What's the dope on "dowsing" for graves?

[Czarcasm]

@Peter_Morris

This is another of Randi’s made up stories. It doesn’t actually happen in real life.

In reality, Randi tries to blackmail the dowsers who apply for his test. He makes a direct threat against them. Either they state that they are getting 100% in the open test, or they are disqualified. No flexibility.

Inexcusable.
Cite, damn it.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Peter_Morris

This is another of Randi’s made up stories. It doesn’t actually happen in real life.

Proof please.

In reality, Randi tries to blackmail the dowsers who apply for his test. He makes a direct threat against them. Either they state that they are getting 100% in the open test, or they are disqualified. No flexibility.

A misrepresentation of the open test.

The fact is that almost all dowsers refuse to do it. Only a tiny number have ever gone through with it. Each one of them only said it after they were threatened. And some of them went on to get much higher than chance on the actual test.

Proof please.

[Peter_Morris]

@Enginerd

In general, neither underground “channels” nor “rivers” exist, except in areas of specific geological formations (like the karst settings Musicat mentioned).

For the most part, what we call a groundwater aquifer is what a layman would call mud - it’s water flowing in the pores between the grains of soil particles. In other cases, it’s water flowing in interconnected fracture networks within consolidated material. Neither of these cases form anything that could reasonably be described as a channel.

I have heard about structures called paleochannels, which, I’m told, are rivers that used to flow on the surface, and have been buried by geological activity over many thousands of years.

I understand that water continues to flow along these paleochannels, underground.

I understand that a geologist can locate such a structure with scientific techinques.

I understand that a well sunk into such a structure can produce a lot of water, while a well just a few metres to the side may be “dry” relatively speaking.

I understand that geologists would call this a ‘channel,’ and don’t like laymen calling them ‘underground rivers.’

This understanding based upon my previous conversations with other geologists. Am I mistaken in my understanding?

[Cumberdale]

@Peter_Morris

The fact is that almost all dowsers refuse to do it. Only a tiny number have ever gone through with it. Each one of them only said it after they were threatened. And some of them went on to get much higher than chance on the actual test.

A more likely reason is that most know they are frauds and only the self deluded agree to take the test. After they inevitably fail, rather than question their “abilities” they make excuses.

[Peter_Morris]

@Czarcasm

Inexcusable.
Cite, damn it.

@Mr.Miskatonic

Proof please.

Randi is the one making the claims about the open test. It’s up to him to prove that his claims are true.

[Musicat]

@Sampiro

From all I’ve read and seen dowsing works in a similar fashion: the person holding it is really the person controlling it but often they themselves are unaware of it. Sometimes it might even be nothing more than nerve endings saying “I’m tired”, but I think to the extent it works at all it’s most likely that the person notices “there’s some disturbed dirt/a slight depression/it looks like a grave” and their subconscious directs this to their fingertips.

That doesn’t explain map dowsing.

[Cumberdale]

@Peter_Morris

Randi is the one making the claims about the open test. It’s up to him to prove that his claims are true.

You have it backwards. Probably because there is no proof that Randi is being dishonest.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Peter_Morris

Randi is the one making the claims about the open test. It’s up to him to prove that his claims are true.

Sorry, you made several claims about the open test without any proof. It is you who needs to do the citing here.

[tomndebb]

@Peter_Morris

Randi is the one making the claims about the open test. It’s up to him to prove that his claims are true.

You are the one who made the claim that Randi has ever said any such thing.

Provide a citation.

Beyond that, do not continue to hijack this thread.

EVERYONE: Randi is off limits to the rest of this thread. Peter Morris can provide his actual citation–if he has one–and then you can all take it to a new thread.

[ /Moderating ]

[Submerged]

@Czarcasm

To be clear, I usually have read about dowsers referring to “rivers”, and rarely have I heard them use the term “channels” unless in reference to “channelling”.

I wish we could get this guy to come over and join the discussion. Not only is he a grave dowser, he also channels demons.

[tomndebb]

@Submerged

I wish we could get this guy to come over and join the discussion. Not only is he a grave dowser, he also channels demons.

Do not, however, invite him.

[Peter_Morris]

@Lobohan

Aside from the Randi tangent, you are aware that dowsing isn’t real, right? It’s made up.

oh, yes. That’s 99.9% probably true.

I just want to make sure what you’re arguing here.

I thought I’d made that plain. I’ll make it simple for you. Basically it comes down to this:

1. Randi is a total attention whore. He’s desperate to have people tell him how wonderful he is. He needs constant praise. The central message of everything he writes is "look at ME. What a wonderful thing I am doing. I deserve your praise for this. "

2. He uses ‘the paranormal’ only as a method of getting attention. He doesn’t give a damn about dowsing, he only wants attention. He is not trying to convince anyone that dowsing doesn’t work, he just wants the attention.

3. He doesn’t actually have much intelligence, and even less education. He didn’t even complete high school. He thinks he’s a genius, but isn’t. Most of the people he goes against are less delusional than he is. For this reason, he keeps on losing. He constantly fails to beat them.

4. Even though he keeps losing, he twists the story around to make himself look like a winner. The distortions are constant.

5. He’s not even good at lying. The lies he tells fool very few people. Most people see straight through them

So, Randi tells a story that goes like this:
I challenged dowsers to find me a dry spot. All of them refused. That means I beat all of them. It was ME that did it. This proves how clever I am. I should get your praise for doing this. What a wonderful job I am doing. And, by the way, I need to have your money so I can keep doing it.

So, he tells this story to people such as you and Miskatonic. Some of you people are persuaded to give money to him. And you give him the praise he craves, which means more to him than money does.

Then when there is a discussion about dowsing, you tell the same story he told. Everybody spots that its a lie, and a few people end up more sympathetic to dowsers because of that.

Net result: after Randi tells his story, there are more people who believe in dowsing, and the sceptics have less money.

That’s why I oppose him.

You can divide people up into three groups, when it comes to dowsing, for example.

[Musicat]

@Peter_Morris

In reality, Randi tries to blackmail the dowsers who apply for his test. He makes a direct threat against them. Either they state that they are getting 100% in the open test, or they are disqualified. No flexibility.

The fact is that almost all dowsers refuse to do it. Only a tiny number have ever gone through with it. Each one of them only said it after they were threatened. And some of them went on to get much higher than chance on the actual test.

Again, let me say, the higher than chance score reflects poor test design, not actual dowsing skill. But Randi’s claim that they "only perform at the level of chance " is a lie.

This is GD, just a small step below GQ. Your task, should you decide to accept it, is to provide cites to support your assertions. They are, as I see them:[ol][li]Randi blackmails applicants (all? some? any?)[]Randi makes direct threats against them (what kind of threats?)[]Applicants are not allowed to take the test if they don’t accept 100% success[]Almost all dowsers refuse to take the test after agreeing on the design & protocol (or refuse to accept their own claim of 100% perfection?)[]They accept only after being threatened (in what way?).[]They performed at “much higher” levels than chance, statistically speaking[/ol][/li]
Until you can support your claims, they are just so much hot air.

*Which is meaningless unless they performed at the levels they promised to do. They failed miserably, they just didn’t fail as badly as they might have.

[Lobohan]

@Peter_Morris

Then when there is a discussion about dowsing, you tell the same story he told. Everybody spots that its a lie, and a few people end up more sympathetic to dowsers because of that.

Net result: after Randi tells his story, there are more people who believe in dowsing, and the sceptics have less money.

That’s why I oppose him.

You can divide people up into three groups, when it comes to dowsing, for example.

Yeah, you’re completely and utterly wrong about that “Everybody spots that its a lie”. In fact, your entire train of thought on this is based on some sort of cognitive hiccup.

I’m reminded of the Russian saying, “When three people tell you you’re drunk, lie down.”

[Peter_Morris]

@tomndebb

You are the one who made the claim that Randi has ever said any such thing.

Provide a citation.

You obviosly don’t understand how logic works. Musicat has made a claim. It should be he that has to provide a cite.

I can cite my own claim but I’ll have to search for a link. I’ll get back to you.

EVERYONE: Randi is off limits to the rest of this thread. Peter Morris can provide his actual citation–if he has one–and then you can all take it to a new thread.

[ /Moderating ]

Just a note. I wrote my previous message before your instructions appeared. Please do not think I’m ignoring them. I’ll not mention him again after this, except for my cite.

[Submerged]

So, back to the subject of “grave dowsing”: what is the dowser’s explanation for how that works? Not much water in old bones…what is it that their dowsing rods are allegedly picking up on?

[Jack_Batty]

I’m just impressed that Randi has been promoted from liar to blackmailer. Another page or two and I expect a rape accusation.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

With respect to the moderators demand that we keep Randi out of this thread I have replied to Peter’s recent comments where he specifically names me in the Pit Thread.

[Princhester]

@tomndebb

EVERYONE: Randi is off limits to the rest of this thread.

Whistles, cheers, slaps on the back for Peter. Well done. Mission accomplished. Brilliant piece of work. Keep it up. You are cleverly managing the mods to achieve your goals in a way that logic and facts have been unable to do.

Sheer genius.

[Enginerd]

@Peter_Morris

I have heard about structures called paleochannels, which, I’m told, are rivers that used to flow on the surface, and have been buried by geological activity over many thousands of years.

I understand that water continues to flow along these paleochannels, underground.

I understand that a geologist can locate such a structure with scientific techinques.

I understand that a well sunk into such a structure can produce a lot of water, while a well just a few metres to the side may be “dry” relatively speaking.

I understand that geologists would call this a ‘channel,’ and don’t like laymen calling them ‘underground rivers.’

This understanding based upon my previous conversations with other geologists. Am I mistaken in my understanding?

I think the miscommunication lies between a geologist using the word paleochannel as a term of art and a layperson hearing “channel” and thinking of flowing water.

Paleochannels are indeed former river beds, and one of the characteristic features of river deposits are layers of coarse sediment. These deposits are laid down during flood recession, when flow velocities slow and the energy of the moving water is no longer sufficient to convey the coarse material - it drops out of the flow and remains in the floodplain or channel bed. As rivers migrate, the former beds fill in with other deposits, and these coarse layers continue to accumulate over centuries. But these “channels” are filled with sediment, not running water. The water flows through the pores between the grains.

Paleochannels generally occur in conjunction with finer floodplain deposits - the coarse material is deposited in layers by flood recession, but it’s interlain with the finer material deposited by the lower flows between floods. If you hit the paleochannel when you’re drilling (and you get your screen in the right elevation), you can draw a lot of water from the well because the coarse material will conduct water to the withdrawal point better. If you hit the finer alluvium, the material doesn’t transmit water as well (the pore spaces are generally smaller, requiring more energy to drive water through them), and you can’t produce as much.

A well-sorted coarse sand (fairly uniform grain size - like what you’d find on a construction site or a kids’ playground) will have a hydraulic conductivity on the order of tens to hundreds of feet per day. But it won’t transmit water that quickly - the conductivity will scale with the hydraulic gradient (essentially the slope of the water table), which would be on the order of 0.001 for a typical large river system. So your water flux in the paleochannel is around 1 foot per day. The velocity of a particular drop of water as it passes through the pore spaces is slightly higher, around 2-4 feet per day.

That’s a real, non-negligible flow. In a lot of my work, 1 meter/day is a rocket-fast velocity, and fluxes are often an order of magnitude or two less than that. But when a layperson hears about “water flowing in underground channels,” they picture something else entirely.