Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize?
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
<snip>
>Tell me everything you know on this `Autokinetic Effect', Twitch. I have 5
>seconds or so.
Well, considering that over a period of the better part of a
year you still haven't figured out what an 800- 1000 point
drop beginning on March 12th means, I doubt two years would
be sufficent.
>
>And I told you, I refuse to call Monsoons Hurricanes just because <snip.
The scientists do?
Mcgowan-Quality Research (tm) is a wonderful tool for making
an ass out of yourself, isn't it?
<snip>
>As usual, Twitch mouths off before finding out the story.<snip>
You mean like when Twitch said that Earl predicted that the
dow would drop 800 - 1000 points starting on March 12th and
within a 2 week period following?
You claimed that:
>He (Earl) did not say the market would drop 800 to 1000 points in less than two weeks
Message-Id: <7eb_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>His (Earl's) prediction was that it would drop 800 to 1000 Points
Message-Id: <f4b_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>Earl did not predict an 800 to a 1000 point drop
Message-Id: <7eb_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>Earl said the market would drop 800 too 1000 points over a two week period.
Message-Id: <677_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>He (Earl) does not say `In less than two weeks the market will drop 800 to 1000
> points, or anything close. This is basic Grade school shit, people.
Message-Id: <7ee_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
What a shame you flunked shitting in grade school, John.
Perhaps that is what warped your character enough so you
took up with Earl?
Earl has been far more consistent than you when telling
about his prediction.
Subject: Re: Earl Curley 100% Correct - Predicts Stock
Market Crash Exactly To The Day
From: Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net>
Date: 1997/03/14
Message-ID: <332943...@globalserve.net>
Newsgroups:
sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.paranet.paranormal,alt.astrology
[More Headers]
<snip of article Earl is replying to to save bandwidth, all
of Earl's words are included, however>
Squirm all you like idiot. You mouthed off and now you look
as stupid as everyone always said you were. I know you
can't read because you've proved that so many times over the
past but don't make yourself look anymore stupid than you
have already. Look under that bed you always crawl under,
find that scrap of paper you jotted your previous stupid
remarks down on, read and discover that you are just too
ignorant to remember what you posted previously. You see
Barfwell, the prediction, as others have reported, is a
800-1000 point drop within a two week period beginning on
March 12th.
Now, before I forget, I thought you also mouthed off that
Houston doesn't get flooding? Why is CNN covering the
cleanup that is taking place in Houston today? I guess CNN
is just giving out false news reports to back up my great
prediction that floods would ravage Texas all year long?
Earl Curley
psy...@globalserve.net
http://www.webdesign.ca/
That certainly looks like a 800-1000 point drop within a two
week period beginning on March 12th.
Lou Minatti
>
> The scientists do?
It's amazing he won't simply eat crow and admit he was wrong, or just
drop it. This is not a grey area. It's not a skeptic vs believer issue.
It's very black and white. John says there are no hurricanes in the
Pacific. The evidence, available to each and every one of us, proves
otherwise.
--
Fight back against the interstellar bastards.
Join us. Join Texans United Against Grey Aliens:
http://www.concentric.net/~slaroche/DEADGREY.HTM
"I guess when the shoe fits on the other foot,
they get hoof and mouth disease." - EGC
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Lou Minatti <lou-m...@usa.net> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
><snip>
>> >And I told you, I refuse to call Monsoons Hurricanes just because <snip.
>>
>> The scientists do?
><snip>
>
>It's amazing he won't simply eat crow and admit he was wrong, or just
>drop it. This is not a grey area. It's not a skeptic vs believer issue.
>It's very black and white. John says there are no hurricanes in the
>Pacific. The evidence, available to each and every one of us, proves
>otherwise.
>
Hell, when John was wrong about the close of the Dow on the
27th, most of us would have simply stated we were wrong.
Not John!
He first claimed that he had checked with the Wall Street
Journal and they backed him up!
Then, after that became too stupid for even John to keep
pushing, he claimed that he had caught the error himself!
When that became too stupid for even John to keep pushing,
he changed it to one best one person caught his error.
And, he even lied when he claimed that!
Darwyn Fry
Lou Minatti wrote:
> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
> <snip>
> > >And I told you, I refuse to call Monsoons Hurricanes just because <snip.
> >
> > The scientists do?
> <snip>
>
> It's amazing he won't simply eat crow and admit he was wrong, or just
> drop it. This is not a grey area. It's not a skeptic vs believer issue.
> It's very black and white. John says there are no hurricanes in the
> Pacific. The evidence, available to each and every one of us, proves
> otherwise.
>
> --
> Fight back against the interstellar bastards.
> Join us. Join Texans United Against Grey Aliens:
> http://www.concentric.net/~slaroche/DEADGREY.HTM
> "I guess when the shoe fits on the other foot,
> they get hoof and mouth disease." - EGC
That would not be John's style, I would not expect him to eat crow. If John
didn't keep posting support for his views no matter what the opposition is I
would suspect it wasn't really John but rather a forgery. I'm not making any
judgments about the context or validity of John's evidence in this post merely
an assessment of his style. John would agree with this assessment I think.
I would like to know, however, how come John claimed his copy of the Wall
Street Journal showed the close of the Dow on March 27th, 1997 to be 6470.59
when no other copy of the WSJ anywhere in existence showed this.
One way or the other this has to have a lie in it.
Also I want to know how John would like to set up a test for the $1.1 million
dollars so he can prove that dowsing works and that it is not paranormal in
nature. I have some suggestions if he is game. Of course I want rigid
controls, and no room for any chicanery. This should not be a problem for John
if his Dowsing FAQ is for real. Dowsing, however unlikely it may be, seems to
me to be the most plausible of all theories we see on these news groups, so
lets get to it and prove it exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomorrow I have to be in court to try and sort out a business dispute, I won't
go into any detail on it as it has no relevance here but, wish me luck!
--
Darwyn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Excuse me child, but I'm afraid they haven't been teaching you grade four
kids much in school, have they? What a stupid child."
Earl Curley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> Once again you are mistaken. I did say that the number from the wall street
> journal, and other sources, all said teh same number.
You said that the WSJ printed 6470.59 specifically. You said that in response to
my poof the actual numbers for the 27th. In message
<4a6_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com> You said:
"Define as you will, but on 3/27/97 the market closed at 6470.59, from
7085.16. Now get out your calculators, boys and girls, cause that is a
drop of 614.57 DROP!!!! not 344.57 as Darwyn lies about. (LOL) Nice Try
kid, but never mess with the master."
In the same message you also said:
"Only as long as you keep your mouth shut and cite the true facts as they
are printed in the sources. My copy of the Wall Street journal confirmed
the info I pulled out of the Phoenix paper and clearly shows closing on
the 27th was indeed as I stated above."
So you did say that the WSJ printed 6470.59 as the close for March 27 1997. This
was before you ever mentioned the name Bruce Myerson or his byline.
> I also said I first
> used the one from the AP, then mentioned that there is such a thing as a
> transposition of numbers. :)
Which is what I called it the day you posted it not several days later or weeks
later as you wish to try and say now. And funny that as soon as I saw this article
I said in message <337CFF...@nospam.netins.net>
"Master of lousy math I will buy, anything else is nonsense. John you
totally botched this one. The close on the 27th was not 6470.59 it was
6740.59 you messed up by transposing the 7 and the 4. You got yourself
the additional 270 points by doing so. What a joke your math is. Earl
is now back down to 61.457% according to you and 26.12375% if we stick
to the two weeks he actually predicted. Don't brag about you data
unless you can do the math properly." And about your claim that 6470.59 was in the
WSJ I said:
"Nonsense! Are we to believe John gets a Wall Street Journal with
information completely different that the one every one else gets?. I
have clippings from the March 28th Wall Street Journal online that prove
John's data is anything but beyond reproach. John you can not possibly
be this careless! You must be doing this as a joke!"
Funny how I asked if you where doing it as a joke and you didn't admit that was
what you where doing at the time. Instead you kept defending the claim until much
latter. When you finally did try and claim you did it on purpose no one was going
to buy it. Next time you get a perfect chance to say something was done in jest
take it! Don't go on and on defending silly claims until it is too late, then
expect any one to believe you weren't serious.
I used several sources to check my numbers but posted the ones form the WSJ as all
the sources agreed and there was no need to post 3 sets of the same numbers. The
Des Moines Register and Chicago Tribune both had the same numbers printed as the
closing for each day within the prediction.
I use the WSJ to post info on the Dow since Dow Jones owns the Journal.
> You all were caught in the trap. For you insisted on only using the one
> source, your wall street journal, and even claimed then and a few weeks ago
> that the article did not exist. :)
Well if we where caught in your trap produce some evidence of it. All the evidence
seems to support that it was mistake on your part and that no one was caught up in
anything.The Arizona Republic sent me the text of the article but not the graphic
I'm still trying to get someone there to send me a copy of that. Again I have said
this before, using a byline and general info article is probably not the best
source when trying to determine the actions of the Dow in a given period of time.
That is why I went into the library and dug up all the daily papers for the period
in question and took the numbers from them.
> In addition, you questioned the existance
> of Bruce Meyerson (who is apparantly New York Based). Twitch rambled on
> senselessly and the others did worse than that.
>
> The Funny thing is only Earl Curley, and "Ron Bobo" (I think, he can correct
> me on that) caught the `Supposed Mistake'. With in a week,
Gee took them that long? Where they sleeping? Again I caught it the next day.
> I stated what I
> did in a little more detail than the first time. :) Once again the need to
> flame overruled the need to find out the facts. :) And I did not tell Earl
> what I was doing, he told me after a couple days from my first post on that
> subject (or would you prefer to call it a Sub-Topic). :)
>
> The ridiculous part of the whole thing was, that I stated a long time before
> that I was not using those figures as a part of my appraisal of Earl's
> Talents, even though I provided the full figures as if I was. :) The only
> thing you people found flawed was something I already discounted, two weeks
> before. (LOL)
But John, you kept defending the number? If it was flawed why would you even post
it? How do you expect anyone to believe all this now when all the evidence shows
you where wrong.
> I love doing things like this to see how alert my opponents are. And I do it
> after I already won my point so it doesn't cloud the original issue. :) But
> this treatment is only reserved for the ignorant.
Well only the ignorant would belive that you did this on purpose, and when did you
win?
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> >>> Part 2 of 3...
>
> Darwyn, you are young, or so you claim now. We suspected that then, with
> almost 100% accuracy. But you maintained you were an adult, over 20 years
> old. Never-the-less you have an excuse because you came clean, in part.
I still am an adult, I didn't say I wasn't it matters not what you think John,
what a joker you are.
> DF> Also I want to know how John would like to set up a test for the $1.1
> DF> million dollars so he can prove that dowsing works and that it is not
> DF> paranormal in nature. I have some suggestions if he is game. Of
> DF> course I want rigid controls, and no room for any chicanery. This
> DF> should not be a problem for John if his Dowsing FAQ is for real.
> DF> Dowsing, however unlikely it may be, seems to me to be the most
> DF> plausible of all theories we see on these news groups, so lets get to
> DF> it and prove it exists.
>
> Good, let us bring this up once and for all, for all the newbies. Go to Deja
> News and You will see I said similar things months ago.
>
> 1. I do not, ever, take a sucker Bet.
No one is asking you to, but it's a good excuse you come up with to avoid being
shown to be wrong about dowsing I suppose.
> There is just cause to think the Randi Challenge is rigged at one or
> more points in the challenge and the preliminary procedures. This has
> been discussed many times.
Never intelligently however. Just a lot of unfounded claims.
> Until I find absolute proof he is beyond
> redemption, as the Randi-Cultists wish to promote, the test is com-
> pletely out of the question.
Nice, another excuse you can use to duck being tested and shown to be in error in
your belief about dowsing.
> However, I offered three versions of
> the same offer to James Randi in Early February, prior to his con-
> tacting me. All three versions said that I would meet with him and
> show him what I can do, in private, and if he is convinced, he can
> quietly say he found evidence to support that some forms of Dowsing
> may be scientific.
I may be out your way next year... maybe you could do the trick for me? If I
think it is real I will advise Randi on what I saw. What do you say? August or
maybe later in the fall or early winter would you like to do your act for me over
coffee? No pressure John, just a friendly meeting, you find out that you where
wrong about a few things about me, you do the dowsing trick and see if you can
convince me, and we then decide if it needs further investigation or not.
I would expect to have a demonstration in an area with utilities in it and have a
person there to locate them behind you. I expect 100% results as you have said
here it always works for you. If that was not an accurate statement then please
tell me what results can be expected. Any testing for the money should be done
in a site to be set up especially for the test in order to rule out the
possibility you where able to locate the utilities before hand as I have done
when doing the trick for people in the past, but in a demonstration for me I
would not object to using an existing site as no money is at stake, and I think I
know what to look for in your movements and posture.
> All it would cost him is a cup of coffee, and
> he could arrange it for when he was out this way. In short, he could
> take all the credit for the find himself, thereby attracting even more
> siclers, I mean followers.
Well I'm not into media coverage and taking credit, so there is another reason it
would be a low pressure situation if you did you trick for me.
> James Randi was apparantly sent a message, and his message answered
> none of my comments, except one. He said Dowsing is paranormal. He
> also said I was eligible to apply to take the challenge, but never
> said I could take the challenge. :) And he said many other things
> as well, to make him look like he knew what he was talking about.
I didn't send it that time. Honest!
> I then sent him a couple replies in EMail, and copies of those replies
> in alt.paranormal. He made no response until a couple months later,
> but that response was not in response to my information and messages.
> It also had an EMail Address for something in Illinois, instead of the
> Florida address he used the first time.
>
> In response to this message, I stated I would take his money, with my
> parameters, which were totally fair and totally taken out of our hands
> and placed into the hands of the city of Phoenix, so to speak. We would
> go out and use existing live utilities already in the ground. The argue
> ment was this was not the infamous Double blind method, but it was, for
> no agency in this valley can accurately tell you where their utilities
> are.
If they are there already there is a chance that you could know where they are
before the test. Or at least know where they are within a close enough degree to
get hits. Randi isn't a fool John.
> They have to locate them everytime they want to do something to
> them. ) And they do that by Modern Dowsing, I.e. call before you dig.
You locate in order to be absolutely certain. I know workers for our local phone
system that know where lines are here in town, yet they locate them before doing
any digging anyway just to be 100% certain they won't sever them accidentally.
Plot maps on file in Ames have shown city power lines with incredible accuracy on
properties I have worked on as well. There are ways to know ahead of time where
to expect the lines to be.
> Just yesterday, I proved once again that these utility companies have no
> clue in knowing where and how their utilities run. They claimed the
> Phoneline they were following stopped. I proved it continued, but instead
> of going straight as they insisted, it curved and then followed the
> Existing, abandonned water line trench which originally fed the sub-
> division. :)
>
> Supposedly they are supposed to come back and find out for themselves.
If they haven't checked yet how can you claim you have proven anything?
> 2. If, perchance, a new thing occurred and I came up with nothing, Nor
> could I proved Randi cheated, would I ever lie and say Dowsing is
> Paranormal only and I lied when I said it works (or whatever the exact
> wording Randi chooses. For it does, and Randi only proved I failed for
> my first time since I started Dowsing in the very early 80's.
This is incoherent. You will have to translate it.
> But I would not go quietly, I would demand the site be dug up immediately
> and I would break open the pipes to prove whether the water is flowing
> where he said it was. In addition, I would demand my own people at every
> place the controls are and one at the outlet where the water flows out
> of. I can think of, at least, two people that would just love the job
> of keeping Randi Straight. :) I would also demand on-site inspectors
> who are neutral, but who are also of my choosing. They would be present
> during all aspects of the construction phase, and they would have control
> over calling any fouls they see, forcing Randi to forfeit his money
> immediately. In Addition, I would retain the right to make any reasonable
> demand up until showtime, which I see fit.
I thought you said you didn't dowse for water?
> And these are only two aspects that I would demand and Randi would not agree
> with, for I would effectively take all control out of his hands and place
> them into the hands of trustworthy people. But that all is moot, because the
> I do not trust that magician as far as I can throw him. :)
We will see won't we...
> Oh, BTW, he and CSICOP would be financially responsible for all aspects of
> the test, and the demands I make, plus the $1.1 Mil. That means he would pay
> the fees of the experts I bring in.
>
> The First expert is an engineering company that I know, who is above
> reproach.
Your expert is an engineering company? Or does he work for one, or own the
company?
> There is a lawyer I know who may accept the task of keeping the
> engineers honest. Plus I would ask Earl Curley, Ron Bobo, Uri Gellar and a
> few people unnamed at this time to monitor all aspects of the construction,
> testing and seeing no one plays games with the value.
Value of what??Why use Gellar? or Curley? or Bobo? Are you saying you don't
know anyone in real life that would be able to offer unbiased opinions? Don't
you have any friends?
> In addition I would require the water district to continually test the water
> to insure it has not been tampered with. :)
Yes we would not want any water tampering! John you are thinking too much. How
could the water be tampered with? Maybe some negative vibes being sent into it?
> The Engineer I pick will show me
> where all the controls are so I can place the monitors there to keep an eye
> on the people who's job it is to control the water. :)
Those monitors and you better be searched for any wireless radio devices then.
Then that would be a reasonable request, also there will have to be a screen so
you can not see them in any way during the test. In fact, I would insist on no
visual contact between you and any experts or monitors you bring in. Any contact
at all, visual or vocal would void the test.
> In addition, the soil's will be tested before and after the test, and maybe
> during too. In short I would pull out no stops to severely limit Randi from
> pulling any tricks.
What could he do to the soil? Again I think your reaching but I guess I wouldn't
have a problem with that either. As long as you where not allowed on the test
site while your soil expert was doing his intermittent testing test.
> Plus, did I mention, all who are present will be searched
> for any item that could interfere with the testing procedures.
You bet they would. That includes you and all your "Experts."
> And I have a
> few other things as well, but you never tell a magician all. Especially one
> as wiley as James is. :)
All demands have to be made prior to the test. Neither you nor Randi are allowed
to make last minute demands, that would damage the credibility of the test.You
know what I think, all this is an attempt to keep him from agreeing to test you,
if he agrees to all this you will come up with more and more demands until you
get to ones he wont agree with because they would compromise the controls on you,
then you would claim Randi was afraid to test you, you would post that here and
defend it no matter what any one said.
How do I know? Simple, with all your demands you have not mentioned one that
will keep you honest, only ones that are supposedly to keep Randi honest. Also
you bring in people you KNOW Randi would not trust to monitor the test like
Gellar and Curley. You also do not mention any conditions on how the test would
be set up, only controls on Randi. When you take up this much time and do not
even bother to try and design a test that would test the ability you claim to
have, I have to wonder.
You claim to be able to dowse for utilities yet talk about a test with water...
Lets stop avoiding it and design the test that will work for examining the
abilities you claim to have. I know Randi sent you some outlines lets discuss
them. Tell me what is wrong with his test parameters and what you would need to
keep it honest?
--
Darwyn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxsystems.com/wizard1.jpg
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> >>> Part 3 of 3...
>
> As you can see, All my demands would be perfectly reasonable to insure the
> the tests could not be tampered with, at least as much as possible. No, Randi
> does not want the likes of me even considering the taking of his challenge,
> for the challenge prelims would be stalemated.
The only reason I can see for this happening is if John stalemates them on
purpose to keep from being proven wrong.
> But, Randi is more than
> welcome to read my FAQ and past posts, and if he ever decides I make some
> sense, he can plop his name on it and take the credit.
In other words only John McGowan makes sense...
> Then we get into why I won't take the challenge.
>
> 1. First and foremost, I am a disabled Vet, with Cardiomypathy. My
> condition was caused by the US Government, through the Military,
> for authorizing me to take drugs that were known to cause this
> exact condition, and they did it with out telling me this poss-
> ibility Existed. Therefore I hold them responsible for their
> mistake and they will stick to their responsibility. My condi-
> tion was in the line of duty. My philosophy is I did my duty,
> so now they can fuckin' do theirs. This is not negotiable.
>
> Therefore I will not jeopardize my losing the hospitalization,
> medication and disability rating over a measley $1.1 Million.
> My priority is to myself, and to insure my parent's will not
> be stuck with High Medical bills when I die.
$1.1 million properly invested will do the same thing, also if you don't want the
money why not donate it to your parents or to the DAV, or to some other worthy
cause or something? Sorry John but that is a cop out clear and simple.
> I also demand to be buried in a Veteran's Cemetary, which is
> my right. I literally gave my life for this country, now all I
> can do is await for the old heart to go. I also do not wish
> for them to replace that original organ, I was born with it,
> I will die with it.
>
> `Nuf said on that, this issue is closed.
Hardly...
You are ducking the challenge. If you don't want the money you don't have to
keep it, and the prize does not include mandatory heart replacement, or that you
can't be buried in a Veteran's Cemetery. All of your arguments here are just
plain silly.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> wrote:
>
>
>John Mcgowan wrote:
>
<snip>
>> I love doing things like this to see how alert my opponents are. And I do it
>> after I already won my point so it doesn't cloud the original issue. :) But
>> this treatment is only reserved for the ignorant.
>
>Well only the ignorant would belive that you did this on purpose, and when did you
>win?
>
Why, John won the master of math award. And master of logic
award. And master of consistency award.
But, alas, John still hasn't been able to figure out what
Earl predicted!
>He (Earl) did not say the market would drop 800 to 1000 points in less than two weeks
Message-Id: <7eb_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
> Reread the prediction. Once the fall began, it does not matter how long it
> took, as long as it was an uninterrupted drop, which this was.
> His prediction was that it would drop 800 to 1000 Points
Message-Id: <f4b_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>Earl did not predict an 800 to a 1000 point drop
Message-Id: <7eb_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>Earl said the market would drop 800 too 1000 points over a two week period.
Message-Id: <677_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>He (Earl) does not say `In less than two weeks the market will drop 800 to 1000
> points, or anything close. This is basic Grade school shit, people.
Message-Id: <7ee_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
What Earl claimed was:
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
this is being posted twice since I forgot to put back in
sci.skeptic which John removed and Lou reads sci.skeptic
> >>> Part 1 of 3...
>
>* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? on
> Darwyn Fry replied ...
>
> DF> From: Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> Subject: Re: Randi's
> DF> challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? Organization:
> DF> FoxSystems
>
> DF> Lou Minatti wrote:
>
> > twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > > John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
>
> > > > And I told you, I refuse to call Monsoons Hurricanes just because
>
> <snip.
>
> > > The scientists do?
>
> > It's amazing he won't simply eat crow and admit he was wrong, or just
> > drop it. This is not a grey area. It's not a skeptic vs believer issue.
> > It's very black and white. John says there are no hurricanes in the
> > Pacific. The evidence, available to each and every one of us, proves
> > otherwise.
>
>But I am not wrong.<snip>
Quite the contrary. You are wrong.
NOAA, the weather channel, etc all agree that Hurricanes
exist in the Pacific. Either the worlds scientists are
wrong or you, Ron, and Earl are. The scientists aren't
wrong in this case.
You have been wrong on virtually everything you post.
Remember when you claimed that Randi wouldn't accept you for
the challenge because you claimed dowsing wasn't paranormal.
Randi did accept you and all you did was make excuses for
why you didn't want to win a million bucks.
BTW, I just checked and there are still loads of web sites
discussing Hurricane Bertha from 1996, but, strangely
enough, not one for a hurricane Arthur which Earl claims was
the first hurricane of the season.
I wonder why?
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
> >>> Part 2 of 3...
>
<snip>
>
>
>Good, let us bring this up once and for all, for all the newbies. Go to Deja
>News and You will see I said similar things months ago.
Nope. You claimed that you could beat it but that Randi
wouldn't take you since you claimed it wasn't paranormal.
When Randi posted that he would accept you, you decided that
you didn't need the money!
You spend a great deal of time attempting to weasel out of
having to show you could do what you claimed.
>
>1. I do not, ever, take a sucker Bet.
>
> There is just cause to think the Randi Challenge is rigged<snip>
Funny how you didn't say this until after he said you could
take the challenge, isn't it?
> James Randi was apparantly sent a message, and his message answered
> none of my comments, except one. He said Dowsing is paranormal. He
> also said I was eligible to apply to take the challenge, but never
> said I could take the challenge.
That is the same thing.
<snip>
>
> I then sent him a couple replies in EMail, and copies of those replies
> in alt.paranormal.
Funny, then you claimed that his "cultists" could send him
the emails and that you didn't have to.
<snip>
> The argue
> ment was this was not the infamous Double blind method, but it was, for
> no agency in this valley can accurately tell you where their utilities
> are. They have to locate them everytime they want to do something to
> them. ) And they do that by Modern Dowsing, I.e. call before you dig.
I checked with our local utilities and they all said that
they don't use dowsing but use maps. They know within
inches where each line is, they want other people to call
them before they dig so that they don't disrupt their
service.
<snip of claim provided without evidence>
>2. If, perchance, a new thing occurred and I came up with nothing, Nor
> could I proved Randi cheated, would I ever lie and say Dowsing is
> Paranormal only and I lied when I said it works (or whatever the exact
> wording Randi chooses. For it does, and Randi only proved I failed for
> my first time since I started Dowsing in the very early 80's.
Shyness factor at work again!
It only works when no one is looking!
<snip>
>
>
>And these are only two aspects that I would demand and Randi would not agree
>with<snip>
And, would you please post the email where he stated that he
would not accept this aspects?
Or is this just more of your lies?
<snip of John Mcgowan claiming that Earl Curley and Ron Bobo
are "experts">
Lou Minatti
John Mcgowan wrote:
>
> >>> Part 1 of 3...
>
> * While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? on
> Darwyn Fry replied ...
>
> DF> From: Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> Subject: Re: Randi's
> DF> challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? Organization:
> DF> FoxSystems
>
> DF> Lou Minatti wrote:
>
> > twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > > John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
>
> > > > And I told you, I refuse to call Monsoons Hurricanes just because
>
> <snip.
>
> > > The scientists do?
>
> > It's amazing he won't simply eat crow and admit he was wrong, or just
> > drop it. This is not a grey area. It's not a skeptic vs believer issue.
> > It's very black and white. John says there are no hurricanes in the
> > Pacific. The evidence, available to each and every one of us, proves
> > otherwise.
>
The facts say otherwise.
> As I was growing up, it was always taught that Hurricanes were strictly
> a North Atlantic Phenomena. However, other places called the same types
> of storms different things. The Weathermen and the Meteorologists all
> said the same thing.
The Weathermen were a 1960's radical group.
> It was sometime in th late 70s, Early 80s that a bunch of lazy asses began
> calling the Pacific Monsoons Hurricanes. At first those Hurricanes were the
> Storms that crossed Mexico and Central America. Later, the crossing over did
> not become important.
>
> Rapidly it became standard practice to cater to the lazy and irresponsible,
> but I do not. Some one has to stand up for quality education, it appears
> neither the government or the school system in America does. :)
>
> I refuse to adapt because a few Mush heads refuse to learn the proper
> terminology and our educational system supports that laziness. (This is the
> upbringing of the Catholic Schools, either you learn something properly,
> or you did not learn it at all.) :)
>
> In grade school, if you called a Monsoon a hurricane, you could expect a
> to be corrected, if you kept it up, you were considered a smart ass and often
> got the old rulers across the fingers for your rudeness and ignorance. :)
You're just making this up as you go along.
> Ergo, I stand correct when I said what I said. :) Anymore morons around here
> with comprehension problems? Go see Sister Agnes and her world famous
> attitude adjuster, as for me... I crossed swords with nuns and priests enough
> for a lifetime, I will let you idiots have the fun. :) I did my pennance. :)
>
> In ddition, I just completed the polling of over 100 people. Most say they
> just recently started calling the Pacific Typhoons Hurricanes. Several of
> them were raised in Hawaii and over 91% were born in the states that border
> the pacific.
A selection of Pacific hurricanes, as listed on the NOAA web site:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/pr/hnl/cphc/pages/summaries.html
1959
August 1 - 8, Hurricane DOT
September 6 - 10, Typhoon/Hurricane PATSY
1957
July 14 - 26, Hurricane KANOA
August 6 - 15, Unnamed Hurricane
September 1 - 17, Hurricane/Typhoon DELLA
November 29 - December 7, Hurricane NINA
August 12 - 16, 1950, Hurricane HIKI
At least 30 years prior to your claim that "sometime in th late 70s,
Early 80s that a bunch of lazy asses began calling the Pacific Monsoons
Hurricanes (sic)", the national weather service was doing just that.
Frankly, we should be a little concerned about a school district that
teaches, "Hurricanes were strictly a North Atlantic Phenomena".
At this point I suspect even your small clique of admirers would admit
you are wrong about this. Even Dan is quiet. It's amazing that you even
try to argue about this issue when time and time again, you are proven
wrong. Why do you continue this pointless "debate"? It's not skeptic
versus believer, it's facts versus nonsense. And your posts are sorely
lacking anything in the way of facts.
Darwyn Fry
Lou Minatti wrote: .
> At this point I suspect even your small clique of admirers would admit
> you are wrong about this. Even Dan is quiet. It's amazing that you even
> try to argue about this issue when time and time again, you are proven
> wrong. Why do you continue this pointless "debate"? It's not skeptic
> versus believer, it's facts versus nonsense. And your posts are sorely
> lacking anything in the way of facts.
>
> --
But that is John! Just as he keeps arguing that it was he that pointed out his own
errors on the Curley Stock Market prediction thing, even though all the evidence
shows it was twitch and I that caught him first. Never fear John will argue until
the end of time no matter what the evidence shows. And by no means should you expect
John to ever post any evidence he is right, he never does. He makes references to
evidence he says he has, that is a close as you get. Never a single book title,
publication information, page numbers, message ID, nothing.
--
Darwyn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
df...@netins.net
Jim Jonas
In article <34D53F7C...@foxsystems.com>, Look, in, sig, file, for,
reply wrote:
> John Mcgowan wrote:
> ... We would
> go out and use existing live utilities already in the ground. The argue
> ment was this was not the infamous Double blind method, but it was, for
> no agency in this valley can accurately tell you where their utilities
> are.
In case anybody cares, in Arizona we have something called 'The Blue
Stake Service'. I'm sure that most cities have something like it too.
Whenever you need to dig anywhere in town, you call these guys and they
come out and mark all buried utilites with color-coded stakes. Gass,
electric, water, and phones each have their own color. The service is free
and if they make a mistake and you cut a line while digging in an area that
Blue Stake marked as clear, the utilities will fix it for free. Otherwise,
you pay.
It isn't perfect, the maps are often have errors but they're generally
pretty close. It should also be mentioned that these maps are freely
available to the public at City Hall and besides that anybody with half a
brain can walk along any street and spot the miniture man-hole covers
mounted over buried water valves, phone line splice boxes, power
transformers, etc. It's rare to find a buried utility line on a city
street that doesn't have some surface manifestation every block or so on a
city street.
And then we have the fact that the only way to verify the location of
these buried lines is to dig them up. I suspect that the Mayor and City
Council would refuse permission to trench up city streets for such a silly
reason.
In summary, trying to find buried utility lines as proof of dowsing is
an incredibly ill-concieved idea. No wonder Randi turned it down.
-Jim Jonas
(whose $1,000 slice of the Randi Prize you won't get this way)
Brian Sandle
: > could I proved Randi cheated, would I ever lie and say Dowsing is
: > Paranormal only and I lied when I said it works (or whatever the exact
: > wording Randi chooses. For it does, and Randi only proved I failed for
: > my first time since I started Dowsing in the very early 80's.
:
: Shyness factor at work again!
:
: It only works when no one is looking!
I am wondering why I did the spell `diving' twice when I intended
`divining' in the article Randi expt:...
Allow me some brainstorming: Randi is trying to put sensitives off
perhaps for (a) so that others have to think for themselves
(b) to select out some sensitives who cannot be put off for
some dubious purpose - witch treatment?
White Robbit. Oh my ears and whiskers, how late it's getting.
Dodo Dolphin. Above water exhausts for motor boats.
Ano de Bend de Tector. Detection by non-linear amplification.
Louann Miller
In article <6b4pt3$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
says...
>Nope. You claimed that you could beat it but that Randi
>wouldn't take you since you claimed it wasn't paranormal.
>
>When Randi posted that he would accept you, you decided that
>you didn't need the money!
>
>You spend a great deal of time attempting to weasel out of
>having to show you could do what you claimed.
Strange but true: a few months ago I had a vivid shallow-sleep dream (the
kind you get on the weekends when there's no alarm clock) in which I was
telekinetic. I could lift objects of about 1/2 pound within a few feet of me.
There was actually a sensation of lift in my head as if my brain was a
counterweight. And the first thing I thought, *inside the dream*, was 'Hey! I
can win all of Randi's money, because I'm not a fake!' Is that skepticism, or
what?
Didn't work when I woke up, unfortunately...
Darwyn Fry
Jim Jonas wrote:
> In article <34D53F7C...@foxsystems.com>, Look, in, sig, file, for,
> reply wrote:
>
> > John Mcgowan wrote:
> > ... We would
> > go out and use existing live utilities already in the ground. The argue
> > ment was this was not the infamous Double blind method, but it was, for
> > no agency in this valley can accurately tell you where their utilities
> > are.
>
> In case anybody cares, in Arizona we have something called 'The Blue
> Stake Service'. I'm sure that most cities have something like it too.
> Whenever you need to dig anywhere in town, you call these guys and they
> come out and mark all buried utilites with color-coded stakes. Gass,
> electric, water, and phones each have their own color. The service is free
> and if they make a mistake and you cut a line while digging in an area that
> Blue Stake marked as clear, the utilities will fix it for free. Otherwise,
> you pay.
>
> It isn't perfect, the maps are often have errors but they're generally
> pretty close. It should also be mentioned that these maps are freely
> available to the public at City Hall and besides that anybody with half a
> brain can walk along any street and spot the miniture man-hole covers
> mounted over buried water valves, phone line splice boxes, power
> transformers, etc. It's rare to find a buried utility line on a city
> street that doesn't have some surface manifestation every block or so on a
> city street.
>
> And then we have the fact that the only way to verify the location of
> these buried lines is to dig them up. I suspect that the Mayor and City
> Council would refuse permission to trench up city streets for such a silly
> reason.
>
> In summary, trying to find buried utility lines as proof of dowsing is
> an incredibly ill-concieved idea. No wonder Randi turned it down.
>
> -Jim Jonas
> (whose $1,000 slice of the Randi Prize you won't get this way)
Interestingly enough Jim they have similar services here. Last spring when I
told John that I could do dowsing using chicanery as a part of a demonstration he
spent a lot of time trying to claim I could not do any such thing. In fact it is
so simple a child could do it.
The city I have done it in has very detailed plot maps for several sections of
the city, and it is surprising how close they are to where the actual lined are.
When I did the trick I had been in city hall a few days prior looking at plot
maps and getting some photo copies. I then did my "dowsing" and had the people
come out, we call it Iowa One Call here it is the same as your blue stake
program, they found the likes within only 1 to 2 inches of where I had marked
them with traffic paint.
No great surprise, not very difficult to rig. That is why for the real Randi
Challenge it really has to be a site set up just for that test. That is the only
way to eliminate the possibility of finding out where the lines are before the
test.
--
Darwyn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
df...@netins.net
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Lou Minatti
John Mcgowan wrote:
>
> * While talking of Still More McGowan-Quality Research on 02 Feb 98 13:09:05,
> Lou Minatti replied ...
>
> LM> From: Lou Minatti <lou-m...@usa.net> Subject: Still More
> LM> McGowan-Quality Research Organization: SKEP-TI-CULT< member
> LM> 18-33248-183
>
> LM> John Mcgowan wrote:
>
> > >>> Part 1 of 3...
>
> > * While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the
> > prize? on Darwyn Fry replied ...
>
> > DF> From: Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> Subject: Re: Randi's
> > DF> challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? Organization:
> > DF> FoxSystems
>
> > DF> Lou Minatti wrote:
>
>
> > <snip.
>
> > > > The scientists do?
>
> > > It's amazing he won't simply eat crow and admit he was wrong, or just
> > > drop it. This is not a grey area. It's not a skeptic vs believer issue.
> > > It's very black and white. John says there are no hurricanes in the
> > > Pacific. The evidence, available to each and every one of us, proves
> > > otherwise.
>
> > But I am not wrong. You just do not listen well. :)
>
>
> Wrong, only your facts because you accept no other.
No, you are wrong because facts are facts. Here's a fact: Hurricanes
exist in the Pacific.
> > As I was growing up, it was always taught that Hurricanes were strictly
> > a North Atlantic Phenomena. However, other places called the same types
> > of storms different things. The Weathermen and the Meteorologists all
> > said the same thing.
>
> LM> The Weathermen were a 1960's radical group.
>
> Wrong again, junior. I can see you are but a pup.
The Weathermen were a radical guerrilla organization that formed out of
SDS. You are confusing Weathermen with weathermen. You don't normally
capitalize "weathermen" when you are referring to those guys doing the
weather segment. See how that works?
> The Weathermen were what TV and Radio Stations hired to tell the weather
> broadcasts. They did not become Meteorologists until the 70s, and even then
> it was rare to see a man called a Meteorologist on a newsbroadcast. Even in
> 1981 when I left the states, there were many Weather men and Weather Girls
> telling the forecasts. However, when I got back in 1983, most places were
> hiring Meteorologists, instead of people to tell the weather.
>
> LM> You're just making this up as you go along.
>
> Prove it, Louie. :) You will not because every stitch is true. A friend of
> mine who was educated in Ely, Nevada says the same thing, as well as friends
> from New York, Boston, Tampa Bay, The Midwest, California, Washington, et al.
I've repeatedly proved you wrong. I've cited my sources. Those sources
are available to you, and anyone else who wishes to check them. Here's
your claim, which you snipped out:
> It was sometime in th late 70s, Early 80s that a bunch of lazy asses began
> calling the Pacific Monsoons Hurricanes. At first those Hurricanes were the
> Storms that crossed Mexico and Central America. Later, the crossing over did
> not become important.
Here was my response:
A selection of Pacific hurricanes, as listed on the NOAA web site:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/pr/hnl/cphc/pages/summaries.html
1959
August 1 - 8, Hurricane DOT
September 6 - 10, Typhoon/Hurricane PATSY
1957
July 14 - 26, Hurricane KANOA
August 6 - 15, Unnamed Hurricane
September 1 - 17, Hurricane/Typhoon DELLA
November 29 - December 7, Hurricane NINA
August 12 - 16, 1950, Hurricane HIKI
> And Earl also verified my comments for the Canadians.
That comment pretty much speaks for itself.
> And I see you maintain new Listings, not old. 1997 is last year, son, or did
> no one tell you that yet? :)
I have no idea what "Listings" you are talking about that I supposedly
"maintain." Care to be more specific?
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
No. We accept the close of the Dow as a fact not a variable
after it closes.
We accept that hurricanes exist in the Pacific since they
do.
We accept that Earl altered his prediction. You do, then
you don't, then you do, then you don't...
We accept that Earl's prediction has only one answer being
only one prediction.
We accept a lot of facts.
You make them up as you go along.
>
> > As I was growing up, it was always taught that Hurricanes were strictly
> > a North Atlantic Phenomena. However, other places called the same types
> > of storms different things. The Weathermen and the Meteorologists all
> > said the same thing.
>
> LM> The Weathermen were a 1960's radical group.
>
>Wrong again, junior. I can see you are but a pup.
Actually, he is right.
>
>The Weathermen were what TV and Radio Stations hired to tell the weather
>broadcasts. <snip>
And, they relate what NOAA and such tell them.
Such as hurricanes in the Pacific.
>
> LM> You're just making this up as you go along.
>
>Prove it, Louie. :) You will not because every stitch is true. A friend of
>mine who was educated in Ely, Nevada says the same thing, as well as friends
>from New York, Boston, Tampa Bay, The Midwest, California, Washington, et al.
>
Now there is Mcgowan-Quality Research (tm) in action.
Hurricanes don't exist in the Pacific because John' friends
say that they don't!
We rely on science, John relies on his web of supposed
friends.
>And Earl also verified my comments for the Canadians.
Proof that you are wrong. Earl has yet to be right.
<snip>
>Show me where I changed my position once.
Message-Id: <030_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
OK, John.
>I (John Mcgowan) remember him (Earl) changing his original prediction in late
> February.
Message-Id: <f60_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
So you remembered him altering his prediction in late Feb.
> Earl admitted he was in error by readjusting his prediction.
Message-Id: <23a_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
So Earl admitted he was in error by altering his prediction.
>But the skeptics `accepted' his change, now they want to renege
>on their acceptance, at least you do
Message-Id: <23a_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
So the skeptics accepted Earl's alteration of his
prediction.
> the prediction was never altered.
Message-Id: <10b_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
But the prediction was never altered.
That certainly looks like a change, John!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
> >>> Part 1 of 2...
>
>* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't John McGowan claimed the priz
> Jim Jonas replied ...
>
> JJ> From: peq...@azstarnet.com (Jim Jonas) Subject: Re: Randi's
> JJ> challenge...why hasn't John McGowan claimed the prize? Organization:
> JJ> Starnet
>
> JJ> In article <34D53F7C...@foxsystems.com>, Look, in, sig, file,
> JJ> for, reply wrote:
>
> > John Mcgowan wrote:
> > ... We would
> > go out and use existing live utilities already in the ground. The argue
> > ment was this was not the infamous Double blind method, but it was, for
> > no agency in this valley can accurately tell you where their utilities
> > are.
>
> JJ> In case anybody cares, in Arizona we have something called 'The
> JJ> Blue Stake Service'. I'm sure that most cities have something like it
> JJ> too. Whenever you need to dig anywhere in town, you call these guys
> JJ> and they come out and mark all buried utilites with color-coded stakes.
> JJ> Gass, electric, water, and phones each have their own color. The
> JJ> service is free and if they make a mistake and you cut a line while
> JJ> digging in an area that Blue Stake marked as clear, the utilities will
> JJ> fix it for free. Otherwise, you pay.
>
>Yeah, it is based on the federal laws. The cost of Repairing peoples screw
>ups got too expensive, so they implemented a `Call before you dig' Law.
<snip>
John, please post the federal law that requires "call before
you dig". You can't.
Second, you have yet to give the name of one major utility
that employs dowsers, yet you claim that they all do.
Everyone who has checked with his utilities gets told that
is bullshit.
>Randi turned me down because I took the power out of his hands, he had his
>chances and lost them.<snip>
More Mcgowan lies!
Randi accepted you for the challenge but you have yet to
formally apply for it!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
>* While talking of [2/3] Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the pri
> Louann Miller replied ...
> LM> From: lou...@mail.smu.edu (Louann Miller) Subject: Re: [2/3] Randi's
> LM> challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? Organization:
> LM> Your Organization
>
> LM> In article <6b4pt3$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> LM> twi...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
> > Nope. You claimed that you could beat it but that Randi wouldn't
> > take you since you claimed it wasn't paranormal.
>
>Wrong. I said I could prove dowsing existing, therefore beating Randi.
Another Mcgowan Lie. He wrote just today:
"Randi turned me down because I took the power out of his
hands, he had his chances and lost them."
<snip>
>I proved it was not paranormal,
More Mcgowan lies. He has yet to provide any evidence let
alone proof.
Everytime some one questions him to name all these utilities
that use dowsing, he just says all of them.
Yet when people check they get told by the utility that that
is bullshit.
>and he failed to provide proof it is, 3 times
>now.
He has offered to accept you for the challenge.
You have just attempted to squirm your way out.
<snip>
> > When Randi posted that he would accept you, you decided that you
> > didn't need the money!
>
>Wrong order.
Another lie.
>We were discussing the piddly $1 Mil he offered and I stated
>that I wouldn't accept that because it would cause nothing but problems.
So the money isn't enough yet he stated that he didn't need
the money as he wasn't money driven.
None of these "students" of his have taken it up either.
>I offered to show Randi, when he was out this way, what I could do. It is all
>documented in Deja News.
You always make the claim that this is in deja news but you
never post any evidence.
Why is that?
I post evidence of your many lies and provide references so
people can check on you.
>
>There is a difference between needing something and not taking it because of
>personal reasons. I even offered to train Twitch and have him take the test
>and beat Randi for the money, but he never answered that one.
More Mcgowan lies. Twitch did answer him.
>
> > You spend a great deal of time attempting to weasel out of having
> > to show you could do what you claimed.
>
>I weasle out of nothing. <snip>
You mean everything.
Like your consistency.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
kud...@aol.com (KudzuFL) wrote:
>>No great surprise, not very difficult to rig. That is why for the real
>Randi>Challenge it really has to be a site set up just for that test. That is
>the>only>way to eliminate the possibility of finding out where the lines are
>before>the>test.
>
>Just returning to visit this ng after a long absence, and a suprized to find
>that the Randi challenge topic has been resurrected again after it was clearly
>shown to be fraudulent on this newsgroup, <snip>
No. It has been claimed to be fraudulent.
But that is just an excuse for people to avoid having to
prove that their claims are real.
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
>
>
> Randi turned me down because I took the power out of his hands, he had his
> chances and lost them. :)
John posted a smiley so we know he is lying again.
Randi is still ready to accept you as a claimant and you know it John. Perhaps you
thought no one knew about that. He said he would accept you if you not more than
5 days ago. You are in dreamland again if you think Randi is afraid of you. I
think we have a very reasonable test in mind too and I will bet you will not take
it no matter what. I don't think you could do your dowsing trick under controlled
conditions if you life depended on it and I think you know it. All you posturing
and bleating here is nothing more than excuses. Everyone can see that. Time do
either put up or shut up on this "Randi is scared to test me," pap.
--
Darwyn
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
df...@netins.net
"Just who is this idiot? He blathers on and on about what he "demands" and
all sorts of grand things he'll do, but he never gets down to it!"
-James Randi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Of course ALL legitimate scientific discoveries are announced by actors on TV."
-Penn Jillette
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> Not at all Jim, it makes more sense than putting all one's faith in a failing
> magician just so he can make a living. :) Your reasonings are out of whack,
> and shows your lack of experience in such matters, like dealing with the
> entities and agencies.
Included here is Randi's Response to John's recent claims against him;
>He [Randi] also said I was eligible to apply
>to take the challenge, but never said I could
>take the challenge.
Right! You see, you (1) apply to become a claimant, and when you've done
that, you (b) become a claimant! You don't have to have an I.Q. over 40 to
understand that. Read it again.
>He made no response until a couple months
>later, but that response was not in response
>to my information and messages.
Guess why. I travel a lot, I have to answer some 60 to 80 e-mail postings
a day, and I can't nurse idiots through simple instructions that they won't
follow. I make the rules. If you want the prize, follow the rules. That,
too should be easy for a cretin to figure out.
>It also had an EMail Address for something in
>Illinois, instead of the Florida address he used
>the first time.
My e-mail address has never been ANYWHERE but in Florida. You're
hallucinating.
>In response to this message, I stated I would
>take his money, with my parameters, which
>were totally fair and totally taken out of our
>hands and placed into the hands of the city
>of Phoenix, so to speak.
Your "parameters" have nothing to do with it. And, nothing gets "taken out
of [my] hands." I don't give a flying fart about what you "demand" and
"require," so to speak.
Stop bleating and get back in line, if you want to. Otherwise, get out of
my face. You're a bore.
Dowsing is the single most popular claim made for my prize. It fails every
time it's tested.
Randi
James Randi Educational Foundation
201 SE Davie Blvd.,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815
U.S.A.
phone: +1 954 467 1112
fax: +1 954 467 1660
http://www.randi.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few predictions for every one to enjoy,
John will now claim Randi is afraid to allow his "demands" because they would
prevent Randi from cheating
John will again fail to show how Randi would cheat
(the proposed test is to have a power line on the ground, have a switch that will
turn it on or off at *randon* this could be done by computer to eliminate human
fallibility's, all John would be doing is trying to determine whether or not there
was power running through the line. John has claimed dowsing works by electric
energies reacting on the human muscles.)
John will find fault with this test, or any test any one proposes
John will continue to post his multi part Dosing FAQ which I wonder if any one
besides John and I have read...
John will continue to make unfounded remarks concerning James Randi's honesty
John will end up proving nothing but at a later date he will claim he proved
something to every one with all this.
I am willing to bet the DAV could use the $1.1 Million you don't want John, prove
Randi and I wrong and prove dowsing works, or do you not even believe it yourself?
--
Darwyn
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
df...@netins.net
Darwyn Fry
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
Bringing up the Randi Challenge and why not a single paranormalist has ever in the
history of this challenge, or any like it going way back to Harry Houdini, has ever
been able to win, seems to send these people into a frenzy of claims that it was
proven to be fraudulent. Here is a simple request any fool can fulfill. Please
post this "proof" that the challenge is a fraud. You said it was you *must* be able
to prove that.
If you can't then shut up with the nonsense claims already. Any one saying prove it
isn't rigged will be ignored, you people made the claim it is a fraud, it is up to
you to prove that. Randi claimed it is real, it is his job to prove that not ours.
I am satisfied he isn't lying, however I have reason to suspect any one who makes
wild claims the challenge is rigged is either lying or delusional.
Brian Sandle
Darwyn Fry (df...@foxsystems.com) wrote:
: I am willing to bet the DAV could use the $1.1 Million you don't want John, prove
: Randi and I wrong and prove dowsing works, or do you not even believe it yourself?
What is meant by works?
If it increases the probability of finding water to twice per well is that
not regarded as `working' from the cost angle?
Brian Sandle
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
> >>> Part 2 of 2...
>
>
> DF> Interestingly enough Jim they have similar services here. Last
> DF> spring when I told John that I could do dowsing using chicanery as a
> DF> part of a demonstration he spent a lot of time trying to claim I could
> DF> not do any such thing. In fact it is so simple a child could do it.
>
>Once again you speak as usual and try to make yourself above reproach,
>Darwyn. I did not argue over your bogus dowsing claims, I produced facts on
>dowsing, as the thread required.
>
No. You made claims and when you were asked for evidence,
you just made more claims and claimed that your claims were
proof.
>Darwyn, you tried this tact before, and it lasted for about 7 months.
>Finally you admitted Earl was right and you were a 15 year old boy.
John, you've tried this tact before and still are doing it.
What is the message id of the article in which Darwyn
admitted Earl was right.
Or are you lying again?
Post the message id so everyone can check this out!
<snip>
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
John "Mcgowan-Quality Research (tm)" Mcgowan just wrote more
nonesense and lies.
This is in keeping with his past record on these newsgroups.
Earl predicted that the Dow would plummet 800 - 1000 points
in less than two weeks starting on the Ides of March.
On the 13th, to get credit for the drop on the 12th, Earl
changed the Ides to the 12th from the 15th.
From the close on the 13th to the end of the "less than two
weeks", the market actually ROSE by 26.36 points!
John described this Rise in the Dow as a "steady decline"!
Of course, John also lied that he remembered Earl altering
the date in Feb, but John could never provide a message id
or any reference.
Now John claims that Earl didn't alter the date!
Consistency in lies is not one of John's fortays!
Mike Combs
John Mcgowan wrote:
>
> Randi turned me down because I took the power out of his hands, he had his
> chances and lost them. :)
Now right there in that sentence is what's wrong with your argument.
The challenge is the Randi Challenge. What you want is to take the
Randi Challenge, but still take all the power out of his hands, and
place it in yours, so that you can cheat at will. All of the power in
your hands would make it the Mcgowan Challenge. In which case, it
should be your 1.1 million. Randi's money, Randi's rules.
When paranormalist cry that they tried to take the Randi Challenge, but
were turned down, invariably what really happened was that Randi said no
to a counter-challenge they made involving their rules but his money.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just remember, the Borg are people too... well, partly...
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> Once again you speak as usual and try to make yourself above reproach,
> Darwyn. I did not argue over your bogus dowsing claims, I produced facts on
> dowsing, as the thread required.
>
> Darwyn, you tried this tact before, and it lasted for about 7 months.
> Finally you admitted Earl was right and you were a 15 year old boy. How can
> a 15 year old have the experience and knowledge of everyone he argues with?
> It is impossible, stick to the truth. You did not try dowsing by using my
> FAQ, your whole rant was that you did it before and it did not work. Who
> showed you? Was anyone qualified to show you or did you pick up a branch and
> say, `Nope, Dowsing no work. Must go school, must screw off more. Ugh!' :)
>
> Asmodeus
Ignorance may be par for the course with people you know and thus you get away
with it in your every day life but it isn't serving you well here. Lets get a
couple of things straight John. I have NEVER admitted Earl was right and that I
am 15. I said I was a 15 year student of magic, not a 15 year old student of
magic. Learn to read.
Also once more since you are obviously just a bit dense and can't get a grip on
what I am telling you. dowsing is complete BS, nonsense, claptrap, pure fantasy,
it *does NOT work*, your FAQ is pure unsupported pseudoscientific nonsense, and
you are scared to let any one test you because it will show you are wrong.
Lastly, I NEVER claimed to have tried to dowse using your FAQ or any one else's
methods John. What I said was I can do the damn trick. It is an act of
conjuring, a fares, and a scam. Do you know what a scam is John? I'll bet you
do. I do illusions, not pseudoscientific demonstrations. I leave the
pseudoscience to people who have lots of time to waste.
Here is another proposed test of your FAQ. Lets simply have you demonstrate how
the rods work over positively and negatively charged materials. We can arrange
to have different materials given positive and negative charges and placed under
screens or containers, you simply tell us which containers have materials with
positive charges and which ones have materials with negative charges. 15 to 20
containers arranged at random should do the trick, also we may toss in a few
empty containers as a control. You would know ahead of time exactly how many
containers really had charged materials in them and how many of each there where
to find, all you would need to do is identify them as positive, negative, or
empty. Fair enough?
If you think this will work I will work out the details with a physics professor
here and send the protocol to Randi. If the rods do what you say the should do
then we have some real evidence don't we? If not then I am prepared to dismiss
all your claims as nonsense and stop wasting everyone's time.
--
Darwyn
Can't wait to see what he thinks up next.
Darwyn Fry
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
>
> John "Mcgowan-Quality Research (tm)" Mcgowan just wrote more
> nonesense and lies.
>
> This is in keeping with his past record on these newsgroups.
>
> Earl predicted that the Dow would plummet 800 - 1000 points
> in less than two weeks starting on the Ides of March.
>
> On the 13th, to get credit for the drop on the 12th, Earl
> changed the Ides to the 12th from the 15th.
>
> From the close on the 13th to the end of the "less than two
> weeks", the market actually ROSE by 26.36 points!
The market opened on the 12th at 7085.16March Days
Close Drop Rise
12 1 7039.37 -45.79
13 2 6878.89 -160.48
14 3 6935.46 +56.57
15 4 Saturday, no trading
16 5 Sunday, no trading
17 6 6955.48 +20.02
18 7 6896.56 -58.92
19 8 6877.68 -18.88
20 9 6804.79 -57.40
21 10 6905.25 -15.49
22 11 Saturday, no trading
23 12 Sunday, no trading
24 13 6905.25 +100.46
25 14 6876.17 -29.08
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total drop =208.99
------------------------------------------------------------------
26 15 6880.70 +4.53
27 16 6740.59 -140.11
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total drop =344.57
------------------------------------------------------------------
The 13th through the 25th would be 13 days, that is less than two weeks,
if we include the 26 and make it 14 days even then from he 13th through
the 26th the market actually only rose 1.81 points. From the close on
the 13th to the 25th is a drop of 2.72 points. I am missing something
here. Are you using MQR (tm) or am I missing your point?
In all reality if you want to start the period on the 13th you need to
start with the opening on that day and not the close so you include the
13th in your calculation.
If we do this it gives us a drop of 16.32 points for the 13th through
the 25th.
The 12th through he 24th, another 13 day period gives us a drop of
179.91 points. Please help me out here....
>
>
> John described this Rise in the Dow as a "steady decline"!
>
> Of course, John also lied that he remembered Earl altering
> the date in Feb, but John could never provide a message id
> or any reference.
>
> Now John claims that Earl didn't alter the date!
>
> Consistency in lies is not one of John's fortays!
John also gave us a few things in his dowsing FAQ that can be tested,
but I bet he never lets any one test him.
--
Darwyn
Brian Sandle
Darwyn Fry (df...@foxsystems.com) wrote:
: If you think this will work I will work out the details with a physics
professor : here and send the protocol to Randi. If the rods do what you
say the should do : then we have some real evidence don't we? If not then
I am prepared to dismiss : all your claims as nonsense and stop wasting
everyone's time.
This is supposed to be *sci* skeptic. Now does that mean scientific enquiry?
An interesting point is the comparison of what is claimed with what
happens, but it is only one point.
In science a hypothesis is made after a pattern is suspected. So the
scientist is open to patterns not seen before. Say that heavy objects do
not fall any faster than lighter ones. Then the hypothesis is tested.
There is a report of what happened. In the analysis there is claim of
confirmation, partial or non-confirmation of the hypothesis. There is
also mention of any interesting finds and suggestions for further study.
White Robbit
Dodo Dolphin
Dominion
Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> wrote:
> Bringing up the Randi Challenge and why not a single paranormalist has ever in the
>history of this challenge, or any like it going way back to Harry Houdini, has ever
>been able to win, seems to send these people into a frenzy of claims that it was
>proven to be fraudulent. Here is a simple request any fool can fulfill. Please
>post this "proof" that the challenge is a fraud. You said it was you *must* be able
>to prove that.
>
>If you can't then shut up with the nonsense claims already. Any one saying prove it
>isn't rigged will be ignored, you people made the claim it is a fraud, it is up to
>you to prove that. Randi claimed it is real, it is his job to prove that not ours.
>I am satisfied he isn't lying, however I have reason to suspect any one who makes
>wild claims the challenge is rigged is either lying or delusional.
Besides which, Randi sets up the test so that if there is a success,
he has no out. If you pass it, everyone involved in the test will know
you succeeded.
That is the value of such things as controls and double blinds.
Neither party can fix the results.
Dominion
I am not clever enough to have a sig file!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> wrote:
>
>
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
>>
>> John "Mcgowan-Quality Research (tm)" Mcgowan just wrote more
>> nonesense and lies.
>>
>> This is in keeping with his past record on these newsgroups.
>>
>> Earl predicted that the Dow would plummet 800 - 1000 points
>> in less than two weeks starting on the Ides of March.
>>
>> On the 13th, to get credit for the drop on the 12th, Earl
>> changed the Ides to the 12th from the 15th.
>>
>> From the close on the 13th to the end of the "less than two
>> weeks", the market actually ROSE by 26.36 points!
>
>The market opened on the 12th at 7085.16March
Correct.
<snip of excellent summary of the Dow for the period.>
> Are you using MQR (tm) or am I missing your point?
Apparently, I didn't make myself clear. Earl started it on
the 12th so 13 days, less than two weeks, would stop on the
24th. So Earl got, using his starting point, 179.91 points
dropped by the Dow.
But, he didn't announce that the 12th was the start until
the 13th.
Over the period from the close on the 13th (The day Earl
made the change in the prediction) to the close on the 24th,
the Dow actually Rose 26.36 points. So, after Earl altered
the prediction to grab the drop of 206.27 points from the
drop on the 12th and the 13th, the Dow rose over the rest of
the time.
Even the Dow is not immune to the power of the anti-psychic!
This rise over this period is what John has called a "steady
decline".
>
>In all reality if you want to start the period on the 13th you need to
>start with the opening on that day and not the close so you include the
>13th in your calculation.
>If we do this it gives us a drop of 16.32 points for the 13th through
>the 25th.
>
>The 12th through he 24th, another 13 day period gives us a drop of
>179.91 points. Please help me out here....
The 179.91 is accurate using Earl's own words.
I don't want to start it on the 13th, it was just an
observation on how psychic Earl is. As soon as Earl altered
the prediction the Dow rose over the rest of the period of
the prediction time!
>
>>
>>
>> John described this Rise in the Dow as a "steady decline"!
>>
>> Of course, John also lied that he remembered Earl altering
>> the date in Feb, but John could never provide a message id
>> or any reference.
>>
>> Now John claims that Earl didn't alter the date!
>>
>> Consistency in lies is not one of John's fortays!
>
> John also gave us a few things in his dowsing FAQ that can be tested,
>but I bet he never lets any one test him.
>
>
Damn, Darwyn, you must be psychic!
Darwyn Fry
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh wrote:
> sdasd wrote:
> >
> > Not very bright to explain the trick before the magic show.....
>
> Nah...he'll just pretend he didn't say any of that stuff for a while. Of
> course, next time he wants to feel smart he'll pretend that he didn't
> say he didn't say it...and so on.
>
> --
> Sir Dr. Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh, Bsd
> True/False Prophet and Fearless Leader
> SKEP-TI-CULT® Worldwide Cabal
> Affiliates -- http://www.skepticult.org
> pro...@skepticult.org
>
> Undernet IRC #skepticult
> The only uncensored Bell/CULT® channel around.
John will also pretend that no one has him figured out, and that there are
people that still take him seriously.
Then he will post his multi part dowsing FAQ again and proudly claim that it
proves dowsing is real when in fact all it proves is that John can do
selective reading and glean points that seem to support his ideas out of
books, then call that research.
When challenged to prove any of the points in his FAQ John will blather
about what great things he can do, and how scientific it all is, but never
quite get down to proving his ideas.
When all else fails he will just make accusations and call every one who
disagreed with him all kinds of silly names then claim victory.
Darwyn Fry
Brian Sandle wrote:
No.
Works means it works. It does not mean it works in someones mind, or works to the
extent you would expect it to by chance alone. And if you can prove it increases the
chances of finding water to twice per well I would be *extreamly* surprised. Every one
who has ever tried to actually *prove* dowsing works under controlled tests has
*failed*.
Failed means that dowsing *did not work*. I have seen many tests of dowsing claims,
many different designs for the tests, always the dowser was involved in the design of
the test. All of the dowsers found water, but only to a success ratio that can be
expected by *chance* alone, or less. This shows that dowsing *did not* increase the
chances of finding water on *any* of these occasions.
Randi gets dowsing claims to his prize all the time, no one has ever been able to make
it work under test conditions because simply the test removes all possibility of
cheating. Regardless of what John McGowan says you don't have to cheat to make the
dowser fail. All you have to do is set up a completely honest test that removes all
physical and or visual cues the dowser would normally use either consciously or
subconsciously to do the trick.
So if you can prove that dowsing can increases the probability of finding water to twice
per well, then I suggest you apply for the $ 1.1 million. I would be willing to bet
this statement too is unsupported and will fail under testing.
Darwyn Fry
Brian Sandle wrote:
I don't understand your point here. To put it simply, John says that The
divining rod charged positively will rotate in the dowsers hand to line up
parallel to a negatively charged object being dowsed. A divining rod charged
negatively will remain perpendicular to a negatively charged object being
dowsed, ( see John's dowsing FAQ.) That is a claim, we can test that claim. I
don't understand the problem with that. In science if you make a claim you have
to test that claim before any other scientists will take it seriously.
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
In article <34DC8892...@foxsystems.com>, df...@foxsystems.com
says...
> John will also pretend that no one has him figured out, and that there are
> people that still take him seriously.
>
> Then he will post his multi part dowsing FAQ again and proudly claim that it
> proves dowsing is real when in fact all it proves is that John can do
> selective reading and glean points that seem to support his ideas out of
> books, then call that research.
<snip>
His FAQ was 60 or 70 percent baseless assertations, and the other 30 or
40 percent was testimonial from what appeared to be woo woo books.
Worthless, and split up into 3 parts to make it annoying as well.
Brian Sandle
Darwyn Fry (df...@foxsystems.com) wrote:
: I don't understand your point here. To put it simply, John says that The
: divining rod charged positively will rotate in the dowsers hand to line up
: parallel to a negatively charged object being dowsed. A divining rod charged
: negatively will remain perpendicular to a negatively charged object being
: dowsed, ( see John's dowsing FAQ.) That is a claim, we can test that claim. I
: don't understand the problem with that. In science if you make a claim you have
: to test that claim before any other scientists will take it seriously.
The scientist would want to know what `charge' meant to the practitioner.
They would report any correlations without them having to be high.
The sales scientist does not report data which does not support his target.
Brian Sandle
John Holmes
Brian Sandle <bsa...@southern.co.nz> wrote in article
<6beu47$kf$2...@mnementh.southern.co.nz>...
> What is meant by works?
>
If you want to take the challenge, you negotiate beforehand what the
precise criteria for "works" are. It's up to you to suggest an agreed
measurement of what you claim you can do.
> If it increases the probability of finding water to twice per well is
that
> not regarded as `working' from the cost angle?
>
Did you mean two different aquifers in the one well? That is not uncommon
if you drill deep enough in a sedimentary basin. Or do you know how to find
water that's twice as wet?
If you are talking about a probability of finding water that's just above
background (random chance), I guess you would have to repeat the trial
enough times to prove that it is statistically significant.
--
Regards,
John.
hol...@smart.net.au
email copies of any replies would be appreciated.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
<snip>
>So what Darwyn Preaches is absurdity, but I expect nothing less from a 15
>year old who thinks he has the experience of a 40 or 50 year old.
More of John's lies!
He claimed that Darwyn had admitted that he was a 15 year
old, but cannot produce the message id since he was just
lying again.
<snip.
>He also fails to comprehend that I will not jeopardize my disability claim in
>anyway, for such a pittance of an amount. <snip.
John, anyone with the slightest knowledge of the law, which
you apparently don't have, knows you can write the contract
such that the winnings don't go to you but to your children,
you nephews, a favorite charity, etc.
Besides, with all the extra money you'd get if you could
actually win the challenge, you wouldn't need the gov't.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
<snip>
>Darwyn is a 15 year old boy, he admitted that not long ago. <snip>
More Mcgowan lies. John cannot produce such an article
reference since he is lying and Darwyn never said any such
thing.
John feels if he tells a lie often enough, people will
believe it.
If only he would learn to be more consistent in his lies!
>I (John Mcgowan) remember him (Earl) changing his original prediction in late
> February.
Message-Id: <f60_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
So, John remembered Earl altering his prediction.
> Earl admitted he was in error by readjusting his prediction.
Message-Id: <23a_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
So, Earl admitted he altered his prediction.
>But the skeptics `accepted' his change, now they want to renege
>on their acceptance, at least you do
Message-Id: <23a_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
So, John took the skeptics to task for accepting Earl's
altering his prediction and then, according to John, wanting
to renege on it.
> the prediction was never altered.
Message-Id: <10b_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
But, now, the prediction was never altered, according to
John.
Then John brags about his consistency!
>I (John Mcgowan) remain consistant, I never swayed on a topic here,
>although some undocumented claims have stated so.
Message-Id: <693_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
<snip>
>It is true that eyewitness accounts are not sure bets all the time, but the
>fact that people witness something does have merit <snip>
More Mcgowan bullshit.
From Loftus, E.F. & Pickrell, J.E. (1995) The formation of
false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720-725.
"Literally thousands of studies have documented how our
memories can be disrupted by things that we experienced
earlier (proactive interference) or things that
we experienced later (retroactive interference)....The new,
post-event information often becomes incorporated into the
recollection, supplementing or altering it, sometimes in
dramatic ways. ... misleading post-event information can
alter a person's recollection in a powerful ways, even
leading to the creation of false memories of objects that
never in fact existed."
Dr. Loftus's Lost in a Shopping Mall creation of false
memory is a wonderful example. Later, the subject was then
asked how certain he was of his different memories. Three
true memories and the one false one were used. He replied
that he was 1, 5, 8, and 10 confident of those memories.
(10 being absolutely positive that the memories were
correct.)
The false memory that Dr. Loftus had created got the 8! He
was exceedingly certain that it really happened. More so
than for two of the real memories.
"These numerous testimonies come from people who are very
solid and practical and successful in the affairs of life.
One is a distinguished writer, another an ophtalmic
authority, a fourth a lady engaged on public service, and so
on. To waive aside the evidence of such people on the
ground that it does not correspond with our own experience
is an act of mental arrogance which no wise man will
commit."
(Credible peole reporting incredible things!)
Of course, that quote is from
THE COMING OF FAIRIES by Arthur Conan Doyle which is arguing
that fairies are real!
And, don't forget the scientist Joseph Glanvill on whether
witches exist! In Saducismus Triumphatus, he complained
about the excesive skeptism on the part of some of his
colleagues.
"We have the attestation of thousands of Eye and
Ear-witnesses, and those not of the easily-deceivable vulgar
only, but of wise and grave discerners; and that, when no
interest could oblige them to agree together in common
Lye... For not only the melancholick and the fanciful but
the grave and the sober, whose judgements we have no reason
to suspect to be tainted by their imaginations, have from
their own knowledge and experience made reports of this
nature....a single relation for an Affirmative, sufficently
confirmed and attested, is worth a thousand tales of forgery
and imposture, from whence a universal Negative cannot be
concluded."
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
>* While talking of [1/2] Randi's challenge...why hasn't John McGowan claimed th
> Mike Combs replied ...
>
> MC> From: Mike Combs <mike...@nospam.comchangenospam2ti> Subject:
> MC> Re: [1/2] Randi's challenge...why hasn't John McGowan claimed the
> MC> prize? Organization: Texas Instruments Inc.
>
> MC> John Mcgowan wrote:
>
> > Randi turned me down because I took the power out of his hands, he had his
> > chances and lost them. :)
>
> MC> Now right there in that sentence is what's wrong with your argument.
>
>How so? He said clearly that he accepted *My* Challenge
Oh, goody, a smiley showing that John is lying.
Ah, John, since you lie so often, you really should use even
more smileys.
Post the message ID showing that Randi accepted "YOUR"
challenge.
You can't because you are lying again.
Randi said that he would accept you for his challenge. Upon
which you ran for cover and have been trying to lie your way
out since then.
John, why can't you post a message id showing that Darwyn
admitted he was a 15 year old boy?
John, why can't you post a message id showing that Randi
accepted *Your* challenge.
Because you are lying as usual, John.
Br. Kurt Van Kuren OSB
There's some *real* scholarship here, but the use of Loftus' "false memory
syndrome" may be overstating the case.
In a court of law-anywhere in North America, I would think--the statements
of two or more witnesses is still valid. What Loftus' research will most
likely do ultimately is rule out cases where there is *no* corroborating
physical evidence.
That might nail fairies--bless their little hearts!--but if someone
practises dowsing under strict controls, and produces greater-than-chance
results, then the eyewitness testimony can be considered valid.
Validity is not a simple black/white yes/no condition when dealing with
conscious, adult human subjects.
Nice work, twitch, but I don't think your fight with John is finished
simply by quoting Elizabeth Loftus.
br. kurt
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in article
<6bkk5p$c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Brian Sandle
John Holmes (hol...@smart.net.au) wrote:
:
:
: Brian Sandle <bsa...@southern.co.nz> wrote in article
: <6beu47$kf$2...@mnementh.southern.co.nz>...
:
: > What is meant by works?
: >
: If you want to take the challenge, you negotiate beforehand what the
: precise criteria for "works" are. It's up to you to suggest an agreed
: measurement of what you claim you can do.
I don't know what I could do for money or whatever.
However, assume I need some wells drilled. It is very dry in Marlborough,
New Zealand currently. But that is possibly not a good place for a test.
Some pine trees are dying. There is reportedly little artesian water. But
say there were some. I contract to several well drillers to provide water.
I need 500 producing wells. But I do not want too many dry wells drilled.
From the Randi data it would appear to me that I could reduce the number
of dry wells drilled by engaging drillers who are, or who employ, diviners.
I looks to me that if non-divining or calculating drillers were used and
drilled 5,000 holes to get a well, then if diviners were used the number
of holes drilled woulld be 2,500 approximately to get the 500 wells.
: > If it increases the probability of finding water to twice per well is
: that
: > not regarded as `working' from the cost angle?
: >
: Did you mean two different aquifers in the one well? That is not uncommon
: if you drill deep enough in a sedimentary basin. Or do you know how to find
: water that's twice as wet?
Apologies, should have said at double the rate per hole drilled.
Wetting agents in water, why do you want them? They could harm membrane
processes.
: If you are talking about a probability of finding water that's just above
: background (random chance), I guess you would have to repeat the trial
: enough times to prove that it is statistically significant.
I guess that the Randi result *for water* was significant. Unless the
diviner could hear the water in the pipe.
Could we see the table of all data? It would be better for analysis.
Brian Sandle
Brian Sandle
Brian Sandle (bsa...@southern.co.nz) wrote:
[...]
: I looks to me that if non-divining or calculating drillers were used and
err, sorry, to get the wells
, then if diviners were used the number
: of holes drilled woulld be 2,500 approximately to get the 500 wells.
[...]
:
: I guess that the Randi result *for water* was significant. Unless the
: diviner could hear the water in the pipe.
:
: Could we see the table of all data? It would be better for analysis.
If we say that the flowing water were heard and put the rate at 10%, then
the interesting part is that the other attempts, the ones for the metals,
were giving results much below expectation. And they were giving it in a
significant fashion, as if a conflicting force were acting.
Brian Sandle
twi...@worldnet.att.net
"Br. Kurt Van Kuren OSB" <stp...@orion.sk.sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>There's some *real* scholarship here, but the use of Loftus' "false memory
>syndrome" may be overstating the case.
>
>In a court of law-anywhere in North America, I would think--the statements
>of two or more witnesses is still valid. What Loftus' research will most
>likely do ultimately is rule out cases where there is *no* corroborating
>physical evidence.
Which is exactly what I have always intended for it to do.
Eyewitness accounts without corroborating external evidence
of some variety is not really trustworthy.
We have many examples from not only research but from real
life that show how bad it can be.
>
>That might nail fairies--bless their little hearts!--but if someone
>practises dowsing under strict controls, and produces greater-than-chance
>results, then the eyewitness testimony can be considered valid.
John has claimed he can do it every time, yet after John
claimed that Randi wouldn't accept him for Randi's
challenge, has spent a vast amount of bandwidth coming up
with spurious reasons why he can't take it.
Including lying about what Randi said, what Darwyn said,
etc.
John makes a lot of claims but can never back anything up.
I am open to someone showing that Dowsing works, but I
refuse to accept John's word that all utilities practice it
when all the utilities that have been contacted deny doing
so.
>
>Validity is not a simple black/white yes/no condition when dealing with
>conscious, adult human subjects.
But, John claims it works everytime! Which makes it a
black/white yes/no proposition.
If John had just claimed that it worked above chance that
would be different. But, John says he can do it everytime.
>
>Nice work, twitch, but I don't think your fight with John is finished
>simply by quoting Elizabeth Loftus.
>
Oh, far from it. But, John will just make new claims and
then avoid backing them up.
If John can dowse utility lines everytime, why cannot he
show it?
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> No, the Randi Challenge is a sham, in my opinion. Not one person to date has
> proved otherwise. Why would anyone wish to go into a poker game knowing the
> deck is marked somehow? That is a silly thing to do.
To this date you haven't proven it is a sham. You made the claim John why can't
you prove it is a sham? You don't accuse someone of cheating then tell them they
have to prove they aren't. If you are going to make the accusation it is up to you
to prove he is cheating. Problem is you can't. So you just blather and bleat
about it so you can have a cozy excuse not to take the challenge and fail miserably
as everyone but a few very gullible people know you would. You make an awful lot
of claims with absolutely nothing to back them up John and you expect to be taken
seriously?
Give me a break.
I consider your lack of proof that the Randi Challenge is rigged to be more than
adequate evidence you are only using this as an excuse to duck the issue that you
can't do your dowsing trick under controlled conditions.
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> >>> Part 1 of 2...
>
> * While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't John McGowan claimed the priz
> KudzuFL replied ...
> Ku> From: kud...@aol.com (KudzuFL) Subject: Re: Randi's challenge...why
> Ku> hasn't John McGowan claimed the prize? Organization: AOL
> Ku> http://www.aol.com
>
> Hey Kudzufl, long time no hear.
>
> Glad to see ya back, Bud.
>
>
> > No great surprise, not very difficult to rig. That is why for the real
> > Randi Challenge it really has to be a site set up just for that test.
> > That the only way to eliminate the possibility of finding out where
> > the lines are before the test.
>
> Ku> Just returning to visit this ng after a long absence, and a suprized
> Ku> to find that the Randi challenge topic has been resurrected again
> Ku> after it was clearly shown to be fraudulent on this newsgroup, and the
> Ku> reward offered by JRE doesn't exist.
Please post all the evidence that shows the money does not exist. This line has
been tried before.
> Yeah, you know the die hards. They insist the Randi Challenge is the final
> word on the Paranormal, and not so paranormal. :)
No, you say that, none of the skeptics have ever said that. Please post message
IDs for all he times a skeptic has said the Randi Challenge was the final word on
the paranormal.
> Ku> It's interesting that dowsing's being discussed here, along with the
> Ku> potential for fraud. But why fake it?
Because it dose not work. so you would have to fake it to convince anyone it does.
Why does Art Bell pretend to be intelligent? Why do psychic surgeons in South
America pretend to heal people? Why does Dion Warwick pretend Linda Georgian is a
real psychic??
> Who fakes it? :) Only a moron would see the need to fake dowsing. :)
No comment it would be too easy.
> Ku> Underground utility lines as
> Ku> well as water sources are create electomagnetic field anaomalies
> Ku> detectible with highly sophisticated field strength measuring
> Ku> equipment.
Please post all evidence supporting your claim that water lines produce
electromagnetic field anomalies.
> Touche, another source that confirms what I said.
Except it is in error, so if it confirms what you say then what you have said is
also in error.
> But machines are not required for dowsing.
That's because only simple hand movements to make the rods move are required, well
in a way that is mechanics so even this is wrong.
> < nonsense snipped >
> Ku> The fields are also detectable by humans who are sensitive
> Ku> to them.
Post your evidence of that.
> Dowsing rods are a tool that works in conjunction with
> Ku> specialized human neuroreceptors (we think, no one's ever identified
> Ku> that kind of receptor in autopsy, although psychic ability of any kind
> Ku> is often awakened or shut down by physical trauma, particularly those
> Ku> involving NDE, implying involvement of higher level neural cirtuitry).
> Ku> Dowsing's been successfully employed in locating underground water,
> Ku> and even minerals, for thousands of years.
Provide documentation of any successful uses of dowsing under controlled
conditions.
> Interesting, but talking with my Roomie, who is an RN, and by researching
> through the medical books we have here, these neuroreceptors are simply the
> nervous system and the muscles - or they seem to be.
You know with both of you two it is always "seem to be" or "we think" you two don't
really have a clue about any of this do you? You're only guessing.
> He says we have not
> mastered the Human Neural (Nervous) System yet. So most things are a guess
> at this point.
Ta Da! How can you claim you have proof and then admit you don't know a damn thing
for sure?
> But I figure if guessing is good enough for science and medicine, then why is
> it not good enough for everyone. :)
The problem here is that guessing is not good enough for science or medicine. Just
another John McGowan delusion. Both of these fields rely on double blind testing,
or repeated testing to prove their theories, the very kind of testing John resists.
> Ku> It works, and Randi knows it.
Randi knows nothing of the sort you delusional as well.
> James Randi has built a career on fooling
> Ku> people as a stage magician. He's in this for money, and he's not
> Ku> about to let anyone win over a million dollars that doesn't exist,
> Ku> is not collectible from pledgees, and might have to come out of Mr.
> Ku> Randi's personal resources if challenged in court.
Prove that... never mind, why ask for things I know you can't do.
> James Randi is a Magician, a professional magician for he earned his living
> as a magician for a good part of his life. There is no doubt in my mind that
> Randi knows some types of dowsing works admirabl
Why is it a given that a magician would have to know that Dowsing works?
> < More nonsense deleted >
> The trouble is, most of the research I have done shows
> Houdini was generally interested in finding an Honest Psyhic so he could talk
> to his Dead Mother.
But, John forgets to tell us that Houdini was later convinced beyond any doubt that
no such medium existed and that they all where scams.
> < Even more nonsense deleted >
> Ku> No one who has the
> Ku> remotest possibility of winning that challenge will ever be allowed
> Ku> to take it, Y'all need to understand that there's nothing magical
> Ku> or supernatural about psychic phenomena.
Yeah sure, prove that one too.
> I can pick my rods up anytime and find the Location of an Underground
> Utility, or Overhead Utility,
Yeah sure you can. I can find overhead utilities without any gadgets though, I
look up. As to the rest of your claim I await the proof.
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan again showed how dense he really is when he wrote:
>
>
> Darwyn is a 15 year old boy, he admitted that not long ago. Yet he still
> talks as if he goes to the college. :)
Darwyn never admitted that. Darwyn said he was a 15 year student of magic not a 15
year old. John just took what he wanted out of the statement and has been making
the silly claim ever since.
> This message is in ALT.PARANORMAL, not SCI.SKEPTIC.
John does not realize that theses messages are being posted to sci.skeptic and
alt.paranormal. John only subscribes to alt.paranormal so he assumes every one is
reading this message in that group.
> BS> In science a hypothesis is made after a pattern is suspected. So the
> BS> scientist is open to patterns not seen before. Say that heavy objects
> BS> do not fall any faster than lighter ones. Then the hypothesis is
> BS> tested. There is a report of what happened. In the analysis there
> BS> is claim of confirmation, partial or non-confirmation
> BS> of the hypothesis. There is also mention of any interesting
> BS> finds and suggestions for further study. White Robbit Dodo Dolphin
>
> There have been scientific study on dowsing, I uploaded two separate reports
> for them. I would say the preliminaries were covered on this. Their
> findings were that dowsing worked and they developed a theory, which is in
> accordance to much of our scientific beliefs of today.
One was from Stanford, they also said Uri Geller was real... The validity of these
studies remains to be seen John.
> One can not pick and choose the theories they want to accept as fact and
> dismiss the ones they do not like. Either you accept all theory as fact, or
> no theory as fact. I choose to keep theory as theory and not fact.
What an incredibly ignorant statement. I don't need to point out the flaws in that
logic.
> | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
That is because no one else would be this dense and be so proud of it.
Darwyn Fry
Brian Sandle wrote:
Who said anything would be discounted?? You are making assumptions about how they do
research at the Ames Labs here if you think the Physicists I know would do that.
Also, John would have to define what charge means Brian, while your are right the
scientist would want to know, John made the claim it would not be proper to let me or
the scientists determine what he meant by charge. The point is to test his claim.
Not to test our version of it.
R. Altenburg
>John Mcgowan wrote:
>
> No, the Randi Challenge is a sham, in my opinion. Not one person to date
has
> proved otherwise.
Anyone that can prove they have paranormal abilities can prove it isn't.
Those that
have made claims and failed (everyone) are either self-deluded or frauds.
> Why would anyone wish to go into a poker game knowing the
> deck is marked somehow? That is a silly thing to do.
The deck isn't marked. Randi et. al. just realize that it is a bet they
can't loose.
If you wan't to settle the matter, why don't you offer a million dollars to
anyone that
observes your paranormal ability to fail a test that you and the other party
agree on?
Randi puts his money where his mouth is - will you?
R. Altenburg
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> * While talking of [2/2] The Randi Challenge -- Why doesn't John McGowan go Leg
> Brian Sandle replied ...
>
> BS> From: bsa...@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle) Subject: Re: [2/2] The
> BS> Randi Challenge -- Why doesn't John McGowan go Legit? Organization:
> BS> Southern Internet Services
>
> BS> Darwyn Fry (df...@foxsystems.com) wrote: : I don't understand
> BS> your point here. To put it simply, John says that The : divining
> BS> rod charged positively will rotate in the dowsers hand to line up :
> BS> parallel to a negatively charged object being dowsed. A divining
> BS> rod charged : negatively will remain perpendicular to a negatively
> BS> charged object being : dowsed, ( see John's dowsing FAQ.)
>
> I did not say that, reread what is written. :) I said nothing about positive
> and negative charges. And I have tested dowsing on far too many numerous
> occassions. :) You know what? It still works. :)
From the crap you posted on February 4th, 1998 which it now seems even you have not
even read."Divining rods and all common dowsing devices, are the simplest forms
ofelectroscopes. The bent rod for example is just a variation of Gilbert's
straw needle electroscope.
The divining rods are charged with static electricity from the dowser's
own body. This static electricity can be seen quite adequately with a
simple millivolt meter. This voltage is measured between the hands of
the dowser, to measure this voltage accurately a diff amp should be used
at the input to the voltmeter, "this eliminates stray signals which are
common to both hands". The amount of voltage will vary depending on the
person. A good dowser will have a high reading, "above 100 mv" while a
poor dowser may read as low as,"0 mv.". For males the right hand is
usually a negative polarity, and the left hand is positive in polarity.
These polarities are usually reversed in females."
Now John pay attention to the next part it is the part you claim you never said...
"The divining rod charged positively will rotate in the dowsers hand to
line up parallel to a negatively charged object being dowsed. A divining
rod charged negatively will remain perpendicular to a negatively charged
object being dowsed."
Message-ID: <6d0_980...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
Geezus John you don't even know what you're saying in your own posts why in the
heck should any one take you seriously??
You are a bore.
> However, one of the Uploads I did may have stated such, do not attribute the
> comments of others to me. They deserve the recognition for their own
> comments.
May have? May have??? You don't read the drivel you are posting? Why do you post
nonsense that is supposed to support your positions without even reading it???
More MQR (TM) at its best.You uploaded it to support your position, now you are
saying it does not support your position? Why is it every time anyone finds
something you can be tested on you back away from it? Why is it any time something
may be able to be used against you, you claim you can't be held responsible for it
when it was you that posted it here to start with supposedly to support your
claims??
> BS> The sales scientist does not report data which does not support his
> BS> target. Brian Sandle
And John does not lay claim to data he posts that may be able to be tested and
proven to be pure bunk! He did it last spring with his stock information that was
erroneous, he is doing it again!
This it too damn good. Give John enough time he will discredit his own research.<
more boring John McGowan nonsense snipped >
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
<snip.
>:) I see you have taken to the task of responding to Twitch. :) I ignore
>him because he gets too ridiculous when his reasonings fail.
><snip.
What you mean is that it is too embarrasing to you to have
all of your inconsistent lies pointed out.
Like how Earl got a drop of 500, 600, and 700 points for his
less than two week prediction.
Or, your claims that you remembered something, Earl admitted
something, but later you changed it to it never happened.
Or all of your lies about Randi accepting your challenge,
etc.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> wrote:
>
>
>John Mcgowan again showed how dense he really is when he wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Darwyn is a 15 year old boy, he admitted that not long ago. Yet he still
>> talks as if he goes to the college. :)
>
>Darwyn never admitted that. Darwyn said he was a 15 year student of magic not a 15
>year old. John just took what he wanted out of the statement and has been making
>the silly claim ever since.
I wonder why John won't post the article in which you
admitted that you were a 15 year old child?
Answer: It doesn't exist.
>
>> This message is in ALT.PARANORMAL, not SCI.SKEPTIC.
>
>John does not realize that theses messages are being posted to sci.skeptic and
>alt.paranormal. John only subscribes to alt.paranormal so he assumes every one is
>reading this message in that group.
Well, John cuts out sci.skeptic so he can make nasty
comments about some of the people there without them knowing
and showing his lies.
So several people just put sci.skeptic back in.
<snip>
John, please post the article in which Darwyn admits that he
was only 15.
Steve Terrell
Brian Sandle wrote:
...
> From the Randi data it would appear to me that I could reduce the number
> of dry wells drilled by engaging drillers who are, or who employ, diviners.
>
> of holes drilled woulld be 2,500 approximately to get the 500 wells.
...
Could you please provide a reference for the Randi data that you are speaking
of? I was unaware that Randi had any data in favor of diviners.
Chow,
Steve
Mike Combs
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Well, John cuts out sci.skeptic so he can make nasty
> comments about some of the people there without them knowing
> and showing his lies.
>
It's a fact. I recently posted, showing John the flaw in the logic with
which he claims that Randi "turned him down". I could see by someone
else's post that he had responded to me, and I had to use Deja News to
find out where. It was in alt.paranormal. I would have responded, but
he didn't say anything of any consequence.
Snipping sci.skeptic is just a cowardly act by a cowardly individual
engaged in a pathetic attempt to fool the dufus'es over in
alt.paranormal that he can ever have the last word on anything.
alt.paranormal included in this posting.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just remember, the Borg are people too... well, partly...
Darwyn Fry
Br. Kurt Van Kuren OSB wrote:
> No, Mike, the reason many of us *believers* snip out sci.skeptic is
> precisely because alt.paranormal was originally chartered by Steve Reiser
> as a newsgroup that would allow *free* discussion of paranormal events and
> theories without the constant need to defend them against the scientific
> model of inquiry.
>
> br. kurt
Thank you for reinforcing what I already believed, that you are afraid of
subjecting your beliefs to the scientific model, and you snip sci.skeptic out
of threads so people who pikced up on the thread there will not see your
replys.
sci.skeptic added back in as that is where I originally pick up on these
threads.
--
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Mike Combs <mike...@nospam.comchangenospam2ti> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> Well, John cuts out sci.skeptic so he can make nasty
>> comments about some of the people there without them knowing
>> and showing his lies.
>>
>
>It's a fact.
Yes. John used to claim that he didn't do it but couldn't
post to sci.skeptic. Then he goofed and told everyone that
he had full internet access. He still cut articles which,
in many cases, had originated in sci.skeptic and told lies
about people there hoping that they would never find out
about his lies.
>I recently posted, showing John the flaw in the logic with
>which he claims that Randi "turned him down". I could see by someone
>else's post that he had responded to me, and I had to use Deja News to
>find out where. It was in alt.paranormal. I would have responded, but
>he didn't say anything of any consequence.
Situation normal.
>
>Snipping sci.skeptic is just a cowardly act by a cowardly individual
>engaged in a pathetic attempt to fool the dufus'es over in
>alt.paranormal that he can ever have the last word on anything.
>
His lies are so transparent and so inconsistent that it is
amazing that anyone could believe anything that he says.
He still makes claims, such as Darwyn admitting he was a 15
year old, but also still, doesn't post any evidence.
Of course, since he is lying, he can't post any evidence.
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> And FYI, most people do not give a good shit about lengthy, involved
> scientific explanations, you proved that by discounting Betz with out any
> proofs he was wrong in the least. :)
I don't have to prove he is wrong when he has forgotten to provide proof he is
right! My point was there is no scientific evidence offered by Betz in the article
you provided to back up a single claim he has made. If there is scientific
evidence then provide it. Betz made the claim, Betz is the one who is responsible
for proving it not me. If I made the claim then and only then would I be the one
that has to find evidence to back it up.
My claim is true and not all that extraordinary, there is no scientific evidence
provided in that article to back up even one of his claims. Please point it out to
us if there is. If you have any evidence from him that supports his claims post
it. Otherwise just deal with the fact that the article is of little or no value
without supporting evidence.
> People only want reasonable answers
> that they can believe in. That is why so many people cite theory as fact, to
> them it is enough to prove or disprove something.
If it isn't proven is it a reasonable answer? Remember Oprah is in hot water for
making assumptions on incomplete scientific studies right now. Betz made a lot of
claims about what he can do with dowsing rods and offered no research to back up
his claims. Saying I went in the yard and found a pipe, or I found a cave with
some bent brass is not research. He makes claims about possible biological
explanations but offers no biological research to support the claims. Face it, it
was not a very good article, and was far far away from being a scientific paper.
>
--
Darwyn
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Art of Magic Tonight February 11th 1998 on PBS.
James Randi "The Secrets of the Psychics" On Nova next week on PBS.
df...@netins.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"ALL major legitimate scientific breakthroughs are announced by actors on TV."
-Penn Jillette
Ronald Bobo
Darwyn Fry wrote in message <34DC8E00...@foxsystems.com>...
>
>
>Brian Sandle wrote:
>
>> Darwyn Fry (df...@foxsystems.com) wrote:
>> : I am willing to bet the DAV could use the $1.1 Million you don't want
John, prove
>> : Randi and I wrong and prove dowsing works, or do you not even believe
it yourself?
>>
>> What is meant by works?
>>
>> If it increases the probability of finding water to twice per well is
that
>> not regarded as `working' from the cost angle?
>>
>> Brian Sandle
>
>No.
>
>Works means it works. It does not mean it works in someones mind, or works
to the
>extent you would expect it to by chance alone. And if you can prove it
increases the
>chances of finding water to twice per well I would be *extreamly*
surprised. Every one
>who has ever tried to actually *prove* dowsing works under controlled tests
has
>*failed*.
Before you make unsubstantiated statements like this, I would refer you
to Kenneth Roberts' biography of the dowser Henry Gross. Gross actually
located ground water in Bermuda, where no one thought it existed, and he did
it by dowsing a map!
Ron
Ronald Bobo
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message
<6bi15b$7...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
What do Earl's year-old predictions have to do with the Randi
challenge, which is what this thread is ostensibly about?
Time you changed your monomaniacal obsession and refrain from posting
off-topic.
Ron
John & Susan Hutchins
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:07:48 -0600, "Ronald Bobo" <ron...@stlnet.com>
wrote:
snip
>>*failed*.
>
> Before you make unsubstantiated statements like this, I would refer you
>to Kenneth Roberts' biography of the dowser Henry Gross. Gross actually
>located ground water in Bermuda, where no one thought it existed, and he did
>it by dowsing a map!
>
>Ron
>
>
Well, let's see here. The last time I was in Bermuda, IIRC, there
weren't many hills at over 30M elevation (if any). The archipelligo
sits on a coral outcropping. Coral is a porous material. I'd be
damned surprised if _anyone_could _not_find groundwater
in Bermuda. Of course, it would most likely be saltwater, but what
the hell, it's a hit.
John Hutchins
I never hold a grudge. As soon as I get even with the
SOB, I forget all about it.
...W. C. Fields
Darwyn Fry
Ronald Bobo wrote:
> Darwyn Fry wrote in message <34DC8E00...@foxsystems.com>...
> >
> >
> >Brian Sandle wrote:
> >
> >> Darwyn Fry (df...@foxsystems.com) wrote:
> >> : I am willing to bet the DAV could use the $1.1 Million you don't want
> John, prove
> >> : Randi and I wrong and prove dowsing works, or do you not even believe
> it yourself?
> >>
> >> What is meant by works?
> >>
> >> If it increases the probability of finding water to twice per well is
> that
> >> not regarded as `working' from the cost angle?
> >>
> >> Brian Sandle
> >
> >No.
> >
> >Works means it works. It does not mean it works in someones mind, or works
> to the
> >extent you would expect it to by chance alone. And if you can prove it
> increases the
> >chances of finding water to twice per well I would be *extreamly*
> surprised. Every one
> >who has ever tried to actually *prove* dowsing works under controlled tests
> has
> >*failed*.
>
> Before you make unsubstantiated statements like this, I would refer you
> to Kenneth Roberts' biography of the dowser Henry Gross. Gross actually
> located ground water in Bermuda, where no one thought it existed, and he did
> it by dowsing a map!
>
> Ron
And that shows that Dowsing has been proven with controlled tests in what way
Ron?
The claim I made was that dowsing has not been proven by controlled testing. I
did not claim there where no cases where a dowser supposedly was successful. I
haven't read the book you refer to, so I can't comment on the content of the
book. If they provided some documented tests where dowsing worked under
controlled conditions then either post them or let us know about them and I will
see if I can dig up the book somewhere and check it out myself.
Random claims without supporting evidence mean little to me. Besides, John has
made the claim dowsing can be scientific in nature. I am expecting some
scientific studies to back up that claim, so far I have not seen any. When
such studies are proposed to test information he has posted here he backs away
from the information and says not to attribute it to him, even though he posted
it.
--
Darwyn
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> * While talking of [2/2] The Randi Challenge -- Why doesn't John McGowan go Leg
> Darwyn Fry replied ...
> DF> From: Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> Subject: Re: [2/2] The Randi
> DF> Challenge -- Why doesn't John McGowan go Legit? Organization:
> DF> FoxSystems
>
> DF> John Mcgowan again showed how dense he really is when he wrote:
>
> > Darwyn is a 15 year old boy, he admitted that not long ago. Yet he still
> > talks as if he goes to the college. :)
>
> DF> Darwyn never admitted that. Darwyn said he was a 15 year student of
> DF> magic not a 15 year old. John just took what he wanted out of the
> DF> statement and has been making the silly claim ever since.
>
> Another Dogface lie. You said I was right and you were Jeremy's age. :) I
> told you that was Earl being right, not me. So you even screwed that up.
>
> Plus I told you that I did not even take that as true, but I will not argue
> it, at the time. These basic comment were in the thread where you chose to
> light on the so-called Ghost Stories I cited and you completely over looked
> the other data I supplied in the same exact messages to which you replied to.
>
> Ergo darwyn is wrong again. :) The proof is when I retorted there is no
> crime being a 15 year old and you let it drop with out comment. (LOL)
>
> Darwyn, quit with the fucking lies, will you. It is getting tiring watching
> you waffle like a Clinton and speak like a Limbaugh. :)
>
John, learn to read or please, PLEASE just go away and stop saying completely
rediculous things like you have an IQ of over 120. You talk about me waffling, but
it is only your misrepresentation of the facts that would make it seem like that is
what I am doing. I am tired of waiting for John to post message IDs to support his
claims so I will just post what was really said then we can analyze John's spin
doctoring of my comments and try to make some sense out of his delusions.
Here is what I actually said;
Message-ID: <34CEC857...@foxsystems.com>
>I am going to open another can of worms and admit I am a 15 year student of the
>conjuring arts, that is to say a magician. My first celebrity hero was Doug
>Henning. He has lost his fortune and his essentially his whole way of life to a
>cult in recent years and I am mad as hell about it. In fact any time any one uses
>chicanery to deceive others in negative ways I am mad as hell about it. That is
>why I question, why I insist on carefully documented evidence, why I insist on
>exact numbers when looking at any prediction or claim involving figures of any
>kind, why I am skeptical of any person or group that makes wild claims and seems
>to have little evidence to support them. I want to know that when something truly
>paranormal happens, if it ever does, that I am not being fooled.
Hmm...
Now then, John said that I admitted I was 15...
Nope that isn't in there.
John said "I told you that was Earl being right, not me"
Here is what was really said;
Message-ID: <29a_980...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>Good boy! (No insult intended) That was not so hard to do. There is hope for
>you yet. I have no trouble with teens, or with magicians, but teens have not
>the experience in most cases to make adult decisions, and a magician is a
>performer."
No, it seems that also is not how you said it happened.
Lets see you also claimed;
"Ergo darwyn is wrong again. :) The proof is when I retorted there is no crime
being a 15 year old and you let it drop with out comment. (LOL)"
But I did comment, so you have no proof by your own admission. Here again is how
it really happened;
Message-ID: <34D1303D...@foxsystems.com>
>> Good boy! (No insult intended) That was not so hard to do. There is hope for
>> you yet. I have no trouble with teens, or with magicians, but teens have not
>> the experience in most cases to make adult decisions, and a magician is a
>> performer.
>I said 15 year student of magic not a 15 year old. Read what is written not what
>you want so see. Oh, I'm sorry Im stealing your lines again."
Lastly you commented;
"Darwyn, quit with the (6th grade level use of an expletive deleted) lies, will
you. It is getting tiring watching you waffle like a Clinton and speak like a
Limbaugh. :)"
My response;
John get a life. Stop making up your own versions of the truth the accusing
everyone who remembers things the way they really happened of lying. Every time
you try this tactic you are proven to be wrong about what really happened and we
use your own words to do it. Talk about things getting tiring.
John must be getting frustrated again because he has once again abandoned rational
discussion and started posting misrepresentations, and started the name calling
again. Here is some friendly advice, if your going to lie, don't lie about things
that are so easy to refute. Now when you are ready to have an adult conversation
again I will be glad to do that.
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> * While talking of [1/2] Randi's challenge...why can't John McGowan prove it is
> Darwyn Fry replied ...
> DF> From: Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> Subject: Re: [1/2] Randi's
> DF> challenge...why can't John McGowan prove it is a sham Organization:
> DF> FoxSystems
>
> DF> John Mcgowan wrote:
>
> > No, the Randi Challenge is a sham, in my opinion. Not one person to date has
> > proved otherwise. Why would anyone wish to go into a poker game knowing the
> > deck is marked somehow? That is a silly thing to do.
>
> DF> To this date you haven't proven it is a sham. You made the claim John
> DF> why can't you prove it is a sham? You don't accuse someone of cheating
> DF> then tell them they have to prove they aren't. If you are going to
> DF> make the accusation it is up to you to prove he is cheating. Problem
> DF> is you can't. So you just blather and bleat about it so you can have a
> DF> cozy excuse not to take the challenge and fail miserably as everyone
> DF> but a few very gullible people know you would. You make an awful lot
> DF> of claims with absolutely nothing to back them up John and you expect
> DF> to be taken seriously?
>
> DF> Give me a break.
>
> DF> I consider your lack of proof that the Randi Challenge is rigged to be
>
> That is the difference between me and you, I can see common sense and I know
> that one does not need absolute proof to make a well informed decision to
> follow up on. And I proved their is reason to believe Randi is a con artist
> beyond a shadow of a doubt. :)
John,
You claimed that, you have yet to prove anything of the sort. Just because you say
you think it is a sham and here are my reasons why, doesn't mean you have proven
there is any reason to think it could be or is a sham. All you did was state an
opinion. There is no proof in anything you have ever said on this issue. You are
very confused about what proof of a claim is. You offer evidence that may or may
not be valid, as you have been known to bend the truth once or twice here, then
claim you have proven there is reason to distrust Randi.
We have shown with your own words many many times that you bend the truth about
things said here that are really fairly unimportant, why then would you not bend
the truth about other things? You have the nerve to call me a Clinton, when it is
you that have been taking lessons on how to bend the truth then deny it later.
> < Childish rant deleted >
Watch Nova on PBS next week to see Randi in action. Nova seems to trust Randi's
judgment as did Isaac Asimov, Martin Gardner, and Carl Segan, I think I will trust
their opinions of the man above John's any day.
Lou Minatti
Darwyn Fry wrote:
<snip>
> Watch Nova on PBS next week to see Randi in action. Nova seems to trust Randi's
> judgment as did Isaac Asimov, Martin Gardner, and Carl Segan, I think I will trust
> their opinions of the man above John's any day.
And not one of those three ever said, "There are no hurricanes in the
Pacific."
--
Fight back against the interstellar bastards.
Join us. Join Texans United Against Grey Aliens:
http://www.concentric.net/~slaroche/DEADGREY.HTM
"I guess when the shoe fits on the other foot,
they get hoof and mouth disease." - EGC
John Holmes
Brian Sandle <bsa...@southern.co.nz> wrote in article
<6bl0dm$lsu$1...@mnementh.southern.co.nz>...
> John Holmes (hol...@smart.net.au) wrote:
[snip]
>
> However, assume I need some wells drilled. It is very dry in Marlborough,
> New Zealand currently. But that is possibly not a good place for a test.
> Some pine trees are dying. There is reportedly little artesian water. But
> say there were some. I contract to several well drillers to provide
water.
> I need 500 producing wells. But I do not want too many dry wells drilled.
>
Firstly, you need to appreciate that there is water under the ground
everywhere below a certain depth. That depth is called the water table and
the depth of it varies from area to area, typically from zero to a few
hundred metres. Below that depth, whatever porosity exists in the rocks and
the fractures in the rocks will be saturated with water.
The problem of finding *artesian* water is more a problem of finding rocks
with enough porosity to contain lots of water, and more importantly with
enough permeability that the water can flow out of the rock. Since porosity
and permeability vary over continuous ranges, success is obviously a matter
of degree. You might find just damp rock, or just an ooze or a trickle of
water, or something that flows with pumping, or something that gushes out
at the surface at thousands of litres an hour. There are many
possibilities- a well is not simply wet or dry.
> From the Randi data it would appear to me that I could reduce the number
> of dry wells drilled by engaging drillers who are, or who employ,
diviners.
>
I'm not clear what data you refer to here. I read that Randi did some tests
involving water flowing through pipes. I haven't seen any mention of him
testing dowsing of naturally occuring water in rocks. I hope I explained
clearly enough above that it is properties of the *rocks*, not presence of
water, that dowsers would need to be able to detect.
> I looks to me that if non-divining or calculating drillers were used and
> drilled 5,000 holes to get a well, then if diviners were used the number
> of holes drilled woulld be 2,500 approximately to get the 500 wells.
>
I've worked with a lot of water drillers, and most of them didn't believe
in dowsing. Sometimes they would use dowsers just to humour the farmers who
were paying them. The drillers mostly just worked from local knowledge and
got much the same 'success' rates.
> : If you are talking about a probability of finding water that's just
above
> : background (random chance), I guess you would have to repeat the trial
> : enough times to prove that it is statistically significant.
>
> I guess that the Randi result *for water* was significant. Unless the
> diviner could hear the water in the pipe.
>
If the Randi result is based only on running water in shallow pipes, I
don't think you can extrapolate the results to drilling wells.
> Could we see the table of all data? It would be better for analysis.
>
I haven't seen tables of data from any of Randi's tests, but had the
impression that most of them came out at about chance levels. I remember a
TV program years ago where Dick Smith, publisher of Australian Geographic,
organised some tests in Sydney-- none of the dowsers did significantly
better than chance.
--
Regards,
John.
hol...@smart.net.au
email copies of any replies would be appreciated.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
"Ronald Bobo" <ron...@stlnet.com> wrote:
>
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message
><6bi15b$7...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>
> What do Earl's year-old predictions have to do with the Randi
>challenge, which is what this thread is ostensibly about?
They show how much John has lied. He lied about Earl's
predictions, he lied about dowsing, he has lied about what
Randi said, etc.
He even lied about hurricanes in the Pacific.
Oops, sorry, you lied about that too.
>
> Time you changed your monomaniacal obsession and refrain from posting
>off-topic.
>
Ron, your little whining is off topic.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
>* While talking of [1/2] Randi's challenge...why can't John McGowan prove it is
> Darwyn Fry replied ...
> DF> From: Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> Subject: Re: [1/2] Randi's
> DF> challenge...why can't John McGowan prove it is a sham Organization:
> DF> FoxSystems
>
>
>
> DF> John Mcgowan wrote:
>
> > No, the Randi Challenge is a sham, in my opinion. Not one person to date has
> > proved otherwise. Why would anyone wish to go into a poker game knowing the
> > deck is marked somehow? That is a silly thing to do.
>
> DF> To this date you haven't proven it is a sham. You made the claim John
> DF> why can't you prove it is a sham? You don't accuse someone of cheating
> DF> then tell them they have to prove they aren't. If you are going to
> DF> make the accusation it is up to you to prove he is cheating. Problem
> DF> is you can't. So you just blather and bleat about it so you can have a
> DF> cozy excuse not to take the challenge and fail miserably as everyone
> DF> but a few very gullible people know you would. You make an awful lot
> DF> of claims with absolutely nothing to back them up John and you expect
> DF> to be taken seriously?
>
> DF> Give me a break.
>
> DF> I consider your lack of proof that the Randi Challenge is rigged to be
>
<snip>
>
>You whine like a little girl, son. Grow up <snip.
Son?
Oh, that is right. John has claimed that Darwyn admitted to
being a 15 year old boy.
Isn't it funny that Mcgowan-Quality Research (tm) can't
provide the message id showing where Darwyn admitted that?
Is John lying again?
Oops, if John is breathing, John is lying.
Steve Terrell
Ronald Bobo wrote:
...
> Before you make unsubstantiated statements like this, I would refer you
> to Kenneth Roberts' biography of the dowser Henry Gross. Gross actually
> located ground water in Bermuda, where no one thought it existed, and he did
> it by dowsing a map!
>
> Ron
If this is true, that is one "hit". Please supply the source where one can
obtain the number of "misses".
Chow,
Steve
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Lou Minatti <lou-m...@usa.net> wrote:
>Darwyn Fry wrote:
><snip>
>> Watch Nova on PBS next week to see Randi in action. Nova seems to trust Randi's
>> judgment as did Isaac Asimov, Martin Gardner, and Carl Segan, I think I will trust
>> their opinions of the man above John's any day.
>
>And not one of those three ever said, "There are no hurricanes in the
>Pacific."
>
Mcgowan-Quality Research (tm) has clearly shown that all the
scientists in the world are wrong and John, Ron, and Earl
are right.
Of course, no one bothered to inform the hurricanes.
Steve Terrell
Ronald Bobo wrote:
>
> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message
> <6bi15b$7...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> >Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >>
> What do Earl's year-old predictions have to do with the Randi
> challenge, which is what this thread is ostensibly about?
Nothing! Randi's challenge is reserved for paranormal claims.
Chow,
Steve
Mike Combs
Ronald Bobo wrote:
>
> Before you make unsubstantiated statements like this, I would refer you
> to Kenneth Roberts' biography of the dowser Henry Gross. Gross actually
> located ground water in Bermuda, where no one thought it existed, and he did
> it by dowsing a map!
>
It's difficult to believe that anyone could be foolish enough to believe
in such a concept. Some dowsers almost come into the realm of the
barely possible when they talk about somehow being subconsciously aware
of magnetic or electic fields. But to believe in dowsing a map (which
after all is merely a symbolic representation created by the mind of
man, and other than that has no relationship to the real landscape) is
absurd.
It's in the same category as pin-pushing voodoo.
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> >Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
KDQ> That is not correct. There is no statistical success for dowsers.
> I disagree. Randi has no statistical successes shown, but people are out
> there everyday proving dowsing exists and is successful. All someone has to
> do is go record the events and what they witnessed. In addition there are
> scientists who did studies on dowsing, so they do have statistics.
Well then John post the statistics. If you can't find any then Kevin's statement
is just fine as it is. What am I saying, John believes that just saying something
is so is data enough to prove it could be so. Thus explaining the pseudo
scientific nonsense he posts in support of Dowsing. Many claims, no scientific
data to support the claims.
How's your dowsing going? Still thinking up excuses or are you ready to be
tested? Yeah, I thought not.
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> `When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth.' - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Conan Doyle was one of the most notorious believers of kookiness in documented
history. Interesting you should use a quote from someone who proved to be so
easily fooled. Are you aware that Conan Doyle actually believed in fairies? Want
to know what he evidence for it was? Faked photographs made by two young girls
using paper cut outs of drawings they had traced. Not even a good photographic
fake and Conan Doyle went to his grave swearing it was real. He even went so far
as to write a book on the subject.
Doyle was also the champion of the sprit mediums in his day, the very same one in
some cases that Houdini had already exposed as total fakes. Some people, based on
his readiness to buy into such nonsense, even wonder if he was really the author
of the Shelock Holmes stories.
Conan Doyle's good friend Harry Houdini spent years trying to convince Sir Arthur
that all these things he believed in where nonsense, he never succeeded.
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> `It is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink facts because they are not
> to our taste.' - John Tyndall, Fragments of Science, Vol. II
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ahh yes, nephelometry...
No one has ever suggested discounting actual facts, but I prefer to know whether
the "facts" are really fact, or just opinion. If something can not be
demonstrated to be a fact, then it is only opinion. I can easily blink off
opinions that don't fit the architecture of how things work in the real world.
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> * While talking of [1/2] The Randi Challenge -- Why doesn't Randi go Legit? on
> Darwyn Fry replied ...
>
>
> DF> And that shows that Dowsing has been proven with controlled tests in
> DF> what way Ron?
>
> No, that means to research the topic first, before you speak. Some of these
> things were done in situations to prove their plausibility.
I have John, I'm sorry that there is little or no credible evidence to show
dowsing is anything more than a pipe dream but that is the reality of life.
>
>
> Explain to me how a person in the USA can map dowsing things accurately in
> England.
Simple. They can not. It is a ridiculous claim that I doubt any one can prove.
> What you whiners complain about is that it was not done under your great god
> Randi's Guidance and slanted views. :)
No, wrong again John. I don't give a flying leap who does the testing as long as
it is done in a proper and controlled manner. You would not be tested in this
way, I guarantee it. I know scientists here that might do it just for laughs,
they would have no reason to rig the test or lie about results. If I knew anyone
here silly enough to think they could dowse, we might just give it a shot, so far
no one in my area knows of anyone who believes in this nonsense let alone someone
who would say they could do it.
What I'm saying is that it was NOT done under controlled conditions at all, and
for all we know it never really happened as it was claimed to have happened. Who
is to say they would not have struck water just as easily by tossing a coin to
pick the spot to drill? Without controlled testing things like map dowsing are
nothing more than unsubstantiated claims.
As I have said before many world renowned scientists feel Randi is trustworthy and
capable of doing this kind of testing, so far the only people I have ever seen say
he is not, are believers.
> Darwyn, anyone who knows dowsing works, or are not afraid to give it an
> honest try, meaning if they can not do it on their own, they seek the proper
> help and keep trying it, will tell you it works.
So are you ready to be tested then? I thought not.
karl mamer
Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> writes:
>
>
> John Mcgowan wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Randi turned me down because I took the power out of his hands, he had his
> > chances and lost them. :)
>
> John posted a smiley so we know he is lying again.
>
> Randi is still ready to accept you as a claimant and you know it John. Perhaps you
> thought no one knew about that. He said he would accept you if you not more than
> 5 days ago. You are in dreamland again if you think Randi is afraid of you. I
> think we have a very reasonable test in mind too and I will bet you will not take
> it no matter what. I don't think you could do your dowsing trick under controlled
> conditions if you life depended on it and I think you know it. All you posturing
> and bleating here is nothing more than excuses. Everyone can see that. Time do
> either put up or shut up on this "Randi is scared to test me," pap.
I'm beginning to think randi should withdrawl his challenge. To the pap
believers, it merely gives ammunition to those wishing to feed the
pap believers. One had to merely ignore all the tests ground rules,
offer randi some insane test protocol, and when he rejects it, stand up
and claim randi ran screaming... Sure, those with reasoned mind are
gonna laugh their asses off at people like John but we don't need
a randi challenge to know they're fulla crap. The pap eaters are
going to simply ignore any test results.
--
"He had a mean look. I had to freeze him. I like
happy looks."
Visit the Conspiracy Arc-Hive!
http://www.netizen.org/Arc-Hive
Brian Sandle
John Holmes (hol...@smart.net.au) wrote:
[thanks for info]
: I haven't seen tables of data from any of Randi's tests, but had the
: impression that most of them came out at about chance levels. I remember a
: TV program years ago where Dick Smith, publisher of Australian Geographic,
: organised some tests in Sydney-- none of the dowsers did significantly
: better than chance.
I should like to see the data. Where did you glean that none did
significantly better than chance?
Here is what I have seen:
*******************************
Linkname: Australian Skeptics Divining Test
URL: http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm
size: 377 lines
Australian Skeptics Divining Test
by James Randi
In July 1980, Dick Smith and I engaged in a series of tests of
dowsers—diviners of water, metal, etc—in Sydney. For weeks,
Prior to the tests, we exchanged long letters discussing protocol and
physical design. By the time I reached Australia the Prize money for a
successful demonstration of dowsing had mounted to $40,000 from a
modest beginning with my own offer of $10,000.
The rules were precise and simple. All contestants had to agree to
them in advance, and to sign certain documents. Dick Smith had
arranged for a plot of land to be used, which was dug up and levelled.
A grid of ten plastic pipes, four inches in diameter, was buried a few
inches below the soil, witnessed by a panel of independent judges. A
system was arranged whereby valves could be opened to allow water to
flow through one pipe at a time, the pipe being chosen by the
selection of a numbered counter from a bag by one of the judges.
Neither Smith nor I had any hand in this selection, which was left
entirely to the judges.
One portion of pipe—that section leading into the grid—was
left exposed for half its length, while the other half was buried to
the same depth as the grid. Claimants were required to show that their
dowsing instruments reacted to the exposed length of pipe while water
was flowing through it, then to the buried section as well. Water was
caused to flow through one section of the grid at that stage, and the
claimants were informed which section had water flowing in it. Since
white lines were evident where each numbered pipe was located,
claimants were asked to show that their instruments reacted at that
pipe, and at no other.
Then the test began. A pipe was selected by the agreed random means,
water was caused to flow in it, and all those who were aware of which
pipe was correct, were required to leave the area. This was to prevent
conscious, or unconscious, "cueing" of the claimant. Each claimant
then made 5 or 10 attempts, the number being decided by the claimant.
No results were announced at the time.
[...]
Results and Conclusions
There were sixteen contestants in all. Eight tried for the water via
the buried grid, three tried for brass and seven tried for gold. For
the latter a $22,000 ingot of gold was obtained from a local bank, on
loan, The brass and gold were concealed in one of the boxes with the
procedures and protocol similar to the water divining tests, Two of
the contestants did two kinds of tests, for water and brass.
When the results were tabulated, 111 tries had been made, with an
expected 10% success rate by chance alone, There were 15 successes,
13.5%, a figure well within expectation.
But what had the dowsers declared as their expected success rate? It
averaged out to better than 92%! Surely a poor performance, and one in
which every rule , precaution and Procedure had been carefully and
fully approved and agreed to in advance by all parties concerned.
Looking at the tests on specific substances, the water tests showed 50
tests total with 11 correct or 22%. The dowsers claimed they would
have 86% success. As for the brass tests, they claimed 87%—and
got zero. Gold seemed more attractive, and they expected 99%, but
obtained 11%.
******************************
Randi was intersted in comparing claims with results.
I am interested in finding whether results are different from chance
significantly.
So for the approximately 20 brass tests there were no successes whereas 2
might have been expected.
For the water there were 50 tests and 11 successes whereas 5 might have
been expected.
And you say the successes were not significantly confined to any individual
and against any which would be the corollary?
C'mon scientists, help us with the likelihood probability of the outcome.
Brian Sandle
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
>* While talking of [2/2] The Randi Challenge -- Why doesn't John McGowan go Leg
> Darwyn Fry replied ...
>
> DF> From: Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> Subject: Re: [2/2] The Randi
> DF> Challenge -- Why doesn't John McGowan go Legit? Organization:
> DF> FoxSystems
>
> DF> John Mcgowan wrote:
>
> > And FYI, most people do not give a good shit about lengthy, involved
> > scientific explanations, you proved that by discounting Betz with out any
> > proofs he was wrong in the least. :)
>
> DF> I don't have to prove he is wrong when he has forgotten to provide
> DF> proof he is right!
>
>You most certainly do, if you wish to promote yourself as anything better
>than a smart mouthed kid who knows nothing what so ever. <snip.
Gee, John, what was the message id where Darwyn admitted to
being a kid?
Why can you never post it?
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
>* While talking of [1/2] The Randi Challenge -- Why doesn't Randi go Legit? on
> Kevin D. Quitt replied ...
>
> KDQ> From: Ke...@Quitt.net (Kevin D. Quitt) Subject: Re: [1/2] The Randi
> KDQ> Challenge -- Why doesn't Randi go Legit? Organization: If was
> KDQ> organized, would I be reading Net News?
>
> KDQ> On 8 Feb 1998 19:18:14 GMT, bsa...@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle)
> KDQ> wrote: > From the Randi data it would appear to me that I could reduce
> KDQ> the of dry wells drilled by engaging drillers who are, or who employ,
> KDQ> diviners.
>
> KDQ> That is not correct. There is no statistical success for dowsers.
>
>I disagree. Randi has no statistical successes shown,
True.
>but people are out
>there everyday proving dowsing exists and is successful.
You mean the utility companies who claim you are crazy?
<snip>
Ronald Bobo
Darwyn Fry wrote in message <34E235E1...@foxsystems.com>...
>> surprised. Every one
>> >who has ever tried to actually *prove* dowsing works under controlled
tests
>> has
>> >*failed*.
>>
>> Before you make unsubstantiated statements like this, I would refer
you
>> to Kenneth Roberts' biography of the dowser Henry Gross. Gross actually
>> located ground water in Bermuda, where no one thought it existed, and he
did
>> it by dowsing a map!
>>
>> Ron
>
>And that shows that Dowsing has been proven with controlled tests in what
way
Let me make it simple for you to understand. Gross was in the USA
(Maine, I believe). The water was in Bermuda, where all the "experts"
claimed there was no ground water. Water in Bermuda at that time was
collected from rainwater diverted into cisterns.
Are you following so far? Gross dowsed a map of Bermuda while he was
still in the USA. People in Bermuda went to the spot he indicated, dug, and
found water!
Now, certainly, your god Randi wasn't there, but the water was.
Ron
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> wrote:
>
>
>John Mcgowan wrote:
>
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> `When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
>> improbable, must be the truth.' - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>Conan Doyle was one of the most notorious believers of kookiness in documented
>history. Interesting you should use a quote from someone who proved to be so
>easily fooled. Are you aware that Conan Doyle actually believed in fairies? Want
>to know what he evidence for it was? Faked photographs made by two young girls
>using paper cut outs of drawings they had traced. Not even a good photographic
>fake and Conan Doyle went to his grave swearing it was real.
And, he got some people knowledgeable in photography to
agree with him!
>He even went so far
>as to write a book on the subject.
>
THE COMING OF FAIRIES by Arthur Conan Doyle
"These numerous testimonies come from people who are very
solid and practical and successful in the affairs of life.
One is a distinguished writer, another an ophthalmic
authority, a fourth a lady engaged on public service, and so
on. To waive aside the evidence of such people on the
ground that it does not correspond with our own experience
is an act of mental arrogance which no wise man will
commit."
(Credible peole reporting incredible things!)
>Doyle was also the champion of the sprit mediums in his day, the very same one in
>some cases that Houdini had already exposed as total fakes. Some people, based on
>his readiness to buy into such nonsense, even wonder if he was really the author
>of the Shelock Holmes stories.
>
>Conan Doyle's good friend Harry Houdini spent years trying to convince Sir Arthur
>that all these things he believed in where nonsense, he never succeeded.
>
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> `It is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink facts because they are not
>> to our taste.' - John Tyndall, Fragments of Science, Vol. II
>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Ahh yes, nephelometry...
>
>No one has ever suggested discounting actual facts, but I prefer to know whether
>the "facts" are really fact, or just opinion. If something can not be
>demonstrated to be a fact, then it is only opinion. I can easily blink off
>opinions that don't fit the architecture of how things work in the real world.
>
>
Ronald Bobo
Darwyn Fry wrote in message <34E25972...@foxsystems.com>...
>
>
>John Mcgowan wrote:
>
>> * While talking of [1/2] Randi's challenge...why can't John McGowan prove
it is
>> Darwyn Fry replied ...
>> DF> From: Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> Subject: Re: [1/2] Randi's
>> DF> challenge...why can't John McGowan prove it is a sham Organization:
>> DF> FoxSystems
>>
>> DF> John Mcgowan wrote:
>>
>> > No, the Randi Challenge is a sham, in my opinion. Not one person to
date has
>> > proved otherwise.
>You claimed that, you have yet to prove anything of the sort. Just because
you say
>you think it is a sham and here are my reasons why, doesn't mean you have
proven
>there is any reason to think it could be or is a sham. All you did was
state an
>opinion.
I'm surprised that you grasped this, Dogbert, even though John stated
above that it was his opinion! Now you waste bandwidth to confirm that it
is his opinion!
Is John not entitled to have an opinion? Are you and the other
Skepti-Nazis now trying to control thoughts and opinions? Enlighten us, Oh
mIghty Dogbert.
<more juvenile Dogbert twaddle snipped along with inane quote from Penn
Jillette>
Ron
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
><snip>
> DF> And that shows that Dowsing has been proven with controlled tests in
> DF> what way Ron?
>
>No, that means to research the topic first, before you speak. Some of these
>things were done in situations to prove their plausibility.
>
IOW, they were not done in a controlled test and are
worthless except to someone totally ignorant of the
scientific method.
<snip>
>You make no sense, which boils down to the fact you argue because you
>think it makes you look like a man, while you are still a boy. Or did you lie
>over that also?<snip>
Gee, no one else has been able to find this message where
Darwyn admitted anysuch thing, John.
Or are you lying over that also?
Darwyn Fry
Ronald Bobo wrote:
> >And that shows that Dowsing has been proven with controlled tests in what
> way
>
> Let me make it simple for you to understand. Gross was in the USA
> (Maine, I believe). The water was in Bermuda, where all the "experts"
> claimed there was no ground water. Water in Bermuda at that time was
> collected from rainwater diverted into cisterns.
>
> Are you following so far? Gross dowsed a map of Bermuda while he was
> still in the USA. People in Bermuda went to the spot he indicated, dug, and
> found water!
>
> Now, certainly, your god Randi wasn't there, but the water was.
>
> Ron
That is a claim, that is not a controlled test. Who is to say he would not
have been just as successful by merely flipping a coin to choose the location?
Or putting the map on a wall and tossing darts? Without controls you can not
eliminate these other possibilities as to why an example may have worked or not
worked. Is that simple enough yet? This was NOT a controlled test Ron. No one
is debating about whether he found the water or not. At least not at this
time. Keep the issues straight.
Now if you have seen controlled testing that proves map dowsing, or any kind of
dowsing works please post them as evidence there have been controlled tests
where dowsing was successful.
--
When you're really up against it, and all else fails, tell them the truth.
Maybe they will fall for that.
-Harry Anderson
Earl Curley
Ronald Bobo wrote:
> >John Mcgowan wrote:
> >> DF> John Mcgowan wrote:
> Ron
Ron, are you still rubbing that doggy poo in Darwyn's face? I would
have thought by now the kid would have gotten some common sense and
would have simply disappeared with "his tail between his legs" like he
did the last time he tried to take on intelligent adults. I guess the
kid is a glutton for punishment. :-)
Earl Curley
"Living a life of luxury"
earlc...@hotmmail.com
http://members.tripod.com/~psychic_discoveries
Darwyn Fry
Ronald Bobo wrote:
Ok I will enlighten you, oh ye of little brains...
First it will be necessary to put the part of John's message I was actually
responding to back in, as you deleted it to make it look like I was saying he
can't have an opinion, but we will get tot hat later.
John claimed he has proven there is reason to think Randi cheats, he has not
done that. Opinions are not proof. That was the point of the post. Sorry you
where unable to grasp that, although I am not sure how to make the point any
more plain.
Did you really think I would not notice your editing of this post to make it
look like I was responding to something else? Just for your edification I will
post the part of John's comment that I was really responding and my response as
they appeared before you snipped the article without making note you had done
so.
Message-ID: <34E25972...@foxsystems.com>
>> That is the difference between me and you, I can see common sense and I know
>> that one does not need absolute proof to make a well informed decision to
>> follow up on. And I proved their is reason to believe Randi is a con artist
>> beyond a shadow of a doubt. :)
>John,
>You claimed that, you have yet to prove anything of the sort. Just because you
say
>you think it is a sham and here are my reasons why, doesn't mean you have
proven
>there is any reason to think it could be or is a sham. All you did was state
an
>opinion. There is no proof in anything you have ever said on this issue. You
are
>very confused about what proof of a claim is. You offer evidence that may or
may
>not be valid, as you have been known to bend the truth once or twice here, then
>claim you have proven there is reason to distrust Randi.
>We have shown with your own words many many times that you bend the truth
>about
>things said here that are really fairly unimportant, why then would you not
bend
>the truth about other things? You have the nerve to call me a Clinton, when it
is
>you that have been taking lessons on how to bend the truth then deny it later.
> < Childish rant deleted >You will have to do better than using creative
editing to make a point if you want to be taken seriously.
Darwyn
Steve Terrell
Ronald Bobo wrote:
...
> Let me make it simple for you to understand. Gross was in the USA
> (Maine, I believe). The water was in Bermuda, where all the "experts"
> claimed there was no ground water. Water in Bermuda at that time was
> collected from rainwater diverted into cisterns.
>
> Are you following so far? Gross dowsed a map of Bermuda while he was
> still in the USA. People in Bermuda went to the spot he indicated, dug, and
> found water!
>
> Now, certainly, your god Randi wasn't there, but the water was.
>
> Ron
You still haven't mentioned how many "misses" Gross has made. Also, please
mention the location in Bermuda.
Chow,
Steve
Darwyn Fry
Earl Curley wrote:
Ron, are you still rubbing that doggy poo in Darwyn's face? I would
have thought by now the kid would have gotten some common sense and
would have simply disappeared with "his tail between his legs" like he
did the last time he tried to take on intelligent adults. I guess the
kid is a glutton for punishment. :-)
Earl,
Ron is certainly doing something with the "doggy poo" ass you so colorfully put it, but he isn't rubbing it in anyone's face. All he did was cut out the relevant portion of John's post to make it appear I was responding to something completely different. Not all that clever, and all in all a very cowardly thing to try.
See the portion of John's post my comments where really addressed to in Message-ID: <34E25972...@foxsystems.com>
If forging posts is what you people have in mind as punishment this game will be easy to win.
Darwyn.
P.S. I see you are back, did you fully recover from the abuse
of Steve's headers then?
Alan Morgan
In article <6c1if5$m...@shell1.interlog.com>,
karl mamer <kamamer@//cutthis//interlog.com> wrote:
>I'm beginning to think randi should withdrawl his challenge. To the pap
>believers, it merely gives ammunition to those wishing to feed the
>pap believers. One had to merely ignore all the tests ground rules,
>offer randi some insane test protocol, and when he rejects it, stand up
>and claim randi ran screaming...
But if we withdraws the challenge the true believers will just run
around screaming "Randi's a big fraud. He ran up against [insert
name here], refused to test him and promptly closed his challenge".
In "Flim Flam" Randi seemed rather amused that the same people who
took him to task for not putting his money where his mouth was also
accused him of showboating when he *did* put his money on the line.
Alan
Earl Curley
Oh for God's sake. How many times have you shit your pants? Does that
mean that you do every moment of the day? Now putting this into
perspective for your limited mentality, just because one errors once
does not mean that that the reality of the situation is not a fact. So
to put it into a child's perspective for you, Terrell, it doesn't matter
how many times Gross failed in the past or will fail in the future, the
fact remains he accomplished an anomaly that you can not explain.
Now stick it into your left ear.
Earl Curley
http://members.tripod.com/~psychic_discoveries/iris.html
Lou Minatti
Earl Curley wrote:
<snip>
> Oh for God's sake. How many times have you shit your pants? Does that
> mean that you do every moment of the day?
Do you speak from experience, Earl? :)
> Now putting this into
> perspective for your limited mentality, just because one errors once
> does not mean that that the reality of the situation is not a fact. So
> to put it into a child's perspective for you, Terrell, it doesn't matter
> how many times Gross failed in the past or will fail in the future, the
> fact remains he accomplished an anomaly that you can not explain.
That's not very good proof, Earl. :) But you and your buddy Bubo aren't
exactly known for you accurate comments. :)
> Now stick it into your left ear.
Another one of your sock puppet references? :)
--
Fight back against the interstellar bastards.
Join us. Join Texans United Against Grey Aliens:
http://www.concentric.net/~slaroche/DEADGREY.HTM
"I guess when the shoe fits on the other foot,
they get hoof and mouth disease." - EGC
Earl Curley
Lou Minatti wrote:
>
> Earl Curley wrote:
> <snip>
> > Oh for God's sake. How many times have you shit your pants? Does that
> > mean that you do every moment of the day?
>
> Do you speak from experience, Earl? :)
Only someone who can't explain the anomaly would revert to comments like
you have just done. That has always been the problem with you and a
limited number of yoyos who respond to any of these posts. when you
can't explain the unexplainable you need to flame instead. After all
these years trying to be rational with you idiots it's no wonder no one
takes any of you seriously.
>
> > Now putting this into
> > perspective for your limited mentality, just because one errors once
> > does not mean that that the reality of the situation is not a fact. So
> > to put it into a child's perspective for you, Terrell, it doesn't matter
> > how many times Gross failed in the past or will fail in the future, the
> > fact remains he accomplished an anomaly that you can not explain.
>
> That's not very good proof, Earl. :) But you and your buddy Bubo aren't
> exactly known for you accurate comments. :)
That is more proof than most of you can handle. Anomalies are just
that. Just because constant replication is not apparant that does not
mean that the task at hand was not accomplished. As far a Ron and me
are concerned, we simply strive to point out to the intelligent people
who read these threads that there are anomalies that to date can not be
explained. ;-)
>
> > Now stick it into your left ear.
>
> Another one of your sock puppet references? :)
Be careful. Sock-puppet is now a trade-mark of a local television show
here in Toronto on CITY-TV. Although I don't have time to sue you
little hiney off, they do, and the resources to do it as well. :-)
Earl Curley
http://www.webdesign.ca
Lou Minatti
Earl Curley wrote:
>
> Lou Minatti wrote:
> >
> > Earl Curley wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Oh for God's sake. How many times have you shit your pants? Does that
> > > mean that you do every moment of the day?
> >
> > Do you speak from experience, Earl? :)
>
> Only someone who can't explain the anomaly would revert to comments like
> you have just done. That has always been the problem with you and a
> limited number of yoyos who respond to any of these posts. when you
> can't explain the unexplainable you need to flame instead.
You're the one who introduced flames into this discussion Earl. :) How
many times have you shit your pants? :) Does that
mean that you do every moment of the day? :)
> After all
> these years trying to be rational with you idiots it's no wonder no one
> takes any of you seriously.
Dig deep enough and I suspect you'll hit water no matter where you dig
on Bermuda. :) Prove me wrong. :) BTW, what ever happened to that
hurricane that was supposed to hit Texas last year? :)
> > > Now putting this into
> > > perspective for your limited mentality, just because one errors once
> > > does not mean that that the reality of the situation is not a fact. So
> > > to put it into a child's perspective for you, Terrell, it doesn't matter
> > > how many times Gross failed in the past or will fail in the future, the
> > > fact remains he accomplished an anomaly that you can not explain.
> >
> > That's not very good proof, Earl. :) But you and your buddy Bubo aren't
> > exactly known for you accurate comments. :)
>
> That is more proof than most of you can handle. Anomalies are just
> that. Just because constant replication is not apparant that does not
> mean that the task at hand was not accomplished. As far a Ron and me
> are concerned, we simply strive to point out to the intelligent people
> who read these threads that there are anomalies that to date can not be
> explained. ;-)
In this case at least, no anomaly was presented. :) Dig a well deep
enough on a small island, you shouldn't be surprised to find water. :)
You're grasping at straws. :)
> > > Now stick it into your left ear.
> >
> > Another one of your sock puppet references? :)
>
> Be careful. Sock-puppet is now a trade-mark of a local television show
> here in Toronto on CITY-TV. Although I don't have time to sue you
> little hiney off, they do, and the resources to do it as well. :-)
Hear that, Sherilyn? :) Better take down the FAQ because a TV station in
Toronto has a sock puppet. :)
Brian Sandle
Kevin D. Quitt (Ke...@Quitt.net) wrote:
: On 13 Feb 1998 14:37:35 GMT, bsa...@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle) wrote:
: >C'mon scientists, help us with the likelihood probability of the outcome.
:
: In test of small populations, it is not uncommon for individual test to have
: what appear to be anomalous results. Flipping a coin ten times should yield 5
: heads and 5 tails, right? Right, but you will only get exactly 5 of each less
: than 25% of the time. You'll get 4 of one and 6 of the other 41% of the time.
: And you'll get 3+7 23% of the time - which means you will see "obviously
: non-random results" almost as often as you will see "expected random results".
:
: If there are 20 trials with chances of 10%, you'd expect to see zero hits about
: 12% of the time.
:
: So no, the results are not "unexpected".
I'm not sure how you do the maths.
For the water, then, in the first 20 tests there would be a 12% chance of
going down as far as 0, or up as far as 4.
Same for the next 20 tests. Now to have got 8 successes out of 40 when
the chances must be down to 12% of 12%?
So for 11 out of 50 the expectation must be a fair way under 1%.
"not unexpected" but worth a re-trial, I should say, if the energy were
there again. Or how do you do the maths?
Brian Sandle
Earl Curley
Lou Minatti wrote:
> > That is more proof than most of you can handle. Anomalies are just
> > that. Just because constant replication is not apparant that does not
> > mean that the task at hand was not accomplished. As far a Ron and me
> > are concerned, we simply strive to point out to the intelligent people
> > who read these threads that there are anomalies that to date can not be
> > explained. ;-)
>
> In this case at least, no anomaly was presented. :) Dig a well deep
> enough on a small island, you shouldn't be surprised to find water. :)
> You're grasping at straws. :)
Bullshit. If you dig deep enough all you are going to get is lava,
dummy. Land masses are formed by volcanic action and water tables seep
into crevices that are formed upon cooling. I know that is above your
comprehension, but try to sit back and contemplate reality for a moment
instead of your world of fantasy.
Earl Curley
Lou Minatti
Your knowledge of geology is exceeded only by your knowledge of
meteorology. :) And since you can't tell the difference between a
tornado in Miami and a hurricane in Texas, your actual knowledge base is
very tiny. :) BFN, Earl. :)
anonym
Earl Curley wrote:
>
> Lou Minatti wrote:
>
> > > That is more proof than most of you can handle. Anomalies are just
> > > that. Just because constant replication is not apparant that does not
> > > mean that the task at hand was not accomplished. As far a Ron and me
> > > are concerned, we simply strive to point out to the intelligent people
> > > who read these threads that there are anomalies that to date can not be
> > > explained. ;-)
> >
> > In this case at least, no anomaly was presented. :) Dig a well deep
> > enough on a small island, you shouldn't be surprised to find water. :)
> > You're grasping at straws. :)
>
> Bullshit.
SHIP!
Hey, fuckhole, didn't your mother ever tell you that children of tender
years read these newgroups?