and the dowsers refuse. Such stories are sometimes works of fiction, figures of speech, or utter lies. > > 2. Somebody applying for a test, with a genuine ability, willing to show it, is likely to find Randi unwilling to test it fairly. Negotiating a protocol with Randi is well-nigh impossible. Randi deliberately obstructs the matter at every turn. And your cites are? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/237 "2004-10-21T16:50:32Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > And underground rivers are not at all rare. They are extremely common. This is incorrect for any rational definition of the words “extremely” and “common.” There you go again, liar. Sorry, should I turn the volume up? You are a LIAR ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/238 "2004-10-21T21:15:07Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > “Often” imlies to me that he’s denied that, I dunno, **often**. Can you give me four other cites where he’s denied that, instead of the same cite you’ve given repeatedly? Here is one of those denials from Randi, straight from his book “Flim-Flam”, watch how Randi denies and denies when he has adequete space to cover all the scientific ground [/sarcasm] > [@](#): > > page 315: > Drill a well almost anywhere in an area where water is geologically possible, and you will find it. Dowsers have the strange notion that water travels in undeground rivers, and they will happily trace these hidden torrents for you. But geologists know otherwise. Bob Huguley a geologist who works for the Planning Board of Monmouth County, New Jersey, doesn’t know of one dowser in the area who has ever been successful. He also estimates that less than 1 percent of the earth’s underground water actually flows beneath the surface. That small fraction is confined to areas rich in limestone (known as “karst” country) and the resulting caves, where real underground streams can occur. Underground flow can also occur in porous material, but that flow amounts to a few feet or a few miles in a year. So, here we have Randi ‘denying’ undeground rivers by saying they exist. By comparison we have Peter Morris saying undeground rivers are _extremely common_. Who is being deceptive here? It isn’t Randi. For the record, what makes a river a river and a stream a stream? I think of a river in think of some serious width, large enough to make it a national or state border and I can’t say many of the underground ‘river’ pics I’ve seen seem wide enough ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/239 "2004-10-21T21:20:50Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > Here is one of those denials from Randi, straight from his book “Flim-Flam”, watch how Randi denies and denies when he has adequete space to cover all the scientific ground **Peter** , do you believe that, in Randi’s quote that **Miskatonic** cited, he was literally and completely correct? If he phrased his dispute with dowsers exactly like this every time he brought it up, would you have a problem with him? (Thanks, **Miskatonic!** ) Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/240 "2004-10-22T01:10:50Z")
Peter, I have a simple question for you: Do you or do you not think that it is appropriate to interpret what people say in the context of the overall subject they are talking about? Yes or no? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926.md?page=13)